Languish.org

I tend to agree with the Danish prime minister that if the US invades Greenland, that's the end of NATO.

What's the likelihood this will happen?

Recently, the Trumpists have shown that they're in fact going to follow through on what many previously thought (hoped) was empty bluster. Personally, I think it's more likely than not that Trump will make the move before his term is up; unless his popularity and legitimacy is such that he thinks it'll make things worse. On the other hand, I think backstabbing an ally and destroying NATO is the kind of thing Trump will happily use to distract from domestic problems like the economy or Eppstein.

He'll do it because it's what his idol and handler desires.

One can only hope it makes the euros act, but I'm pretty sure this generation is only capable of wailing, whining and imposing nonsense ideology on the citizens while destroying our manufacturing base and societies.

Like the Americans basically, but impotent

I remain confused what an invasion of Greenland would look like.

The largest military force on Greenland is--the United States. The largest military base on Greenland, is American.

Would he send a few guys to the one or two occupied settlements in Greenland and "occupy them", to what end?

My suspicion is the Greenland issue literally happened like this:

1. Someone in Trump's circle, back during his first administration, made him aware Greenland exists, that almost no one lives on it, and that is has lots of valuable minerals.

2. He decided to say America should have that.

3. He got upset at being ridiculed for it.

4. When he became President again he wanted to prioritize this topic because of his innate and immense attraction to petty grievance.

For #1, the big thing no one probably told him is while Greenland is mineral rich, there's a big reason it doesn't produce many minerals--because it takes more than just having shit in the ground for that shit to be economically viable.

The U.S. has enough of the same critical minerals Greenland has to be self sufficient, the problem isn't a lack of deposits, it's a lack of infrastructure and capability to refine them in amounts that can compete with China. The U.S. could just subsidize all production of these minerals in the U.S. and break free of dependence on China, but that would take focused effort--a hallmark thing Trump is universally terrible at. Instead, we have one company Trump has funneled some money to to subsidize their production, if he just did more of that in the U.S. this wouldn't be an issue.

But again, requires focused effort.

Any Greenlandic production would require massive government subsidization, and the extreme lack of any infrastructure of any kind in most of Greenland means that the end result would likely be more expensive per unit critical minerals than could be produced in the United States.

If you're interested in big subsidies to make unprofitable critical mineral extraction a thing, you could also just cut a deal with Canada, which has deposits as well and even some companies extracting, if the U.S. offered them a deal to subsidize a lot of production such that it would be profitable, those companies would likely happily agree--and I suspect at significantly less cost than Greenlandic production.

But again--if you're willing to throw a bunch of money away to produce critical minerals, you could just do it in the U.S. The U.S. doesn't have a lack of minerals, it has a lack of production.

Invasion of Greenland will probably happen much like invasion of Crimea.  It will be a "peaceful" takeover from within because the weaker side will not date start shooting at the stronger side. 

I imagine climate change is playing a role in this to some extent at least (not in Trump's brain, but in some of those around him) - the Greenland ice keeps shrinking, and Canada has plenty unsettled space that might become more livable once the Southern US become too hot/dry or sink into the sea (Florida).

Quote from: DGuller on January 06, 2026, 12:42:19 PMInvasion of Greenland will probably happen much like invasion of Crimea.  It will be a "peaceful" takeover from within because the weaker side will not date start shooting at the stronger side. 

I'm genuinely worried what Russia will do if NATO becomes de facto non-functional in such a situation.

This is definitely going to occupy my attention for a while, and apparently the US administration is going to revisit the topic in about 20 days.

I started a Greenland specific thread: https://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,16984.0.html

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 06, 2026, 12:38:54 PMI remain confused what an invasion of Greenland would look like.

The largest military force on Greenland is--the United States. The largest military base on Greenland, is American.

Would he send a few guys to the one or two occupied settlements in Greenland and "occupy them", to what end?

My suspicion is the Greenland issue literally happened like this:

1. Someone in Trump's circle, back during his first administration, made him aware Greenland exists, that almost no one lives on it, and that is has lots of valuable minerals.

2. He decided to say America should have that.

3. He got upset at being ridiculed for it.

4. When he became President again he wanted to prioritize this topic because of his innate and immense attraction to petty grievance.

For #1, the big thing no one probably told him is while Greenland is mineral rich, there's a big reason it doesn't produce many minerals--because it takes more than just having shit in the ground for that shit to be economically viable.

The U.S. has enough of the same critical minerals Greenland has to be self sufficient, the problem isn't a lack of deposits, it's a lack of infrastructure and capability to refine them in amounts that can compete with China. The U.S. could just subsidize all production of these minerals in the U.S. and break free of dependence on China, but that would take focused effort--a hallmark thing Trump is universally terrible at. Instead, we have one company Trump has funneled some money to to subsidize their production, if he just did more of that in the U.S. this wouldn't be an issue.

But again, requires focused effort.

Any Greenlandic production would require massive government subsidization, and the extreme lack of any infrastructure of any kind in most of Greenland means that the end result would likely be more expensive per unit critical minerals than could be produced in the United States.

If you're interested in big subsidies to make unprofitable critical mineral extraction a thing, you could also just cut a deal with Canada, which has deposits as well and even some companies extracting, if the U.S. offered them a deal to subsidize a lot of production such that it would be profitable, those companies would likely happily agree--and I suspect at significantly less cost than Greenlandic production.

But again--if you're willing to throw a bunch of money away to produce critical minerals, you could just do it in the U.S. The U.S. doesn't have a lack of minerals, it has a lack of production.

I think you're largely right, except that I also think that there's a contingent of his advisers - like Miller but also others - whose approach to foreign policy is grounded in playing games like EU and Hearts of Iron... that is, they want to paint the map, focus primarily on hard power and simple economic indicators, and dismiss soft power altogether.

I also think there's another contingent - among the sci-fi/ post-apocalyptic tech bros - who think they're being long term strategic in securing the mineral rich Greenland for when global warming really fucks everything up.

But fundamentally I agree that it's pretty foolish because - as I understand it - the main reason the US is not exploiting Greenland mineral resources is that no-one, including American companies, have found it economically viable to do so.

Quote from: Syt on January 06, 2026, 12:45:09 PM

Quote from: DGuller on January 06, 2026, 12:42:19 PMInvasion of Greenland will probably happen much like invasion of Crimea.  It will be a "peaceful" takeover from within because the weaker side will not date start shooting at the stronger side. 

I'm genuinely worried what Russia will do if NATO becomes de facto non-functional in such a situation.

Start marching towards Berlin of course. They've made it clear. Whether or not Berlin is a radioactive ruin matters not to Moscow

Quote from: DGuller on January 06, 2026, 12:42:19 PMInvasion of Greenland will probably happen much like invasion of Crimea.  It will be a "peaceful" takeover from within because the weaker side will not date start shooting at the stronger side. 

It's actually an interesting question in itself... what are they going to do?

Arrest the local police forces and Danish soldiers, killing them if they resist?

Bomb something?

Start funding the local social services?

Fly in a local viceroy and start issuing orders to the local civil servants? Replace all the civil servants?

Maybe there are some shovel ready mineral extraction projects that they feel have been shut down that they'll then start in spite of local objections?

Maybe they'll claim the territorial waters and start aggressively confronting Chinese and Russian assets (if there are any) or something?

I guess they'd take over the airports and control people coming and going using civilian airlines? Maybe?

I wouldn't rule out the Danes shooting back in spots. Obviously it won't lead to a military victory, but killed nationals - on either side - will inflame the situation further.

As Otto pointed out, the only real military presence in Greenland is the American military base.  Trump could simply declare Greenland to be part of the US.  No "attack" needed.  The US military would simply exert control over the territory.

So, that happens, Denmark invokes Article 5, USA officially leaves Nato.

What is going to stop Putin to give nuclear ultimatums and start gobbling up the Baltics and Ukraine? I mean sure, UK and France can cause millions of death in a punitive second stroke but Russia can eradicate them from tbe map completely. Without the American nuclear umbrella the only thing holding back Putin is his reluctance to cause suffering and death, and that's , well, you know.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 01:10:35 PMI wouldn't rule out the Danes shooting back in spots. Obviously it won't lead to a military victory, but killed nationals - on either side - will inflame the situation further.

Assuming it's not after a now unlikely Greenland independence from Denmark following a referendum or some legitimate agreement, which would really make it easy for Trumpistani forces to claim that they occupied Greenland in self-defense following a claimed encroachment from Russia or even China (why not).

As said by others, « little green men » seem the most likely scenario, a well-planned and executed coup de main, capturing all the ports, admittedly small cities and towns of relevance.

However, if the Danes and the Greenlanders could stall the coup de main by resisting through force, even lightly-armed gendarmerie-like units, while documenting their resistance, and US not-so covert involvement that could cause the failure of such a coup de main.

Of course, if Agent Orange and the resident KGB sociopath were to have already some kind of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact over the Arctic, Greenland or even the EU and its dependant territories, it would not matter so much.

With such a pact, an "independence" scenario from Denmark could be forced upon the Danes, leaving Greenland ripe for the taking, at leisure.

For what, given the extreme constraints of the Arctic environments, remains to be seen.  :hmm:

Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 01:55:26 PMSo, that happens, Denmark invokes Article 5, USA officially leaves Nato.

What is going to stop Putin to give nuclear ultimatums and start gobbling up the Baltics and Ukraine? I mean sure, UK and France can cause millions of death in a punitive second stroke but Russia can eradicate them from tbe map completely. Without the American nuclear umbrella the only thing holding back Putin is his reluctance to cause suffering and death, and that's , well, you know.

Yeah, Russia gets its wish and NATO dissolves.  If Trump is not a Russian asset, he is the best non asset they ever had.

France and the UK then become the main nuclear deterrents?

Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 01:55:26 PMSo, that happens, Denmark invokes Article 5, USA officially leaves Nato.

What is going to stop Putin to give nuclear ultimatums and start gobbling up the Baltics and Ukraine? I mean sure, UK and France can cause millions of death in a punitive second stroke but Russia can eradicate them from tbe map completely. Without the American nuclear umbrella the only thing holding back Putin is his reluctance to cause suffering and death, and that's , well, you know.

QuoteUne directive présidentielle du 16 décembre 1961 demandait que les forces nucléaires fussent capables « d'infliger à l'Union soviétique une réduction notable, c'est-à-dire environ 50 %, de sa fonction économique ». Dans cette directive, Charles de Gaulle explique cet objectif : « Dans dix ans, nous aurons de quoi tuer 80 millions de Russes. Eh bien je crois qu'on n'attaque pas volontiers des gens qui ont de quoi tuer 80 millions de Russes, même si on a soi-même de quoi tuer 800 millions de Français, à supposer qu'il y eût 800 millions de Français[12]. »

Dans ses mémoires, l'ancien président de la République Valéry Giscard d'Estaing mentionne un ordre de grandeur analogue, en précisant qu'il avait retenu « comme objectif pour notre frappe stratégique la destruction de 40 % des capacités économiques de l'Union soviétique situées en deçà de l'Oural et la désorganisation de l'appareil de direction du pays[13] ».

Au début des années 1980, la capacité effective de destruction minimale était de l'ordre de 35 % de la population et de 45 % de la capacité de production industrielle de l'URSS[14].

During the Cold War, the objective of the nuclear strike the was between 35 to 50 % of the Soviet population and industry. Of course, less nukes now but it did not account for the UK obviously, and it's Russia only, not the USSR. De Gaulle viewed the USSR as Russia, quite a common view back then, but it's different today.

P-S: regarding UK nukes, can Agent Orange mess with them, if he cosies up to the Kremlin?

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 02:07:10 PM

Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 01:55:26 PMSo, that happens, Denmark invokes Article 5, USA officially leaves Nato.

What is going to stop Putin to give nuclear ultimatums and start gobbling up the Baltics and Ukraine? I mean sure, UK and France can cause millions of death in a punitive second stroke but Russia can eradicate them from tbe map completely. Without the American nuclear umbrella the only thing holding back Putin is his reluctance to cause suffering and death, and that's , well, you know.

QuoteUne directive présidentielle du 16 décembre 1961 demandait que les forces nucléaires fussent capables « d'infliger à l'Union soviétique une réduction notable, c'est-à-dire environ 50 %, de sa fonction économique ». Dans cette directive, Charles de Gaulle explique cet objectif : « Dans dix ans, nous aurons de quoi tuer 80 millions de Russes. Eh bien je crois qu'on n'attaque pas volontiers des gens qui ont de quoi tuer 80 millions de Russes, même si on a soi-même de quoi tuer 800 millions de Français, à supposer qu'il y eût 800 millions de Français[12]. »

Dans ses mémoires, l'ancien président de la République Valéry Giscard d'Estaing mentionne un ordre de grandeur analogue, en précisant qu'il avait retenu « comme objectif pour notre frappe stratégique la destruction de 40 % des capacités économiques de l'Union soviétique situées en deçà de l'Oural et la désorganisation de l'appareil de direction du pays[13] ».

Au début des années 1980, la capacité effective de destruction minimale était de l'ordre de 35 % de la population et de 45 % de la capacité de production industrielle de l'URSS[14].

During the Cold War, the objective of the nuclear strike the was between 35 to 50 % of the Soviet population and industry. Of course, less nukes now but it did not account for the UK obviously, and it's Russia only, not the USSR. De Gaulle viewed the USSR as Russia, quite a common view back then, but it's different today.

P-S: regarding UK nukes, can Agent Orange mess with them, if he cosies up to the Kremlin?

Well that's good. Is it known if thst capability has been reached and maintained?

Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 02:13:28 PMWell that's good. Is it known if thst capability has been reached and maintained?

Less nukes as I said, but maintained and modernised, unlike the conventional armed forces which are but a fraction of what they were.

Russia has way more nukes of course, but their maintenance and modernisation is a big question mark.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 12:57:22 PMBut fundamentally I agree that it's pretty foolish because - as I understand it - the main reason the US is not exploiting Greenland mineral resources is that no-one, including American companies, have found it economically viable to do so.

I read some time ago that part of the issue is that the local government has banned or severely restricted potential extraction operations (I think uranium extraction in particular was banned by local law).  I agree with you, though, that even without that the economics don't work for most potential operations right now.

Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 01:55:26 PMI mean sure, UK and France can cause millions of death in a punitive second stroke but Russia can eradicate them from tbe map completely

They can't totally obliterate Russia, but France alone has enough spicy baguettes to effectively destroy the Russian state and render the result a Pyrrhic victory at best for Russia, with Putin almost certainly not leading whatever comes through the fallout.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 02:07:10 PMP-S: regarding UK nukes, can Agent Orange mess with them, if he cosies up to the Kremlin?

Sorta.  The US and UK have a pooling arrangement for Trident II missiles.  The UK owns 58 missiles, but they don't service them.  When the missiles need to be rotated, UK boats come to King's Bay (the US Atlantic boomer base) and have their missile bodies swapped for missiles from the US reserve.  The UK missiles then get refurbished and put into the US reserve.  Fanta Fuhrer could mess with this arrangement.  It would be a violation of our agreement with the UK, but what does he care?

As has been mentioned UK nuclear warheads sit in American missiles. France is the only independent nuclear capability in Western Europe. Seems reasonably likely to me that rump NATO will write off Greenland and Canada and focus on defense against Russia.

So let's say the US take clear and concrete action to take control of Greenland (maybe doing something from the list upthread)...

What could Denmark and/ or the EU do in response? What can they do in anticipation? I'm interested both in what actions they could theoretically do (even if unlikely) and the likely consequences, as well as the ones they're more likely to do (and we all know the cynical "strongly worded letter" take).

Here are some things Denmark - and any European allies - could do in response, with a bunch of thoughts and questions. I'm curious about your perspectives on these (individually or in aggregate):

Resist Militarily

Denmark - with any European allies - could deploy a number of troops to Greenland, with instructions to resist any American hostile actions (and perhaps instructions to seize American installations if possible).

I don't think anyone expects that Denmark (+ any European allies) will resist a determined US effort to take over Greenland for any length of time (though I lack any real understanding of the specifics of arctic warfare in the Greenland context to have any real idea of how it would play out).

That said, actually shooting and killing ostensible allies (and potentially taking casualties) might carry a price for Trump's regime - domestically and internationally - that it could be worth inflicting on the US; and that price might increase with the scale of any killing.

I don't know what the practicalities of increasing Danish and/or European troop numbers in Greenland is prior to any actual US aggression. There's obviously an element of "don't do anything provocative too soon" at play as well. But if there are, say, some French soldiers there willing to shoot back that's a different kettle of fish than dealing with some Danish police officers with small arms or minor naval vessels.

The End of NATO

In practical terms, I agree with Mette Frederiksen that US military action against Greenland would be the end of NATO, but what would it mean concretely?

Would countries like Denmark - and whatever aligned European allies - formally leave NATO? Or alternately, would NATO remain as an empty shell, with everyone knowing the alliance is functionally dead?

How robust is the European military structure if it has to replace NATO as the primary C&C structure in place of NATO?

Would NATO offices and facilities be closed in Bruxelles and elsewhere?

Closing NATO bases in Europe

I've seen some clips with various European generals talking about closing American bases in Europe and expelling their troops. That would a significant impact (and a massive win for Russia) both in terms of European security architecture, but I think also in the US's ability to project force across the world.

If it came to closing bases, I wonder what sort of timelines it would. Is this a "so we're not renewing the lease in 15 years" type thing, or is this a "get out now" scenario? How viable would the bases be if the hosting European country completely refused to cooperate or support it (i.e. could the US potentially say "fuck you, we're staying" and pull that off)?

Expelling Diplomats

I suppose that expelling a number of diplomats, spies, military attaches, and so on from various European countries. That would potentially put a bit of a dent in Trump's project to subvert European democracy and lobby for his various oligarch allies when it comes to the EU regulatory environment

Military and Tech Disentanglement

This is already under way to some extent. To what degree can this process be accelerated? Can ongoing contracts be cancelled (like the UK agreement with Palantir - assuming, of course, the UK decides to side with Denmark)?

I recently saw a piece on a European alternative to Visa/Mastercard financial networks which - if all goes well - could be rolled out in 2027.

Dumping US Treasuries

The EU holds a large number of US Treasuries. Selling them off en masse could seriously damage the US economy, but obviously it would also have a significant impact on European economies (and elsewhere around the world).

...

What are other potential tools in the Danish and European tool boxes? How likely are they to be used? And what are likely US responses to those tools being used?

And, of course, there's the question of how coherent Europe will be. How much will other European nations back up behind Denmark, and how robust are they willing to be? France seems pretty committed, but what about other individual European countries?

Will the UK go all in on the US? Will it try to straddle the gap with its "special relationship" (that's kind of what I expect, and I will consider it insufficient)?

Like I said, I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 01:48:07 PMAs Otto pointed out, the only real military presence in Greenland is the American military base.  Trump could simply declare Greenland to be part of the US.  No "attack" needed.  The US military would simply exert control over the territory.

In what way though?

Like would they start paying the salaries of the civil servants? Would they replace the customs and immigrations folks?

Military force is not that central to administrating a territory except as a backstop. One of the many things I'm curious about is how they'd actually administer Greenland - or as you say "exert control". It's clear the thinking is that if Danes resist that administration the might of a fully operational US military will smash that resistance... but what is it the US will actually do beyond putting up some flags?

That's one of the things I'm trying to wrap my head around.

Rotating some mountain troops from France, say chasseurs alpins, or from other countries, Alpini (unlikely) Gebirsjäger (somewhat less unlikely) etc., in Greenland as a symbolic measure is not that difficult if expensive, but meaningless without defining rules of engagement against former allies, and enforcing them, which is the crux of the matter.

Other Nordic troops may not be that easy, with Russia close, if not bordering. Applies even more so to Poland, Balts and Romania.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 06, 2026, 02:21:01 PMI read some time ago that part of the issue is that the local government has banned or severely restricted potential extraction operations (I think uranium extraction in particular was banned by local law).  I agree with you, though, that even without that the economics don't work for most potential operations right now.

Yeah, the local Greenland government approved a Uranium project. Then there was an election, and the new government rescinded the approval (in accordance with their campaigned promises).

Ironically (as I understand it) the new - anti-uranium extraction - government is also more strident on self-governance and potential independence. Basically the Greenlanders who are the most against resource extraction also tend to be the ones more interested in flirting with Trumpism and embracing independence.

It'll be interesting to see how those Greenlanders square that circle (we know how the Trumpists will square it, by ignoring it).

I don't know what the numbers of American military personnel in various European countries are. For countries where the ratio home team/away team is very advantageous having enemy personnel that can be despatched easily may be an advantage (and if we're REALLY lucky not all of them will want to fight their hosts for Trump and will surrender), but in general they are a dagger pointed at the heart of Europe. If we, before the war starts, can get them to go home without shots fired then that's a huge win I think.

If rump NATO doesn't defend Greenland then Russia might start rolling into the Baltics. That alone might make it worth it to fight the US and pray for the US home front to break.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 02:49:17 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 01:48:07 PMAs Otto pointed out, the only real military presence in Greenland is the American military base.  Trump could simply declare Greenland to be part of the US.  No "attack" needed.  The US military would simply exert control over the territory.

In what way though?

Like would they start paying the salaries of the civil servants? Would they replace the customs and immigrations folks?

Military force is not that central to administrating a territory except as a backstop. One of the many things I'm curious about is how they'd actually administer Greenland - or as you say "exert control". It's clear the thinking is that if Danes resist that administration the might of a fully operational US military will smash that resistance... but what is it the US will actually do beyond putting up some flags?

That's one of the things I'm trying to wrap my head around.

I doubt very much the Trump regime would care on bit about the population in Greenland. If this happens, it would likely be more of a colonial model where American companies come in to extract what they want, and the locals are left to fend for themselves as best they can.

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 02:57:38 PMI don't know what the numbers of American military personnel in various European countries are. For countries where the ratio home team/away team is very advantageous having enemy personnel that can be despatched easily may be an advantage (and if we're REALLY lucky not all of them will want to fight their hosts for Trump and will surrender), but in general they are a dagger pointed at the heart of Europe. If we, before the war starts, can get them to go home without shots fired then that's a huge win I think.

If rump NATO doesn't defend Greenland then Russia might start rolling into the Baltics. That alone might make it worth it to fight the US and pray for the US home front to break.

And then face a united Russian American military alliance?  From the European perspective, probably better to save all their resources to fight the Russians.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:00:42 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 02:57:38 PMI don't know what the numbers of American military personnel in various European countries are. For countries where the ratio home team/away team is very advantageous having enemy personnel that can be despatched easily may be an advantage (and if we're REALLY lucky not all of them will want to fight their hosts for Trump and will surrender), but in general they are a dagger pointed at the heart of Europe. If we, before the war starts, can get them to go home without shots fired then that's a huge win I think.

If rump NATO doesn't defend Greenland then Russia might start rolling into the Baltics. That alone might make it worth it to fight the US and pray for the US home front to break.

And then face a united Russian American military alliance?  From the European perspective, probably better to save all their resources to fight the Russians.

Hence my comment above about a likely strategy.

With nothing but respect for our American posters, based on how they rally around the flag when any one of us non-Americans dare critising it, I think if European troops kill attacking American ones, US public opinion will rally against Europeans and NATO, NOT against Trump.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 02:55:30 PM

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 06, 2026, 02:21:01 PMI read some time ago that part of the issue is that the local government has banned or severely restricted potential extraction operations (I think uranium extraction in particular was banned by local law).  I agree with you, though, that even without that the economics don't work for most potential operations right now.

Yeah, the local Greenland government approved a Uranium project. Then there was an election, and the new government rescinded the approval (in accordance with their campaigned promises).

Ironically (as I understand it) the new - anti-uranium extraction - government is also more strident on self-governance and potential independence. Basically the Greenlanders who are the most against resource extraction also tend to be the ones more interested in flirting with Trumpism and embracing independence.

It'll be interesting to see how those Greenlanders square that circle (we know how the Trumpists will square it, by ignoring it).

As I said earlier, if Greenland becomes independent, nobody in Europe will lift a finger in case of a US hostile takeover.

Question is, what can Europe (meaning EU plus Norway and the UK) do, while Greenland is still associated to the kingdom of Denmark. If given a choice between Poland, Baltic lands and Romania on one hand, and Greenland on the other hand, the answer has already been given in previous posts.

Also, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...
Back in João Fernandes Labrador and Corte Real days, Canada, well Labrador, Newfoundland and Greenland were linked. :P

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:01:37 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:00:42 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 02:57:38 PMI don't know what the numbers of American military personnel in various European countries are. For countries where the ratio home team/away team is very advantageous having enemy personnel that can be despatched easily may be an advantage (and if we're REALLY lucky not all of them will want to fight their hosts for Trump and will surrender), but in general they are a dagger pointed at the heart of Europe. If we, before the war starts, can get them to go home without shots fired then that's a huge win I think.

If rump NATO doesn't defend Greenland then Russia might start rolling into the Baltics. That alone might make it worth it to fight the US and pray for the US home front to break.

And then face a united Russian American military alliance?  From the European perspective, probably better to save all their resources to fight the Russians.

Hence my comment above about a likely strategy.

Gotcha

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 03:08:09 PMAlso, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...

Yeah. How likely is it that Canada will resist a US invasion?

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 03:08:09 PMAlso, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...

What can Canada do to stop the occupation of our major population centres near the border - not much. But the logistics of occupying the rest of the country would be a nightmare.  Remember, just BC is larger than France and Germany.

The main issue is how would Europe, if so inclined, support the resistance.  This is the scenario where Canada would need to hope for the US home front to rebel.

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:11:04 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 03:08:09 PMAlso, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...

Yeah. How likely is it that Canada will resist a US invasion?

That is a certainty.  What form the resistance takes is the question.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:14:47 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:11:04 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 03:08:09 PMAlso, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...

Yeah. How likely is it that Canada will resist a US invasion?

That is a certainty.  What form the resistance takes is the question.

Are we talking about resisting as in troops fighting the invading forces, or resisting like Denmark in WW2?

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:11:04 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 03:08:09 PMAlso, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...

Yeah. How likely is it that Canada will resist a US invasion?

According to Agent Orange, they are supposed to request annexation as the 51st state to become biggly rich, so invasion is not – yet – on the cards.
Mexico would get some anti-narcoterrorist raids first.

I don't get these concerns about Russia invading the baltics.
That's the last thing Russia wants to do right now, they're barely keeping their forces in Ukraine supplied at 19th century levels.
Even if America completely disappeared tomorrow they're in no state for taking on NATO - yes. NATO as a whole isn't very well prepared right now. But given Russias struggles against Ukraine would they really want to take on even just Poland or Sweden or Finland?

The US and Greenland... I agree with Jacob that there are strategy gamer, paint the map vibes. Which is disturbing.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:14:27 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 03:08:09 PMAlso, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...

What can Canada do to stop the occupation of our major population centres near the border - not much. But the logistics of occupying the rest of the country would be a nightmare.  Remember, just BC is larger than France and Germany.

The main issue is how would Europe, if so inclined, support the resistance.  This is the scenario where Canada would need to hope for the US home front to rebel.

Saint Pierre et Miquelon would get invaded as well (5,000 islanders), just to be on the safe side. France would be forced to react somewhat.
Otherwise, what? Govt-in-Exile, of Québec at least, there ?
What could be done? Would the US still have bases in the Atlantic such as in the Azores or Iceland?
A UQ coup de main against Canada is not possible, unlike Russia against Crimea or even hypothetically Greenland by the Trumpistan.

Really too speculative.

Quote from: Josquius on January 06, 2026, 03:19:45 PMI don't get these concerns about Russia invading the baltics.
That's the last thing Russia wants to do right now, they're barely keeping their forces in Ukraine supplied at 19th century levels.
Even if America completely disappeared tomorrow they're in no state for taking on NATO - yes. NATO as a whole isn't very well prepared right now. But given Russias struggles against Ukraine would they really want to take on even just Poland or Sweden or Finland?

The Russian gamble would be that, in a scenario where NATO members have said that NATO will be dead, they wouldn't be fighting Poland, Sweden or Finland. Countries start wars that don't make sense all the time.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 03:08:09 PMAs I said earlier, if Greenland becomes independent, nobody in Europe will lift a finger in case of a US hostile takeover.

Yeah for sure, and I think that includes Denmark.

So maybe the coming US push is an attempt to manufacture Greenland independence, or at least enough of an illusion of one that Greenland is abandoned by Europe.

QuoteQuestion is, what can Europe (meaning EU plus Norway and the UK) do, while Greenland is still associated to the kingdom of Denmark. If given a choice between Poland, Baltic lands and Romania on one hand, and Greenland on the other hand, the answer has already been given in previous posts.

Yeah for sure. A very big question from my point of view is to what degree different European countries will rally to support Denmark once it goes beyond signing letters. You mention the UK, but I don't know how much appetite they have for taking practical action against the US, no matter how miniscule.

The thing from my perspective is that rolling over meekly on Greenland makes it very clear to everyone that Europe is powerless and ripe for division into "spheres" as per Putin-Trumpist perspectives. The real trick IMO - even if accepting the loss of Greenland as inevitable if Trump really pushes for it - is to impose a high enough price and accelerate the growth of European strength to the degree it makes repeats less likely. Otherwise we are, IMO, looking at the kick-off of a European "century of humiliation".

QuoteAlso, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...

I'm relatively confident Canada will do nothing beyond making strong statements and memes (edit to add: I understood that to mean in response to the US annexing Greenland. I'll respond to the "if the US attacks Canada" scenario in a separate post).

then the lng from the US stops flowing... and it's not coming from Russia either.
At least the Europeans will reach their net-zero then.

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:16:30 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:14:47 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:11:04 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 03:08:09 PMAlso, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...

Yeah. How likely is it that Canada will resist a US invasion?

That is a certainty.  What form the resistance takes is the question.

Are we talking about resisting as in troops fighting the invading forces, or resisting like Denmark in WW2?

Our military would be quickly overrun, so that phase lasts no more than a couple of days. The more likely resistance is units retreating into the vastness of the Canadian interior and waging guerrilla warfare. 

 

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:39:17 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:16:30 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:14:47 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:11:04 PM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 06, 2026, 03:08:09 PMAlso, Canada stands between the US and Greenland, and are a Trumpistani target as well. What can they do? They have a long border with the US...

Yeah. How likely is it that Canada will resist a US invasion?

That is a certainty.  What form the resistance takes is the question.

Are we talking about resisting as in troops fighting the invading forces, or resisting like Denmark in WW2?

Our military would be quickly overrun, so that phase lasts no more than a couple of days. The more likely resistance is units retreating into the vastness of the Canadian interior and waging guerrilla warfare. 

Gotcha.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 03:25:58 PMYeah for sure. A very big question from my point of view is to what degree different European countries will rally to support Denmark once it goes beyond signing letters. You mention the UK, but I don't know how much appetite they have for taking practical action against the US, no matter how miniscule.

The thing from my perspective is that rolling over meekly on Greenland makes it very clear to everyone that Europe is powerless and ripe for division into "spheres" as per Putin-Trumpist perspectives. The real trick IMO - even if accepting the loss of Greenland as inevitable if Trump really pushes for it - is to impose a high enough price and accelerate the growth of European strength to the degree it makes repeats less likely. Otherwise we are, IMO, looking at the kick-off of a European "century of humiliation".

I agree with all you said. Helping Ukraine is key to both aspects, impose a high price and accelerate or rather resurrect European strength, in some cases. Ukraine surviving the Putin onslaught gives Europe more – critical – time, be it versus Putin and/or an Agent Orange with delusions of grandeur.

Still, Venezuela should keep him busy for a while. I doubt the situation there will be stabilised as in puppet régime in 20 days.

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:11:04 PMYeah. How likely is it that Canada will resist a US invasion?

There would absolutely be resistance.

How effective and long-lasting would depend very much on the specifics of the invasion scenario (is the US invited in by a Conservative government or an Albertan "independence" movement for example)  and how it was carried out (how much killing and destruction happens), I think.

Certainly, there's a very fundamental part of Canadian character that defines itself as being "not American"; and there's been enough of a national discourse on the topic with folks fantasizing about guerilla warfare - both urban in the bush, combined with actions inside the US - that I think many Canadians like to imagine we'd make the US regret invading. I know people who've joined the reserves specifically because they want to be more ready in case the US invades.

Now, how likely is that to translate in to actual resistance if push came to shove? And how likely is the Canadian military to continue fighting like Ukrainians when Russia first rolled in, vs surrendering to save lives? I know what I and many other Canadians would like to think, but I don't think Canada's character has been tested in this way recently enough to be any actual guide. So, we'll see (or rather, we'll hopefully never find out).

And certainly, Canada would have its fair share of Quislings also, no doubt about it.

FWIW former Swedish PM and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has said that it's likely that the US "will use brute force against Denmark within the coming six months".

Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 03:02:11 PMWith nothing but respect for our American posters, based on how they rally around the flag when any one of us non-Americans dare critising it, I think if European troops kill attacking American ones, US public opinion will rally against Europeans and NATO, NOT against Trump.

I think you are wrong.

After Venezuela, there is still Cuba to deal with before claiming total control of the US American hemisphere.
Marco Rubio has a vested interest in it.  :P

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:44:44 PMFWIW former Swedish PM and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has said that it's likely that the US "will use brute force against Denmark within the coming six months".

Please someone wake me up from this nightmare

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:39:17 PMOur military would be quickly overrun, so that phase lasts no more than a couple of days. The more likely resistance is units retreating into the vastness of the Canadian interior and waging guerrilla warfare. 

Yeah. I think the key part of any potential Canadian military defence is the degree to which they manage create heroic narratives like the Ukrainian defenders of Zmiinyi Island to inspire resistance; and the degree of excess force the US might use to turn the mood more decisively against the occupation.

But yeah, it's incredibly unlikely that Canada could hold off a US invasion unless there was serious internal disarray inside the US military for whatever reason. The name of the game for any Canadian resistance to the US is assymmetrical warfare.

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 06, 2026, 03:46:07 PM

Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 03:02:11 PMWith nothing but respect for our American posters, based on how they rally around the flag when any one of us non-Americans dare critising it, I think if European troops kill attacking American ones, US public opinion will rally against Europeans and NATO, NOT against Trump.

I think you are wrong.

What proportion of the GOP would turn against trump, you think? Would any MAGA types do it? After all commie Europeans are killing brave US soldier trying to liberate the poor Greenlanders.

Although, for my part, I still don't think he'd go after Greenland. But you know, worse timeline and all that. I actually think he's more likely to raid Mexico. He has a much easier excuse with the whole war on drugs thing.

Quote from: HVC on January 06, 2026, 03:50:24 PMWhat proportion of the GOP would turn against trump, you think? Would any MAGA types do it? After all commie Europeans are killing brave US soldier trying to liberate the poor Greenlanders.

The government is not even bothering to build that narrative.

Quote from: HVC on January 06, 2026, 03:50:24 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 06, 2026, 03:46:07 PM

Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 03:02:11 PMWith nothing but respect for our American posters, based on how they rally around the flag when any one of us non-Americans dare critising it, I think if European troops kill attacking American ones, US public opinion will rally against Europeans and NATO, NOT against Trump.

I think you are wrong.

What proportion of the GOP would turn against trump, you think? Would any MAGA types do it? After all commie Europeans are killing brave US soldier trying to liberate the poor Greenlanders.

Although, for my part, I still don't think he'd go after Greenland. But you know, worse timeline and all that. I actually think he's more likely to raid Mexico. He has a much easier excuse with the whole war on drugs thing.

To clarify, I think the bolded is wrong.

I won't speak for US public opinion...but for MAGA-types, I don't think much of them.

What logistics do we have in the wilderness to supply a Canadian official resistance ? It's not like Ukraine where we'd have a relatively safe population zone. All ours are at the border. I can see a WW2 like popular resistance movement. But with modern tracking and technology I don't know how long they'd last as a  effective covert resistance

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 06, 2026, 03:46:07 PMI think you are wrong.

I hope you are right, and that we never find out.

However, Carl Bildt (former PM of Sweden) does not make me optimistic on this count.

Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2026, 03:53:52 PM

Quote from: HVC on January 06, 2026, 03:50:24 PMWhat proportion of the GOP would turn against trump, you think? Would any MAGA types do it? After all commie Europeans are killing brave US soldier trying to liberate the poor Greenlanders.

The government is not even bothering to build that narrative.

I think they could easily if any sentiment shifts in the US to an invasion.

Quote from: HVC on January 06, 2026, 03:54:54 PMWhat logistics do we have in the wilderness to supply a Canadian official resistance ? It's not like Ukraine where we'd have a relatively safe population zone. All ours are at the border. I can see a WW2 like popular resistance movement. But with modern tracking and technology I don't know how long they'd last as a  effective covert resistance

It can't be that hard to smuggle in a bunch of Chinese drones and European mortar rounds.

But yeah, I think the resistance would have to be decentralized and dissipated. Regular folks living their regular lives, occasionally carrying out attacks against US personnel and infrastructure (and traitors).

More IRA than Viet Cong.

The  amount of National Guard that would need to be called up to occupy Canada would be nuts. I don't think we could even do it.  The best defense would be massive/passive resistance...we could never sustain overcoming it.

(even speculating on this is revolting enough)

As for what US-occupation/control of Greenland would be like...I imagine it would be like rural Alaska.  Mostly shitty and ineffectual.

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 06, 2026, 03:54:11 PMTo clarify, I think the bolded is wrong.

I won't speak for US public opinion...but for MAGA-types, I don't think much of them.

I see, forum specific. I don't know, Raz has already written off Canada as long as zoupa bares the brunt of the conflict :D

Quote from: HVC on January 06, 2026, 04:03:04 PM

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 06, 2026, 03:54:11 PMTo clarify, I think the bolded is wrong.

I won't speak for US public opinion...but for MAGA-types, I don't think much of them.

I see, forum specific. I don't know, Raz has already written off Canada as long as zoupa bares the brunt of the conflict :D

Tamas' charge was forum-specific.  :huh:

So it is a totally separate discussion but Canada is vast, Trump would quickly not have any easy means of resourcing an occupation of Canada. He can do stuff like kidnap Maduro or declare Greenland part of America without Congress, he would need funding that would be beyond what he could simply steal from other parts of the budget to occupy Canada. He wouldn't get the appropriations.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 03:55:16 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:44:44 PMI think you are wrong.

I hope you are right, and that we never find out.

However, Carl Bildt (former PM of Sweden) does not make me optimistic on this count.

Quote attribution is weird.

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 04:11:12 PMQuote attribution is weird.

Oops!  :blush:

I fixed the original attribution.

Also if Trump simply declared Greenland part of America, what would that even entail?

For any sort of commercial activity, he would need U.S. companies and some legal structure for them to operate. He can't run that from Truth Social or from the White House by himself, the bones of that process would be subject to judicial review through numerous lawsuits. I can't imagine any private company, other than one simply stood up by a Trump toady, would sign on to such legal ambiguity. Any private company that participated in the Greenland stuff would very likely lose every contract, every business arrangement etc they have with any country in Europe and probably many elsewhere in the world as well, so I very seriously doubt any of the mining majors get involved.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:48:15 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:44:44 PMFWIW former Swedish PM and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has said that it's likely that the US "will use brute force against Denmark within the coming six months".

Please someone wake me up from this nightmare

better learn to fly drones I guess

Not that it matters, but:

QuoteIn proceeding this day to the signature of the Convention respecting the cession of the Danish West-Indian Islands to the United States of America, the undersigned Secretary of State of the United States of America, duly authorized by his Government, has the honor to declare that the Government of the United States of America will not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland.

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1917/d881

It absolutely matters.

Not to the Trump administration, of course, but it matters.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 01:08:38 PMI guess they'd take over the airports and control people coming and going using civilian airlines? Maybe?

That worked in the American Revolution (sez Donny).

Should be able to win in court:

QuoteThis Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

We have a poor record with treaties though...just ask the Sioux.

And that part always struck me as odd...could we just engage in a treaty that contradicts/abrogates the Constitution with just a simple Senate ratification? :hmm:

Quote from: Tamas on January 06, 2026, 03:02:11 PMWith nothing but respect for our American posters, based on how they rally around the flag when any one of us non-Americans dare critising say stupid shit about it, I think if European troops kill attacking American ones, US public opinion will rally against Europeans and NATO, NOT against Trump.

FTFY.  US posters here have consistently criticized US action where warranted, but also pushed back when non-Americans (and Americans) say dumb things (like your post).

Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2026, 03:53:52 PM

Quote from: HVC on January 06, 2026, 03:50:24 PMWhat proportion of the GOP would turn against trump, you think? Would any MAGA types do it? After all commie Europeans are killing brave US soldier trying to liberate the poor Greenlanders.

The government is not even bothering to build that narrative.

This is similar to the seizure of Maduro (and the bombing of Venezuelan ships as well) as the administration has only provided the barest of reasons why this had to be done (and, at least in part consequently, support for Maduro's seizure is only about 40%, about half of what it was for Noriega's seizure.)  In this case the US is supposed to need Greenland for security reasons, but what those reasons are has not (as far as I know) been laid out (and certainly not to the point that it would justify military action).  Trump seems to think that he doesn't need to build public support either because he thinks the public always supports him or because he simply doesn't care.

With Maduro they basically avoided what could have been good explanations and instead went all in for nonsense.
It's straight from the Putin playbook. Say something so obviously nonsense it serves as a show of strength and a challenge to see if anyone dares point out you're talking shit.

Quote from: Savonarola on January 06, 2026, 05:00:08 PMThis is similar to the seizure of Maduro (and the bombing of Venezuelan ships as well) as the administration has only provided the barest of reasons why this had to be done (and, at least in part consequently, support for Maduro's seizure is only about 40%, about half of what it was for Noriega's seizure.)  In this case the US is supposed to need Greenland for security reasons, but what those reasons are has not (as far as I know) been laid out (and certainly not to the point that it would justify military action).  Trump seems to think that he doesn't need to build public support either because he thinks the public always supports him or because he simply doesn't care.

To quote the senator of Ghorman: "They have no shame, do they? They don't even bother to lie badly anymore. I suppose that's the final humiliation."

Quote from: Savonarola on January 06, 2026, 05:00:08 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 06, 2026, 03:53:52 PM

Quote from: HVC on January 06, 2026, 03:50:24 PMWhat proportion of the GOP would turn against trump, you think? Would any MAGA types do it? After all commie Europeans are killing brave US soldier trying to liberate the poor Greenlanders.

The government is not even bothering to build that narrative.

This is similar to the seizure of Maduro (and the bombing of Venezuelan ships as well) as the administration has only provided the barest of reasons why this had to be done (and, at least in part consequently, support for Maduro's seizure is only about 40%, about half of what it was for Noriega's seizure.)  In this case the US is supposed to need Greenland for security reasons, but what those reasons are has not (as far as I know) been laid out (and certainly not to the point that it would justify military action).  Trump seems to think that he doesn't need to build public support either because he thinks the public always supports him or because he simply doesn't care.

I mean, he's also pretty much been right to think that too. His party will fall in line and his abysmal approval ratings with everyone else won't matter.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 02:49:17 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 01:48:07 PMAs Otto pointed out, the only real military presence in Greenland is the American military base.  Trump could simply declare Greenland to be part of the US.  No "attack" needed.  The US military would simply exert control over the territory.

In what way though?

In the same way he is "running Venezuela".  By getting on TV and saying it.

Sheilbh has a theory that they have local collaborators in Venezuela already, they're just rolling it out slowly.

It would be competent.

A couple of thoughts.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 02:44:32 PMWhat could Denmark and/ or the EU do in response? What can they do in anticipation? I'm interested both in what actions they could theoretically do (even if unlikely) and the likely consequences, as well as the ones they're more likely to do (and we all know the cynical "strongly worded letter" take).

Bluntly. I'm not sure there's much of anything they can do if the US determines to do it.

QuoteDenmark - with any European allies - could deploy a number of troops to Greenland, with instructions to resist any American hostile actions (and perhaps instructions to seize American installations if possible).

How? I'll come back to this but there isn't a single European military deployment that is not underpinned by American force. They provide the logistics of everything. This was even true of France's war on terror in the Sahel.

If the US navy and airforce are involved I'm not really sure how anyone in Europe would deploy or sustain troops in Greenland - frankly not sure it'd be possible without US support.

QuoteThe End of NATO

In practical terms, I agree with Mette Frederiksen that US military action against Greenland would be the end of NATO, but what would it mean concretely?

Would countries like Denmark - and whatever aligned European allies - formally leave NATO? Or alternately, would NATO remain as an empty shell, with everyone knowing the alliance is functionally dead?

I think probably the latter.

QuoteHow robust is the European military structure if it has to replace NATO as the primary C&C structure in place of NATO?

Would NATO offices and facilities be closed in Bruxelles and elsewhere?

As mentioned which I think is key, I think every single European deployment including NATO deployments within Europe rely on American logistics. I don't think that's easy to replace, particularly the strategic air stuff. Building that is, I think, essential. And I would flag this ties into the general degradation of physical infrastructure in Europe.

In part that's deliberate - it's the way NATO was supposed to work with us all being little cogs in a bigger machine. But it does mean a big problem with the central cog is a huge issue.

I'd add as this sound frivolous but I'm not sure it would be. An advantage of the US in NATO is that is that it's able to lead it - meaning a bunch of similar sized countries don't fight it out for the top jobs and everyone (except, on occasion, the French) fits within a fixed command structure. I think there'd be a real risk of quite big fights over the top jobs and how any sort of shared command structure would be managed.

I would also just add, apropos of nothing, that the UK-EU defence agreement has been held up for about a year over fisheries (in particular requests around fishing rights from France and Denmark).

QuoteExpelling Diplomats

I suppose that expelling a number of diplomats, spies, military attaches, and so on from various European countries. That would potentially put a bit of a dent in Trump's project to subvert European democracy and lobby for his various oligarch allies when it comes to the EU regulatory environment

I hate this :lol: I would get it for Denmark but I think even with Russia, European states have been far too keen on reducing diplomatic contacts. We are behaving as if diplomacy with us is a privilege rather than a tool for the benefit of both sides.

I think we need to get back to a bit of Cold War realism on this sort of thing. Even at the worst points embassies were open, meetings were held - precisely because they were the worst, highest risk, most dangerous times. That's not when you cut out your eyes. And yes the Soviets poured vast resources into disrupting our societies and spying on us but we did likewise. But I think we should already recognise the Taliban and new state in Syria and have embassies up and running in Kabul ad Damascus, for example.

QuoteThe EU holds a large number of US Treasuries. Selling them off en masse could seriously damage the US economy, but obviously it would also have a significant impact on European economies (and elsewhere around the world).

Yeah Europe can absolutely do economic pressure depending on how much pain it's willing to endure because Europe exports a lot to the US and I'm not sure there's an alternative buyer out there. Europe's already facing increasing pressure from cheaper Chinese production plus a more protectionist US which leaves very little room for manouevre. And both the US and China known this.

On Treasuries I'm not sure. I'm unclear how much of that is actually held by governments or in a way that governments can determine policies like a sell-off and how much are just in the envelope of a corporate/investment structure in, say, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands or Luxembourg.

QuoteWhat are other potential tools in the Danish and European tool boxes? How likely are they to be used? And what are likely US responses to those tools being used?

I think at this point persuasion is basically about it. Try to persuade, try to delay, play for time and build up those other resources that currently don't exist outside the think tank paper.

QuoteWill the UK go all in on the US? Will it try to straddle the gap with its "special relationship" (that's kind of what I expect, and I will consider it insufficient)?

No idea. Starmer's part of the joint statement of European leaders (that included Macron, Merz, Tusk, Sanchez, Frederiksen and, I think most strikingly, Meloni). I think we'd be unlikely to back it - on the other hand it's the core of the British state's policy since Suez to not allow a crack of daylight between us and the US, because it ends badly.

But my basic view was set out by Sir Alex Younger who's former head of MI6 (he was talking about Venezuela) "we need to focus on the main game [...] rebuilding our relations with hard power." I'm sort of the view that by all means make a statement about it now backing Denmark but any time or energy or thought that isn't spent on fundamentally re-arming and building state capacity is a distraction.

I'll go with what I said earlier in the trump thread:

Quote from: mongers on January 05, 2026, 10:12:58 PMThe acid test will be in a few months, maybe even weeks when trump attacks a democratic country and Western leaders have to choose on which 'side' of the current fence they come down on.


Though saying that, it's not improbable that action against Greenland is imminent, perhaps even within 48 hours. 

What the Danish PM said implies very serious concern, though the way that was couched 'in terms of NATO ending' might egg trump on, oh and also because it was said by a woman will nark him.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2026, 03:48:15 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2026, 03:44:44 PMFWIW former Swedish PM and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has said that it's likely that the US "will use brute force against Denmark within the coming six months".

Please someone wake me up from this nightmare

I'm sorry too. They'll be sorry too when sabotage starts affecting their state buildings in the most northern states.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 06:00:45 PMSheilbh has a theory that they have local collaborators in Venezuela already, they're just rolling it out slowly.

It would be competent.

I was listening to a former US ambassador (the real State Department kind of ambassador) to Venezuela who is pretty convinced the Venezuela is about to go warlord, with different strongmen effectively taking over the various provinces and perhaps starting to fight over the spoils. That would make US success there costly and uncertain, which is exactly the situation oil companies (or any other kind) eschew.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 06:00:45 PMSheilbh has a theory that they have local collaborators in Venezuela already, they're just rolling it out slowly.

It would be competent.

Does he? Sorry Sheilbh, you have to be the biggest sucker around to think these guys secretly have a plan. George W Bush didn't.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 06, 2026, 06:36:12 PMA couple of thoughts....

You keep harping about logistics being dependent on the US but I really don't know where you get that idea from. France alone has 67 heavy airlift planes and 14 tanker/refueling planes. Brits have 30 heavy airlift and 14 tankers.

The reason the US was involved in the Sahel operations is because they wanted to be.

Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2026, 06:00:45 PMSheilbh has a theory that they have local collaborators in Venezuela already, they're just rolling it out slowly.

It would be competent.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to do it that way.

It does appear that CIA was trying to work some key players in the government to try to engineer something like this, but then Trump prematurely took action to grab Maduro before a real plan was in place. It makes no sense to do this before you have the post-Maduro plan reasonably in place.

I might be willing to entertain the contrary if I had any level of confidence in the coherence of the administration decision making process.  But there is no process at all. It's a scrum of courtiers and caporegimes scheming to shove half-baked ideas in front of the President's eyes (and pen) before his day old puppy attention span shifts. 

It also doesn't help that Trump's understanding of the Venezuelan oil industry and reserves and what would be involved to monetize them is so comically naive.

Occam's razor - if it looks half-baked and comes out of a process we know is badly flawed, it probably is what it looks like.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 06, 2026, 07:42:47 PMYou keep harping about logistics being dependent on the US but I really don't know where you get that idea from. France alone has 67 heavy airlift planes and 14 tanker/refueling planes. Brits have 30 heavy airlift and 14 tankers.

Yeah my thoughts on this are similar to when the question came up in the other thread whether Germany could move troops across the country.  Of course they could.  And of course Europe could move troops to Greenland. They have boats and planes, they have people that can use them.  You can debate how many and how fast, and whether the transport operation would meet the highest of operational standards.  But it could be done.

So....whats the best Greenlandic approach in all this?
I guess some sort of charm offensive on the American public? Try and get some amusing viral videos going?
Underline the fact that they're a Native American nation that wants to be left alone?- likely to enrage MAGA but could help poke others to support them more....bringing on the liklihood of shit but boosting the slim chances of unrest in America from it.

It would be quite the one sided war of course... but I do think not as much as many are presenting. I hear the US is pretty bad at arctic warfare- that side of NATO defence was left to the UK and Scandinavians.  A bit much to imagine a full winter war situation what with the Americans already having all the forces there... but certainly a lot of potential for frozen yanks.

The American "forces" there are probably just an undermanned (we usually always are, in balance of the missions required) US Air/Space Force unit supporting a Cold War-era early warning station.  None of the personnel there would be at all effective in taking over Greenland. 

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 07, 2026, 04:21:29 AMThe American "forces" there are probably just an undermanned (we usually always are, in balance of the missions required) US Air/Space Force unit supporting a Cold War-era early warning station.  None of the personnel there would be at all effective in taking over Greenland. 

Well, if they ever get serious about this, the first move will be to beef up that base.

Quote from: celedhring on January 07, 2026, 04:56:06 AM

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 07, 2026, 04:21:29 AMThe American "forces" there are probably just an undermanned (we usually always are, in balance of the missions required) US Air/Space Force unit supporting a Cold War-era early warning station.  None of the personnel there would be at all effective in taking over Greenland. 

Well, if they ever get serious about this, the first move will be to beef up that base.

Doubtful...it is pretty remote, even for Greenland.  I expect any invasion would just be some Marines taking over Nuuk and Trump declaring victory.

It doesn't even make any damn sense from a security standpoint. Like Denmark or an independent Greenland wouldn't be willing to do almost anything we asked them from a security standpoint.

Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2026, 10:38:39 AMIt doesn't even make any damn sense from a security standpoint. Like Denmark or an independent Greenland wouldn't be willing to do almost anything we asked them from a security standpoint.

Well they would have . . .

But that is really what it so insane about this.  Denmark was historically one of the most reliable pro-US allies in NATO.  If we wanted to expand security presence in Greenland, or develop strategic resources, or anything else within reason, all we had to do was ask.

The only way this makes sense to me is that it's not Greenland/NATO, or about rare earth minerals & security against Russia, but something to justify Trump getting war powers and declaring stuff like martial law in the US and a way to distract from stuff like the Epstein files.

I think people underestimate the sheer power of attraction that displays of force have for these people, and for many others as well. Especially these days.

How quickly could Denmark push through independence for Greenland?

What's your reasoning here? I'm not sure I follow.

Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2026, 11:59:02 AMWhat's your reasoning here? I'm not sure I follow.

Presumably so Denmark doesn't have to defend it.

The only way for the Europeans, or Denmark itself perhaps, to stop a military takeover of Greenland is to position a defensive force there, say a company of infantry and a frigate. The hope being that the Americans will see reason and not attack.

If the US invades they'll trivially defeat the contingent, but it is going to cost NATO blood to do it. 200 drowned Danish sailors and a dozen dead soldiers is going to kill NATO dead immediately. Even more if it's German and French troops dying. 

But of course, military positioning inside of NATO will also kill NATO, just slower.

It's something like a chicken race. I for one hope that the Europeans stand firm and together and sends a European task force over there. The sooner we rid ourselves of the Americans the better, they are a dead weight on our free society.

Maybe offer the Americans stationed in Europe asylum?

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 07, 2026, 01:10:02 PMMaybe offer the Americans stationed in Europe asylum?

 :lol:

Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2026, 12:32:36 PMPresumably so Denmark doesn't have to defend it.

I get the logic, but to me it really comes across as a complete surrender. I mean, it may be that a Sudetenland surrender for "peace in our time" is the right move in a grand strategic sense, but it might also signal weakness and readiness to be exploited further in a way that could backfire.

I see some kind of summit meeting is agreed.

While I find headlines more like poorly written jokes or the beginning of a deeply dystopian series nowadays, I still refuse to countenance that even Donald Trump's band of bandits would throw away everything in this strange gamble.

Quote from: Norgy on January 07, 2026, 01:40:55 PMI still refuse to countenance that even Donald Trump's band of bandits would throw away everything in this strange gamble.

Me to. I have a hard time believing it.

But he has managed to cross those lines of unbelievability several times. I thought this guy was total scum, the human embodyment of everything I hated about the United States, prior to him ever running for President or leading some weird Obama birther movement. But somehow he still manages to shock and amaze me at what a piece of shit he is.

So it might happen.

Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2026, 01:26:21 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2026, 12:32:36 PMPresumably so Denmark doesn't have to defend it.

I get the logic, but to me it really comes across as a complete surrender. I mean, it may be that a Sudetenland surrender for "peace in our time" is the right move in a grand strategic sense, but it might also signal weakness and readiness to be exploited further in a way that could backfire.

Surrender is such an ugly word. Deft maneuvering sounds better.

Denmark could announce Chinese and Russian troops now have a base there.

Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2026, 01:48:10 PM

Quote from: Norgy on January 07, 2026, 01:40:55 PMI still refuse to countenance that even Donald Trump's band of bandits would throw away everything in this strange gamble.

Me to. I have a hard time believing it.

But he has managed to cross those lines of unbelievability several times. I thought this guy was total scum, the human embodyment of everything I hated about the United States, prior to him ever running for President or leading some weird Obama birther movement. But somehow he still manages to shock and amaze me at what a piece of shit he is.

So it might happen.

All he has to do is  blame it on Hunter Biden and Obama and his base will rally around it.  The drooling morons will eat that up.  The careerist hypocrits are too scared shitless to say a word against it and may come out claiming that Putin is legit a US ally instead.  The business interests are almost completely focused on short term profits.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 06, 2026, 10:34:33 PMYeah my thoughts on this are similar to when the question came up in the other thread whether Germany could move troops across the country.  Of course they could.  And of course Europe could move troops to Greenland. They have boats and planes, they have people that can use them.  You can debate how many and how fast, and whether the transport operation would meet the highest of operational standards.  But it could be done.

In the context of American opposition and America trying to seize Greenland?

I'd add on the Germany thing - which is why I think Merz's focus on infrastructure spending as well as the military is so important - the common much you could deploy came from a redacted US military report. The US had to move to barges and river transport for transporting material to Ukraine because of the state of the rail and road system. I don't think that's minor.

I harp on about it because from what I've read from European defence commentators and analysts these are big issues. Maybe they aren't - I could be totally wrong. For example Dr Alexandra Hoop de Scheffer of the German Marshall Fund that Europe is "hyper-dependent" on the US, with particular gaps in "intel, satellites, transportation of troops and air-to-air refuelling". Her assessment is that some of those capability gaps could be filled - with focus and spending - in three years, some probably within five years. I still don't see that focus or spending. But I would say here everyone seems fairly sanguine about Europe's current, immediate capacities right now. I hope you're right but other stuff I read seems quite worrying on that front - and I feel like the last few years have broadly lead me to not taking a sanguine view of things :ph34r:

And I think that's reflected in the way European leaders behave which is incredibly weak towards the US because of our weakness. Combined with, I think, fairly minimal progress on building up independent European defence because those leaders are can't imagine how to convince the public or aren't capable of imagining it themselves (there are exceptions: Denmark has linked higher defence spending to raising the retirement age to 70). I think all of that is captured in the fact that as European spending on defence has increased, for most coutries so has the share of that spending going to American defence companies. (Including Poland who I'm generally very admiring of - but that's in the context of building a diverse base so US spending has increased, but so's spending with French and Korean companies.)

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 07, 2026, 02:24:57 PMAll he has to do is  blame it on Hunter Biden and Obama and his base will rally around it.  The drooling morons will eat that up.  The careerist hypocrits are too scared shitless to say a word against it and may come out claiming that Putin is legit a US ally instead.  The business interests are almost completely focused on short term profits.

There are no short-term profits to be made in Greenland (or Venezuela, for that matter).

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 07, 2026, 11:09:04 AMI think people underestimate the sheer power of attraction that displays of force have for these people, and for many others as well. Especially these days.

Sadly, too true in the current of climate of peak bullshit.

Quote from: grumbler on January 07, 2026, 03:06:15 PM

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 07, 2026, 02:24:57 PMAll he has to do is  blame it on Hunter Biden and Obama and his base will rally around it.  The drooling morons will eat that up.  The careerist hypocrits are too scared shitless to say a word against it and may come out claiming that Putin is legit a US ally instead.  The business interests are almost completely focused on short term profits.

There are no short-term profits to be made in Greenland (or Venezuela, for that matter).

Look for the memorial coin and the NFT.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2026, 03:04:34 PMIn the context of American opposition and America trying to seize Greenland?

I suspect there may be two different conversations going on based on two different ideas of what the point of stationing troops in Greenland is.

You seem to be framing it in terms of being able to militarily repulse an American assault on Greenland and conclude (rightly IMO) that that is going to fail; and therefore, it seems you conclude (wrongly IMO), that there is no point in stationing troops and that Denmark + any European allies are powerless.

Another framing - and one which I think merits serious consideration - is that there are essentially two scenarios of a hypothetical American annexation of Greenland by force.

One is where the US rolls in unopposed, put up their flag, and proceed to run the place. The other is one where there are Danish (and potentially other European) troops there that resist, resulting in casualties - on the Danish/ European side for sure, but potentially on the American side also.

There are a number of different consequences between those two scenarios - geopolitically, in terms of domestic politics (in the US, Denmark, individual European states, and within Europe), economically, and so on. Denmark - and Europe - are not powerless in that they have the choice of which path to offer Trump; and Trump and his handlers will have to choose their path forward based on that.

Perhaps a "deft manoeuvre" - to use the Brain's term - is best for Denmark and Europe when taking a wider strategic view. But perhaps increasing the price - for Denmark & Europe, for the decrepit Western Alliance, and for the US - is a better move because it ends up being enough of a deterrent; or perhaps because it will become a clarifying and galvanizing moment for Europe. An alternate reason for increasing the price of a hostile annexation is that to accede would cement Europe's sense of powerlessness and result an more and greater bad consequences down the road.

There are analysts - in Denmark, the US, and elsewhere (and it seems you are among them?) - whose analysis boils down to "there's nothing Denmark and Europe can do to stop the US militarily if they put their mind to it" (which is true I think), "... so therefore Denmark and Europe are powerless and might as well accept the US' diktat" (which is not true IMO).

Trump very much operates on the Bully principle.  If he can get away with it he will.  If Greenland is left undefended he'll take it, if there's any kind of resistance (particular one that might escalate) he won't.  I think it matters less how effective the resistance is, just that it's there.

They won't do it because of the innate spinelessness of Europe, but the best defense would be the larger European economies making a public pact to sell off all U.S. treasuries the instant the U.S. violates Greenland's territorial integrity by making any proclamation or assertion that the U.S. now controls Greenland.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2026, 03:04:34 PMIn the context of American opposition and America trying to seize Greenland?

Yes of course.  Could they survive a determined US attack?  Probably not.  But slaughtering a bunch of NATO troops defending a member state's territory is very different than knocking off a handful of hapless Venezuelan drug mules in the ocean. I don't think Trump is prepared to go that far. 

QuoteFor example Dr Alexandra Hoop de Scheffer of the German Marshall Fund that Europe is "hyper-dependent" on the US, with particular gaps in "intel, satellites, transportation of troops and air-to-air refuelling". Her assessment is that some of those capability gaps could be filled - with focus and spending - in three years, some probably within five years. I still don't see that focus or spending. But I would say here everyone seems fairly sanguine about Europe's current, immediate capacities right now.

We are talking about different things. One is the ability to deploy and use modern military forces at peak efficiency.  The other is whether it is physically possible to move military assets that have some non-trivial level of combat power.  Even if the European members of NATO committed massive investments for years and integrated far more tightly, they would probably still be hard pressed to hold off a determined US invasion of Greenland.  But I doubt that is what is required.

A joint Danish force supported by other NATO members of roughly batallion size could be sent now and deliver the message that the EU takes territorial integrity seriously.  That show of strength is the only language Trump respects.

Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2026, 04:09:19 PMI suspect there may be two different conversations going on based on two different ideas of what the point of stationing troops in Greenland is.

You seem to be framing it in terms of being able to militarily repulse an American assault on Greenland and conclude (rightly IMO) that that is going to fail; and therefore, it seems you conclude (wrongly IMO), that there is no point in stationing troops and that Denmark + any European allies are powerless.

Another framing - and one which I think merits serious consideration - is that there are essentially two scenarios of a hypothetical American annexation of Greenland by force.

One is where the US rolls in unopposed, put up their flag, and proceed to run the place. The other is one where there are Danish (and potentially other European) troops there that resist, resulting in casualties - on the Danish/ European side for sure, but potentially on the American side also.

There are a number of different consequences between those two scenarios - geopolitically, in terms of domestic politics (in the US, Denmark, individual European states, and within Europe), economically, and so on. Denmark - and Europe - are not powerless in that they have the choice of which path to offer Trump; and Trump and his handlers will have to choose their path forward based on that.

Perhaps a "deft manoeuvre" - to use the Brain's term - is best for Denmark and Europe when taking a wider strategic view. But perhaps increasing the price - for Denmark & Europe, for the decrepit Western Alliance, and for the US - is a better move because it ends up being enough of a deterrent; or perhaps because it will become a clarifying and galvanizing moment for Europe. An alternate reason for increasing the price of a hostile annexation is that to accede would cement Europe's sense of powerlessness and result an more and greater bad consequences down the road.

There are analysts - in Denmark, the US, and elsewhere (and it seems you are among them?) - whose analysis boils down to "there's nothing Denmark and Europe can do to stop the US militarily if they put their mind to it" (which is true I think), "... so therefore Denmark and Europe are powerless and might as well accept the US' diktat" (which is not true IMO).

Okay. I don't think some European troops would help deter Trump. I don't really buy the bully argument about Trump - to me that doesn't fit the assassination of Soleimani, the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites or what's just happened in Venezuela. I think Trump is very reluctant to put boots on the ground in a serious way but pretty reckless on things that are overwhelmingly tilted in the favour of the US/remote.

The only way I think that works is if you buy the (in my view, nonsense) argument that Europe taking Arctic security seriously would address US concerns. I don't think there are US concerns. I think there's whim and Trump wants it - nothing more complex.

I'm not sure that serious talk - though true - about NATO or international law will help either because I don't think Trump cares about either. Though, perhaps, others in the administration do and you can help try to manage and massage them to the extent they matter (particularly as - and I'm not a conspiracy theorist on this - I do think Trump looks less well than he has).

I don't think it would be galvanising but fracturing for Europe. Especially because we're not just facing Trump. Literally today we've got the UK and France and that "coalition of the willing" apparently getting US agreement to back a "reassurance force" in Ukraine (I'll believe it when I see it). We can assume that's gone. I'd assume any American involvement in European security is - so I think there's a question of how Russia would respond as well.

I don't think there are any good options and I don't think Europe has any credible deterents. I think Europe's strategic dilemma is that we are vulnerable economically, on security and on energy - with China, America and Russia able to take advantage and pick at us on all of those. None of them are a solid base. In terms of what I think Europe should do I think it's probably what European leaders are doing. It is the policy of Starmer, Macron, Merz, Tusk - as insipid and emotionally unsatisfying as it is. Try to use diplomacy, try to persuade, try to keep the US engaged in order to help fend off Russia and China - while increasing our own capacities (3-5 years - which is roughly in line with Danish and Norwegian public assessments of when Russia might come again after a deal on Ukraine). I'd probably broadly push for the same policy towards China to be honest.

The only thing I'd add at this point is that I think Europe should be very clear and condemn what's happened in Venezuela. We cannot be simultaneously panicked about the sovereignty of a colony of the Kingdom of Denmark when we're not willing to care at all about the kidnapping of a head of state of a sovereign Latin American country. As with Ukraine and Gaza I just think how this looks from literally anywhere but Europe and it's hypocritical Eurocentrism - and why should anyone anywhere care. We need to start laying the groundwork I think for reaching out to the global south and I think particularly Latin America (also a shot across the bow of what happens when international norms, like the Monroe Doctrine, wither) and particularly Brazil. One challenge there is that after 30 years of negotiating a trade deal with Mercosur (which Lula has already said is the last chance for such a deal), France and Italy under pressure from their farming lobbies are trying to block it. But condemning Venezuela is laying the groundwork to go all in on trying to build new relationships with the rest of the world - which will also involve listening (I think Kaja Kallas probably has to go).

But while I don't think we've got much in way of a deterrent, I think we probably need to think the unthinkable because that might well happen so what the response would be. I think there's something to how do we respond if America uses their force to threaten us and we target America's force. So (very much from Chatham House stuff on this) I'd think about closing American bases or increasing their cost, not refueling American ships, refusing to take American personnel into European military hospitals - we're a base for America. If they're focused on the Western hemisphere, then do what we can to limit them to it.

There'll be trade-offs for that. We'll need to really have focus and spending to pick up the slack on defence (3-5 years). That probably means hard trade-offs and choices on domestic politics and confronting voters with it. And I think it probably means shafting Ukraine to try and, for a while, relieve the pressure from Russia and China.

Fundamentally I think it is probably a choice of trying to keep the Americans engaged while we push Russia (and China) or try to reach a new modus vivendi with Russia and China in order to push back on America - I don't think we can do all three. And that's why my fear is the forces in the world are more likely to split than galvanises Europe - because to go back to the point of different European countries having different risk perceptions which mitigates against common security and defence policies, I think European countries make differet choices over who to confront.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2026, 05:04:34 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2026, 03:04:34 PMIn the context of American opposition and America trying to seize Greenland?

Yes of course.  Could they survive a determined US attack?  Probably not.  But slaughtering a bunch of NATO troops defending a member state's territory is very different than knocking off a handful of hapless Venezuelan drug mules in the ocean. I don't think Trump is prepared to go that far. 

Sadly agree.  Trump may never actually shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue...but the US killing a bunch of Danish soldiers (and then posting the faces of those dead...both men and women...in the media) would be as close as one can get.  It would be...should be...as dreadful and shameful image on us and our foreign policy as the My Lai massacre.  Moreso even. 

Attacks on Iran can always be justified to a US population that fears and despises that regime and views them as terrorist mastermind.  But even there it's interesting that in both the Soleimani case and the strike last year, Trump was very insistent on saying that the strikes were purely one-off matters and that he sought immediate de-escalation.  Wiping out a battalion of NATO troops is very different matter.  His hedge fund friends, oil execs and real estate pals aren't going to want the fallout of a hot conflict with the entire Eurozone.

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 07, 2026, 05:38:44 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2026, 05:04:34 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2026, 03:04:34 PMIn the context of American opposition and America trying to seize Greenland?

Yes of course.  Could they survive a determined US attack?  Probably not.  But slaughtering a bunch of NATO troops defending a member state's territory is very different than knocking off a handful of hapless Venezuelan drug mules in the ocean. I don't think Trump is prepared to go that far. 

Sadly agree.  Trump may never actually shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue...but the US killing a bunch of Danish soldiers (and then posting the faces of those dead...both men and women...in the media) would be as close as one can get.  It would be...should be...as dreadful and shameful image on us and our foreign policy as the My Lai massacre.  Moreso even. 

I was thinking earlier I've not heard this level of BS from the WH and attempts to paint a fake reality since the last years of the Vietnam war.

But at that time Nixon was also doing other, real world politically consequential stuff; this WH it's just a stream of shit, endless polluting the public spaces, driving out important politics. 

The big difference with My Lai, of course, it that the US government didn't do it intentionally, though it was an unintended consequence of our policy.  In this hypothetical, it would be a direct, fully attributable consequence of a policy of the Commander in Chief.

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 07, 2026, 06:22:42 PMThe big difference with My Lai, of course, it that the US government didn't do it intentionally, though it was an unintended consequence of our policy.  In this hypothetical, it would be a direct, fully attributable consequence of a policy of the Commander in Chief.

I meant the Vietnam war as a whole, the 'we're saving the democratic Vietnamese republic from international communism' justification vs the current BS of 'defending Americans from being killed by evil foreign drugs/cartels/immigrants'.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2026, 05:16:58 PMOkay. I don't think some European troops would help deter Trump. I don't really buy the bully argument about Trump - to me that doesn't fit the assassination of Soleimani, the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites or what's just happened in Venezuela. I think Trump is very reluctant to put boots on the ground in a serious way but pretty reckless on things that are overwhelmingly tilted in the favour of the US/remote.

There is obviously some disagreement on the degree of deterrence from NATO troops and the risk of bloodshed.

I would say that Trump's inclination to action is towards ones where he can bullshit his way out of any consequences, and less likely

And, to be blunt, shedding white people blood (Trump recently asked for more immigrants from Denmark) may play differently for a white supremacist government than shedding brown people blood, even if the US wants to undermine Europe by "saving" it.

QuoteThe only way I think that works is if you buy the (in my view, nonsense) argument that Europe taking Arctic security seriously would address US concerns. I don't think there are US concerns. I think there's whim and Trump wants it - nothing more complex.

I agree it's a whim thing, but I think that's an argument for deterrence rather than against it.

QuoteI'm not sure that serious talk - though true - about NATO or international law will help either because I don't think Trump cares about either. Though, perhaps, others in the administration do and you can help try to manage and massage them to the extent they matter (particularly as - and I'm not a conspiracy theorist on this - I do think Trump looks less well than he has).

Agreed that talk about international law - or even NATO - doesn't really matter. Action and consequence does. Taking action to ensure that the consequences will be greater in practical economical terms (and I think Trump will come around to the idea that killing European soldiers is likely to result in greater practical consequences) increases the chances of Trump backing down. Maybe not sufficiently, of course.

QuoteI don't think it would be galvanising but fracturing for Europe. Especially because we're not just facing Trump. Literally today we've got the UK and France and that "coalition of the willing" apparently getting US agreement to back a "reassurance force" in Ukraine (I'll believe it when I see it). We can assume that's gone. I'd assume any American involvement in European security is - so I think there's a question of how Russia would respond as well.

I thought you subscribed to the view that the greatest leaps in European unity and cohesion is in response to crises?

QuoteI don't think there are any good options and I don't think Europe has any credible deterents. I think Europe's strategic dilemma is that we are vulnerable economically, on security and on energy - with China, America and Russia able to take advantage and pick at us on all of those. None of them are a solid base. In terms of what I think Europe should do I think it's probably what European leaders are doing. It is the policy of Starmer, Macron, Merz, Tusk - as insipid and emotionally unsatisfying as it is. Try to use diplomacy, try to persuade, try to keep the US engaged in order to help fend off Russia and China - while increasing our own capacities (3-5 years - which is roughly in line with Danish and Norwegian public assessments of when Russia might come again after a deal on Ukraine). I'd probably broadly push for the same policy towards China to be honest.

For someone who decries British and European inability to act, you certainly seem to embrace assumed helplessness  :lol:

I mean, I don't disagree that maintaining ambiguity and relying on diplomacy as long as possible while building up strength and capacity may be the best path forward. I simply disagree that it's the only path forward, or obviously and inherently the superior one.

QuoteThe only thing I'd add at this point is that I think Europe should be very clear and condemn what's happened in Venezuela. We cannot be simultaneously panicked about the sovereignty of a colony of the Kingdom of Denmark when we're not willing to care at all about the kidnapping of a head of state of a sovereign Latin American country. As with Ukraine and Gaza I just think how this looks from literally anywhere but Europe and it's hypocritical Eurocentrism - and why should anyone anywhere care. We need to start laying the groundwork I think for reaching out to the global south and I think particularly Latin America (also a shot across the bow of what happens when international norms, like the Monroe Doctrine, wither) and particularly Brazil. One challenge there is that after 30 years of negotiating a trade deal with Mercosur (which Lula has already said is the last chance for such a deal), France and Italy under pressure from their farming lobbies are trying to block it. But condemning Venezuela is laying the groundwork to go all in on trying to build new relationships with the rest of the world - which will also involve listening (I think Kaja Kallas probably has to go).

I think Europe is largely irrelevant enough already that making righteous statements about Venezuela or not already doesn't matter. If Europe takes actual concrete action to embrace Venezuela (or otherwise work against American global policy priorities) in a practical sense (economic ties, repealing sanctions, whatever) that matters. Writing a letter of condemnation or support (or equivocating down the middle) matters only a tiny little bit.

Europe absolutely can be way more worried about Greenland or Ukraine than it is about Gaza or Venezuela, and Europe absolutely can be Eurocentric in their perspective. What Europe can't do is pretend that that difference of worry level represents some absolute objective high moral ground that other countries secretly think as morally persuasive. Actions, not words, is what matters.

QuoteBut while I don't think we've got much in way of a deterrent, I think we probably need to think the unthinkable because that might well happen so what the response would be. I think there's something to how do we respond if America uses their force to threaten us and we target America's force. So (very much from Chatham House stuff on this) I'd think about closing American bases or increasing their cost, not refueling American ships, refusing to take American personnel into European military hospitals - we're a base for America. If they're focused on the Western hemisphere, then do what we can to limit them to it.

Agreed on those being practical levers that Europe can use. To take it back to the earlier part of the conversation, I also think it's more likely that those levers will be pulled if the US kills a bunch of Danish and French soldiers in Greenland, which thereby increases the deterrence value of those troops.

QuoteThere'll be trade-offs for that. We'll need to really have focus and spending to pick up the slack on defence (3-5 years). That probably means hard trade-offs and choices on domestic politics and confronting voters with it. And I think it probably means shafting Ukraine to try and, for a while, relieve the pressure from Russia and China.

Fundamentally I think it is probably a choice of trying to keep the Americans engaged while we push Russia (and China) or try to reach a new modus vivendi with Russia and China in order to push back on America - I don't think we can do all three. And that's why my fear is the forces in the world are more likely to split than galvanises Europe - because to go back to the point of different European countries having different risk perceptions which mitigates against common security and defence policies, I think European countries make different choices over who to confront.

Agreed that European countries make different choices based on individual priorities, and that that presents an additional challenge for Europe (not to mention the risk of Trump or Putin sympathizers taking over national governments in different European countries).

On Ukraine I think Europe needs to figure out how to go it on Ukraine alone.

On the whole "Europe vs Russia, China, and the US at the same time" thing - I'm much less certain that China will continue to support Russia to the degree it does now if Europe is less supportive of the US. While these things are complex and multifaceted, IMO one of the significant drivers for China's support of Russia is to undermine the alliance that it faces in the Pacific.

While acknowledging that China doesn't desire good things for Europe, the threat of driving Europe into closer collaboration with China at the cost of the US could also serve as a deterrent for US perfidy.

Basically I agree with you that Europe can't hold back China, Russia, and the US all at once... but I don't think it's a given that compromising with the US to fight China is the best course for Europe (I think we agree that holding back Russia is). China is further away and does not have an explicitly stated goal of reshaping Europe to it's liking. Maybe there's more room to work with China to lessen the threat from Russia and the US.

Quote from: The Brain on January 07, 2026, 01:58:34 PMSurrender is such an ugly word. Deft maneuvering sounds better.

Delft maneuvering is always required when something is fragile and brittle.

Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2026, 06:46:53 PMI thought you subscribed to the view that the greatest leaps in European unity and cohesion is in response to crises?

Yes I've been misattributing it. Not Jacques Delors, but Jean Monnet: "Europe will be forged in crises, and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises".

But as the Bruegel think tank paper on European defence noted in their view Ukraine is the first crisis that has not resulted in further integration. I would only disagree to say that I think their assessment the Eurozone crisis and covid were leaps forward - I think both were stalls at best. So I think that process has broken down since the crash (like a lot in Europe).

QuoteFor someone who decries British and European inability to act, you certainly seem to embrace assumed helplessness  :lol:

I mean, I don't disagree that maintaining ambiguity and relying on diplomacy as long as possible while building up strength and capacity may be the best path forward. I simply disagree that it's the only path forward, or obviously and inherently the superior one.

:lol: Fair. And I could very well be wrong - in many ways I hope I am. (And I am fully aware I may just be a little scarred from recent years when few shocks have gone a positive way from my pov.)

QuoteI think Europe is largely irrelevant enough already that making righteous statements about Venezuela or not already doesn't matter. If Europe takes actual concrete action to embrace Venezuela (or otherwise work against American global policy priorities) in a practical sense (economic ties, repealing sanctions, whatever) that matters. Writing a letter of condemnation or support (or equivocating down the middle) matters only a tiny little bit.

Europe absolutely can be way more worried about Greenland or Ukraine than it is about Gaza or Venezuela, and Europe absolutely can be Eurocentric in their perspective. What Europe can't do is pretend that that difference of worry level represents some absolute objective high moral ground that other countries secretly think as morally persuasive. Actions, not words, is what matters.

I get what your saying - my point is as America's no longer a friend we need some. Russia ain't it. I'm not sure on China either (I think their relationship is close if not quite the "friendship without limits" the've declared). I think we need to look to the rest of the world and I think that means taking on board some of their perspective or imagining how this looks from their position.

As I say - look at Brazil. Lula is pointing out this is the last chance to do a deal with Mercosur and (after 30 years of negotiations) it might get blocked by Europe. Lots of Europeans ahve complained about him not standing up on Ukraine while we've done exactly the same on Gaza and Venezuela. I think we need to engage literally the rest of the world if we're now facing off with the US and Russia and (maybe) China - and that's going to mean putting ourselves in their shoes, caring about their issues.

QuoteOn the whole "Europe vs Russia, China, and the US at the same time" thing - I'm much less certain that China will continue to support Russia to the degree it does now if Europe is less supportive of the US. While these things are complex and multifaceted, IMO one of the significant drivers for China's support of Russia is to undermine the alliance that it faces in the Pacific.

While acknowledging that China doesn't desire good things for Europe, the threat of driving Europe into closer collaboration with China at the cost of the US could also serve as a deterrent for US perfidy.

Basically I agree with you that Europe can't hold back China, Russia, and the US all at once... but I don't think it's a given that compromising with the US to fight China is the best course for Europe (I think we agree that holding back Russia is). China is further away and has not have an explicitly stated goal of reshaping Europe to it's liking. Maybe there's more room to work with China to lessen the threat from Russia and the US.

As I say I don't think I agree on China and Russia. I think that relationship is key for both parties - and there are multiple gas pipelines coming online in the next few years which will further cement. What Europe has to offer is a market which is valuable and an industry which can't compete.

Fundamentally I don't think Trump, or Russia, or China see Europe as a player - I think they see it as prey. And I'm not sure they're wrong. A bit like China in the 19th century - I think it's rich, weak and ill-equipped for the century its in. Honestly I'm not entirely sure that Trump, Russia and China wouldn't work together to press their advantage (this is again why I think we do need to engage the rest of the world with appropriate humility given all our history and recent indifference).

Edit: Just on the European side - the UK and France have been working on a "coalition of the willing" to support Ukraine after any peace deal. It's never been fully clear what it's role would be but I think primarily as a reassurance force in the rear in Ukraine. The key sticking point was trying to get US buy in for air support (which apparently they now have - I am very doubtful that will materialise).

When it was initially floated, the plan was for about 60,000 troops with hopes that multiple European countries would participate with the UK and France sending about 10k each. Ata meeting of European Defence Ministers the Lithuanian Defence Minister was reported to have told her counterparts "Russia has 800,000 troops. If we can't even raise 64,000 that doesn't look weak - it is weak." Other participants described her comments as "strident and inspiring". A report I read from some think tank said that would be difficult to sustain for the UK and France for long. They also estimated the minimum for it to be effective would be 30,000 (again they sketched out what that force would look like).

The news today is that the UK and France are the only countries willing to participate and it's now down to 15,000 (basically 7,500 each). For the UK at least apparently that is going to be a stretch to maintain for any period of time and the briefing is that 15,000 might be optimistic. Rreportedly this would have an impact on the British Army mission in Ukraine helping train and support Ukrainian troops as "we can't be in two places at once". I'm really sorry to say but this is the two most militarily capable European states trying to propose a European solution to something that almost all European countries agree is a strategic priority. The UK and France aren't able to cobble together and sustain much but have something and are willing to try (although as I say I'm very dubious on the actual plan) - but no-one else is even wiling to contribute (I have some sympathy with the Eastern Flank countries who don't want to dilute their border defences). But I think this is the context for conversations about what Europe can do.

Well, it's nice to see some Republicans pushing back against Trump and Miller's Greenland gambit: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/07/gop-lawmakers-denounce-trump-seize-greenland-00714611

Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2026, 09:52:37 PMWell, it's nice to see some Republicans pushing back against Trump and Miller's Greenland gambit: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/07/gop-lawmakers-denounce-trump-seize-greenland-00714611

One was saying that the Danes needed to surrender it since Americans died defending it.

Quote from: Jacob on January 07, 2026, 09:52:37 PMWell, it's nice to see some Republicans pushing back against Trump and Miller's Greenland gambit: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/07/gop-lawmakers-denounce-trump-seize-greenland-00714611

Yeah but who cares? Congress has given up all its power to the President to declare war. And it isn't like they are going to pass some kind of bill saying he can't invade Greenland. That would require them to stand up to Trump.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2026, 07:42:57 PMLots of Europeans ahve complained about him not standing up on Ukraine while we've done exactly the same on Gaza and Venezuela.

Gaza operations were justified following Oct 7th. We can argue about methods. Venezuela was illegal in every sense, a violation of sovereignty, but the dude did rig elections, kill his people and smuggle drugs. Ukraine, on the other hand, was just minding their own business and has the misfortune of being neighbours with a nation full of psychopaths. Lula's position on Ukraine is despicable. Sorry.

QuoteThe news today is that the UK and France are the only countries willing to participate and it's now down to 15,000 (basically 7,500 each). For the UK at least apparently that is going to be a stretch to maintain for any period of time and the briefing is that 15,000 might be optimistic. Rreportedly this would have an impact on the British Army mission in Ukraine helping train and support Ukrainian troops as "we can't be in two places at once". I'm really sorry to say but this is the two most militarily capable European states trying to propose a European solution to something that almost all European countries agree is a strategic priority. The UK and France aren't able to cobble together and sustain much but have something and are willing to try (although as I say I'm very dubious on the actual plan) - but no-one else is even wiling to contribute (I have some sympathy with the Eastern Flank countries who don't want to dilute their border defences). But I think this is the context for conversations about what Europe can do.

(https://media1.tenor.com/m/ZFc20z8DItkAAAAd/facepalm-really.gif)

Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2026, 11:26:41 PMYeah but who cares? Congress has given up all its power to the President to declare war. And it isn't like they are going to pass some kind of bill saying he can't invade Greenland. That would require them to stand up to Trump.

They just stood up to Trump.  :huh:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2026, 03:18:02 AM

Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2026, 11:26:41 PMYeah but who cares? Congress has given up all its power to the President to declare war. And it isn't like they are going to pass some kind of bill saying he can't invade Greenland. That would require them to stand up to Trump.

They just stood up to Trump.  :huh:

They passed a no Greenland bill?

Quote from: Josquius on January 08, 2026, 03:36:20 AMThey passed a no Greenland bill?

Not AFAIK.  Are you proposing a debate on the meaning of stand up to?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 08, 2026, 03:18:02 AM

Quote from: Valmy on January 07, 2026, 11:26:41 PMYeah but who cares? Congress has given up all its power to the President to declare war. And it isn't like they are going to pass some kind of bill saying he can't invade Greenland. That would require them to stand up to Trump.

They just stood up to Trump.  :huh:

Who did, and how exactly?

Well, it's nice to see some Republicans pushing back against Trump and Miller's Greenland gambit: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/07/gop-lawmakers-denounce-trump-seize-greenland-00714611

If it came to a vote on authorizing force against Denmark/Greenland, do you think it would pass?

Quote from: bogh on January 08, 2026, 05:36:41 AMIf it came to a vote on authorizing force against Denmark/Greenland, do you think it would pass?

Yes, the Republicans would roll over in a minute if told.  The Democrats are and have been completely ineffectual for years.  

Quote from: bogh on January 08, 2026, 05:36:41 AMIf it came to a vote on authorizing force against Denmark/Greenland, do you think it would pass?

I wouldn't think so.  There's very little public support for acquiring Greenland.  Trump hasn't made any effort to explain why we need it, much less why we need to seize it by force.  The Republican majority in the house is narrow, and a number of Republican congressmen are leaving at the end of this term (and so have nothing to lose by defying Trump.)

On a much less optimistic note, though, I expect Trump plans to bypass Congress in his attempt to acquire Greenland.

How many divisions does Clowngress have?

How do you bypass a void?

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 08, 2026, 07:51:35 AM

Quote from: bogh on January 08, 2026, 05:36:41 AMIf it came to a vote on authorizing force against Denmark/Greenland, do you think it would pass?

Yes, the Republicans would roll over in a minute if told.  The Democrats are and have been completely ineffectual for years. 

That's not true. They're very effective at sending out fundraising emails.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2026, 09:27:29 AMHow do you bypass a void?

This

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 07, 2026, 07:42:57 PMYes I've been misattributing it. Not Jacques Delors, but Jean Monnet: "Europe will be forged in crises, and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises".

But as the Bruegel think tank paper on European defence noted in their view Ukraine is the first crisis that has not resulted in further integration. I would only disagree to say that I think their assessment the Eurozone crisis and covid were leaps forward - I think both were stalls at best. So I think that process has broken down since the crash (like a lot in Europe).

Has it not resulted in further military integration?

It is my impression that the war in Ukraine has pushed Europe closer in that area, but maybe that's mainly rhetoric and not actually practical?

QuoteI get what your saying - my point is as America's no longer a friend we need some. Russia ain't it. I'm not sure on China either (I think their relationship is close if not quite the "friendship without limits" the've declared). I think we need to look to the rest of the world and I think that means taking on board some of their perspective or imagining how this looks from their position.

As I say - look at Brazil. Lula is pointing out this is the last chance to do a deal with Mercosur and (after 30 years of negotiations) it might get blocked by Europe. Lots of Europeans ahve complained about him not standing up on Ukraine while we've done exactly the same on Gaza and Venezuela. I think we need to engage literally the rest of the world if we're now facing off with the US and Russia and (maybe) China - and that's going to mean putting ourselves in their shoes, caring about their issues.

Agreed. I just think Mercosur and Venezuela matters much more to Brazil than Gaza - so that's where the effort should be focused when engaging with them.

QuoteAs I say I don't think I agree on China and Russia. I think that relationship is key for both parties - and there are multiple gas pipelines coming online in the next few years which will further cement. What Europe has to offer is a market which is valuable and an industry which can't compete.

Time will tell. There's some momentum to the China-Russia alliance, but I don't think it's permanent.

QuoteFundamentally I don't think Trump, or Russia, or China see Europe as a player - I think they see it as prey. And I'm not sure they're wrong. A bit like China in the 19th century - I think it's rich, weak and ill-equipped for the century its in. Honestly I'm not entirely sure that Trump, Russia and China wouldn't work together to press their advantage (this is again why I think we do need to engage the rest of the world with appropriate humility given all our history and recent indifference).

I agree that Europe is potentially poised to start a Chinese style century of humiliation. However, I think it would be the wrong approach to accept it as inevitable and act as if it is an established fact.

QuoteEdit: Just on the European side - the UK and France have been working on a "coalition of the willing" to support Ukraine after any peace deal. It's never been fully clear what it's role would be but I think primarily as a reassurance force in the rear in Ukraine. The key sticking point was trying to get US buy in for air support (which apparently they now have - I am very doubtful that will materialise).

When it was initially floated, the plan was for about 60,000 troops with hopes that multiple European countries would participate with the UK and France sending about 10k each. Ata meeting of European Defence Ministers the Lithuanian Defence Minister was reported to have told her counterparts "Russia has 800,000 troops. If we can't even raise 64,000 that doesn't look weak - it is weak." Other participants described her comments as "strident and inspiring". A report I read from some think tank said that would be difficult to sustain for the UK and France for long. They also estimated the minimum for it to be effective would be 30,000 (again they sketched out what that force would look like).

The news today is that the UK and France are the only countries willing to participate and it's now down to 15,000 (basically 7,500 each). For the UK at least apparently that is going to be a stretch to maintain for any period of time and the briefing is that 15,000 might be optimistic. Rreportedly this would have an impact on the British Army mission in Ukraine helping train and support Ukrainian troops as "we can't be in two places at once". I'm really sorry to say but this is the two most militarily capable European states trying to propose a European solution to something that almost all European countries agree is a strategic priority. The UK and France aren't able to cobble together and sustain much but have something and are willing to try (although as I say I'm very dubious on the actual plan) - but no-one else is even wiling to contribute (I have some sympathy with the Eastern Flank countries who don't want to dilute their border defences). But I think this is the context for conversations about what Europe can do.

That's pretty grim. One hopes Europe is taking appropriate action to remedy this.

I don't think the problem with Europe is lack of potential capability, but political will.

We obviously have the capability to hurt China, Russia or even the United States. Maybe not to the same level as at least China and the United States could hurt us, but still significantly enough to cause pain and deter.

But there is very little political will to pay the necessary price - mainly due to domestic pressures to continue with the peace dividend. Our populace has grown too complacent - not just in geopolitics, but also in private economic competition. And politicians fear that and are not willing to go against their voters' complacency.

There are some mini steps to actually pay the price (e.g. reintroduction of conscription, some industrial policy to safeguard supply chains etc.). But not nearly enough. I guess it needs to become worse and more tangible for the populace before a need for action is accepted. 

The only thing that could make it even worse is if the sellouts like Bardella, Farage or Weidel take power.

... so the path to taking it seriously is for traitors to get into positions of influence, fuck over Europe (but not enough to permanently cripple Europe), and thus cause the population to take things seriously enough to create the conditions for necessary reform?

That's essentially Putin and Trump's assessment of Europe, the only difference is that they seek to actively exploit and increase that weakness rather than remedy it.

Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2026, 01:34:26 PM... so the path to taking it seriously is for traitors to get into positions of influence, fuck over Europe (but not enough to permanently cripple Europe), and thus cause the population to take things seriously enough to create the conditions for necessary reform?

Huh? Not sure how that follows from my post.

Quote from: Zanza on January 08, 2026, 01:40:24 PMHuh? Not sure how that follows from my post.

:lol:

Let me outline the reasoning (and you can point out what I misunderstood and/or where you disagree with my reasoning):

• Zanza: There's a lack of political will to pay the necessary price.
• Zanza: I guess there's a need for something worse to happen for that political will to exist.
• Zanza: Things will get worse if the political sell-outs and traitors like Bardella, Farage, and Weidel get power.
• Jacob: If things get worse (satisfying point 2) in the case of Bardella, Farage, and/ or Weidel taking power (as per point 3) that may generate the political will required to pay the necessary price (step 1).
• Jacob: ... though I suppose that if Bardella/ Farage/ Weidel gain power they might fuck things up enough that Europe becomes less able to take the necessary steps, even if it generates the political will to take them.
• Jacob: Therefore, the path to generating the required political will and for it to lead to the necessary action is for the traitors to gain enough power to make sufficient trouble to make the need obvious to a large step of the population, but not so much that they damage Europe's ability to actually take the step (assuming such a condition is possible).

The line of reasoning may contain somewhere between 10 to 70% bleak humour rather than being a serious suggestion for the path forward.

I view Europe as the political equivalent of a concept in the business world, that of the "lifestyle company."

QuoteA lifestyle company is a business created primarily to support the owner's desired lifestyle, allowing them to maintain a work-life balance while generating income. These businesses often focus on personal fulfillment and flexibility rather than aggressive growth or high profits.

The term is most frequently used as a pejorative by people who consider the firm to be a "laggard" that doesn't pursue growth opportunities because it would upset the comfort of the leisure focused owners.

Quote from: bogh on January 08, 2026, 05:36:41 AMIf it came to a vote on authorizing force against Denmark/Greenland, do you think it would pass?

No.  But the bigger question is if the vote comes before it happens, or after it has already happened.

Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2026, 01:54:58 PM

Quote from: Zanza on January 08, 2026, 01:40:24 PMHuh? Not sure how that follows from my post.

:lol:

Let me outline the reasoning (and you can point out what I misunderstood and/or where you disagree with my reasoning):

• Zanza: There's a lack of political will to pay the necessary price.
• Zanza: I guess there's a need for something worse to happen for that political will to exist.
• Zanza: Things will get worse if the political sell-outs and traitors like Bardella, Farage, and Weidel get power.
• Jacob: If things get worse (satisfying point 2) in the case of Bardella, Farage, and/ or Weidel taking power (as per point 3) that may generate the political will required to pay the necessary price (step 1).
• Jacob: ... though I suppose that if Bardella/ Farage/ Weidel gain power they might fuck things up enough that Europe becomes less able to take the necessary steps, even if it generates the political will to take them.
• Jacob: Therefore, the path to generating the required political will and for it to lead to the necessary action is for the traitors to gain enough power to make sufficient trouble to make the need obvious to a large step of the population, but not so much that they damage Europe's ability to actually take the step (assuming such a condition is possible).

The line of reasoning may contain somewhere between 10 to 70% bleak humour rather than being a serious suggestion for the path forward.

Rereading my post let me understand what you mean.

The two uses of worse in sequence are not a proper structure.

The first was meant to refer to how Europeans will only accept action if the geopolitical situation deteriorates further, i.e. gets worse.

The second was in my mind not referring to the first, but rather to the existing feeble attempts of our politicians to act. In comparison to their insufficient attempts, the right populists I named would not even try to further European interests, but rather just sell us out to the highest bidder, be it US, Chinese or Russian interests. Which would be worse.

Yeah fair enough Zanza. It was a bit of a tongue in cheek comment on my part :)

Quote from: Jacob on January 08, 2026, 12:54:41 PMHas it not resulted in further military integration?

It is my impression that the war in Ukraine has pushed Europe closer in that area, but maybe that's mainly rhetoric and not actually practical?

No - and part of this could be defensive. Under the treaties foreign and security policy are for the member states and, crucially, at a European level require unanimity. It's part of the reason I've thought in the pas that "minilateralism" might be the best/more plausible route to European defence.

From the Bruegel report the Commission's 2025 budget proposal (for the next seven years) had allocations of €125 billion (or €18 billion annually). As Bruegel notes "in other words (likely guided by the political directives received from member states [...]), the Commission suggests keeping military issues as overwhelmingly member-state governed responsibilities, and does not intend to propose a material shift in long-term EU budget resources towards European rearmament." The very particular challenge with that is without a European level, it means Europe's defence policy and rearmament is in very tied to Europe's budget rules and national, member state fiscal constraints. That's why basically the only big EU countries with significant increases in defence spending in recent years are Germany and Poland.

But again to go back to Bruegel (I'm 50% with them on the NextGen EU Covid spending - but have some reservations):

QuoteCOVID-19 for the first time breached the political 'urgency threshold' for largescale issuance of common EU debt, in the form of NGEU. With an EU candidate country already under direct military attack and seemingly no progress towards similar largescale direct common EU debt issuance in response, other non-war political topics in the EU seem similarly unlikely to rise above the urgency
threshold that would enable common debt issuance. The basic political reality of required unanimity among EU member states for common EU debt issuance also undermines any otherwise sensible functional arguments in favour of more common European debt to improve the functioning of European financial markets11 or – a more recent policy priority for many top EU officials – promote the global role of the euro in the international financial system12.
[...]
The warning signs for further EU integration are already flashing and the Ukraine War may become the first large crisis to affect the EU in decades that does not lead to meaningful additional institutional EU integration.

At an October 2025 summit of EU leaders, the European Commission presented a new Defence Readiness Roadmap 2030 (European Commission, 2025c) but EU heads of state made no new concrete defence-related decisions at the EU level. This was despite the Commission's explicit allocation of leadership in European military and defence matters to member states, noting: "Member States are and will remain sovereign for their national security and defence. They are responsible for defining the capability objectives required to ensure the readiness of their national armed forces so that they can fulfil their strategic-military missions, including those undertaken within NATO. Their respective national objectives and the associated timelines for achieving them are a sovereign decision." (European Commission, 2025c).

The big that has been talked up (and is not nothing) is a €150 billion loan instrument for a few categories of defence (and I think as much industrial as defence policy - not a criticism necessarily) - but again that is for member states to spend (and I've mentioned before - but the third biggest recipient is...Hungary? :huh:). But to put in context, the scale of post-covid common European debt, that was at about €800 billion. The agriculture budget alone is around €400 billion. I think common debt is key because it's the way for Europe to mov to greater than the sum of its parts.

QuoteAgreed. I just think Mercosur and Venezuela matters much more to Brazil than Gaza - so that's where the effort should be focused when engaging with them.

I agree with Latin American countries (at least the post-pink tide ones, not the Operation Condor wannabes) - I also think it'd be a helpful way for Europe to go on the offensive. I don't buy the western hemisphere stuff about Trump (maybe true for some of those around him).

But I think Gaza is a huge issue for a lot of the global south. I think we underestimate the impact of the perceived hypocrisy.

QuoteTime will tell. There's some momentum to the China-Russia alliance, but I don't think it's permanent.

No doubt. I mean the North Atlantic Alliance isn't permanent - but it's seriously consequential.

I suppose what matters is whether it's opportunistic and what the window of opportunity is or if it's a fairly structural alignment for a while. 3-5 years? The estimate for Europe to fill some capability gaps and the range between the Danish and Norwegian estimate of when Russia could start messing with the Baltics - I think it's 5-10 for Russia to do something major.

QuoteI agree that Europe is potentially poised to start a Chinese style century of humiliation. However, I think it would be the wrong approach to accept it as inevitable and act as if it is an established fact.

I agree and I think this is to Zanza's point where, again, I agree - the potential capacity is there. Europe is rich, it's got innovative technically brilliant countries, it's got an industrial base in strategically important industries. There are structural challenges (no energy resources) but I don't think there's anything insurmountable.

My concern is around where we are, how long we've got and how fast we're moving.

QuoteDonald Trump has said "it may be a choice" for the U.S. between pursuing his ambition to take control of Greenland and keeping NATO intact.

The U.S. president was asked in a two-hour interview with the New York Times on Jan. 7 whether acquiring Greenland mattered more to him than preserving the 76-year-old military alliance — a question that has taken on new urgency for America's European allies in recent days as Trump and his colleagues have escalated their rhetoric about obtaining the self-ruling Danish territory.

Trump did not answer the question directly but acknowledged that his administration may have to choose between the two, according to the newspaper's account of the conversation published on Thursday.

Trump, when asked why he wanted the U.S. to control Greenland, said: "Because that's what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can't do with, you're talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can't get from just signing a document."
The U.S. president also told the Times he did not feel answerable to international law and was constrained only by his own conscience. "My own morality. My own mind. It's the only thing that can stop me," he said.
"I don't need international law," he added.

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-interview-us-greenland-grab-nato-preservation-choice/

Same question that was asked before: What would he do different if he was a Russian asset. I can't think of a quicker and easier way to destroy NATO.

I guess even the Republicans in the senate would not follow him if they would have to actively decide to destroy NATO. But a quick fait accompli by Trump could destroy it. Which would obviously be a strategic victory for Russia.

I actually think at this point NATO going away would potentially be the best thing to ever happen to Europe--Europe needs something to wake them out of their comfort and obsession with the idea the continent can simply be a giant resort where no country has to deal with anything serious. The obsessive idea that because Europe started two world wars, it is now retired from serious geopolitics.

The first order of business if NATO died would need to be--if Europe was serious about not falling into complete domination by Russia, immediate movement of significant European armies to the Baltics, France, Britain, Germany, Poland would need to agree to this very quickly or Europe will be picked apart at least on its peripheries.

But down the road, this could be the impetus for a real renaissance of European power.

I feel like people sometimes forget most of the Euro militaries were actually formidable during the Cold War, if rather untested. People act like some of these countries haven't had a real military since WW2, it's really only been since the early 1990s things got this dreadful with European defense.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 09, 2026, 12:18:28 PMI actually think at this point NATO going away would potentially be the best thing to ever happen to Europe--Europe needs something to wake them out of their comfort and obsession with the idea the continent can simply be a giant resort where no country has to deal with anything serious. The obsessive idea that because Europe started two world wars, it is now retired from serious geopolitics.

Yeah, I tend to agree. The old order is dead and decaying, basically.

The question of whether it's "the best thing to happen for Europe" comes down to whether Europe responds to this with a sort of renaissance or whether it becomes a spoil to be divided among the other major geopolitical actors.

QuoteThe first order of business if NATO died would need to be--if Europe was serious about not falling into complete domination by Russia, immediate movement of significant European armies to the Baltics, France, Britain, Germany, Poland would need to agree to this very quickly or Europe will be picked apart at least on its peripheries.

As per Sheilbh, maybe Europe doesn't have these very significant armies? I guess the question then is whether Europe can establish sufficient air superiority to make up the difference until it can raise such armies (if that's even how it works).

QuoteBut down the road, this could be the impetus for a real renaissance of European power.

I feel like people sometimes forget most of the Euro militaries were actually formidable during the Cold War, if rather untested. People act like some of these countries haven't had a real military since WW2, it's really only been since the early 1990s things got this dreadful with European defense.

I think the thing is that Europeans have also largely forgotten this (not all, of course, especially among the strategy player segment of the population).

The question, I guess, is to what degree Europe can get its shit together before being critically wounded by adversarial forces (some of which have significant support inside the EU).

Another open question for me is to what degree Europe can get its shit together geopolitically if the Nationalist-Populist faction wins in major European countries. There are power groups within the US who are explicitly in favour of destroying the EU. If Farage / Le Pen / Weidel take power in their respective countries, to what degree will they pivot to support collective European power to enhance their own standing if that collective power is shaped more in their image, and to what degree will they serve the goals of Trump and Putin and the Silicon Valley oligarchs to destroy coherent European power?

As for Greenland - it seems the current US play is to spend money to seduce the Greenland population (and especially amenable Greenland politicians) into separating from Denmark and submitting to American overlordship.

That's still not the action of an ally or a friend (obviously), but it is also less cataclysmic than forceful annexation.

Personally I believe the threat of force should still be taken seriously - but that that is also Trump's intention, because the threat of force is also an effective negotiation tactic. If Denmark / Greenland / Europe find themselves getting browbeat / persuaded into a peaceful semi-legal transfer of Greenland to US control, part of the items in the "plus" column for that outcome is averting the potential open fighting between the US and European militaries.

Have most European countries given up the draft? If so what are the odds of reinstating them? Thinking along the line of South Korean "real" training.

Quote from: HVC on January 09, 2026, 01:07:51 PMHave most European countries given up the draft? If so what are the odds of reinstating them? Thinking along the line of South Korean "real" training.

I believe the draft is coming back in a number of places.

Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2026, 12:48:09 PMAs per Sheilbh, maybe Europe doesn't have these very significant armies? I guess the question then is whether Europe can establish sufficient air superiority to make up the difference until it can raise such armies (if that's even how it works).

The issue is Euro armies have probably gone too far into the slider of quality vs quantity, basically. For things like securing the Baltics there's a kinetic power to having a lot of boots on the ground that isn't easily replicated with advanced weapon systems, highly advanced fighter/bombers, missile systems etc.

The U.S. also has moved that way versus where we were in the Cold War, obviously, but we still have 1.3m active duty, and 800k ready reserve. Some of the European armies are shockingly small in terms of manpower versus where they were in the late 1980s.

It's not that they need to go back to the Cold War level of manpower, mass conscription, etc, but they definitely need more guys under arms, no other way about it. They aren't going to weapon system spend their way into reliable self defense.

They should also learn that a lot of concrete and construction can slow a front down. Poland is building out huge walls of anti-tank barriers that have proven effective at preventing large scale offensives in the Ukraine war, I don't really know enough about what the border regions of the Baltics are like, but if they aren't doing what Poland is they need to be, and yesterday.

Edit to add: If Wikipedia is correct, the UK--one of the generally worse ran post-Cold War European countries, has 135,000 active duty and essentially a non-functional reserve system. That means the Brits have fewer guys ready to fight than Israel did before the Gaza War broke out.

Obviously Israel has more serious security concerns, but it's a tiny country in terms of both population and GDP, it's really not tremendously defensible how far back countries like Britain have neutered their defense capabilities.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 09, 2026, 01:50:38 PMThey should also learn that a lot of concrete and construction can slow a front down. Poland is building out huge walls of anti-tank barriers that have proven effective at preventing large scale offensives in the Ukraine war, I don't really know enough about what the border regions of the Baltics are like, but if they aren't doing what Poland is they need to be, and yesterday.

It looks like they got the memo: Lithuania (https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2025/08/15/lithuania-unveils-plans-for-multi-layer-border-defense-line/), Estonia (https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2025/12/12/estonia-erects-first-of-600-strong-baltic-bunker-wall-on-russia-border/), Latvia (https://www.baltictimes.com/construction_of_bunkers_and_other_fortifications_along_baltic_defense_line_to_be_gradual_-_defense_ministry/)

Also, while this could be in the EU or Ukraine thread, it fits the conversation here:

(this is a paywalled article, but the intro paragraph communicates the key point IMO)

QuoteRussia's Military Procurement Is a Warning for Europe
Putin's order books reveal plans for conflict well beyond Ukraine

Even as their invasion of Ukraine continues, Russian forces are increasingly testing European defenses with drones, manned aircraft, and warships. These are not merely mistakes or simple reconnaissance operations—they're an attempt to normalize intrusion. And behind each probe sits a retooled and increasingly efficient military-industrial machine: shipyards churning out ice-capable submarines, missile factories running three shifts to stockpile long-range strike weapons, and explosives plants expanding to strategic scale.

A closer look at Moscow's military procurement decisions highlights why Europe must prepare for a campaign of sustained Russian pressure well beyond Ukraine. Within Russia's naval and missile sectors, which matter most for the European theater, three alarming trends are visible: rapid growth in production facilities, clear prioritization of strategic platforms, and investments aimed at long-term operational endurance rather than a short wartime surge.

Link: https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/01/07/russia-ukraine-putin-europe-drones-missiles/

Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2026, 12:55:12 PMAs for Greenland - it seems the current US play is to spend money to seduce the Greenland population (and especially amenable Greenland politicians) into separating from Denmark and submitting to American overlordship.

What I meant here is that Ronald Lauder (Estee Lauder billionaire, closely aligned with Trump) has spent lots of money investing in small Greenland companies, coincidentally owned by either Greenland politicians or their spouses.

Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2026, 12:55:12 PMAs for Greenland - it seems the current US play is to spend money to seduce the Greenland population (and especially amenable Greenland politicians) into separating from Denmark and submitting to American overlordship.

That's still not the action of an ally or a friend (obviously), but it is also less cataclysmic than forceful annexation.

Personally I believe the threat of force should still be taken seriously - but that that is also Trump's intention, because the threat of force is also an effective negotiation tactic. If Denmark / Greenland / Europe find themselves getting browbeat / persuaded into a peaceful semi-legal transfer of Greenland to US control, part of the items in the "plus" column for that outcome is averting the potential open fighting between the US and European militaries.

Curious they're trying it. This always struck me as a workable idea in such things. With Diego Garcia it seemed an obvious course too yet wasn't taken.

I mean, America has the money to make every Greenlander a multi millionaire.
I expect there'd be many of them quite happy to sell their country in exchange for $10 million each.

Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2026, 01:35:22 PM

Quote from: HVC on January 09, 2026, 01:07:51 PMHave most European countries given up the draft? If so what are the odds of reinstating them? Thinking along the line of South Korean "real" training.

I believe the draft is coming back in a number of places.

That's good. Well, not good exactly, prudent? Hopefully it's they're effective training and not just filling barracks and numbers.

Another area to watch: ratification of the most recent EU-US trade deal

QuoteEU Parliament eyes freezing US trade deal over Trump's Greenland threats
Unpopular trade agreement could be blocked because of U.S. president's rhetoric on seizing Greenland.

BRUSSELS — Senior EU lawmakers want the European Parliament to freeze the EU-U.S. trade deal in response to Donald Trump's threats to take over Greenland.

The deal was deeply unpopular across party lines as it was seen as overwhelmingly favoring Washington, but European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen sold it as the price of keeping Trump onside. However, Trump ratcheted up his rhetoric this week, saying "we need Greenland from the standpoint of national security," and has repeatedly refused to rule out military intervention.

As a result, MEPs from the center-left, liberal, green, and left-wing groups say the deal should be blocked.

"I cannot imagine that in the current situation MEPs would vote for any trade measures benefiting the U.S.," the Greens' top trade lawmaker and chair of the Internal Market Committee Anna Cavazzini told POLITICO.

"We should have such a discussion, it's inevitable," added Brando Benifei, the Socialist lawmaker who chairs Parliament's delegation for relations with the U.S.

Under the deal, most EU exports are subject to a 15 percent U.S. tariff. To complete its side of the bargain, the EU also needs to pass legislation to abolish all tariffs on U.S. industrial goods, including the 10 percent it currently slaps on U.S. cars, and ease market access for some farm produce and seafood.

"If we are to give it the green light, we need guarantees that the U.S. will stop its tariffs and its security-related threats," said Renew's trade heavyweight Karin Karlsbro. "The United States cannot take the EU's support for the trade agreement for granted."

Danish MEP Per Clausen, of The Left group, has circulated a letter among all MEPs asking them to support his call for Parliament President Roberta Metsola to freeze parliamentary work on the deal. The deadline for adding signatures is Tuesday.

"If we accept this agreement while Trump is threatening the international order and making direct territorial claims against Denmark, it will be seen as rewarding his actions — and will only add fuel to the fire," Clausen said.

The biggest political group in the Parliament, the European People's Party (EPP), remains noncommittal.

"These are separate matters," said Željana Zovko, the group's negotiator on the U.S. file, when asked whether the Parliament should freeze the trade deal over Greenland.

The EPP's top trade MEP, Jörgen Warborn, left the door to blocking the trade deal ajar. While the EU "must preserve" the deal as a basis for stable transatlantic trade, he said, "we are ready to act if necessary."

But the EPP lacks the numbers to pass the deal with right-wing and far-right allies alone. A united front by the Socialists, Renew and the Greens would be enough to put the agreement on ice.

The Parliament's U.S. deal negotiators will meet on Wednesday to discuss next steps.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-parliament-eyes-freezing-us-trade-deal-over-donald-trump-greenland-threats/

Quote from: HVC on January 09, 2026, 05:55:58 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2026, 01:35:22 PM

Quote from: HVC on January 09, 2026, 01:07:51 PMHave most European countries given up the draft? If so what are the odds of reinstating them? Thinking along the line of South Korean "real" training.

I believe the draft is coming back in a number of places.

That's good. Well, not good exactly, prudent? Hopefully it's they're effective training and not just filling barracks and numbers.

It was always filling barracks and numbers.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 09, 2026, 06:54:29 PM

Quote from: HVC on January 09, 2026, 05:55:58 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 09, 2026, 01:35:22 PM

Quote from: HVC on January 09, 2026, 01:07:51 PMHave most European countries given up the draft? If so what are the odds of reinstating them? Thinking along the line of South Korean "real" training.

I believe the draft is coming back in a number of places.

That's good. Well, not good exactly, prudent? Hopefully it's they're effective training and not just filling barracks and numbers.

It was always filling barracks and numbers.

I'm hoping v2.0 is better. In a world where Europe doesn't have a reliable partner in America one would hope they would take the draft seriously. I mentioned Korea as an example. But perhaps that hope is misguided and naive. 

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 09, 2026, 01:50:38 PMThe issue is Euro armies have probably gone too far into the slider of quality vs quantity, basically. For things like securing the Baltics there's a kinetic power to having a lot of boots on the ground that isn't easily replicated with advanced weapon systems, highly advanced fighter/bombers, missile systems etc.

The U.S. also has moved that way versus where we were in the Cold War, obviously, but we still have 1.3m active duty, and 800k ready reserve. Some of the European armies are shockingly small in terms of manpower versus where they were in the late 1980s.

It's not that they need to go back to the Cold War level of manpower, mass conscription, etc, but they definitely need more guys under arms, no other way about it. They aren't going to weapon system spend their way into reliable self defense.

They should also learn that a lot of concrete and construction can slow a front down. Poland is building out huge walls of anti-tank barriers that have proven effective at preventing large scale offensives in the Ukraine war, I don't really know enough about what the border regions of the Baltics are like, but if they aren't doing what Poland is they need to be, and yesterday.

Edit to add: If Wikipedia is correct, the UK--one of the generally worse ran post-Cold War European countries, has 135,000 active duty and essentially a non-functional reserve system. That means the Brits have fewer guys ready to fight than Israel did before the Gaza War broke out.

Obviously Israel has more serious security concerns, but it's a tiny country in terms of both population and GDP, it's really not tremendously defensible how far back countries like Britain have neutered their defense capabilities.

I think it's worse than that in some respects.

In 1990 when we were clearly winning the Cold War the UK was still spending about 4% of GDP on defence. The current commitment is to get to 3.5% by 2035. The British Army of the Rhine in 1990 as part of our boots on the ground serious commitment to European defence was about 50,000 strong. The British Army currently has about 70,000 personnel and it's massively over-focused on various forms of "elite" forces/special forces type regiments (state conflict was over, it's all about non-state actors, that's our USP in the Atlantic alliace/how we demonstrate value to the Americans etc).

Having said that Britain wasn't primarily a land power even in the Cold War - but we were engaged in naval security. So just last month the First Sea Lord gave a speech and then an interview with the FT where he observed a 30% increase in Russian incursions into our waters in the last year. He added that for the first time since the end of the Second World War the UK is close to losing its advantage over Russia in the Atlantic.

I think that should still shape our approach - it's why I think minilateralism could be the best way with Europe working together. I think divvying up responsibility (especially as we now have all of Europe and not just the Western half) for defence would make sense (and be the best way of spending resources).

I think you're right - I think there's also a degree to which in the popular but also, I think catastrophically, the elite interpretation of the Cold War there's a lack of understanding of how it ended (in the UK I think there's something similar with WW2 and the Troubles). At any point after the war the idea that the USSR would dissolve peacefully, Germany would re-unite peacefully and the NATO and NATO would roll up into what was then Soviet territory would seem almost impossible. And perhaps because that outcome was so ulikely after it happened it became understood as inevitable - with limits to the understanding of how it was produced and the contingecies involved. I think that is a large part of what's led to Europe's problems that the miraculous - and miraculously positive - became inevitable. I'd also add you have that end of history reality in one part of the Europe ("bliss was it in that dawn to be alive") and in the other, with Russia, I think you can look at Tsarist Russia, USSR and now and see huge continuities of behaviour and attitudes.

I think it's why it's most extreme with the UK and Germany because I think we were the countries where there was most buy in into that narrative (very understandably from a - West - German perpsective). On a purely British perspective I think there has not been anywhere near the reckoning that we need over the fact that we lost in Iraq and had to be bailed out (having gone in very overconfident and billy big bollocks about teaching the Yanks about counter-insurgency etc).

I would add I'm not even sure it's a quality v quantity thing in that framing. In terms of deployable forces a lot of Europe is in a really bad way - France and the UK are currently the only two big European countries capable of deploying significant force. This is one of the reasons that the focus from the US hasn't just been defence spending but also spending on equipment (and I think training). I think that's going to take a while (I think thiswas an issue with some German equipment provided to Ukraine that it was basically degraded beyond the point of use).

Denmark should follow the French suggestion in hardening Greenland harbors and stationing dispersed troops to guard against any Trumpian sudden impulse. Also, be ready to knock out the 4 generators powering Pituffik/Thule.

Quote from: Legbiter on January 09, 2026, 09:31:08 PMDenmark should follow the French suggestion in hardening Greenland harbors and stationing dispersed troops to guard against any Trumpian sudden impulse. Also, be ready to knock out the 4 generators powering Pituffik/Thule.

Agreed

Denmark apparently reiterated the rule that its soldiers are to shoot first and ask questions later if 'events' happened...
?

I've seen this reported as well.

Britain and Germany seem to be cooking up a quick troop deployment to Greenland. Thinking about it, Trump likes quick photogenic military operations. He could fly 10.000 US troops into Thule tomorrow and declare it conquered (if the Canadians would let him) and Danish special forces stationed in Greenland would mortar the generators and otherwise harry the garrison.

The US would ideally seize the airport in the capital Nuuk, raise the the flag, mission accomplished and fly in extra troops immediately once the airport was secured. Easiest way to do that would be to trickle in soldiers via commercial flights disguised as whatever. 200 special forces to seize the airport and hold off the Nuuk police department would do it. So the focus has to be on forcing the Americans to concentrate forces off of Greenland if they want to invade it. Also to resist the enormous psychological warfare Finnish-style, that would accompany this action. :hmm:   

Sidenote, if the US invades Greenland we Nordics will have to form our own military Kalmar Union with a Swedish nuclear deterrent to secure our own freedom.

QuoteSidenote, if the US invades Greenland we Nordics will have to form our own military Kalmar Union with a Swedish nuclear deterrent to secure our own freedom.

The Nordics are The people in the world I'd trust most with nuclear weapons.

Quote from: mongers on January 13, 2026, 07:40:55 AM

QuoteSidenote, if the US invades Greenland we Nordics will have to form our own military Kalmar Union with a Swedish nuclear deterrent to secure our own freedom.

The Nordics are The people in the world I'd trust most with nuclear weapons.

You've clearly forgotten your nations early history :P

TheBrain will be the Nordic Oppenheimer.

Quote from: mongers on January 13, 2026, 07:40:55 AM

QuoteSidenote, if the US invades Greenland we Nordics will have to form our own military Kalmar Union with a Swedish nuclear deterrent to secure our own freedom.

The Nordics are The people in the world I'd trust most with nuclear weapons.

Not even the Brits?  :P

As for Sweden and the Nordic Nuclear Bomb, there were plans, if not well-known, at least known by the well-informed.

Quote from: Syt on January 13, 2026, 07:49:22 AMTheBrain will be the Nordic Oppenheimer.

Possibly.  :D

https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/20206339 (https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/20206339)

Quote

Quote

QuoteSidenote, if the US invades Greenland we Nordics will have to form our own military Kalmar Union with a Swedish nuclear deterrent to secure our own freedom.

The Nordics are The people in the world I'd trust most with nuclear weapons.

You've clearly forgotten your nations early history :P

:grin:

A comedian on the radio this weekend told a joke something along the lines of ..
"How come we've to the stage that there's no Scandinavian who'll be able to survive a night-out in Middlesborough"

 :P

Quote from: mongers on January 13, 2026, 07:40:55 AM

QuoteSidenote, if the US invades Greenland we Nordics will have to form our own military Kalmar Union with a Swedish nuclear deterrent to secure our own freedom.

The Nordics are The people in the world I'd trust most with nuclear weapons.

Clearly you have not met enough of us.  :sleep:

Quote

Quote

QuoteSidenote, if the US invades Greenland we Nordics will have to form our own military Kalmar Union with a Swedish nuclear deterrent to secure our own freedom.

The Nordics are The people in the world I'd trust most with nuclear weapons.

Not even the Brits?  :P

I don't think a UK only deterent is now credible, especially as I don't think the UK political establishment, labour included has the balls to stand-up to serious threats.
That's why throwing out lot in with the French makes more sense, one can rely on any French president, well all of the historical one*, to be lobbing nukes at Russia before their mobs reach the Rhine.
* D, I guess even you'd agree Machon can be relied upon to perform this vital 5th republic state function.  (https://languish.org/forums/Smileys/langsmiley/grin.gif)
 

Quote from: mongers on January 13, 2026, 09:16:27 AMI don't think a UK only deterent is now credible, especially as I don't think the UK political establishment, labour included has the balls to stand-up to serious threats.

Given the US influence on UK nukes, that's not just a Labour problem. Could have been worse with Jeremy Corbin though  :D I take it that the Tories are nowhere near what Maggie would have done, and let us not mention Reform or the Greens...

QuoteThat's why throwing out lot in with the French makes more sense, one can rely on any French president, well all of the historical one*, to be lobbing nukes at Russia before their mobs reach the Rhine.

* D, I guess even you'd agree Machon can be relied upon to perform this vital 5th republic state function.  (https://languish.org/forums/Smileys/langsmiley/grin.gif)
 

In the old days, it was supposed to be just just after an all-out crossing in force of the Elbe, not just when they arrived to Kehl.

I can't help but think Macron will try to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, as always (en même temps) before being forced to act.

Quote from: mongers on January 13, 2026, 09:09:03 AM

Quote

Quote

QuoteSidenote, if the US invades Greenland we Nordics will have to form our own military Kalmar Union with a Swedish nuclear deterrent to secure our own freedom.

The Nordics are The people in the world I'd trust most with nuclear weapons.

You've clearly forgotten your nations early history :P

:grin:

A comedian on the radio this weekend told a joke something along the lines of ..
"How come we've to the stage that there's no Scandinavian who'll be able to survive a night-out in Middlesborough"

 :P

Remember, when things get tough in scandyland they do have a tendency to go a raiding.

I'm seeing some reports about the UK, Germany, and France in "talks about deploying troops to Greenland" in order to dissuade Trump from his annexation threats.

It also seems the framing is "to keep Russia and China out". So the play is something like "see you don't need to annex Greenland to keep it safe, we've got this".

Any thoughts on this? Any insight from languishites following the public discourse in Germany, France, or the UK more closely?

To me it seems self-evident that Trump is not going to feel reassured, as the security part is just a pretext IMO. On the other hand, it seems like a pretty adroit way to increase the military presence near Greenland without escalating the tension.

That's a diplomatic way to frame it, with face saving, indeed.

I have not seen anything yet in France in the public discourse, besides France opening a consulate in Greenland. Nuuk, I suppose.
Last year, there were talks about sending some French troops to Greenland but nothing came of it.

Great in-depth interview about how Copenhagen views the Greenland standoff. It's hard not to agree with him that NATO is dead at this point.

I think Denmark's "NATO will be dead" is a very dangerous signal to send to Russia. Especially since the US doesn't comprehend the threat from Russia, so raising the stakes is unlikely to dissuade Washington.

What is wrong with making an obviously accurate statement?

Quote from: The Brain on January 13, 2026, 03:45:16 PMI think Denmark's "NATO will be dead" is a very dangerous signal to send to Russia. Especially since the US doesn't comprehend the threat from Russia, so raising the stakes is unlikely to dissuade Washington.

He plainly states at one point that NATO today is dead, not that it will be. He also went over what is likely to happen tomorrow at the White House meeting with  Vance and Rubio, the Danes and Greenlanders will be presented with a fait acompli the "easy way" as Trump put it, that is the US will take formal control of Greenland, locals get 10 grand each and a Mar-a-Lago voucher valid for 6 months. The Nordic delegation will plead to no avail and then leave. A firm no will then follow. Then the "hard way" will follow unless the US is sufficiently deterred from trying to forcibly seize Nuuk.

I seem to recall you had in your garage enough material for at least 30 warheads. Better go find that Allen key.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2026, 04:03:46 PMWhat is wrong with making an obviously accurate statement?

Telling Russia that the Baltic states won't be defended by their neighboring allies could tempt the Russians to try to grab them. And I don't think it is obviously accurate that European NATO countries will disregard their NATO commitments to their NATO neighbors.

For context - in case it's not being reported as much elsewhere - the Danish Foreign Minister is en route to the White House where he's apparently meeting Vance.

Reporting in Denmark suggests that this expected to be an inflection point.

I don't doubt that Vance will put forward an offer, attempt to hammer out the details of an agreement, and get some level of commitment from Denmark to move forward.

For his part, I'm assuming that Rasmussen communicate what he can about possible consequences from Europe.

Ultimately, though, the initiative lies with the Trump administration. Denmark is not going to "hand over" Greenland unless the "hard way" is indeed very compelling. At some point Trump may lay out what the hard way is - whether by suddenly doing it, or by making it explicit and setting some sort of deadline (however long or short).

Maybe Vance is going to lay out the "hard way" during this visit, though typically I'd expect that be incoherent and to come via social messages directly from Trump.

I saw a report on social media (so not sure how credible) that claimed that Trump had asked his Special Forces commander (I forget the proper title) to draw up plans for an invasion of Greenland, and that he'd received pushback - that it was dubiously legal, that it needs Congressional approval, and similar.

It makes sense to me that Trump would be emboldened from his success in Venezuela (though so far not much seems to have changed beyond for Maduro and his wife, has it?), and would want to repeat a similar operation in Greenland.

I'm still not quite sure how Special Operations is going to change the administration of Greenland.

Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2026, 05:07:46 PMI'm still not quite sure how Special Operations is going to change the administration of Greenland.

They will hammer a few American flags into the permafrost, occupy city hall and install portraits of the King of Venezuela.

VICTORY!

Quote from: The Brain on January 13, 2026, 04:44:12 PMAnd I don't think it is obviously accurate that European NATO countries will disregard their NATO commitments to their NATO neighbors.

Thankfully Ukraine is a shield against russia keeping them bogged down for now and for the forseeable future. But what needs to happen right now is European soldiers with arctic gear redeploying to Greenland to "protect against russian and Chinese threats" and then see how the US responds.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 13, 2026, 05:12:08 PMThey will hammer a few American flags into the permafrost, occupy city hall and install portraits of the King of Venezuela.

VICTORY!

Exactly. And then what?

Quote from: The Brain on January 13, 2026, 04:44:12 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2026, 04:03:46 PMWhat is wrong with making an obviously accurate statement?

Telling Russia that the Baltic states won't be defended by their neighboring allies could tempt the Russians to try to grab them. And I don't think it is obviously accurate that European NATO countries will disregard their NATO commitments to their NATO neighbors.

I think you have jumped a step or two.  How does a statement that NATO will necessarily end if the US attacks a NATO member lead to the statement that the Baltic states won't be defended by the neighouring allies? 

All you have is it is not obviously accurate.  But actually it is pretty damn obvious.

Why would anyone think Poland, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Canada, etc etc etc. would not defend the Baltic states? Canada and other European nations already have troops on the ground there.

I would shocked if Finland, Denmark, Sweden, and Poland would not support the Baltic states if they were attacked by Russia.

I'd expect Norway, France, and the UK to act as well, not to mention Germany. At the very least they'd provide air support, I think.

I'd hope you're right, but absent NATO what's the difference between the baltics states and Ukraine? This is nowhere my area of expertise so there are probably key differences I just don't personally know what they are

Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2026, 05:35:59 PMI would shocked if Finland, Denmark, Sweden, and Poland would not support the Baltic states if they were attacked by Russia.

I'd expect Norway, France, and the UK to act as well, not to mention Germany. At the very least they'd provide air support, I think.

It'd be interesting to see some updated polling since Ukraine and other recent shocks.

The polling on this prior to Ukraine was not that encouraging - this is from 2020.
(https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/02/PG_2020.02.09_NATO_0-03.png)

I think the shock of Ukraine and Trump II may have had an impact. For example, this is interesting to me because I think 2018 was absolutely key in hardening British attitudes to Russia (and dooming Corbyn) because that was the year of the Salisbury attack. That's been intensified with Ukraine but I suspect Ukrain has had that sort of impact across Europe:
(https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/02/PG_2020.02.09_NATO_0-09.png)

But also there is something odd about this moment. So historically in Europe support for NATO basically tended to be higher when more palatable Presidents were in charge. So it was upopular under Bush and popular uner Obama. NATO was also unpopular in Europe during Trump's first term (below 50% approval in France and Germany for example - above 50% in Britain but a big fall). I think that is because it was basically seen as the American and Atlantic European project. I wonder if that's shifted because of Ukraine and because it's now America that doesn't like it if it's becomeing Europeanised in public opinion as our thing?

Surprised by Netherlands in the first.

I love the Dutch :lol: Also admire their consistency.

I think also one of the earliest to start arming Ukraine (I think it was us, Canada, Netherlands and Denmark). I think they're very robust on security.

As I say I suspect all countries have probably seen a pretty big boost - but maybe not.

Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2026, 01:59:52 PMI'm seeing some reports about the UK, Germany, and France in "talks about deploying troops to Greenland" in order to dissuade Trump from his annexation threats.

They should go on a goodwill visit, and spread an awful lot of goodwill.

Or a "NATO training exercise", and just hang around for a while...3 years or so.

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 13, 2026, 06:05:33 PMOr a "NATO training exercise", and just hang around for a while...3 years or so.

That would probably require the approval of (or orders from) the US commander of NATO. :bureaucrat:

Or it wouldn't.

Congressman Randy Fine has introduced a bill regrading Greenland.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-fBbKPWEAAV-dy.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-icjRYbgAAjw8g?format=jpg&name=360x360)

A Greenlandic family could easily make it through winter with just half a Randy Fine. :hmm:

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2026, 05:58:29 PMI wonder if that's shifted because of Ukraine and because it's now America that doesn't like it if it's becomeing Europeanised in public opinion as our thing?

Canadians will yearn to join the EU to avoid being boxed in on all sides geostrategicially by the US. The rest of us will recite the Litany of the EU Sausage every night before bedtime as befits all good Eurocratic centrists before the year is out. :mellow:

Quote from: Legbiter on January 13, 2026, 04:12:59 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 13, 2026, 03:45:16 PMI think Denmark's "NATO will be dead" is a very dangerous signal to send to Russia. Especially since the US doesn't comprehend the threat from Russia, so raising the stakes is unlikely to dissuade Washington.

He plainly states at one point that NATO today is dead, not that it will be. He also went over what is likely to happen tomorrow at the White House meeting with  Vance and Rubio, the Danes and Greenlanders will be presented with a fait acompli the "easy way" as Trump put it, that is the US will take formal control of Greenland, locals get 10 grand each and a Mar-a-Lago voucher valid for 6 months. The Nordic delegation will plead to no avail and then leave. A firm no will then follow. Then the "hard way" will follow unless the US is sufficiently deterred from trying to forcibly seize Nuuk.

I seem to recall you had in your garage enough material for at least 30 warheads. Better go find that Allen key.

I can definitely see the argument that when allies have to send forces to act as a tripwire against you, then they're no longer your allies.  I do wonder though why NATO can't remain a thing without the US?  Obviously it wouldn't be nearly as effective of an alliance, but whole of Europe answering Article 5 should still be quite a deterrent, I would think.

Quote from: HVC on January 13, 2026, 05:40:05 PMI'd hope you're right, but absent NATO what's the difference between the baltics states and Ukraine? This is nowhere my area of expertise so there are probably key differences I just don't personally know what they are

I'm not sure what you mean by "absent NATO". I think what's under consideration is Baltics + local allies, where I think they have a pretty good chance. The Baltics on their own will likely be hooped if facing off against Russia by themselves.

But I expect enough European allies will take their NATO and EU defense commitments serious enough that that's not going to be the case, even if the US bails.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2026, 05:58:29 PMIt'd be interesting to see some updated polling since Ukraine and other recent shocks.

Yeah, I don't think polling from 2019-2020 is much more relevant than polling from 1974-1975

Last I checked, the Baltic states are part of the EU.

Article 42(7) TEU: If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

This is stronger than NATO's article V ("such action as [the member state] deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area").

Obligation > "deems necessary"

Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2026, 06:35:58 PMI can definitely see the argument that when allies have to send forces to act as a tripwire against you, then they're no longer your allies.  I do wonder though why NATO can't remain a thing without the US?  Obviously it wouldn't be nearly as effective of an alliance, but whole of Europe answering Article 5 should still be quite a deterrent, I would think.

There are some obvious practical things to be figured out in terms of both logistics and command & control, given how central the US has been to NATO - but yeah, I don't think all the European countries are going to renege on their mutual NATO commitments just because Trump decides to walk away.

Also, the EU has some mutual defense articles as well - this leaves out the UK, but I don't expect the UK will let that stop them necessarily.

Quote from: Legbiter on January 13, 2026, 06:16:58 PMCongressman Randy Fine has introduced a bill regrading Greenland.

Randy is not, in my view, fine.

QuoteA Greenlandic family could easily make it through winter with just half a Randy Fine. :hmm:

I think they'd prefer less contaminated food to be honest.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 13, 2026, 06:37:58 PMLast I checked, the Baltic states are part of the EU.

Article 42(7) TEU: If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

This is stronger than NATO's article V ("such action as [the member state] deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area").

Obligation > "deems necessary"

You've quoted the first sentence. The rest:

QuoteThis shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.

And the EU's own gloss on it - correctly - is that it's a mutual assistance clause. The requirement is "aid and assistance" not defence. "All other Member States have to provide assistance in response [...] this assistance can, for example, range from diplomatic support and technical or medical assistance to civilian or military aid." The nature of the assistance is case-by-case to reflect the cause and the member states responding.

Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2026, 06:43:13 PMAlso, the EU has some mutual defense articles as well - this leaves out the UK, but I don't expect the UK will let that stop them necessarily.

The EU doesn't have any mutual defence articles - as I say it's aid and assistance (similar to other provisions relating to terrorism or natural disaster).

In particular anything mutual defence is a red line for Ireland because of the constitutional commitment to neutrality (which I think some scholars argue doesn't really exist, but is a political article of faith). The first draft was a bit stronger. After Ireland rejected Lisbon one of the changes was to specifically call out that "certain Member States" have a specific character to their security policy.

But I think at that point they were also backed by Austria. It's still quite strongly felt in Ireland - not sure on Austria. Everyone (except the President) in Ireland is very supportive of Ukraine and would be very supportive of the Baltics but not in the context of an alliance or anything that compromises neutrality.

Edit: Actually sorry that's unfair because the Irish government makes the point that they're not neutral. They are very much on the side of Ukraine but are militarily neutral. So they'd absolutely provide aid and assistance but reject any treaty language about mutual defence - it comes up in basically every EU referendom (again mandatory because of the constitution).

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2026, 06:46:28 PMAnd the EU's own gloss on it - correctly - is that it's a mutual assistance clause. The requirement is "aid and assistance" not defence. "All other Member States have to provide assistance in response [...] this assistance can, for example, range from diplomatic support and technical or medical assistance to civilian or military aid." The nature of the assistance is case-by-case to reflect the cause and the member states responding.

For sure. And I am confident that countries like Hungary and Slovakia will do the absolute minimum they can do unless they have a change in governments between now and then.

But I expect Poland will help, for reasons of long term self-preservation. I expect the Nordics will help, both for reasons of principle and self-interest. I expect France will help for the sake of Europe, the Netherlands too. Germany and the UK I'm slightly less confident in, but I think they'd do the right thing.

... obviously this could change if the Musk supported Putin aligned populists take over in any one of those countries.

For the rest of the EU, I think some would answer in substance, some with gestures, and some would shrug it off like I expect Hungary and Slovakia will; but I think it's sufficient, but to some extent they may start looking at the national interest more when they're in power (depending on how compromised they are vs being genuine opportunists).

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2026, 06:51:12 PMThe EU doesn't have any mutual defence articles - as I say it's aid and assistance (similar to other provisions relating to terrorism or natural disaster).

In particular anything mutual defence is a red line for Ireland because of the constitutional commitment to neutrality (which I think some scholars argue doesn't really exist, but is a political article of faith). The first draft was a bit stronger. After Ireland rejected Lisbon one of the changes was to specifically call out that "certain Member States" have a specific character to their security policy.

But I think at that point they were also backed by Austria. It's still quite strongly felt in Ireland - not sure on Austria. Everyone (except the President) in Ireland is very supportive of Ukraine and would be very supportive of the Baltics but not in the context of an alliance or anything that compromises neutrality.

I don't think Ireland and Austria are key to an unaided-by-the-US defense of the Baltics  :lol:

Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2026, 06:56:47 PMI don't think Ireland and Austria are key to an unaided-by-the-US defense of the Baltics  :lol:

I totally agree. My point is just that there is nothing in the EU treaties like Article 5 and there are no defence obligations anywhere in the EU treaties.

QuoteBut I expect Poland will help, for reasons of long term self-preservation. I expect the Nordics will help, both for reasons of principle and self-interest. I expect France will help for the sake of Europe, the Netherlands too. Germany and the UK I'm slightly less confident in, but I think they'd do the right thing.

... obviously this could change if the Musk supported Putin aligned populists take over in any one of those countries.

This is where I think that polling might still be relevant because I wonder just how much it reflects a social willingness/openness to the idea of deploying military force to be used and young men and women to go and die (I'd add from a UK perspective I do worry about the sentimentalisation of the armed forces and veterans - I don't think it's healthy for what the armed forces are there for). So for that reason I am least sure about Germany. I think the countries most likely to help would be Poland, Nordics, UK, Netherlands (the countries that responded quickest on Ukraine - interestingly also a lot of countries that joined the US in Iraq). I think France absolutely would help but would probably try to do it at a European level first (and also France is a country that has recently deployed soldiers in their own war on terror in the Sahel).

I could be totally wrong but I think it would take some time on Germany to move from outrage to willingness to deploy forces, face casualties and also fighting Russians. I think Germany's doing the right things (ponderously) on defence and infrastructure spending and I hope that would serve as a deterent - I think the gap from that to utilising force would not be a quick or easy thing to overcome.

Edit: And at the other extreme of willingness to deploy forces and see young men and women you have Russia who doesn't give a single fuck.

QuoteFor the rest of the EU, I think some would answer in substance, some with gestures, and some would shrug it off like I expect Hungary and Slovakia will; but I think it's sufficient, but to some extent they may start looking at the national interest more when they're in power (depending on how compromised they are vs being genuine opportunists).

I think this is where there are some questions - in many ways reflecting the issues with NATO.

So, for example, Spain in public opinion is one of the most supportive countries in the EU towards Ukraine. In material aid I think it's contributed the least of the big countries. I think their foreign secretary recently said the EU needs to stop talking and start acting and supported ideas of a European army. His government has one of the lowest rates of defence spending in Europe.

Bluntly I think one of the challenges in thinking about European defence is avoiding it just being a change of venue for freeloading.

Freeriding!  :ultra:  :weep:

Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2026, 05:21:05 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 13, 2026, 05:12:08 PMThey will hammer a few American flags into the permafrost, occupy city hall and install portraits of the King of Venezuela.

VICTORY!

Exactly. And then what?

The Greenlanders get to enjoy the same ease and luxury that comes with being an Alaskan Inuit.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-j2otsWcAAcguX?format=jpg&name=small)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-j22xXXEAEjt4G?format=png&name=360x360)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-j3U5mWkAA2FSF?format=jpg&name=360x360)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-j4YUdWQAAS55Q?format=jpg&name=360x360)

*Trump steaks not included*

Quote from: Legbiter on January 13, 2026, 06:16:58 PMCongressman Randy Fine has introduced a bill regrading Greenland.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-fBbKPWEAAV-dy.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-icjRYbgAAjw8g?format=jpg&name=360x360)

A Greenlandic family could easily make it through winter with just half a Randy Fine. :hmm:

I for one welcome Viking raiders carrying off our Republican congressmen and eating them.

Sheilbh, doesn't "by all means in their power" mean military involvement? I don't speak legalese.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 13, 2026, 07:53:45 PMSheilbh, doesn't "by all means in their power" mean military involvement? I don't speak legalese.

The obligation is for "aid and assistance". They deliver that through "all means in their power". If the aid and assistance they choose to send is diplomatic support then all means in their power in delivering that form of aid and assistance.

Also it's worth noting it's not really the sort of provision of EU law that could be policed or enforced in any meaningful way so it is to an extent in the eye of the beholder. That's not a criticism - I think it's a constructive ambiguity. This is, I think, Monnet's point about crisis - in the right crisis with the right leaders in key countries this could be a galvanising and important article. In the wrong crisis with the wrong leaders it could be utterly empty.

 :shutup:

Let's join the EU, all of us.

I don't think honouring an alliance hinges on the specific language of the obligation, but on a combination of political will and ability.

Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2026, 08:11:34 PMI don't think honouring an alliance hinges on the specific language of the obligation, but on a combination of political will and ability.

I agree. We saw that with the Budapest Memorandum. And thanks Sheilbh for the explanation.  :cheers:

Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2026, 08:11:34 PMI don't think honouring an alliance hinges on the specific language of the obligation, but on a combination of political will and ability.

Again this is a technicality - but the EU is not an alliance. It contains states that are committed to neutrality. This is part of the reason it's an uneasy alternative for NATO which exists purely as a military alliance to keep the Russians out.

But I totally agree. Same as constitutions for that matter (which is the way of thinking about the treaties). The possibilities depend on the political will and ability, and the constraints rely on the sense of restraint, of the operators of the system (and, perhaps, the pressure from below?). Like poetry, treaties and constitutions make nothing happen. It's the state of mind that matters.

Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2026, 05:21:05 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 13, 2026, 05:12:08 PMThey will hammer a few American flags into the permafrost, occupy city hall and install portraits of the King of Venezuela.

VICTORY!

Exactly. And then what?

You saw the victory part, right?  We win!  USA! USA!

Regarding the Baltic States - aren't international NATO troops already there? Even if currently small contingents and NATO unwilling to defend the Baltics, they would be in the firing line if the Russians roll in.

Yes, I already made that point, we already have troops on the ground in the Baltic states.

Denmark is reinforcing Greenland with more troops. Problem is a lot of their manpower is deployed in Latvia. The Nordics and Canada should chip in as well. To guard against any threats from China and russia of course...

Trump sure is a threat from Russian and China

Yeah. Word is that multinational forces are slated to go to Greenland with our increased national presence.

Our Foreign Minister and a representative of the Greenland government is meeting with Rubio and Vance today at the WH. With Vance there, it's hard to imagine anything useful being done, so looks like we're heading for a confrontation. Our days as a sympathetic and staunch ally are definitely over.

I definitely feel stupid shouting down anti-americanism here the last couple of decades.

Anti-Americanism was stupid af few decades ago, back when they were relatively sane and the anti-americans were supporters of the enemies of the west.

Now the multipolar world the anti-americans have wished for is here and they'll soon learn that the world is unsafer for it

Quote from: bogh on January 14, 2026, 09:13:01 AMYeah. Word is that multinational forces are slated to go to Greenland with our increased national presence.

Our Foreign Minister and a representative of the Greenland government is meeting with Rubio and Vance today at the WH. With Vance there, it's hard to imagine anything useful being done, so looks like we're heading for a confrontation. Our days as a sympathetic and staunch ally are definitely over.

Vance is there to harangue, "sign this right now" in his chud way. Also, the Swedes should send a couple of subs to patrol as well. Make sure the Chinese don't try anything sudden.

Quote from: bogh on January 14, 2026, 09:13:01 AMYeah. Word is that multinational forces are slated to go to Greenland with our increased national presence.

Our Foreign Minister and a representative of the Greenland government is meeting with Rubio and Vance today at the WH. With Vance there, it's hard to imagine anything useful being done, so looks like we're heading for a confrontation. Our days as a sympathetic and staunch ally are definitely over.

I definitely feel stupid shouting down anti-americanism here the last couple of decades.

Hopefully they wear nice suits

To be honest our foreign minister looks a bit hoboish.

It's a good idea: nato should say they are deploying more troops to address Trump's concern over a hostile takeover of Greenland.

Quote from: bogh on January 14, 2026, 10:40:56 AMTo be honest our foreign minister looks a bit hoboish.

That's okay, it's not like Vance is a looker.

Well, it's official from the Swedish side.

"Några officerare från den svenska Försvarsmakten anländer idag till Grönland. De ingår i en grupp från flera allierade länder."

https://x.com/SwedishPM/status/2011469780729868447 (https://x.com/SwedishPM/status/2011469780729868447)

Quote from: Legbiter on January 14, 2026, 11:33:45 AMWell, it's official from the Swedish side.

"Några officerare från den svenska Försvarsmakten anländer idag till Grönland. De ingår i en grupp från flera allierade länder."

https://x.com/SwedishPM/status/2011469780729868447 (https://x.com/SwedishPM/status/2011469780729868447)

Good to see, but also bad as it's very likely trump is or was on the verge of his Greatest Stupidity Yet.

Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2026, 06:36:09 PM

Quote from: HVC on January 13, 2026, 05:40:05 PMI'd hope you're right, but absent NATO what's the difference between the baltics states and Ukraine? This is nowhere my area of expertise so there are probably key differences I just don't personally know what they are

I'm not sure what you mean by "absent NATO". I think what's under consideration is Baltics + local allies, where I think they have a pretty good chance. The Baltics on their own will likely be hooped if facing off against Russia by themselves.

But I expect enough European allies will take their NATO and EU defense commitments serious enough that that's not going to be the case, even if the US bails.

Sorry, by absent I mean if nato was to fall/dissolve.

The scenario as I understood it is that with NATO gone the surrounding countries would still defend the baltics amd i was unconvinced,  but not strongly so.

Quote from: HVC on January 14, 2026, 11:59:34 AMSorry, by absent I mean if nato was to fall/dissolve.

The scenario as I understood it is that with NATO gone the surrounding countries would still defend the baltics amd i was unconvinced,  but not strongly so.

Okay sure. But when people speak about "the end of NATO" what they mean - I think - is that our understanding of NATO is gone because the US has abandoned it. That we cannot count on the US in any shape or form. It does not automatically mean that the rest of the countries dissolve it and go "huh, I guess we aren't allied anymore".

I expect, in fact, that the non-US countries will recommit to their alliance (maybe with a few defectors, who knows) for reasons of self-interest. But who knows.

Danish news is leading with this video: https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/udland/reels/loekke-fejrer-overstaaet-moede-med-fist-bump-og-faelles-smoeg

The Danish delegation sharing a fist bump and smoke after meeting in the White House.

... though no actual statements about the content of the meeting yet.

Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2026, 12:39:55 PMDanish news is leading with this video: https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/udland/reels/loekke-fejrer-overstaaet-moede-med-fist-bump-og-faelles-smoeg

The Danish delegation sharing a fist bump and smoke after meeting in the White House.

I think they're going to find out that an agreement with trumps America is only good for as long as it takes you to walk out of the meeting rooms door.

Quote from: HVC on January 14, 2026, 12:54:17 PMI think they're going to find out that an agreement with trumps America is only good for as long as it takes you to walk out of the meeting rooms door.

I don't think that's news  :lol:

My understanding of the strategy with Trump is to kick the can down the road as much as possible and avoid irreversible breakdowns.

If Denmark came out of this with a "okay, what you said makes sense (for now)" that's about as best-case a scenario as can be reasonably expected.

Quote from: Syt on January 14, 2026, 12:20:50 AMRegarding the Baltic States - aren't international NATO troops already there? Even if currently small contingents and NATO unwilling to defend the Baltics, they would be in the firing line if the Russians roll in.

Germany has stationed a panzer brigade near the Suwalki Gap in Lithuania now with currently about 2000 soldiers, meant to grow to 4500-5000 and 100 armoured vehicles by next year. That's the biggest foreign deployment since 1945. The UK, Canada, Italy, and France have substantial deployments in the Baltics or the Balkans

Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2026, 01:14:47 PM

Quote from: HVC on January 14, 2026, 12:54:17 PMI think they're going to find out that an agreement with trumps America is only good for as long as it takes you to walk out of the meeting rooms door.

I don't think that's news  :lol:

My understanding of the strategy with Trump is to kick the can down the road as much as possible and avoid irreversible breakdowns.

If Denmark came out of this with a "okay, what you said makes sense (for now)" that's about as best-case a scenario as can be reasonably expected.

True enough. Sometimes that the best way to deal with a toddler.

Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2026, 12:39:55 PMDanish news is leading with this video: https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/udland/reels/loekke-fejrer-overstaaet-moede-med-fist-bump-og-faelles-smoeg

The Danish delegation sharing a fist bump and smoke after meeting in the White House.

Looks very much like the best case outcome.  A joint statement full of nonsense that allows Cheetoh to claim VICTORY then his tiny T Rex brain wanders off to the next shiny toy.

Question for the Yuros/Scandis/Danes: in current smoking  culture is handing your lighter over instead of lighting the other guy's cigarette good manners or kind of a snub?  Two German girls taught me in high school to always light the other person and I've lived by that ever since.

I've always lit the other person's cigarette. But it has been a while.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2026, 01:29:26 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2026, 12:39:55 PMDanish news is leading with this video: https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/udland/reels/loekke-fejrer-overstaaet-moede-med-fist-bump-og-faelles-smoeg

The Danish delegation sharing a fist bump and smoke after meeting in the White House.

Looks very much like the best case outcome.  A joint statement full of nonsense that allows Cheetoh to claim VICTORY then his tiny T Rex brain wanders off to the next shiny toy.

Question for the Yuros/Scandis/Danes: in current smoking  culture is handing your lighter over instead of lighting the other guy's cigarette good manners or kind of a snub?  Two German girls taught me in high school to always light the other person and I've lived by that ever since.

It's a snub, but so few people smoke these days. Always light a woman's cig, though.

The instances where handing over the lighter are okay are limited, and include, but are not limited to, in a) snowstorms in the mountains, b) during heavy rain and wind when lighting a cigarette is nigh on impossible except inside a parka and c) when you are driving.

So a high level working group to explore options, but still unchanged opinions on both sides.

I doubt this will survive Vance bringing it back to the boss.

Quote from: bogh on January 14, 2026, 02:22:05 PMSo a high level working group to explore options, but still unchanged opinions on both sides.

I doubt this will survive Vance bringing it back to the boss.

Yeah, I could be wrong but I think sending Vance is precisely intended to line it up to fail.

See his behaviour to Zelensky or his speech on Europe - I think he's very aligned to the really ideological hostility to modern Europe (like in the NSS).

Quote from: Norgy on January 14, 2026, 02:08:56 PMIt's a snub, but so few people smoke these days. Always light a woman's cig, though.

The instances where handing over the lighter are okay are limited, and include, but are not limited to, in a) snowstorms in the mountains, b) during heavy rain and wind when lighting a cigarette is nigh on impossible except inside a parka and c) when you are driving.

I don't read it a snub. Motzfeldt is there not as a woman but as a representative of Greenland. Solicitous behaviour that could be seen as patronizing might carry it's own risk.

That said, it strikes me as a pretty personal "holy shit it's done, I need a cig" type moment rather than significant gesture. That said, I'm not a smoker.

I also note that Rasmussen offers Motzfeldt a drag of his own lit cigarette inside the car, which to me suggests a level of closeness.

But in terms of substance, it seems like nothing has really changed. Which is not good, but also not bad.

Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2026, 03:09:06 PM

Quote from: Norgy on January 14, 2026, 02:08:56 PMIt's a snub, but so few people smoke these days. Always light a woman's cig, though.

The instances where handing over the lighter are okay are limited, and include, but are not limited to, in a) snowstorms in the mountains, b) during heavy rain and wind when lighting a cigarette is nigh on impossible except inside a parka and c) when you are driving.

I don't read it a snub. Motzfeldt is there not as a woman but as a representative of Greenland. Solicitous behaviour that could be seen as patronizing might carry it's own risk.

That said, it strikes me as a pretty personal "holy shit it's done, I need a cig" type moment rather than significant gesture. That said, I'm not a smoker.

I also note that Rasmussen offers Motzfeldt a drag of his own lit cigarette inside the car, which to me suggests a level of closeness.

It's glorious... but deadly. Like the best things in life :lol:

That being said my experience when I was a smoker was the opposite of Norge. Offer a lighter in good weather and light off a cigarette in shitty windy weather.

So if trump stages a invasion, well at least sends in troop that'll look good on the domestic news channels, it's now quite likely that European soldiers will die and so probably some Americans too.

What next?

Who calls it a war first?

What do Europeans and Canadian governments do in reaction?


FWIW Even if trump and/or his pet US congress 'declares' war in some way, then I think we should declare we are at war with trump and his conies, sanction them, put bounties on their heads, but make it clear we are not at war with the American people.

This would be a first step in sowing dissent and unrest within the USA, a necessary policy as the US naval and military forces can't be defeated. Hopefully a few loose threads within those institutions could be picked at, with the aim of getting some in the officer classes to refuse to fight, maybe offer them asylum etc?

If that also means really helping the fault-lines between American political classes to widen, then it's a necessary small evil.  But by the time this reckless buffoon is ordering the killing of allied soldiers and invaded peaceful lands, cheered on by the moronic section of US society, then the USA has to be remade anyway by, what's the word, 'the decent people' of America.

I think we are a bit away from Trump ordering an actual attack, but I suppose time will tell.

Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2026, 03:27:49 PMI think we are a bit away from Trump ordering an actual attack, but I suppose time will tell.

Nearer a figure in weeks, rather than months I'd wager.

Quote from: HVC on January 14, 2026, 03:14:46 PMOffer a lighter in good weather

Plebe.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2026, 03:44:24 PM

Quote from: HVC on January 14, 2026, 03:14:46 PMOffer a lighter in good weather

Plebe.

What if it's a fancy lighter? :D

Quote from: HVC on January 14, 2026, 03:50:28 PMWhat if it's a fancy lighter? :D

Clueless nouveau riche ;)                                                                 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2026, 03:52:55 PM

Quote from: HVC on January 14, 2026, 03:50:28 PMWhat if it's a fancy lighter? :D

Clueless nouveau riche ;)                                                                 

But I liked my zippo lighter :cry: I mean not exactly bougie but better then a bic.

Besides the real reason you hand over your cig is because you're afraid they'll steal your lighter :D Bics go bye bye. People at least give back zippos.

Quote from: HVC on January 14, 2026, 04:00:18 PMBut I liked my zippo lighter :cry: I mean not exactly bougie but better then a bic.

Besides the real reason you hand over your cig is because you're afraid they'll steal your lighter :D Bics go bye bye. People at least give back zippos.

Zippos are cool. Expensive lighters are cool. Sean Connery showed us.

People pocketing your bic is uncool.

But you lighting their smoke takes care of that.:contract:

I don't like the flavor that the lighter fluid in Zippos give to a smoke.  :x

Quote from: Sophie Scholl on January 14, 2026, 04:06:54 PMI don't like the flavor that the lighter fluid in Zippos give to a smoke.  :x

Sometimes you need to suffer for style.

So far Sweden, Norway and Germany have announced personnel going to Greenland. I expect more will follow.

Danish soldiers have been instructed to resist if they attacked.

Imagine what we could have spent our time and resources on instead of this nonsense. So idiotic, everyone having to pretend there some rationale or meaning behind this.

Quote from: bogh on January 14, 2026, 04:13:25 PMSo far Sweden, Norway and Germany have announced personnel going to Greenland. I expect more will follow.

Danish soldiers have been instructed to resist if they attacked.

Imagine what we could have spent our time and resources on instead of this nonsense. So idiotic, everyone having to pretend there some rationale or meaning behind this.

I doubt the US military will go ahead with this.  There will be pushback.

Quote from: bogh on January 14, 2026, 04:13:25 PMSo far Sweden, Norway and Germany have announced personnel going to Greenland. I expect more will follow.

According to our state broadcaster, the massive reinforcement is two (2), deux, zwei, dos, dois, to people.  :uffda:
You are: Welcome. Plz send red hot dogs.

The US will want to move in before the international reinforcements arrive, so it's very soon now, probably a few days after they start a new war with Iran.

Quote from: Norgy on January 14, 2026, 04:22:40 PMAccording to our state broadcaster, the massive reinforcement is two (2), deux, zwei, dos, dois, to people.  :uffda:
You are: Welcome. Plz send red hot dogs.

My understanding is that most of the people going right now are there to pave the way for actual troops being sent. They're some kind of logistics/ planning officers most likely.

Quote from: Tamas on January 14, 2026, 04:28:14 PMThe US will want to move in before the international reinforcements arrive, so it's very soon now, probably a few days after they start a new war with Iran.

You think that's how it's going to play out? The US starts a war with Iran in the next couple of day, followed by an invasion of Greenland inside the week?

Quote from: Norgy on January 14, 2026, 04:22:40 PM

Quote from: bogh on January 14, 2026, 04:13:25 PMSo far Sweden, Norway and Germany have announced personnel going to Greenland. I expect more will follow.

According to our state broadcaster, the massive reinforcement is two (2), deux, zwei, dos, dois, to people.  :uffda:
You are: Welcome. Plz send red hot dogs.

Sometimes tripwires work better if they're quite thin.

Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2026, 04:28:28 PM

Quote from: Norgy on January 14, 2026, 04:22:40 PMAccording to our state broadcaster, the massive reinforcement is two (2), deux, zwei, dos, dois, to people.  :uffda:
You are: Welcome. Plz send red hot dogs.

My understanding is that most of the people going right now are there to pave the way for actual troops being sent. They're some kind of logistics/ planning officers most likely.

I think that's a mistake. In this case they should follow to trump way and act first, figure it out later. Send the troops and then the planners... or send them at the same time.

Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2026, 03:09:36 PMBut in terms of substance, it seems like nothing has really changed. Which is not good, but also not bad.

Wonder if the other European leaders should have gone?

Just thinking of the approach with Ukraine since the ambush of Zelensky in the Oval Office where it seems like the strategy is basically not to leave him on isolated with the Americans so all the subsequent meetings either have him with Macron, Merz and Starmer - or those three fly to DC immediately after any meeting with Zelensky.

It's not a great look for Europe but I think it is the best way of managing the risk to Ukraine - and has, so far, been relatively effective. On the other hand I wonder if from a Danish and Greenlander perspective it kind of concedes that the point that sovereignty is in play?

Quote from: bogh on January 14, 2026, 04:13:25 PMImagine what we could have spent our time and resources on instead of this nonsense. So idiotic, everyone having to pretend there some rationale or meaning behind this.

This

As a strategy of distraction to get people to forget about the Epstein files, it has been remarkably successful.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2026, 04:40:05 PMOn the other hand I wonder if from a Danish and Greenlander perspective it kind of concedes that the point that sovereignty is in play?

That's the decision tree.  Do you defy Trump, which saves your dignity and pride, or do you kiss his ass and give him an exit ramp which yields a presumably better outcome?

Kissing his ass never seems like a good long-term solution. He seems to then take it as permission to keep abusing the person/country/situation. Better to stand up to him in a calm, but forceful manner.

Quote from: bogh on January 14, 2026, 04:13:25 PMSo far Sweden, Norway and Germany have announced personnel going to Greenland. I expect more will follow.

Danish soldiers have been instructed to resist if they attacked.

Imagine what we could have spent our time and resources on instead of this nonsense. So idiotic, everyone having to pretend there some rationale or meaning behind this.

Le Monde reports French participation, chasseurs alpins.

https://www.lemonde.fr/international/live/2026/01/14/en-direct-groenland-la-france-va-envoyer-des-soldats-sur-place-pour-un-exercice-le-danemark-acte-un-desaccord-fondamental-avec-les-etats-unis_6662225_3210.html (https://www.lemonde.fr/international/live/2026/01/14/en-direct-groenland-la-france-va-envoyer-des-soldats-sur-place-pour-un-exercice-le-danemark-acte-un-desaccord-fondamental-avec-les-etats-unis_6662225_3210.html)

So far, it's only military exercises. For diplomatic reasons I guess.

With more to come, regularly.
P-S : no mention in the coming months, my bad.

I feel like it's a mistake to think in a multiple months time frame on this.

Quote from: Sophie Scholl on January 14, 2026, 04:54:46 PMKissing his ass never seems like a good long-term solution. He seems to then take it as permission to keep abusing the person/country/situation. Better to stand up to him in a calm, but forceful manner.

Disagree.  Micrsoft gives him a GOLDEN plaque and he lays off.  Trading partners prostrate themselves in the White House and get a  break.

People with leverage can and should defy him. The Senate  collectively has leverage because they can impeach him.  Denmark individually and Europe collectively have no leverage.  Protestors in Minnesota have no leverage.

Quote from: Sophie Scholl on January 14, 2026, 04:54:46 PMKissing his ass never seems like a good long-term solution. He seems to then take it as permission to keep abusing the person/country/situation. Better to stand up to him in a calm, but forceful manner.

To be honest, aside from building up your own defence capacity, I don't think there is ever a long-term solution with Trump.

I think it is ass-kissy but I do think the way the Europeans have tried to manage the relationship around Ukraine has broadly been "so far, so good". I think it is frankly humiliating to see the British PM, French President and German Chancellor paying court to Trump every time he's speaks to Zelensky or after any call he's had with Putin (and having to do pre-meets and de-briefs every time). But I think it's the best option in a very bad situation and has so far, I think, worked about as well as you could hope for.

Quote from: HVC on January 14, 2026, 04:30:43 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 14, 2026, 04:28:28 PM

Quote from: Norgy on January 14, 2026, 04:22:40 PMAccording to our state broadcaster, the massive reinforcement is two (2), deux, zwei, dos, dois, to people.  :uffda:
You are: Welcome. Plz send red hot dogs.

My understanding is that most of the people going right now are there to pave the way for actual troops being sent. They're some kind of logistics/ planning officers most likely.

I think that's a mistake. In this case they should follow to trump way and act first, figure it out later. Send the troops and then the planners... or send them at the same time.

then lets be really bold and drop them in the White House and Maralago. Maybe parade the fascos out too

Quote from: HVC on January 14, 2026, 04:30:43 PMI think that's a mistake. In this case they should follow to trump way and act first, figure it out later. Send the troops and then the planners... or send them at the same time.

That makes no sense. The troops will need to be supplied. Sending troops into situations where they can't be supplied will be - at best - an embarrassment and a PR disaster.

The US does the same, it's simply that it has built up more capacity to do so faster (in some cases) and at larger scale; and that the planning element is usually overshadowed by the the big dog and pony PR show of the actual application of military force (which isn't applicable here).

Quote from: bogh on January 14, 2026, 04:13:25 PMSo far Sweden, Norway and Germany have announced personnel going to Greenland. I expect more will follow.

Danish soldiers have been instructed to resist if they attacked.

Imagine what we could have spent our time and resources on instead of this nonsense.

Having to Baltic-tripwire Greenland to protect against an American attack is a new reality yeah. So far Norway has lucked out in that the burgers are too uneducated to know of the existence of Svalbard and the arrangement Norway has with the russians there. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2026, 05:14:35 PM

Quote from: Sophie Scholl on January 14, 2026, 04:54:46 PMKissing his ass never seems like a good long-term solution. He seems to then take it as permission to keep abusing the person/country/situation. Better to stand up to him in a calm, but forceful manner.

Disagree.  Micrsoft gives him a GOLDEN plaque and he lays off.  Trading partners prostrate themselves in the White House and get a  break.

People with leverage can and should defy him. The Senate  collectively has leverage because they can impeach him.  Denmark individually and Europe collectively have no leverage.  Protestors in Minnesota have no leverage.

Both Europe and Minnesotans have plenty of leverage.

There was a mention about a joint "working group". If done right that should deliver it's preliminary findings in about 90 years.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2026, 05:14:35 PMThe Senate  collectively has leverage because they can impeach him. 

[quibble] The House impeaches, the Senate tries the case.[/quibble] :smarty:

Apparently the Defence Secretary, in Kyiv on a visit, has confirmed UK is assisting the Danish military in Greenland. I assume like the Norwegians one or two for recon and planning at this point?

Netherlands and Canada are sending troops as well.

Other than Poland, those are basically the countries I'd expect would defend the Baltics if the Russians attack.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 14, 2026, 07:12:23 PMBoth Europe and Minnesotans have plenty of leverage.

What does that leverage consist of?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2026, 10:54:09 PMWhat does that leverage consist of?

It depends what you mean by leverage, since Trump is kind of a sociopath and doesn't respond to normal social cues and pressure.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2026, 05:14:35 PMProtestors in Minnesota have no leverage.

The Boston Tea Party had no leverage against the British.

But, it led to something, eventually.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 14, 2026, 10:57:53 PMIt depends what you mean by leverage, since Trump is kind of a sociopath and doesn't respond to normal social cues and pressure.

Generic leverage.  Something that  would cause him to alter what he would otherwise do.

https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3945

QuoteIn the wake of U.S. threats of military action against Iran if protesters there are killed while demonstrating against the Iranian government, 70 percent of voters think the U.S. should not get involved, while 18 percent think the U.S. should take military action against Iran, and 12 percent did not offer an opinion, according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national poll of registered voters released today.

Independents (80 - 11 percent), Democrats (79 - 7 percent), and Republicans (53 - 35 percent) think the U.S. should not get involved if protesters in Iran are killed while demonstrating against the Iranian government.

MILITARY ACTION & CONGRESS
Voters 70 - 24 percent think that, in general, if a president decides to take military action against another country, they should first receive approval from Congress.

There are differences along political party lines.

Democrats (95 - 2 percent) and independents (78 - 18 percent) think a president should first receive approval from Congress, while Republicans (54 - 35 percent) think a president should not.

"Talk of the U.S. military potentially intervening in Iran's internal chaos gets a vigorous thumbs down, while voters signal Congressional approval should be a backstop against military involvement in any foreign crisis,"
said Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy.

VENEZUELA
Voters are divided on the Trump administration's decision to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and bring them to the United States to face drug trafficking charges, as 47 percent support the decision, while 45 percent oppose it.

Republicans (85 - 7 percent) support the decision, while Democrats (79 - 11 percent) oppose it. Independents are divided, with 45 percent supporting it and 47 percent opposing it.

Voters 53 - 41 percent do not think the Trump administration is providing a clear explanation of the reasons behind the United States' actions against Venezuela.

Voters 57 - 35 percent oppose the United States running Venezuela until it is satisfied that the government there will operate the way the U.S. wants it to.

Voters 73 - 21 percent oppose the United States sending ground troops into Venezuela in order to control the country.

Voters 55 - 38 percent oppose the U.S. taking over Venezuela's oil sales.

Voters are split on whether they think the U.S. actions in Venezuela will improve the lives of everyday Venezuelans, as 45 percent think they will improve their lives, 44 percent do not think so, and 11 percent did not offer an opinion.

"Voters are divided on the merits of overthrowing Maduro. And while split on whether in the long run, the people of Venezuela will be better off, they strongly disapprove of America's temporary domain over Venezuela and are heartily against putting U.S. troops on the ground,"
added Malloy.

GREENLAND
In the wake of discussions about the United States trying to either buy Greenland or use military force to take control of it, voters say:

86 - 9 percent they would oppose the United States trying to take Greenland by military force;
55 - 37 percent they would oppose the United States trying to buy Greenland.

MEXICO & COLOMBIA
Voters 57 - 37 percent would oppose the United States taking military action to attack suspected illegal drug facilities in Mexico, if this meant acting without the permission of the Mexican government.

Voters 55 - 36 percent would oppose the United States taking military action to attack suspected illegal drug facilities in Colombia, if this meant acting without the permission of the Colombian government.

TRUMP JOB APPROVALS
Forty percent of voters approve of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president, while 54 percent disapprove, unchanged from Quinnipiac University's December 17, 2025 and October 22, 2025 polls.

Voters were asked about Trump's handling of:

his job as Commander in Chief of the U.S. military: 43 percent approve, while 53 percent disapprove;
the economy: 42 percent approve, while 53 percent disapprove;
U.S. policy toward Venezuela: 41 percent approve, while 52 percent disapprove;
foreign policy: 41 percent approve, while 56 percent disapprove.

U.S. IN THE WORLD
Half of voters (50 percent) think, under Donald Trump, America's moral authority in the world has gotten weaker, 34 percent think it has gotten stronger, and 13 percent think it has remained about the same.

Forty-six percent of voters think, under Donald Trump, America's leadership in the world has gotten weaker, 42 percent think it has gotten stronger, and 10 percent think it has remained about the same.

Voters 52 - 38 percent do not think it's in the national interest of the United States to expand its power in the western hemisphere, with 10 percent not offering an opinion.

Nearly 9 out of 10 voters (88 percent) think, in general, the United States should work with other nations to solve problems, while 7 percent think the United States should work alone to solve problems.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION APPROVALS
Job approval ratings for six Trump administration officials:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio: 42 percent approve, 45 percent disapprove, with 13 percent not offering an opinion;
Vice President J.D. Vance: 41 percent approve, 49 percent disapprove, with 9 percent not offering an opinion;
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: 40 percent approve, 49 percent disapprove, with 11 percent not offering an opinion;
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: 39 percent approve, 50 percent disapprove, with 10 percent not offering an opinion;
White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles: 35 percent approve, 40 percent disapprove, with 25 percent not offering an opinion;
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller: 34 percent approve, 44 percent disapprove, with 23 percent not offering an opinion.
1,133 self-identified registered voters nationwide were surveyed from January 8th - 12th with a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percentage points, including the design effect.

The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Doug Schwartz, Ph.D. since 1994, conducts independent, non-partisan national and state polls on politics and issues. Surveys adhere to industry best practices and are based on probability-based samples using random digit dialing with live interviewers calling landlines and cell phones.

British politicians would make a pact with the devil for these sort of high approval ratings  :lol:

While numbers among Republicans for using force in Greenland are significantly higher, I think the general gist that the public at large isn't super excited is probably true. I am not sure that helps and to be honest I'd expect the Republican voters by and large to fall in line if the boots land on the ground.

The fact that foxnews.com basically ignores the Greenland debacle and does not cover it on the main page is probably a sign that they at least gauge the issue to be marginal or outright unpopular even among their demographic. So I guess that sort of tallies with the polling data.

Best bet is still to distract and stall in the hopes that attention goes elsewhere. Otherwise, I don't really see public opinion or military bureaucracy holding action back if the loonies go there. We may see some well intentioned resignations from the Pentagon, but that's had little effect previously or in other areas. They'll just get replaced by random TV arm chair generals.

Quote from: bogh on January 15, 2026, 02:44:54 AMWhile numbers among Republicans for using force in Greenland are significantly higher, I think the general gist that the public at large isn't super excited is probably true. I am not sure that helps and to be honest I'd expect the Republican voters by and large to fall in line if the boots land on the ground.

The fact that foxnews.com basically ignores the Greenland debacle and does not cover it on the main page is probably a sign that they at least gauge the issue to be marginal or outright unpopular even among their demographic. So I guess that sort of tallies with the polling data.

Best bet is still to distract and stall in the hopes that attention goes elsewhere. Otherwise, I don't really see public opinion or military bureaucracy holding action back if the loonies go there. We may see some well intentioned resignations from the Pentagon, but that's had little effect previously or in other areas. They'll just get replaced by random TV arm chair generals.

To be honest, the issue doesn't figure super prominently in liberal media either.

My American friends seem to think it's too ludicrous to give it serious credence/attention - granted they have much more pressing shit to care for at home, what with ICE going all Sturmabteilung and all. And Iran is dominating the foreign coverage at the moment.

Don't underestimate Trump's need to be the centre of attention as Iran takes over the headlines.

Quote from: Legbiter on January 14, 2026, 09:04:27 PMNetherlands and Canada are sending troops as well.

We are sending 1 (one) soldier. So troop, not troops.

Surreal. Not helping credibility of our states.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 15, 2026, 10:08:38 AMSurreal. Not helping credibility of our states.

To be frank, I don't think most Euro states can mobilize an actual unit in such a short timespan to an Arctic climate. I suspect there might not be enough ready facilities either.

Of course, means we'll need to get these things prepared now.

Quote from: Maladict on January 15, 2026, 10:03:32 AM

Quote from: Legbiter on January 14, 2026, 09:04:27 PMNetherlands and Canada are sending troops as well.

We are sending 1 (one) soldier. So troop, not troops.

He will be exceptionally tall though, so that helps to partly make up for the lack of numbers.

The indications from France and Sweden are that the contingents they are sending right now are just advance teams to coordinate with the Danes and prep for the arrival of additional forces.  I assume it's similar for others.

Yeah, Greenland in midwinter is not a very hospitable place. we really would look like fools if we sent several battalions of troops only for them to freeze.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 15, 2026, 10:36:24 AM

Quote from: Maladict on January 15, 2026, 10:03:32 AM

Quote from: Legbiter on January 14, 2026, 09:04:27 PMNetherlands and Canada are sending troops as well.

We are sending 1 (one) soldier. So troop, not troops.

He will be exceptionally tall though, so that helps to partly make up for the lack of numbers.

Well I wish CC the best of the luck.

They told me Greenland is lovely this time of year

(https://media.tenor.com/A9slBvmNADAAAAAM/putin-ketawa.gif)

Estonia is apparently also sending someone.

If they have one dude from every ally of Denmark they might be able to form a platoon or so.

I can go.

Despite Trump saying Denmark can't be trusted, I think this will just peter out in nothing but another blemish on the trans-Atlantic partnership. Can you still say trans-Atlantic in the US, or do you get deported?

I think it depends on how violent Minnesota gets in it's anti-ICE revolt.

Quote from: Norgy on January 15, 2026, 01:33:34 PMDespite Trump saying Denmark can't be trusted

Based on what? Denmark has been nothing but a reliable partner.

I just don't get it.

It feels like Trump's government has become a revolving series of "let's manufacture a crisis to take attention away from the last crisis we manufactured"

Though I guess the Minnesota thing is about swinging the scales for the midterms - whether it's to gin up his supporters (look we're repressing the people who need repressing), to justify election interference, or to move the Overton window on using violence against political opponents.

Quote from: Valmy on January 15, 2026, 01:44:44 PMBased on what? Denmark has been nothing but a reliable partner.

I just don't get it.

He was actually pretty explicit at one point in explaining it.

Basically, as I recall it, he said that if he owned Greenland he knew he'd defend it. If someone else owns Greenland, he wasn't sure he'd get around to defending it, regardless of any commitments he's made, because it wasn't his.

So the unreliability he's talking about is his own. The US not owning Greenland is a security risk for the US because Denmark cannot - in his view - be relied on to defend Greenland single-handedly and the US cannot be counted on to keep its commitments.

Is that the time Trump said people only defend what they own, so the US needs to own Greenland because it should be defended?

Yeah I think that's the same thing.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 15, 2026, 10:08:38 AMSurreal. Not helping credibility of our states.

They're not there to defeat an invasion militarily. They're there to raise the stakes of a PR stunt by Trump. They're a youtube tripwire.

Quote from: Jacob on January 13, 2026, 06:36:09 PM

Quote from: HVC on January 13, 2026, 05:40:05 PMI'd hope you're right, but absent NATO what's the difference between the baltics states and Ukraine? This is nowhere my area of expertise so there are probably key differences I just don't personally know what they are

I'm not sure what you mean by "absent NATO". I think what's under consideration is Baltics + local allies, where I think they have a pretty good chance. The Baltics on their own will likely be hooped if facing off against Russia by themselves.

But I expect enough European allies will take their NATO and EU defense commitments serious enough that that's not going to be the case, even if the US bails.

The whole thing was about NATO being dead. That NATO will be absent if it's dead seems reasonable.

FWIW I think going to war with the US over Greenland is unlikely to be wise. I think rump NATO should focus on defense against Russia. It's surrender if you will, but Denmark surrendered to Germany in 1940 and I think that was the wise thing to do. In the face of overwhelming military aggression by countries like the US and Nazi Germany there are no easy choices.

Hopefully the US won't invade Greenland, but with countries like Russia and the US you have to assume the worst.

When you mean "go to war", where do you draw the line?

Is leaving a tripwire force there and instructing them to fight back until they are forced to surrender "going to war" and thus unwise in your view?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2026, 12:44:47 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on January 14, 2026, 10:57:53 PMIt depends what you mean by leverage, since Trump is kind of a sociopath and doesn't respond to normal social cues and pressure.

Generic leverage.  Something that  would cause him to alter what he would otherwise do.

I think Minnesotans have leverage since a pretty big majority of the state's citizens disagree with ICE's methods. Strikes, civil disobedience, protests, violence are all potential options to confront Trump's agenda and make him back down.

I think Greenland/Denmark/EU partners have leverage in terms of economic retaliation, military escalation and US public opinion to confront Trump's agenda and make him back down.

Of course as I mentioned I think your president is unhinged, suffering from dementia and is a narcissistic sociopath so who knows if he views any of this as leverage.

Quote from: Jacob on January 15, 2026, 04:05:19 PMWhen you mean "go to war", where do you draw the line?

Is leaving a tripwire force there and instructing them to fight back until they are forced to surrender "going to war" and thus unwise in your view?

Publicly say that a state of war exists, sending reinforcements to Greenland to fight back, taking US military personnel in Denmark prisoner, that type of thing.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on January 15, 2026, 10:36:54 AMThe indications from France and Sweden are that the contingents they are sending right now are just advance teams to coordinate with the Danes and prep for the arrival of additional forces.  I assume it's similar for others.

Yeah those are liaison and logistics officers who will scout out locations and based on their recommendations a force package will be put together. It's not about cramming 50.000 Canadian and European arctic troops into Nuuk by next week. The number of different countries is meant to be symbolic though, to show that Denmark is not alone in repelling any hostile aggression by...China and russia. These will be followed by land, sea and air assets. Some kind of rotating system among the allies for all domains will be set up. Greenland will have anti-ship missiles, aircraft, sub patrols and land forces. Hell, bring in a dedicated Ukrainian drone team or two and have them train in that enviornment.

Quote from: Jacob on January 15, 2026, 01:47:55 PMIt feels like Trump's government has become a revolving series of "let's manufacture a crisis to take attention away from the last crisis we manufactured"

I think this is maybe a bit too political and it might be true of the political parts of Trump's administration.

But I think for Trump it's entertainment. It's reality TV and ratings. I always think of that line in the Zelensky meeting: "this is going to be great television". I don't think it's manufacture a crisis to take attention away. I think for Trump, the job as President in the entertainment-political complex is to keep storylines going, kill the ones that don't work, create new ones to score good ratings and make great TV.

(In part I think this is why Vance and someone like DeSantis struggle - because they're political debate team nerds who want to win the arguments - while a significant part of what Trump's offering isn't a political product but an entertainment one.)

QuoteThough I guess the Minnesota thing is about swinging the scales for the midterms - whether it's to gin up his supporters (look we're repressing the people who need repressing), to justify election interference, or to move the Overton window on using violence against political opponents.

Yeah I think flood blue cities with ICE and federal coercive forces, provoking a response from blue cities to justify the flooding of them with the coercive wing of the state absolutely plays into this and into a voter suppression strategy.

I think Trump will probably lose the mid-terms quite badly because the Trump-ish GOP lose elections when Trump isn't on the ballot. But I think there is also a playbook here forwider voter suppression.

Quote from: The Brain on January 15, 2026, 03:04:05 PMFWIW I think going to war with the US over Greenland is unlikely to be wise.

Just showing you're not a low-hanging fruit that an adversary can pluck by a planeload of SOF for 1 weekend of jingoistic sugar rush social media cycle is very worthwhile.

Quote from: The Brain on January 15, 2026, 03:04:05 PMI think rump NATO should focus on defense against Russia. It's surrender if you will, but Denmark surrendered to Germany in 1940 and I think that was the wise thing to do.

The quick 1940 surrender was made inevitable in my view by the absolutely retarded Danish defense policies of the 1930's where it was consciously decided that by declaring neutrality and being as powerless as possible that it would make a potential adversary decide you were no threat and hence you'd be left alone. All it did was make the Danes look like easy pickings. No, the Nordics should go to the Finnish model plus a Swedish nuclear deterrent in a military Kalmar Union coalition in my opinion. 

Quote from: The Brain on January 15, 2026, 03:04:05 PMHopefully the US won't invade Greenland, but with countries like Russia and the US you have to assume the worst.

It seems to be unusually unpopular across the board with politicians and the general public alike. At this point some things may still be beyond the pale.

Quote from: Legbiter on January 15, 2026, 05:06:18 PM

Quote from: The Brain on January 15, 2026, 03:04:05 PMFWIW I think going to war with the US over Greenland is unlikely to be wise.

Just showing you're not a low-hanging fruit that an adversary can pluck by a planeload of SOF for 1 weekend of jingoistic sugar rush social media cycle is very worthwhile.

Quote from: The Brain on January 15, 2026, 03:04:05 PMI think rump NATO should focus on defense against Russia. It's surrender if you will, but Denmark surrendered to Germany in 1940 and I think that was the wise thing to do.

The quick 1940 surrender was made inevitable in my view by the absolutely retarded Danish defense policies of the 1930's where it was consciously decided that by declaring neutrality and being as powerless as possible would make a potential adversary decide you were no threat and hence you'd be left alone. All it did was make the Danes look like easy pickings. No, the Nordics should go to the Finnish model plus a Swedish nuclear deterrent in a military Kalmar Union coalition in my opinion. 

I agree that military strength is vital and needs to be greatly improved, but I don't think there will be time for that. And since we've had stupid defense policies in the non-Finnish Nordics for decades, we might be in the same inevitability.

Quote from: Legbiter on January 15, 2026, 04:46:36 PMGreenland will have anti-ship missiles

Saab is ready.

It says "Don't push here". What if the enemy cunningly does just that?

Quote from: The Brain on January 15, 2026, 05:10:46 PMI agree that military strength is vital and needs to be I agree that military strength is vital and needs to be greatly improved, but I don't think there will be time for that. And since we've had stupid defense policies in the non-Finnish Nordics for decades, we might be in the same inevitability

If Greenland looks like bad television (dead Chinese troops) then Xi Jinping will shift his attention to, say, bombing Iran. The Allies can't stop his newfound HOI IV love but we can curate his menu. At least make Xi have to park the Fujian along with an entire naval task force off of Greenland.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 15, 2026, 04:10:04 PMI think Minnesotans have leverage since a pretty big majority of the state's citizens disagree with ICE's methods. Strikes, civil disobedience, protests, violence are all potential options to confront Trump's agenda and make him back down.

I think Greenland/Denmark/EU partners have leverage in terms of economic retaliation, military escalation and US public opinion to confront Trump's agenda and make him back down.

Of course as I mentioned I think your president is unhinged, suffering from dementia and is a narcissistic sociopath so who knows if he views any of this as leverage.

I think my president is unhinged, suffering from dementia and is a narcissistic sociopath so I think the threat of impeachment constitutes leverage and ICE protests do not.

We'll see how this one ages:

Denmark should buy a few of those. It seems somewhat inexplicable that Royal Danish Navy no longer has subs.  :hmm:

Quote from: The Brain on January 15, 2026, 05:30:07 PMWe'll see how this one ages

Probably not well.  The Navy always conducts these exercises with at least one hand tied behind its back, because they want to see what happens when things go wrong.  Then the media gets a hold of these stories and runs with it as if the Navy is trying at 100%.

Sometimes yes. And sometimes a 30 year old small french sub can sink the Eisenhower so hard that the yanks ask for the AAR to be taken down from the French Navy's website.  :showoff:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-Xo6zjWEAAfK3D?format=png&name=small)

Legbiter, how is the "Iceland as the 51st state" joke from the incoming US ambassador being received in Iceland?

Quote from: Jacob on January 15, 2026, 06:16:22 PMLegbiter, how is the "Iceland as the 51st state" joke from the incoming US ambassador being received in Iceland?

That doesn't surprise me. In the right wing dream map Iceland is part of the US.

Kind of pleasantly surprised they want to grant Iceland statehood though.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2026, 05:29:47 PMI think my president is unhinged, suffering from dementia and is a narcissistic sociopath so I think the threat of impeachment constitutes leverage and ICE protests do not.

This would mean that you do think the President does have all the power he claims to have.

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 15, 2026, 06:30:48 PMThis would mean that you do think the President does have all the power he claims to have.

Please elaborate.

Quote from: Jacob on January 15, 2026, 06:16:22 PMLegbiter, how is the "Iceland as the 51st state" joke from the incoming US ambassador being received in Iceland?

About as well as you'd expect. US ambassador formally summoned and asked to clarify these remarks. Angry statements at the Althing, loathsome antediluvian commies dredged up from the bowels of the earth by the media to say in a creaky voice that they're finally vindicated(!), petition to deny his credentials, the works.

Mind you, he's still an improvement over the mentally unstable dermatologist donor Trump sent us last time.

'Edit* He said Iceland would become the 52nd. state after Greenland.

It means you consider the only possible ways to influence Trump is to defer to things that he claims influences him, or behaves as such: bribes, or flattery - or perhaps the broken institutions he has subverted anyway.

This narrows the spectrum of politics to existing broken institutions, or to de facto monarchical politics.

I know you reject protests as a form of power, or leverage - so I won't get into that. But the result is that it leaves very little "ins" to politics, and abandons the idea that power belongs to the people, however ethereal that may seem.

To make an analogy, in 1774-1775, one could certainly argue (and many did) that the best way to solve the American crisis was to send lobbyists to the king; others, could certainly argue (and many did) you had to work with the corrupt British Parliament. None of these options took very seriously the idea that power belongs to the people, which certainly constrained what were deemed acceptable, possible, or legitimate actions. 

Probably the biggest consequence is totally demoralizing the Independence Party, the center-right bulwark of local politics. The pipe-smoking, boring line-go-up pro-American force in local politics.

Best one so far.  :D

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-uwQNIXcAAnkgW?format=jpg&name=900x900)

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 15, 2026, 06:42:53 PMIt means you consider the only possible ways to influence Trump is to defer to things that he claims influences him, or behaves as such: bribes, or flattery - or perhaps the broken institutions he has subverted anyway.

This narrows the spectrum of politics to existing broken institutions, or to de facto monarchical politics.

I know you reject protests as a form of power, or leverage - so I won't get into that. But the result is that it leaves very little "ins" to politics, and abandons the idea that power belongs to the people, however ethereal that may seem.

To make an analogy, in 1774-1775, one could certainly argue (and many did) that the best way to solve the American crisis was to send lobbyists to the king; others, could certainly argue (and many did) you had to work with the corrupt British Parliament. None of these options took very seriously the idea that power belongs to the people, which certainly constrained what were deemed acceptable, possible, or legitimate actions.

If by "the broken institutions he has subverted anyways" you mean things like the DOJ, FBI, Congress, and the electoral system, then yes, you are right.  If all those things fail to save us, our only options are civil war/political violence, or people power style mass demonstrations.

The DOJ, FBI and Congress have already failed. I guess all your marbles are on the november elections.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 15, 2026, 08:17:40 PMThe DOJ, FBI and Congress have already failed. I guess all your marbles are on the november elections.

And the courts. Congress has not totally failed. Some members fired warning shots about Greenland.

I still allow myself to hope that the American institutions Admiral Yi mention will save the US from a compete descent into fascism, though I'm absolutely fine demonstrations and other manifestations of "people power".

Quote from: Jacob on January 15, 2026, 08:29:43 PMI still allow myself to hope that the American institutions Admiral Yi mention will save the US from a compete descent into fascism, though I'm absolutely fine demonstrations and other manifestations of "people power".

The American institution he mentioned is the courts. You have hope about the courts that Trump has infiltrated with his appointments?

You are more than just a glass half full kind of guy

It's quite possible that these institutions hold. My point is always that these institutions do not exist in a vacuum, removed from civil society. It will be easier for them to hold if people know that someone out there finds something abhorrent. Institutions normalize: that's what they do, and it's frighteningly easy to get carried by the stream of the routine. They are also slow. It's part of the design: slowness allows for input. It's part of the problem: slowness allows them to be bypassed by fascists, who all celebrate swiftness.

In these circumstances, cowardice is easier when you feel you are alone. Resisting authoritarian impulse within institutions is easier when you know you have people who feel like you do, or whose passion, and slogans, and dedication, can also help you shape your own idea about the right and the wrong, not just the legal and the illegal.

ICE is beyond saving: that institution is much too steeped into authoritarianism. But there will be a time when the army may be asked to fire on a crowd, or to invade Denmark; a time when judges will be told the desired outcome of a trial; a moment when a Member of Congress will be offered a bribe, or cowed into silence or compliance. That time is upon us.

This is why I am concerned when people attempt to delegitimize protests, in the hope that normalcy will prevail on its own, or that they frighten the good people. Waiting for institutions to save you while they are being actively subverted leaves you defenceless when the outcome isn't what you were hoping for - because they you are left with a perverted doubt that, maybe, there's a legitimate reason why it didn't work. The Biden mandate should have imparted that lesson, more than once.

Agreed completely Oex. As usual.

Well Americans haven't done the nationwide mass protest game at the level of the top Euro contenders. But Minnesotans have stepped up big time with grass roots mobilization on the street level.  The people have taken control of the narrative.

This has indeed given me hope.

But I have remained worried, as we have seen such protests before, and they tend to lose steam. Plus, I have witnessed many commentators and colleagues sigh yet another sigh of relief (good old "this is proof this isn't us"), which I fear may again lead to premature demobilization (and pinning their hopes on the electoral process).

I have no desire to delegitimize all protests.  I revere classical nonviolent protests such as Gandhi and MLK.

I have a great deal of contempt for demonstrations that try to impose a minority's will on a democratic majority. I have even more contempt for protests that hurl abuse at servants of the state performing lawful duties. Like the people who spit on soldiers returning from Vietnam.  Like people arrested for DUI screaming at cops about their dick size.  That's coward's courage, cosplaying at picking  a fight with people you know can't fight back.

If you think those protests will positively impact the midterms, knock yourself out.  I think they are counter productive.

I fear "lawful duties" are getting awfully capacious in the US, and may continue to grow in scope.

The peaceful protest you revere were conducted by people who walked side by side, and fought alongside, with people who got shot, beaten, spat on, arrested, tortured, by servants of the state performing their lawful duties. I am not sure your current stance would have led you walking side by side with your heroes.

Vaguely related: It looks increasingly like the "spat-upon Vietnam vet" is a convenient political myth that got bandied about to delegitimize anti-war protests during the late 60s and got reactivated during the Gulf War in the 90s.

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 15, 2026, 09:30:46 PMI fear "lawful duties" are getting awfully capacious in the US, and may continue to grow in scope.

The peaceful protest you revere were conducted by people who walked side by side, and fought alongside, with people who got shot, beaten, spat on, arrested, tortured, by servants of the state performing their lawful duties. I am not sure your current stance would have led you walking side by side with your heroes.

Do you mean fought literally or figuratively?

I don't if I would have taken a beating for Indian independence or black voting rights either.  I don't know if you  would have. Either way I fail to see the relevance.

Being a coward who admires the courage of others is different from being someone whose standards for legitimate protest are so high that no actual, real protest, would ever meet them. The actual protests in Selma, or Montgomery, or DC, are not the glossy, clear-cut affair that a retrospective view affords us. They were much messier, and people were getting tear-gassed, and beaten; civil war activists were also shouting, and insulting, and undignified. At some point, one has to commit, even if there is a risk that a protest may not turn out to be the perfect protest.

My point is that your standards may lead you to never recognize the sort of protests you claim to admire if they ever happened close to you.

(Also, if I may, I know there's a whole subgenre of videos of idiots, and sovereign citizens, and civil rights auditors harvesting clicks - as in every algorithmic rabbit holes, they can warp our perceptions).

Hollywood taught me on at least one occaisson Indian protestors beat policemen to death. It also taught me Gandhi was dismayed. I think he went on a hunger strike.

I googled "civil rights protestors shouting insults" and all I got was two mentions of a diner sit in where whites abused the protestors.

I feel like a lot of people don't really get Ghandi's peaceful resistance, and that Yi wouldn't approve of it if it was really deployed in the US. It does involve breaking the law if you believe the law is unjust, as long as you do it peacefully. And keep doing it persistently (and massively) until the other side has to chose between violence or the law.

In this case, it would involve people physically obstructing ICE and forcing them to exercise violence to carry out their duties. Given that they are shotting people that are even getting out of the way, we know how that would end.

For what is worth, all the protest calls I'm seeing floating around don't call for breaking the law (many, in fact, also inform protestors of what they can or can't legally do). I'm not saying they should break the law - here I am sitting on my couch in a geopolitically irrelevant Euro nation - but that the Ghandi method is much more disruptive than that.

I would approve of it much more than what's going on now.  At the least I could respect the people doing it.

Quote from: Legbiter on January 15, 2026, 07:46:01 PMBest one so far.  :D

^_^

There are always extremists who exploit protests for their own ends. These people are useful to whoever is against the protest, they can be shown breaking the law or with offensive slogans or signs, which is then used to blacken the name of the entire protest movement.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2026, 02:34:51 AMI would approve of it much more than what's going on now.  At the least I could respect the people doing it.

What do you mean by "what's going on now" that you disapprove of and don't respect? I'm not aware of any counteractions to the ICE stuff.

I really liked Oex's summary and I do agree with it.

I am still worried on average people have it too comfortable to risk going against the rapidly forming autocratic state. Yes I do based that on myself as well. Would I risk my freedom and life and thus and future and life of my wife and child by resisting, when I could just lay low and continue my middle class lifestyle, or emigrate and do so somewhere else? Maybe in the UK I would as it's a home worth defending and a place that could hope to turn good again, but I already GTFO-ed once instead of staying to struggle on, so who knows.

I have nothing but respect for the people heckling and obstructing ICE in Minessota - especially since the shooting they know they are in mortal danger doing so.

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 15, 2026, 08:49:56 PMIt's quite possible that these institutions hold. My point is always that these institutions do not exist in a vacuum, removed from civil society. It will be easier for them to hold if people know that someone out there finds something abhorrent. Institutions normalize: that's what they do, and it's frighteningly easy to get carried by the stream of the routine. They are also slow. It's part of the design: slowness allows for input. It's part of the problem: slowness allows them to be bypassed by fascists, who all celebrate swiftness.

In these circumstances, cowardice is easier when you feel you are alone. Resisting authoritarian impulse within institutions is easier when you know you have people who feel like you do, or whose passion, and slogans, and dedication, can also help you shape your own idea about the right and the wrong, not just the legal and the illegal.

ICE is beyond saving: that institution is much too steeped into authoritarianism. But there will be a time when the army may be asked to fire on a crowd, or to invade Denmark; a time when judges will be told the desired outcome of a trial; a moment when a Member of Congress will be offered a bribe, or cowed into silence or compliance. That time is upon us.

This is why I am concerned when people attempt to delegitimize protests, in the hope that normalcy will prevail on its own, or that they frighten the good people. Waiting for institutions to save you while they are being actively subverted leaves you defenceless when the outcome isn't what you were hoping for - because they you are left with a perverted doubt that, maybe, there's a legitimate reason why it didn't work. The Biden mandate should have imparted that lesson, more than once.

In the same vein of your very good point that one should not normalize behavior, one should also not take note that many of these institutions have already failed.

The FBI, the DOJ, the courts are all examples of their democratic institutions that have failed in the United States.

In the case of the courts, not everywhere, but at the federal level, the rulings that have been made are astounding and shocking.  It's just that the degree of failure is wrapped up legally and so not easily accessible nor understandable by the general public, even if very well informed on other issues.

Part of the reason for that is the way in which news media has been degraded.  Another pillar of the problem, democracy.

I basically think the division of power in the US is dead. The executive reigns supreme over the legislative, the judicial is (at least at the Supreme Court level) subservient to the executive and the so-called fourth estate of the media has been defanged entirely.

I fail to see which institution to pin my hopes on. So the US system and society seems to be heading only way - towards an authoritarian, kleptocratic state, riven with violence and no social cohesion.

In that context, handwringing about whether protestors are to rude or acting unruly seems like a massive loss of perspective.

Quote from: bogh on January 16, 2026, 08:50:39 AMI basically think the division of power in the US is dead. The executive reigns supreme over the legislative, the judicial is (at least at the Supreme Court level) subservient to the executive and the so-called fourth estate of the media has been defanged entirely.

I fail to see which institution to pin my hopes on. So the US system and society seems to be heading only way - towards an authoritarian, kleptocratic state, riven with violence and no social cohesion.

In that context, handwringing about whether protestors are to rude or acting unruly seems like a massive loss of perspective.

I have thought, as a thought experiment, what if the Democrats had such a massive success in this election that they achieved a veto-proof majority in both chambers? I mean they won't but go with me here. They would just start passing bills and overriding Trump's veto and forcing them to become law. But Trump has already established that he can just ignore laws he doesn't like. He can just shut down departments and end programs and cancel treaties all approved by Congress and are in law. So what actual difference would that make? Not much as far as I can see. The Presidency is the only office that matters anymore.

Quote from: Valmy on January 16, 2026, 10:42:55 AM

Quote from: bogh on January 16, 2026, 08:50:39 AMI basically think the division of power in the US is dead. The executive reigns supreme over the legislative, the judicial is (at least at the Supreme Court level) subservient to the executive and the so-called fourth estate of the media has been defanged entirely.

I fail to see which institution to pin my hopes on. So the US system and society seems to be heading only way - towards an authoritarian, kleptocratic state, riven with violence and no social cohesion.

In that context, handwringing about whether protestors are to rude or acting unruly seems like a massive loss of perspective.

I have thought, as a thought experiment, what if the Democrats had such a massive success in this election that they achieved a veto-proof majority in both chambers? I mean they won't but go with me here. They would just start passing bills and overriding Trump's veto and forcing them to become law. But Trump has already established that he can just ignore laws he doesn't like. He can just shut down departments and end programs and cancel treaties all approved by Congress and are in law. So what actual difference would that make? Not much as far as I can see. The Presidency is the only office that matters anymore.

Yep, and I know I am sounding like a broken record on this, but once the rule of law is lost, all is lost.

People can talk about getting political all they want, but short of revolution, politics is impotent if conducted within a state without the rule of law.

Yeah. Congress and courts are submissive, but also ultimately powerless. Not sure how to reverse any of it tbh.

We really don't know yet. Admittedly the signs are bad.

The administration has ducked and weaved with the courts.  But they haven't flagrantly violated court orders since Emil Bove* ordered the planes to fly to El Salvador with Abrego-Garcia and others. The bigger problem has been the Supreme Court sabotaging lower courts trying to do their job and deliberately enabling Trump.  The institution isn't working because of a personnel problem.

With Congress, there is no check because the Speaker of the House is an empty suit, an errand boy for the President. Thune is a coward with little bark and no bite.   You can't make a judgment about the powerlessness of Congress when Congress is not even attempting to exercise power. The true test will be if an election is held in 2026 and the Democrats take one or more chambers.  Then we'll know where we really stand.

*Bove's reward was appointment to a federal appeals court, which is hardly reassuring.

Saying the dysfunction of the US courts is a personnel problem is both accurate and a bit misleading. The court is the personnel sitting as judges.

And now krasnov is threatening tariffs for countries that don't support his Greenland bs.

Bon, tariffs then and hopefully the eu retaliates tit for tat.

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 15, 2026, 08:49:56 PMIt's quite possible that these institutions hold. My point is always that these institutions do not exist in a vacuum, removed from civil society. It will be easier for them to hold if people know that someone out there finds something abhorrent. Institutions normalize: that's what they do, and it's frighteningly easy to get carried by the stream of the routine. They are also slow. It's part of the design: slowness allows for input. It's part of the problem: slowness allows them to be bypassed by fascists, who all celebrate swiftness.

Also many of these institutions are not democratic or neutral in any event. Looking to institutions for salvation is, I think, often predicated on a partial reading of those institutions' histories and roles. The idea that the FBI is a force for civic good seems to me to only work if you focus on the Trump era very specifically. For about half of its history it was run by J Edgar Hoover and we literally don't know what was in the safe in his personal office. A significant part of its origin story is the first red scare which was the repression of certain political views and organising, often through deportations, and the Hoover era is not the end of its deep participation in domestic surveillance.

I think you can say something similar with the courts. These are broadly speaking non-democratic, relatively unaccountable bodies who recruit from a narrow spectrum of well educated, high status people (with all the intersections of class, gender, race that entails at any given time). I think their role has very often been supporting, disseminating and policing ideology that justifies and preserves their power - and therefore the system that is producing them.

To the extent we look at them as sources of civic virtue I think is in part because the background of their personnel is now more similar to the background of people on the broadly left-of-centre of politics in a way that wasn't the case in the past (and may not be in the future). But also I think it is through a sometimes folk memory of their heroic moments. For the Supreme Court a couple of shining eras of expansive and progressive judgemanship and the FBI literally just the last 10 years.

I also think there is a strategic trap here. In becoming the party of norms and institutions you can undermine your capacity to present an alternative. Part of this is the point that Buttigieg has made (which I think is also the Abundance point to an extent). Biden got big important spending bills passed and Buttigieg said that, to his huge frustration, in his department very little of that spending had actually happened by 2024 because it was wrapped up in process. If you are the party of norms and institutions and there are systemic/structural problems you may not be able to actually govern effectively which just reinforces the appeal of the outsider anti-institutional candidate. You maybe need to be able to subvert or cut through those norms to deliver. Similarly I think I was on the wrong side of this but Tusk in Poland after beating PiS used extraordinary legal powers to basically purge the state broadcaster of a lot of PiS appointments that basically turned it into a very party political broadcaster. On the one hand that creating a precedent for the next time PiS win - on the other they'd already done it so they don't need a precedent and not doing it is perhaps the equivalent of political unilateral disarmament. This is perhaps the Merrick Garland paradox: fabuloously qualified, astonishingly useless.

QuoteICE is beyond saving: that institution is much too steeped into authoritarianism. But there will be a time when the army may be asked to fire on a crowd, or to invade Denmark; a time when judges will be told the desired outcome of a trial; a moment when a Member of Congress will be offered a bribe, or cowed into silence or compliance. That time is upon us.

Totally agree. As I say in my view it is time for civil disobedience against ICE. It is that bad and, to the Gandhi/satyagraha point, given how violent and uncontrolled ICE are that may involve people putting themselves at risk. But I don't think lawyers or judges, for example, should cooperate and I think they should take the risk.

QuoteThere are always extremists who exploit protests for their own ends. These people are useful to whoever is against the protest, they can be shown breaking the law or with offensive slogans or signs, which is then used to blacken the name of the entire protest movement.

Totally agree.

Although on the extremist point I'd add that I think there's a slight element of the self-reinforcing from the left on this. I think we are in an era of radical chic intellectually. So there's lots of work that has re-discovered radical movements ahead of their time and the ideas they had which may seem either still current (so by implication: still unachieved) or normalised. It's also done by looking at the radical history of sanitise figures like Gandhi or MLK. This is all true and valuable but I think it can be misleading. It can focus on intellectual fertile and important groups or groupuscules, while I actually think you need to look at the deliberately sanitising stuff that people like MLK or Gandhi did in order to make their movements succeed.

I think about this with the whole antifa, punch fascists stuff which is loosely inspired by the German Communist Party's Antifascist Aktion in the 20s and early 30s. Because I always wonder to myself - do the people making those points know what happed to the German Communist Party in the late 30s? It's a little like Peter Cook's gag about the power of satire and being inspired by "those wonderful Berlin cabarets which did so much to top the rise of Hitler and prevent the outbreak of the Second World War". I mention those examples because I think France is the only country where there was a serious fascist threat in the inter-war era and the democratic, republican system prevailed. And the lesson there is about broadening your coalition - it's Popular Front politics and mass mobilisation (obviously there was some street violence but it was less of the strategy than it was for the KPD).

As I say I think we are in a moment of the more radical wing and action just being a bit cooler if less effective. As well as provoking reactions that allow Trump to pose as the party of order (I think, incidentally, this is where ICE may undo itself because I don't think that's how it comes across). And I think we'd be better served with more thinking about how to build the broader coalitions, mobilise as many as possible etc even at the risk of disappointing the cool kids - I sort of think this about the slight disdain by some for the "resist libs" which I get but also think people need to get over themselves. Those are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people ready to be mobilised in my view.

QuoteI basically think the division of power in the US is dead. The executive reigns supreme over the legislative, the judicial is (at least at the Supreme Court level) subservient to the executive and the so-called fourth estate of the media has been defanged entirely.

I fail to see which institution to pin my hopes on. So the US system and society seems to be heading only way - towards an authoritarian, kleptocratic state, riven with violence and no social cohesion.

In that context, handwringing about whether protestors are to rude or acting unruly seems like a massive loss of perspective.

I think this is key. I'd slightly frame it differently in that I think a huge number of problems in the US right now ultimately comes from a decades long process of Congress successivly abdicating its role and its power. And if Congress isn't the place of governance and legislation - which it isn't - that power doesn't just sort of fall away. Other institutions will fill the void. The executive through executive orders but also the vast apparatus of the administrative state, the huge discretionary powers on foreign policy and matters of war and peace. But also the judiciary through a process of legalising political questions - because it's no longer possible to achieve political change through Congress. It is simply astonishing reading about even relatively recent periods in the past when Congress - and individual Senators and Congresspeople - were so much more significant.

I don't know how you unwind this. But I think any solution will run through Congress re-asserting itself and getting a little bit of its dignity and power back.

On your wider point I find the echoes with Latin American countries and constitutional breakdowns interesting. But I don't know (this goes for looking at the world too) as on the one hand I can't think of an example of a democratic society recovering itself from the sort of situation and issues the US has on the other hand not many people have made money betting against the US.

So Denmark has invited the US to participate in the upcoming military exercises in Greenland.

Quote from: Jacob on January 16, 2026, 02:31:01 PMSo Denmark has invited the US to participate in the upcoming military exercises in Greenland.

As OPFOR?

Quote from: Jacob on January 16, 2026, 02:31:01 PMSo Denmark has invited the US to participate in the upcoming military exercises in Greenland.

Makes the point that NATO still exists and part of what NATO protects is Greenland

Quote from: Zoupa on January 16, 2026, 03:23:30 AMWhat do you mean by "what's going on now" that you disapprove of and don't respect? I'm not aware of any counteractions to the ICE stuff.

I disrespect the name calling.  I disrespect the rock throwing. I disrespect the failure to obey lawful law enforcement commands.  I disrespect the demonization of ICE.

The demonization of ICE? At this precise moment?

Letter from a Birmingham Jail

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2026, 06:49:48 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on January 16, 2026, 03:23:30 AMWhat do you mean by "what's going on now" that you disapprove of and don't respect? I'm not aware of any counteractions to the ICE stuff.

I disrespect the name calling.  I disrespect the rock throwing. I disrespect the failure to obey lawful law enforcement commands.  I disrespect the demonization of ICE.

:lol:

Your country is beset by state sponsored armed thugs shooting people and this is your concern?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2026, 06:49:48 PMI disrespect the name calling.  I disrespect the rock throwing. I disrespect the failure to obey lawful law enforcement commands.

OK that explains why you don't like ICE.

So what is bothering you about the protestors?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2026, 06:49:48 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on January 16, 2026, 03:23:30 AMWhat do you mean by "what's going on now" that you disapprove of and don't respect? I'm not aware of any counteractions to the ICE stuff.

I disrespect the name calling.  I disrespect the rock throwing. I disrespect the failure to obey lawful law enforcement commands.  I disrespect the demonization of ICE.

That's certainly a take.  :huh:

Quote from: bogh on January 16, 2026, 06:57:02 PMYour country is beset by state sponsored armed thugs shooting people and this is your concern?

I have more than one concern. Don't you?

Except for the words "country" "armed" and "shooting" the rest is narrative and myth making.

Quote from: Oexmelin on January 16, 2026, 06:52:43 PMThe demonization of ICE? At this precise moment?

Sure why not?  One ICE agent shot one person.  Before it happened you were sure every member of ICE was an asshole. Now  you are sure every member of ICE is an asshole.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2026, 08:41:38 PMSure why not?  One ICE agent shot one person.  Before it happened you were sure every member of ICE was an asshole. Now  you are sure every member of ICE is an asshole.

You might not have seen it as I posted it in the other thread, but WSJ investigation has found 13 similar killings by ICE since July:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/videos-show-how-ice-vehicle-stops-can-escalate-to-shootings-caf17601?st=pCHtaR

Although I don't think the moral character of any individual matters here. As we've discussed I think they're institutionally lawless: masked, ID-less, shooting people at traffic stops, disappearing people. It's paramilitary shit.

I'd add the polling on this is interesting. This incident has really cut through and the polls for the first time show more support for abolishing than supporting ICE. I think in part because it's a clarifying incident rather than a surprising one.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 16, 2026, 08:50:19 PMYou might not have seen it as I posted it in the other thread, but WSJ investigation has found 13 similar killings by ICE since July:
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/videos-show-how-ice-vehicle-stops-can-escalate-to-shootings-caf17601?st=pCHtaR

Although I don't think the moral character of any individual matters here. As we've discussed I think they're institutionally lawless: masked, ID-less, shooting people at traffic stops, disappearing people. It's paramilitary shit.

I'd add the polling on this is interesting. This incident has really cut through and the polls for the first time show more support for abolishing than supporting ICE. I think in part because it's a clarifying incident rather than a surprising one.

Paywalled. :(

The word "lawless" seems to be taking on a new meaning.  I looked up the definition:

not governed by or obedient to laws; characterized by a lack of civic order.

By that definition the illegal immigrants being deported are clearly lawless.  So are the protestors who obstruct. What laws are the vast majority of ICE agents breaking? I'm unaware of laws that forbid masks or require name tags.

So what does lawless mean to you?

Are European antiterrorism units which wear masks lawless?

I'm not sure there's much point in flogging the discussion of what is or isn't lawless again - as I think we have covered this pretty extensively before and I don't think either of us have changed our views significantly on this.

I also think it's a slight distraction - I'm sure other words would do - the key for me is that I think this is institutional and deliberate. It's not individual agents or even a rogue agency. It is a deliberate pattern of behaviour (two killings a month - five of which, incidentally, were citizens) because it's coming from the top and is being politically protected.

Joan described lawless (at least as it relates to Trump) as engaging in a lot action that he knows will be reversed by the courts.  I had no objection.

Wearing masks and not wearing name tags is institutional and deliberate.  So what?

Did your WSJ article offer any breakdown on unjustified and unjustified shootings?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2026, 06:49:48 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on January 16, 2026, 03:23:30 AMWhat do you mean by "what's going on now" that you disapprove of and don't respect? I'm not aware of any counteractions to the ICE stuff.

I disrespect the name calling.  I disrespect the rock throwing. I disrespect the failure to obey lawful law enforcement commands.  I disrespect the demonization of ICE.

Disrespect is warranted when people behave disrespectfully. I haven't worked at ICE in many years since I changed jobs, but it wasn't in the stone ages--the agency today bears little resemblance to the legislative act that created it.

ICE is not empowered to enforce ordinary laws on citizens who are simply near their agents. That's the job of local PD, both as a matter of it being their expertise, and also as an actual matter of constitutional Federalism and even just the reality that ICE agents aren't broadly empowered to enforce criminal law in general.

A huge swathe of the agents hired are people who would not pass the hiring process at even some of the worst ran small town police departments in West Virginia or Alabama. Many of them have shown gross unprofessionalism that is likewise, rarely found even in the very worst ran local PDs.

They are routinely taking actions out of bound of their legal mandate, out of bound with any norms of training etc. Many of them appear to have not passed even basic background checks.

When you throw a huge flood of money and prioritize creating a de novo army from the least qualified--sorry, that isn't respectful behavior. The guys who signed up for it aren't behaving respectfully. That makes you ethically subject to disrespect.

Is JD Vance lawless when he states, contrary to law, that ICE agents have "absolute immunity?"

The woman who was assaulted in her car while trying to get to her doctor was not lawless.  She was never charged with anything.  Where her assailants lawless? Vance says it doesn't matter because they are immune to the law.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2026, 09:39:26 PMJoan described lawless (at least as it relates to Trump) as engaging in a lot action that he knows will be reversed by the courts.  I had no objection.

Wearing masks and not wearing name tags is institutional and deliberate.  So what?

Did your WSJ article offer any breakdown on unjustified and unjustified shootings?

They exercise police powers but do not follow their restrictions. Due process is systematically ignored. Lawlessness.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 17, 2026, 02:51:44 AMThey exercise police powers but do not follow their restrictions. Due process is systematically ignored. Lawlessness.

Example please.  Example please.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2026, 08:33:37 PM

Quote from: bogh on January 16, 2026, 06:57:02 PMYour country is beset by state sponsored armed thugs shooting people and this is your concern?

I have more than one concern. Don't you?

Except for the words "country" "armed" and "shooting" the rest is narrative and myth making.

🥳

MAGA party line compliance achieved! Congrats. 🎈

Maybe try applying the standards you apply to stories about ICE to the stories about protestors and vice versa.

Quote from: bogh on January 17, 2026, 03:41:42 AM🥳

MAGA party line compliance achieved! Congrats. 🎈

Maybe try applying the standards you apply to stories about ICE to the stories about protestors and vice versa.

boring

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2026, 03:55:46 AM

Quote from: bogh on January 17, 2026, 03:41:42 AM🥳

MAGA party line compliance achieved! Congrats. 🎈

Maybe try applying the standards you apply to stories about ICE to the stories about protestors and vice versa.

boring

A good point though. You take complaints about protesters at face value, but refuse to entertain the notion that ICE may be overstepping their legal boundaries. You may convince yourself thst you are impartial but you are far from it.

Quote from: Tamas on January 17, 2026, 04:18:08 AMA good point though. You take complaints about protesters at face value, but refuse to entertain the notion that ICE may be overstepping their legal boundaries. You may convince yourself thst you are impartial but you are far from it.

How do you  know how I take complaints about protesters? How do you know how I entertain the notion that ICE may be overstepping their boundaries? That's narrative. You make things up and get angry about them.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2026, 04:24:28 AMHow do you  know how I take complaints about protesters? How do you know how I entertain the notion that ICE may be overstepping their boundaries?

By reading your posts when you write about it? Obviously you may have other opinions in reality and just be cosplaying MAGA drone? Are you?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2026, 04:24:28 AM

Quote from: Tamas on January 17, 2026, 04:18:08 AMA good point though. You take complaints about protesters at face value, but refuse to entertain the notion that ICE may be overstepping their legal boundaries. You may convince yourself thst you are impartial but you are far from it.

How do you  know how I take complaints about protesters? How do you know how I entertain the notion that ICE may be overstepping their boundaries? That's narrative. You make things up and get angry about them.

You are upset about protester behaviour (such as cursing at ICE) but demonstrate a nonchalant attitude about well-documented ICE brutality.

I use this observation to conclude your stance on the matter. I obviously can be wrong, but that is the picture your posts are painting.

ICE discussion fits better in the Trump thread?

Getting Monoriu vibes, tbh.
Though I may be misremembering

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2026, 03:28:40 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on January 17, 2026, 02:51:44 AMThey exercise police powers but do not follow their restrictions. Due process is systematically ignored. Lawlessness.

Example please.  Example please.

https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/new-bedford-ice-arrest-window-smashed/

Random example that took me 2 seconds to google.

I thought you guys had the 4th amendment for a reason but I guess when you give morons sledgehammers that's what you get.

Mass solidarity protests in Copenhagen.

https://x.com/pelledragsted/status/2012491300457599429 (https://x.com/pelledragsted/status/2012491300457599429)

Over here there's very serious talk about kicking the Americans out if they continue down this path. No logistics for the Air Force and Los Angeles submarines. The GIUK network will become history in it's current configuration. 

Let the burgers power project from Mar-a-Lago.

Trump announced tariffs over Greenland against Europe. Bring it on, Mango.

Europe should escalate this. With military deployments and counter-tariffs (or digital taxes).

Quote from: The Brain on January 17, 2026, 05:41:17 AMICE discussion fits better in the Trump thread?

They are all Trump threads.   :(

Quote from: Zanza on January 17, 2026, 12:31:42 PMTrump announced tariffs over Greenland against Europe.

Maybe now the EU will figure out that no deal with Trump is worth the paper it is written on.  He only respects threats.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2026, 03:28:40 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on January 17, 2026, 02:51:44 AMThey exercise police powers but do not follow their restrictions. Due process is systematically ignored. Lawlessness.

Example please.  Example please.

???
You've always seemed well-informed, I'm a bit perplexed by this demand.

There are multiple district court findings across the country detailing abuses by ICE and federal law enforcement. Including the one recently issued in Minnesota. I'd encourage you to read the fact section, as it describes daily experience on the ground for ordinary citizens in Minneapolis.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.229758/gov.uscourts.mnd.229758.85.0_1.pdf

 That's aside from the hundreds of videos of ICE personnel assaulting people, smashing car windows on the slightest (or no) pretext.  Countless accounts of ICE agents taking people into custody and refusing to look at proof of citizenship.

I've been away at a military course for the last week. Naturally US imperialism was a discussion point and we all agreed that we would volunteer as a trip wire force in Greenland. US aggression needs to be stopped and the US needs to be treated as the enemy it has chosen to become.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 17, 2026, 12:35:17 PM

Quote from: Zanza on January 17, 2026, 12:31:42 PMTrump announced tariffs over Greenland against Europe.

Maybe now the EU will figure out that no deal with Trump is worth the paper it is written on.  He only respects threats.

I don't think anybody serious expected a bully such as Trump to not attempt to bully his way again.

As for using his "magic" tariffs, given the EU is much more a trade / economic powerhouse than a military powerhouse, it's –  almost – good news.

You have to hand it to Trump though: nobody is talking about the illegally witheld Epstein files.

Quote from: Tamas on January 17, 2026, 01:08:17 PMYou have to hand it to Trump though: nobody is talking about the illegally witheld Epstein files.

That goes without... saying.  :P

Quote from: Zanza on January 17, 2026, 12:31:42 PMTrump announced tariffs over Greenland against Europe. Bring it on, Mango.

Europe should escalate this. With military deployments and counter-tariffs (or digital taxes).

Confiscate his properties in Europe.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 17, 2026, 01:05:51 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 17, 2026, 12:35:17 PM

Quote from: Zanza on January 17, 2026, 12:31:42 PMTrump announced tariffs over Greenland against Europe.

Maybe now the EU will figure out that no deal with Trump is worth the paper it is written on.  He only respects threats.

I don't think anybody serious expected a bully such as Trump to not attempt to bully his way again.

As for using his "magic" tariffs, given the EU is much more a trade / economic powerhouse than military powerhouse, it's –  almost – good news.

I kind of agree. I'd be surprised if tariffs are going to make any of the affected countries or the EU as a whole budge.

Yeah - I think that's probably right and also a misreading of the EU's approach in response to the "liberation day" tariffs.

It's the most beautiful word. Tariffs.

Quote from: bogh on January 17, 2026, 04:45:52 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2026, 04:24:28 AMHow do you  know how I take complaints about protesters? How do you know how I entertain the notion that ICE may be overstepping their boundaries?

By reading your posts when you write about it? Obviously you may have other opinions in reality and just be cosplaying MAGA drone? Are you?

I am not. I invite you to free your mind for just a moment of all preconceived notions and try to think if there are any    other possible ways to come to the conclusion that protesters are yelling personal insults at ICE agents other than accepting someone else's complaints.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2026, 03:55:46 AM

Quote from: bogh on January 17, 2026, 03:41:42 AM🥳

MAGA party line compliance achieved! Congrats. 🎈

Maybe try applying the standards you apply to stories about ICE to the stories about protestors and vice versa.

boring

Yes, your MAGA light, faux Socratic method, hypocritical bullshit is getting very boring

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 17, 2026, 03:29:34 PMYes, your MAGA light, faux Socratic method, hypocritical bullshit is getting very boring

CC is a retarded moron who seemingly agonizes over an inevitable planetary warming centuries due as is his Canadian upper-middle class wont but I will say this. Witchhunting members of this board who display insufficient ideological zeal for whatever mental health struggles you are going through has been an unfortunate hallmark of this board for many years now. I don't care that Trump is a certified idiot, you can perfectly like harsh immigration policies or open borders for all. What I don't like is turning on fellow board members because of their nationality and perceived lack of public outrage.   

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2026, 03:13:25 PM

Quote from: bogh on January 17, 2026, 04:45:52 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2026, 04:24:28 AMHow do you  know how I take complaints about protesters? How do you know how I entertain the notion that ICE may be overstepping their boundaries?

By reading your posts when you write about it? Obviously you may have other opinions in reality and just be cosplaying MAGA drone? Are you?

I am not. I invite you to free your mind for just a moment of all preconceived notions and try to think if there are any    other possible ways to come to the conclusion that protesters are yelling personal insults at ICE agents other than accepting someone else's complaints.

Is there a form of protest of current ICE methods displayed in Minessota and other places that you would find acceptable? Or is your core argument that these methods do not justify any protest?

Also what is the treshold at which voluntary members of an organisation can be held personally responsible for the actions they personally undertake while following guidelines and orders from that organisation (i.e. what's the treshold for personal insults becoming acceptable)?

Quote from: Admiral Yi link=msg=1498539I am not. I invite you to free your mind for just a moment of all preconceived notions and try to think if there are any    other possible ways to come to the conclusion that protesters are yelling personal insults at ICE agents other than accepting someone else's complaints.

Not the point we were discussing. Classic semantic derail.

Anyway, back to Greenland.

I actually think this will unite the opposition to Trump even more. Europeans would have wavered on economic retaliation, but that's now here as Trump brought it into play.

The Guardian reminded me the EU-US trade deal was about to be ratified but luckily it sounds like now it won't be. Pointless to try and get long term agreements with a rogue state.

Quote from: bogh on January 17, 2026, 04:32:36 PMI actually think this will unite the opposition to Trump even more. Europeans would have wavered on economic retaliation, but that's now here as Trump brought it into play.

If NATO survives the week it'll be a minor miracle. The White House has a regular media schedule. Trump's dysgenic baldie should regale us with screeching epithets in a day or so.

Quote from: Tamas on January 17, 2026, 01:08:17 PMYou have to hand it to Trump though: nobody is talking about the illegally witheld Epstein files.

Not so, Ro Khanna is holding on to that issue like a terrier with a chew toy.

Quote from: Legbiter on January 17, 2026, 04:45:39 PM

Quote from: bogh on January 17, 2026, 04:32:36 PMI actually think this will unite the opposition to Trump even more. Europeans would have wavered on economic retaliation, but that's now here as Trump brought it into play.

If NATO survives the week it'll be a minor miracle. The White House has a regular media schedule. Trump's dysgenic baldie should regale us with screeching epithets in a day or so.

Not only that, chances are is that we're at war against the USA by the end of January.

Quote from: bogh on January 17, 2026, 04:32:36 PMNot the point we were discussing. Classic semantic derail.

It's the point Tamas chose to raise, to which i responded, and which you voiced your support.  Classic myth making.

Quote from: Threviel on January 17, 2026, 12:56:10 PMI've been away at a military course for the last week. Naturally US imperialism was a discussion point and we all agreed that we would volunteer as a trip wire force in Greenland. US aggression needs to be stopped and the US needs to be treated as the enemy it has chosen to become.

 :cool:

Good for you Threviel and your fellow reservists.


Pity there's not something similar in the UK.

Quote from: Tamas on January 17, 2026, 04:14:51 PMIs there a form of protest of current ICE methods displayed in Minessota and other places that you would find acceptable? Or is your core argument that these methods do not justify any protest?

Also what is the treshold at which voluntary members of an organisation can be held personally responsible for the actions they personally undertake while following guidelines and orders from that organisation (i.e. what's the treshold for personal insults becoming acceptable)?

I asked you a question which you did not answer but rather followed  up with more questions. We grant certain people the authority to ask questions without answering them in turn. The police, the court, counsels in a court case. Clergy, if you swing that way. You are not one of those parties.  Therefore answering your questions is not an obligation on my part. Rather I view it as a courtesy extended on a reciprocal basis. I ask my question, you answer, you get to ask yours.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 17, 2026, 12:43:51 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2026, 03:28:40 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on January 17, 2026, 02:51:44 AMThey exercise police powers but do not follow their restrictions. Due process is systematically ignored. Lawlessness.

Example please.  Example please.

???
You've always seemed well-informed, I'm a bit perplexed by this demand.

There are multiple district court findings across the country detailing abuses by ICE and federal law enforcement. Including the one recently issued in Minnesota. I'd encourage you to read the fact section, as it describes daily experience on the ground for ordinary citizens in Minneapolis.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.229758/gov.uscourts.mnd.229758.85.0_1.pdf

 That's aside from the hundreds of videos of ICE personnel assaulting people, smashing car windows on the slightest (or no) pretext.  Countless accounts of ICE agents taking people into custody and refusing to look at proof of citizenship.

Very informative Joan, thanks.

Jacob described ICE as Trump's Freikorps long before Minnesota. Do believe he was basing his judgement on cases such as the one you cited?  Do you believe there were other activities ICE engaged in that would justify the Freikorps accusation, i.e. render it not demonization?

Isn't your question answered by this part of Joan's post?

QuoteThat's aside from the hundreds of videos of ICE personnel assaulting people, smashing car windows on the slightest (or no) pretext.  Countless accounts of ICE agents taking people into custody and refusing to look at proof of citizenship.

Quote from: Zoupa on January 17, 2026, 11:59:11 PMIsn't your question answered by this part of Joan's post?

QuoteThat's aside from the hundreds of videos of ICE personnel assaulting people, smashing car windows on the slightest (or no) pretext.  Countless accounts of ICE agents taking people into custody and refusing to look at proof of citizenship.

If Joan were to assert that in his judgement the videos he references demonstrate clear examples of illegal activity it would very much support the Freikorps thesis.

The only wrinkle then would be which  came first, Freikorps or assault.

My read is the Miller wing of the administration very much wanted to create this kind of paramilitary organization when they started that crazy hiring spike. I'm not too knowledgeable about the historical Freikorps so I can't say how they compare, but this sort of militia is standard fare in nascent dictatorships.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2026, 11:02:51 PMJacob described ICE as Trump's Freikorps long before Minnesota. Do believe he was basing his judgement on cases such as the one you cited?  Do you believe there were other activities ICE engaged in that would justify the Freikorps accusation, i.e. render it not demonization?

ICE predates Trump.  It's never been my favorite agency, but with a federal agency you can usually count on some level of professionalism.  You could count on a minimum level of competence in personnel.  You could usually count on some degree of predictability in conduct, following developed standards and procedures and manuals.  This is what the Bannons of the world are talking about when they rant about the "deep state."  It's the operationalization of the rule of law. The people responsible for executing the law take steps to understand the law they are enforcing, and put procedures in place to do it in a reasonably predictable and transparent way.

Trump's first term didn't have much impact on this. The second term has been very different.  There have been purges at the senior civil service level of all agencies. Replacements chosen for personal and ideological loyalty. Expertise is suspect. SOPs and manuals are ignored as deep state BS and extraneous red tape.

ICE is an extreme manifestation of this phenomenon, because of the massive influx of personnel, poorly vetted and lightly trained and because they are charged with implementing a high personal priority for Trump.  The job by is nature is complex because ICE agents are responsible for enforcing both civil and criminal laws.  That distinction appears to have broken down completely, and intentionally so.

We don't have access to internal memoranda or orders yet (perhaps post 26?)  But the following is clear:
1) Enormous pressure is being placed on ICE to maximize the number of removals.
2) Racial and ethnic profiling of the crudest kind is the primary method of investigation. Here the Supreme Court has been a critical enabler.
3) The administration has made it crystal clear, from the very top (Trump, Vance, Noem, Miller) on down, that ICE agents do not need to concern themselves about adverse consequences from exceeding authority or even breaking the law.  They have "absolute immunity."

What we see on the streets of Minneapolis, Chicago, Portland elsewhere is the predictable result of bringing in masses of poorly trained recruits, arming them, pressuring them to achieve results at all costs, referring to the civilian population around them as "domestic terrorists" and "agitators", and telling them they can do whatever they want without negative consequences.  It's textbook behaviorism.

New leaked documents reveal US military sought classified info on Greenlandic infrastructure behind Denmark's back  (https://www.berlingske.dk/internationalt/usa-soegte-i-fortrolighed-viden-om-militaere-installationer-i-groenland)

Danish article about US military shenanigans concerning Greenland.

It seems on one hand, some of the top Generals are pushing back against this, while some others are enabling it.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2026, 10:49:14 PM

Quote from: Tamas on January 17, 2026, 04:14:51 PMIs there a form of protest of current ICE methods displayed in Minessota and other places that you would find acceptable? Or is your core argument that these methods do not justify any protest?

Also what is the treshold at which voluntary members of an organisation can be held personally responsible for the actions they personally undertake while following guidelines and orders from that organisation (i.e. what's the treshold for personal insults becoming acceptable)?

I asked you a question which you did not answer but rather followed  up with more questions. We grant certain people the authority to ask questions without answering them in turn. The police, the court, counsels in a court case. Clergy, if you swing that way. You are not one of those parties.  Therefore answering your questions is not an obligation on my part. Rather I view it as a courtesy extended on a reciprocal basis. I ask my question, you answer, you get to ask yours.

You haven't asked me any direct questions, the questions you asked have been answered by others.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2026, 04:24:28 AM

Quote from: Tamas on January 17, 2026, 04:18:08 AMA good point though. You take complaints about protesters at face value, but refuse to entertain the notion that ICE may be overstepping their legal boundaries. You may convince yourself thst you are impartial but you are far from it.

How do you  know how I take complaints about protesters? How do you know how I entertain the notion that ICE may be overstepping their boundaries? That's narrative. You make things up and get angry about them.

Yes I have. No they haven't.

The Danish DoD is trying to figure out what happens to the 100ish Danish soldiers currently training or working at US military installations in the event of a war. Going directly from ally to enemy will present some odd scenarios for sure.

Quote from: bogh on January 18, 2026, 07:28:08 AMThe Danish DoD is trying to figure out what happens to the 100ish Danish soldiers currently training or working at US military installations in the event of a war. Going directly from ally to enemy will present some odd scenarios for sure.

recall them now before you need to figure it out

Quote from: bogh on January 18, 2026, 07:28:08 AMThe Danish DoD is trying to figure out what happens to the 100ish Danish soldiers currently training or working at US military installations in the event of a war. Going directly from ally to enemy will present some odd scenarios for sure.

They would instantly become POWs.

Protest in Nuuk outside the US consulate.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-5bFM-W4AAZh1I?format=jpg&name=small)

It is hard to overstate how much Greenlanders intensely dislike the sub 85 IQ groyper foreign policy of the US towards them.

Update from Copenhagen.

QuoteDanmark tage initiativ til en dialog med Sverige, Norge og Finland samt eventuelt Island om opbyggelsen af et fællesnordisk atomvåbenprogram.

Sådan lyder det fra er seniorrådgiver på Christiansborg og kontorchef i Bruxelles

https://www.berlingske.dk/synspunkter/det-er-tid-til-et-faellesnordisk-atomvaabenprogram-vi-kunne-opkalde-det-efter-thors-hammer (https://www.berlingske.dk/synspunkter/det-er-tid-til-et-faellesnordisk-atomvaabenprogram-vi-kunne-opkalde-det-efter-thors-hammer)

this was kinda inevitable once the orange moron went full moron, together with his moron clique

Quote from: Legbiter on January 18, 2026, 12:09:19 PMUpdate from Copenhagen.

QuoteDanmark tage initiativ til en dialog med Sverige, Norge og Finland samt eventuelt Island om opbyggelsen af et fællesnordisk atomvåbenprogram.

Sådan lyder det fra er seniorrådgiver på Christiansborg og kontorchef i Bruxelles

https://www.berlingske.dk/synspunkter/det-er-tid-til-et-faellesnordisk-atomvaabenprogram-vi-kunne-opkalde-det-efter-thors-hammer (https://www.berlingske.dk/synspunkter/det-er-tid-til-et-faellesnordisk-atomvaabenprogram-vi-kunne-opkalde-det-efter-thors-hammer)

:cool:

Hopefully France and the UK will proliferate the hell out of this.

Quote from: Legbiter on January 18, 2026, 12:09:19 PMUpdate from Copenhagen.

QuoteDanmark tage initiativ til en dialog med Sverige, Norge og Finland samt eventuelt Island om opbyggelsen af et fællesnordisk atomvåbenprogram.

Sådan lyder det fra er seniorrådgiver på Christiansborg og kontorchef i Bruxelles

https://www.berlingske.dk/synspunkter/det-er-tid-til-et-faellesnordisk-atomvaabenprogram-vi-kunne-opkalde-det-efter-thors-hammer (https://www.berlingske.dk/synspunkter/det-er-tid-til-et-faellesnordisk-atomvaabenprogram-vi-kunne-opkalde-det-efter-thors-hammer)

That escalated quickly.

Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2026, 01:29:06 PM

Quote from: Legbiter on January 18, 2026, 12:09:19 PMUpdate from Copenhagen.

QuoteDanmark tage initiativ til en dialog med Sverige, Norge og Finland samt eventuelt Island om opbyggelsen af et fællesnordisk atomvåbenprogram.

Sådan lyder det fra er seniorrådgiver på Christiansborg og kontorchef i Bruxelles

https://www.berlingske.dk/synspunkter/det-er-tid-til-et-faellesnordisk-atomvaabenprogram-vi-kunne-opkalde-det-efter-thors-hammer (https://www.berlingske.dk/synspunkter/det-er-tid-til-et-faellesnordisk-atomvaabenprogram-vi-kunne-opkalde-det-efter-thors-hammer)

:cool:

Hopefully France and the UK will proliferate the hell out of this.

The lessons of Suez'56 ?  :P  :frog:  :bowler:

Different conclusions drawn, however.

Sweden was pretty close to a working nuclear device during the Cold War, whatever happens with Trump there's little strong argument to support non-proliferation at this point as a non-nuclear power.

In years past you could justify it by saying you are likely covered by a broader Western nuclear umbrella, but there's reasons even beyond Trump that I think call that into question.

Right now basically only France has a true independent nuclear arsenal in the West. The UK is going to have to figure out that its warheads solely being launched via missiles they lease from the U.S. is likely a loser position.

Japan and South Korea should both strongly consider building nuclear weapons programs as well.

I find the Nordic countries going for nuclear weapons (at least Norway) quite difficult to grasp, as nuclear weapons was what has prohibited certain US Navy vessels from using Norwegian ports and bases. The nuclear project was ditched unceremoniously in the late 1950s, with Israel getting the last useful remnants of the heavy water. The last reactor, used for tests, was closed down years ago. But, anything is possible these days.

Nuclear power has been a contentious topic in the Nordics, and I am unsure whether public opinion is moving rapidly enough for this to become a realistic option within the needed timeframe (which I suppose is months rather than years).

Quote from: Legbiter on January 18, 2026, 12:09:19 PMUpdate from Copenhagen.

QuoteDanmark tage initiativ til en dialog med Sverige, Norge og Finland samt eventuelt Island om opbyggelsen af et fællesnordisk atomvåbenprogram.

Sådan lyder det fra er seniorrådgiver på Christiansborg og kontorchef i Bruxelles

https://www.berlingske.dk/synspunkter/det-er-tid-til-et-faellesnordisk-atomvaabenprogram-vi-kunne-opkalde-det-efter-thors-hammer (https://www.berlingske.dk/synspunkter/det-er-tid-til-et-faellesnordisk-atomvaabenprogram-vi-kunne-opkalde-det-efter-thors-hammer)

That's an opinion piece, not an official government position. But I agree with it.

Yes but it gives a nice flavor of the mood in the Nordics.

Trump respects nukes.  He backed down against China many times.  He left India off the visa ban list.  He is painfully deferential to Russia. He is in love with Kim.  France is the European country he most respects.  There is a pattern.

While I find there are very good arguments for most countries to get nukes in this climate, this also reflect what I was talking about in the other thread: Trump's insanity is putting a world on the road to nuclear tragedy. It is foolish for countries not to want nukes but the bigger the proliferation is the larger the chance that somebody miscalculates and we all die a terrible death of radiation posioning and starvation.

For anyone interested in the old Swedish atomic bomb program this 1994 RAND Corporation report is an interesting read: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR460.pdf

Quote from: Legbiter on January 18, 2026, 08:28:56 AM

Quote from: bogh on January 18, 2026, 07:28:08 AMThe Danish DoD is trying to figure out what happens to the 100ish Danish soldiers currently training or working at US military installations in the event of a war. Going directly from ally to enemy will present some odd scenarios for sure.

They would instantly become POWs.

And if the rest of NATO sides with Denmark, there are quite a lot of US military/dependents who could be POWs as well.  Not to mention the untold billions of impounded military hardware. 

And pretty sure there is still a not-small nuclear stockpile stored in Europe?  (though for their part, I am guessing Turkey would distance themselves from the whole thing whatever happens)

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 18, 2026, 04:39:20 PMAnd pretty sure there is still a not-small nuclear stockpile stored in Europe?  (though for their part, I am guessing Turkey would distance themselves from the whole thing whatever happens)

Total aside but I think Turkiye has generally been very shrewd and has I think been a pretty effective middle power - as has Poland. I'd be very surprised if those two aren't exploring a nuclear program of some sort at this point.

Quote from: Tamas on January 18, 2026, 04:10:42 PMWhile I find there are very good arguments for most countries to get nukes in this climate, this also reflect what I was talking about in the other thread: Trump's insanity is putting a world on the road to nuclear tragedy. It is foolish for countries not to want nukes but the bigger the proliferation is the larger the chance that somebody miscalculates and we all die a terrible death of radiation posioning and starvation.

(https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:750/format:webp/1*_oFbNj1SEcdgbd9l2zYxhw.png)

Quote from: Zoupa on January 18, 2026, 04:51:34 PM

Quote from: Tamas on January 18, 2026, 04:10:42 PMWhile I find there are very good arguments for most countries to get nukes in this climate, this also reflect what I was talking about in the other thread: Trump's insanity is putting a world on the road to nuclear tragedy. It is foolish for countries not to want nukes but the bigger the proliferation is the larger the chance that somebody miscalculates and we all die a terrible death of radiation posioning and starvation.

(https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:750/format:webp/1*_oFbNj1SEcdgbd9l2zYxhw.png)

Zoupa, what's the reference?

Is it 'The Road' if so I've seen it but can remember almost nil about the plot.  :blush:

Post apocalypse, use some common sense.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 18, 2026, 06:57:37 PMPost apocalypse, use some common sense.

Nope, I'm saving that for the actual apocalypse, the week after next.  :bowler:

Good turn out for Saturday's demonstration in Nuuk:

(https://dims.apnews.com/dims4/default/dc9a054/2147483647/strip/true/crop/8640x5760+0+0/resize/1440x960!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2Fce%2Fec%2F7e6d41c4574d5d6e771cb01f31b8%2F970d6b4d509048518f73e531ea708dbd)

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 18, 2026, 03:44:40 PMTrump respects nukes.  He backed down against China many times.  He left India off the visa ban list.  He is painfully deferential to Russia. He is in love with Kim.  France is the European country he most respects.  There is a pattern.

Time for civ 2 diplomacy with him.  "Our words are backed by nuclear weapons..."

Oh...

QuoteWASHINGTON, Jan 18 (Reuters) - The Pentagon has ordered about 1,500 active-duty soldiers in Alaska to prepare for a possible deployment to Minnesota, the site of large protests against the government's deportation drive, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Sunday.

The U.S. Army placed the units on prepare-to-deploy orders in case violence in the midwestern state escalates, the officials said, though it is not clear whether any of them will be sent.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentagon-readies-1500-soldiers-possibly-deploy-minnesota-washington-post-reports-2026-01-18/

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 18, 2026, 04:39:20 PM

Quote from: Legbiter on January 18, 2026, 08:28:56 AM

Quote from: bogh on January 18, 2026, 07:28:08 AMThe Danish DoD is trying to figure out what happens to the 100ish Danish soldiers currently training or working at US military installations in the event of a war. Going directly from ally to enemy will present some odd scenarios for sure.

They would instantly become POWs.

And if the rest of NATO sides with Denmark, there are quite a lot of US military/dependents who could be POWs as well.  Not to mention the untold billions of impounded military hardware. 

And pretty sure there is still a not-small nuclear stockpile stored in Europe?  (though for their part, I am guessing Turkey would distance themselves from the whole thing whatever happens)

Offer these Americans asylum. Build an army of Free America as well as a government in exile.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G_AR1d4XcAAVe6X?format=jpg&name=900x900)

Surely this is fake.

It's been confirmed by the Støhre.

Apparently, the Norwegian Prime Minister has confirmed, at least according to a Norwegian tabloid (VG)

https://www.vg.no/nyheter/i/q6AdB0/trump-i-melding-til-stoere-foeler-ikke-lenger-noen-forpliktelse

It's 100% real.

If my elderly neighbor talked like this I'd make discreet enquiries on whether anyone was looking after him.

Quote from: Legbiter on January 19, 2026, 03:16:39 AMIf my elderly neighbor talked like this I'd make discreet enquiries on whether anyone was looking after him.

Yes, totally cracked out.

Quote from: Legbiter on January 19, 2026, 03:12:55 AMIt's 100% real.

Yeah - Shashank Joshi of the Economist says sources confirmed it to him too.

The US at this point is a dog that has rabies. Prepare accordingly.

Quote from: Legbiter on January 19, 2026, 03:25:18 AMThe US at this point is a dog that has rabies. Prepare accordingly.

That doesn't feel like the right analogy given a dog with rabies can be easily put down.

Yeah, more like a heavily armed, incredible rich grizzly bear with rabies.

Quote from: bogh on January 19, 2026, 03:34:22 AMYeah, more like a heavily armed, incredible rich grizzly bear with rabies.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ab/Cocaine_Bear_poster.jpg)

Quote from: Legbiter on January 19, 2026, 03:16:39 AMIf my elderly neighbor talked like this I'd make discreet enquiries on whether anyone was looking after him.

Technically, the US has a provision in case a president is a complete nutcase, but I doubt they will invoke it for "DJT". :(

Also, if the US had said that with shifting international situation they want to expand their presence on Greenland (military and commercial), I doubt there would have been a hard no on that. Which makes this whole things so silly. I feel it's all about "legacy" for Trump - "This is the Trump Ballroom in the White House", "This is the territorial expansion under Trump" etc. He wants to be in the history books.

Quote from: Syt on January 19, 2026, 04:06:23 AMAlso, if the US had said that with shifting international situation they want to expand their presence on Greenland (military and commercial), I doubt there would have been a hard no on that. Which makes this whole things so silly. I feel it's all about "legacy" for Trump - "This is the Trump Ballroom in the White House", "This is the territorial expansion under Trump" etc. He wants to be in the history books.

He'll be in the history books allright,  as the idiot who squandered us hegemony

I blame the Mercator projection; Greenland is very big but that projection makes it even biglier. Trump fancies a bit of map painting much like one of the denser 12-year-olds playing EU4.

His concept of "winning" is risible; American prestige and power weakens with his every move.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 19, 2026, 04:10:37 AMHe'll be in the history books allright,  as the idiot who squandered us hegemony

I was thinking which Roman emperor he resembled most in this respect, but I can't actually think of one that started from a position of relative strength and stability and then threw it all away like Trump has.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2026, 03:22:05 AM

Quote from: Legbiter on January 19, 2026, 03:12:55 AMIt's 100% real.

Yeah - Shashank Joshi of the Economist says sources confirmed it to him too.

Omfg we are all dead.


Unrelated, completely:

https://youtube.com/shorts/4IcBQJYSfBg?si=uyiCyHW2nLrqu2d9

Quote from: Maladict on January 19, 2026, 04:33:13 AM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 19, 2026, 04:10:37 AMHe'll be in the history books allright,  as the idiot who squandered us hegemony

I was thinking which Roman emperor he resembled most in this respect, but I can't actually think of one that started from a position of relative strength and stability and then threw it all away like Trump has.

Nero ?

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 19, 2026, 04:34:53 AM

Quote from: Maladict on January 19, 2026, 04:33:13 AM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 19, 2026, 04:10:37 AMHe'll be in the history books allright,  as the idiot who squandered us hegemony

I was thinking which Roman emperor he resembled most in this respect, but I can't actually think of one that started from a position of relative strength and stability and then threw it all away like Trump has.

Nero ?

Mh, I don't think so.
The empire remained unchallenged as hegemon of the classical world.

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 19, 2026, 04:34:53 AMNero ?

Roman hegemony in the ancient world was not diminished by Nero, or even the civil war that followed him.

Nero is problematic because of the source material. Even later Roman writers themselves admitted the sources were highly biased against Nero. But he may well have been unhinged like Trump.

Maybe the fool who lost the battle at Adrianopolis? Against invading germanics iirc somewhere in the 4th century? That one fucked up things real bad

He's a Caligula in the performative cruelty and sadism.

Quote from: Maladict on January 19, 2026, 04:47:47 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on January 19, 2026, 04:34:53 AMNero ?

Roman hegemony in the ancient world was not diminished by Nero, or even the civil war that followed him.

Nero is problematic because of the source material. Even later Roman writers themselves admitted the sources were highly biased against Nero. But he may well have been unhinged like Trump.

Nero grabbed Crimea or rather annexed the Roman client kingdom of Bosporum.
But the local elite did a better job at managing the relation with the steppe and regained autonomy.

So Commodus? Unhinged and really paved the way for the decline of Roman hegemony. Not into disastrous wars, though but bad peace deals.

P-S: edit timeouts fixed.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 19, 2026, 04:55:49 AMMaybe the fool who lost the battle at Adrianopolis? Against invading germanics iirc somewhere in the 4th century? That one fucked up things real bad

Valens was mediocre, but not that bad. Adrianopolis is obviously on him, however.

Oooh, Trump has sent our PM a note.

QuoteDear Jonas: Since your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for stopping 8 wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace, although it will always be dominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States

Then a rant about Denmark and some boats.

No amount of spin can hide how unfit this man is for office.
 :shutup:

The Telegraph headline.  :lol:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G_BSZAeXcAAb8rM?format=jpg&name=small)

Alexander Stub and Jonas Gahr Støre replied in unison:

QuoteDear Mr President, dear Donald - on the contact across the Atlantic - on Greenland, Gaza, Ukraine - and your tariff announcement yesterday. You know our position on these issues. But we believe we all should work to take this down and de-escalate - so much is happening around us where we need to stand together. We are proposing a call with you later today - with both of us or separately - give us a hint of what you prefer! Best - Alex and Jonas

So he's invading Denmark as a retaliation for something Norway did?

That means we could get him to go to town on Belgium for shits and giggles.  :hmm:

Seizing Greenland militarily on the cheap via taking the airport in Nuuk with 100 SOF or so while US cargo planes rapidly fly in reinforcements is off the table since the Allies have reinforced to counter exactly that. The hard way now would involve an entire carrier task force off of Greenland plus B-2 air attacks from the continental United States on Danish and Scandinavian command-and-control. Subs could fire off Tomahawks and start a campaign of guerre de course against Allied shipping. The only arctic troops the US has would be the 11th airborne division based in Alaska which is rumored to be deploying to....Minnesota.  :hmm: But keep an eye on them all the same.

Hence the tariff tantrum and further threats. Next lever used is the Americans will escalate by stopping weapon shipments bought by us for Ukraine. Unless the EU punches back and punches hard the Americans will continue to up the ante.

Quote from: Maladict on January 19, 2026, 07:04:06 AMSo he's invading Denmark as a retaliation for something Norway did?

That means we could get him to go to town on Belgium for shits and giggles.  :hmm:

Thing is, he's likely to be very enamoured by Belgium's biggest crime (apart from being Belgium), the Congo Free State. "Beautiful name. Free state. I looked around and it was very free. So beautiful and free". So it might backfire. Then again, Germany is fairly safe given it had Hitler's generals.

Quote from: Maladict on January 19, 2026, 04:33:13 AM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 19, 2026, 04:10:37 AMHe'll be in the history books allright,  as the idiot who squandered us hegemony

I was thinking which Roman emperor he resembled most in this respect, but I can't actually think of one that started from a position of relative strength and stability and then threw it all away like Trump has.

The heirs to Basil II is the best description. The Empire was extremely powerful and had no real threats and they fixed that.

Quote from: Norgy on January 19, 2026, 05:48:51 AMOooh, Trump has sent our PM a note.

QuoteDear Jonas: Since your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for stopping 8 wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace, although it will always be dominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States

Then a rant about Denmark and some boats.

No amount of spin can hide how unfit this man is for office.
 :shutup:

Well, I guess it was a close call for Portugal.  :P
Sighting and mapping Greenland, a relevant part of it at least, by boat a few hundred years ago, fits to a tee.  :P Labrador, Scolvus and Pining and one hand,  on the other Corte Real brothers (sons of Labrador).

Quote from: Threviel on January 19, 2026, 07:18:10 AM

Quote from: Maladict on January 19, 2026, 04:33:13 AM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 19, 2026, 04:10:37 AMHe'll be in the history books allright,  as the idiot who squandered us hegemony

I was thinking which Roman emperor he resembled most in this respect, but I can't actually think of one that started from a position of relative strength and stability and then threw it all away like Trump has.

The heirs to Basil II is the best description. The Empire was extremely powerful and had no real threats and they fixed that.

I didn't think of the Byzantines. But yeah, that's a contender.

Jens Kjeldsen has taken up a protest position outside the US consulate which he will maintain on a regular schedule.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G_CJtwHWQAAIvO1?format=jpg&name=small)


Flag nerds go, what is the middle flag? No cheating from the Nordics, let the others figure it out.

I will no longer doubt that all of the crazy things attributed to Roman Emperors by contemporaries are true. Modern historians sometime claim the crazy stories are all made up by the emperor's enemies, but I think we can now clearly see that you can, in fact, have a crazy emperor.

Faeroes I think.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 19, 2026, 10:09:08 AMFaeroes I think.

Yep. Good instant flag response.  :cheers:

Just rename them the Epstein Islands and get this foolishness over with.

Quote from: HVC on January 19, 2026, 10:26:45 AMJust rename them the Epstein Islands and get this foolishness over with.

 :lol:

Seriously if America attacks Greenland militarily I will use every gentry fiber of my being in making sure the Americans are kicked out of Iceland. Their Air Force and their Los Angeles submarines can power project from Mar-a-Lago.

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on January 19, 2026, 10:08:39 AMI will no longer doubt that all of the crazy things attributed to Roman Emperors by contemporaries are true. Modern historians sometime claim the crazy stories are all made up by the emperor's enemies, but I think we can now clearly see that you can, in fact, have a crazy emperor.

:yes:

He hasn't made his favorite putter Senator yet.

There is nothing to stop him in a structural sense. Congress is this weird vestigial organ, the Senators are cowed except for those retiring. There is no realistic mechanism to put gramps into a home.

I think it's 50/50 that Trump will take Greenland in the next few days.

Quote from: PJL on January 19, 2026, 10:58:51 AMI think it's 50/50 that Trump will take Greenland in the next few days.

Now if only we could send him and keep him there...

Quote from: PJL on January 19, 2026, 10:58:51 AMI think it's 50/50 that Trump will take Greenland in the next few days.

He seems likely to want to bomb Iran next. Also establishing a foothold in Greenland does not mean the Nordics stop fighting. Greenland at this time of year is very, very inhospitable. Man, it would be something, firefights breaking out in the Rammstein cafeteria between US forces and their former allies.

Wouldn't it be funny if the Germans or so kidnap the orange man from Davos and bring him to court...

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 19, 2026, 11:17:05 AMWouldn't it be funny if the Germans or so kidnap the orange man from Davos and bring him to court...

Fantasy.

Consult the Melian Dialogue for current US policy.

Quote from: Legbiter on January 19, 2026, 11:16:42 AM

Quote from: PJL on January 19, 2026, 10:58:51 AMI think it's 50/50 that Trump will take Greenland in the next few days.

He seems likely to want to bomb Iran next. Also establishing a foothold in Greenland does not mean the Nordics stop fighting. Greenland at this time of year is very, very inhospitable. Man, it would be something, firefights breaking out in the Rammstein cafeteria between US forces and their former allies.

The gun is already loaded on Greenland, and forces from Alaska supposedly heading for Minnesota are ready to go. Once the US Navy icebreaker leaves the East Coast, then the trigger will have been pulled. There doesn't seem to be any urgency regarding Iran at the moment.

Yeah, I'm guessing the Putin faction inside the White House outmanoeuvred the Israel faction when it comes to Iran.

Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2026, 11:30:45 AMYeah, I'm guessing the Putin faction inside the White House outmanoeuvred the Israel faction when it comes to Iran.

Yeah, with Putin being invited to the Gaza Peace board (which the Israelis are already unhappy about), looks like we're seeing a major realignment taking place.

Quote from: PJL on January 19, 2026, 11:27:21 AMThe gun is already loaded on Greenland, and forces from Alaska supposedly heading for Minnesota are ready to go. Once the US Navy icebreaker leaves the East Coast, then the trigger will have been pulled. There doesn't seem to be any urgency regarding Iran at the moment.

Invading Greenland at this point is not a sugar rush op like Venezuela. The airport is no go, the Nuuk harbor site unless you're a shrimp fisherman is atrocious. And the garrison will have Norwegian anti-ship missiles and advanced warning from either the Brits or French (probably both).

This is very bad TV for Trump.

Quote from: Legbiter on January 19, 2026, 11:24:01 AM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 19, 2026, 11:17:05 AMWouldn't it be funny if the Germans or so kidnap the orange man from Davos and bring him to court...

Fantasy.

Obviously.

Quote from: Legbiter on January 19, 2026, 11:39:23 AMInvading Greenland at this point is not a sugar rush op like Venezuela. The airport is no go, the Nuuk harbor site unless you're a shrimp fisherman is atrocious. And the garrison will have Norwegian anti-ship missiles and advanced warning from either the Brits or French (probably both).

This is very bad TV for Trump.

The question (well one of many, obviously) is who is going to shoot at whom first?

Like say a US naval task force is en route to Greenland, will they open fire on European vessels they encounter?

Conversely, imagine the decision matrix for the commander of the French, Danish, or British naval vessel making the decision to fire (or not) on US forces before they're fired upon themselves.

Quote from: Legbiter on January 19, 2026, 11:39:23 AMInvading Greenland at this point is not a sugar rush op like Venezuela. The airport is no go, the Nuuk harbor site unless you're a shrimp fisherman is atrocious. And the garrison will have Norwegian anti-ship missiles and advanced warning from either the Brits or French (probably both).

This is very bad TV for Trump.

I agree it's very bad TV for Trump, but with the "this is your fault for not giving me a peace prize! Waaaaah!" letter, it seems like Trump is beyond caring about TV to assuage his unloved little boy lashing out psyche.

Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2026, 11:56:48 AMThe question (well one of many, obviously) is who is going to shoot at whom first?

Like say a US naval task force is en route to Greenland, will they open fire on European vessels they encounter?

Conversely, imagine the decision matrix for the commander of the French, Danish, or British naval vessel making the decision to fire (or not) on US forces before they're fired upon themselves.

Venezuela was preceded by months of hostile rhetoric and the stationing of a carrier battlegroup plus strikes on boats in the Carribean. Since Nuuk airport is out of play the US would have to do something similar. At which point NATO is long dead, Mark Rutte is an Uber driver and the Fenno-Scandic nuclear weapons program is not just taking place in the Brains garage. 

Quote from: Legbiter on January 19, 2026, 12:05:49 PMVenezuela was preceded by months of hostile rhetoric and the stationing of a carrier battlegroup plus strikes on boats in the Carribean. Since Nuuk airport is out of play the US would have to do something similar. At which point NATO is long dead, Mark Rutte is an Uber driver and the Fenno-Scandic nuclear weapons program is not just taking place in the Brains garage.

I like to think you're correct, but my level of confidence is not high.

Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2026, 12:14:41 PMI like to think you're correct, but my level of confidence is not high.

Same, but reinforcing Greenland with troops really upset the Americans because they'd been preparing this showy Friday operation. I'll rest easier if the EU retaliates hard with targeted sanctions on his MAGA supporters, social media networks and major propagandists. The US wants to divide the West, pick us off one by one.

Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2026, 11:56:48 AM

Quote from: Legbiter on January 19, 2026, 11:39:23 AMInvading Greenland at this point is not a sugar rush op like Venezuela. The airport is no go, the Nuuk harbor site unless you're a shrimp fisherman is atrocious. And the garrison will have Norwegian anti-ship missiles and advanced warning from either the Brits or French (probably both).

This is very bad TV for Trump.

The question (well one of many, obviously) is who is going to shoot at whom first?

Like say a US naval task force is en route to Greenland, will they open fire on European vessels they encounter?

Conversely, imagine the decision matrix for the commander of the French, Danish, or British naval vessel making the decision to fire (or not) on US forces before they're fired upon themselves.

Disable a or the critical vessel for Greenland, say, the icebreaker? How?  :hmm:

Quote from: Threviel on January 19, 2026, 07:18:10 AMThe heirs to Basil II is the best description. The Empire was extremely powerful and had no real threats and they fixed that.

Basil II had the good fortune of an unusually favorable strategic environment that was never going to last long-term.  His successors didn't cover themselves in glory but they weren't mental incompetents like Trump. 

King John is an example of a ruler who inherited a very powerful position and squandered it all by alienating allies and bafflingly poor strategic decisions.   

Who would have thought that Obama winning that prize and making a few jokes would eventually cause the destruction of NATO and the end of Pax Americana. Truly the Vienna art school rejection of our times.

Quote from: Zanza on January 19, 2026, 02:24:19 PMWho would have thought that Obama winning that prize and making a few jokes would eventually cause the destruction of NATO and the end of Pax Americana. Truly the Vienna art school rejection of our times.

Yep

This Gaza Peace Board, it sounds a lot like a pyramid scheme. One billion dollars for a seat?  :lol:

Well, a permanent one.

Quote from: Legbiter on January 19, 2026, 12:30:46 PMSame, but reinforcing Greenland with troops really upset the Americans because they'd been preparing this showy Friday operation. I'll rest easier if the EU retaliates hard with targeted sanctions on his MAGA supporters, social media networks and major propagandists. The US wants to divide the West, pick us off one by one.

Two points that I wonder about.

It's been pointed out by a lot of people that the European vulnerability is perhaps less sanctions (though that will disproportionately hit Germany who have just returned to growth for the first time after two years of a shrinking economy) than energy. Europe largely replaced Russian pipe gas with American LNG. I've mentioned before but I'm really not sure Europe can supply its energy needs if it's cut off from Russia and the US. At this point my understanding is that gas supples are quite low because Europe topped up less than it has in recent years and it's been a relatively cold winter.

The other point is that as with so much all of this is, or should be, the responsibility of Congress if they were willing to assert their power. Obviously this Congress won't because they're supine cowards. But all of this is profoundly unpopular. If the Democrats win the mid-terms the focus needs to be on systematically re-asserting the power (and prestige) of Congress and not just reverting to deference and an imperial presidency.

Nukes. You need nukes Europe. Search your hearts, you know it to be true.

Can I: have heavy water plant? :unsure:

Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2026, 02:47:55 PMNukes. You need nukes Europe. Search your hearts, you know it to be true.

Yes - as I say I'd be very surprised if this isn't the lesson Poland and Turkiye (and for that matter Brazil and others) are drawing from it.

Whether it's Iraq or Libya or Ukraine or this - I think the lesson of the last 25 years on WMDs is pretty unfortunate.

Quote from: Norgy on January 19, 2026, 02:51:02 PMCan I: have heavy water plant? :unsure:

And this time we won't send Kirk Douglas and Richard Harris in heavy knitwear to stop it :P

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2026, 02:45:50 PMIf the Democrats win the mid-terms the focus needs to be on systematically re-asserting the power (and prestige) of Congress and not just reverting to deference and an imperial presidency.

Well yes.

If they win. And if they get their shit together.

Quote from: Zanza on January 19, 2026, 02:24:19 PMWho would have thought that Obama winning that prize and making a few jokes would eventually cause the destruction of NATO and the end of Pax Americana. Truly the Vienna art school rejection of our times.

Obama has been a great statesmen, but the few flaws he had proved to be utterly disastrous for the US.  His inability to comprehend that his rivals could be playing not by his rules, or his ability to inspire his rivals by mocking them, have really contributed to the dire state of things we're in today.

Quote from: Syt on January 19, 2026, 04:02:51 AM

Quote from: bogh on January 19, 2026, 03:34:22 AMYeah, more like a heavily armed, incredible rich grizzly bear with rabies.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ab/Cocaine_Bear_poster.jpg)

Perfect meme  :lmfao:

Someone is selling red MAGA baseball caps in Denmark.  Make America Go Away.

Will this be used as cover for a photo-op invasion?

QuoteMeanwhile, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (Norad) on Monday announced that multiple aircraft are on their way to Pituffik Space Base in Greenland.

The joint US-Canada military defence organisation stressed they are part of a routine operation "to support various long-planned Norad activities", and said they had been coordinated with Denmark and that the government of Greenland had been informed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g5345ylk0o (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g5345ylk0o)


I'd add maybe he want to do something bigley, so he can swagger into Davos on Wednesday, if they'll have him that is?

Quote from: Jacob on January 19, 2026, 11:30:45 AMYeah, I'm guessing the Putin faction inside the White House outmanoeuvred the Israel faction when it comes to Iran.

Maybe - I understand a US carrier has just arrived in the Persian Gulf and that, as we speak, the US are deploying more air force resources to the region too. It may just be that the forces weren't in place.

Although I worried that Trump's statements on social media were a little Bush and the Kurds of voicing very strong support without the willingness (or possibly resources in the region) to actually do anything.

QuoteWill this be used as cover for a photo-op invasion?

I think the NORAD statement is actually kind of astonishing in how clearly it's trying to say "this is not an invasion". The "enduring" line is quite striking:

QuoteNorth American Aerospace Defense Command
@NORADCommand
North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) aircraft will soon arrive at Pituffik Space Base, Greenland.  Along with aircraft operating from bases in the continental United States and Canada, they will support various long-planned NORAD activities, building on the enduring defense cooperation between the United States and Canada, as well as the Kingdom of Denmark.

This activity has been coordinated with the Kingdom of Denmark, and all supporting forces operate with the requisite diplomatic clearances.  The Government of Greenland is also informed of planned activities.

NORAD routinely conducts sustained, dispersed operations in the defense of North America, through one or all three NORAD regions (Alaska, Canada, and the continental U.S.).

I mean, if it were a cover, it'd be weird that Canada would be going along with it.

If there is one encouraging piece of news, the Polymarket is only giving 20% probability of Trump acquiring Greenland before 2027.  That said, I didn't check the conditions for the bet paying off, I imagine they might get pretty complex.

I refuse to believe this is happening.  I'm going to my doctor and get my medications straightened out and I think that will clear this whole thing up.  There is no way I am not hallucinating this.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2026, 08:48:44 PMI refuse to believe this is happening.  I'm going to my doctor and get my medications straightened out and I think that will clear this whole thing up.  There is no way I am not hallucinating this.

Thanks Raz. Let me know what he says. If the meds help I'll give them a try too.

"Now either you are stark raving mad or I am!"

Now there is a line that has crossed my mind several times in the last 10 years.

Hmm.
https://malcolmnance.substack.com/p/greenland-warning-us-arctic-forces

I'm getting seriously worried now, lots of things are happening relating to Greenland, Diego Garcia, the Board of Peace, and the markets are starting to get spooked with falls in the FTSE and big moves in the currency market. WW3  is a distinct possibility in the next few weeks.

I genuinely think Trump doesn't care anymore and won't mind going down in flames, taking the whole world with him. Nothing other than a massive force can stop him now.

Sounds to me like US treasury secretary Besset is saying that people should not panic and just wait it out with his boss going apeshit. There were a few instances of this the past year when him and Vance and maybe others were puzzled why people just not placate the orange child like they do.

Quote from: PJL on January 20, 2026, 04:03:48 AMI'm getting seriously worried now, lots of things are happening relating to Greenland, Diego Garcia, the Board of Peace and the markets are starting to get spooked with falls in the FTSE and big moves in the currency market. WW3  is a distinct possibility in the next few weeks.

This is some fucked up shit. WW1 over the killing of an Austrian prince will look like the epitome of reserved rationality when compared to the world burning beguae an 80 years old toddler couldn't take no for an answer.

Raz when you have your med dialed in let me know what was the prescription.

Here it is:

QuoteScott Bessent then warns other countries not to retaliate against the US's trade tariffs announced over the Greenland crisis.

Asked about the uncertainty that companies face, and why any country should enter a trade deal with the US, Bessent tells his press conference here in Davos:

I would say this is the same kind of hysteria that we heard on April 2nd. There was a panic.

[That was the day of Trump's initial Liberation Day tariffs, which were reversed after a market panic].

Treasury secretary Bessent adds:

What I am urging everyone here to do is sit back, take a deep breath, and let things play out.

I am finding this extraordinary. He is saying people should ignore Trump and wait the tantrum out.

Quote from: Tamas on January 20, 2026, 04:16:37 AMHere it is:

QuoteScott Bessent then warns other countries not to retaliate against the US's trade tariffs announced over the Greenland crisis.

Asked about the uncertainty that companies face, and why any country should enter a trade deal with the US, Bessent tells his press conference here in Davos:

I would say this is the same kind of hysteria that we heard on April 2nd. There was a panic.

[That was the day of Trump's initial Liberation Day tariffs, which were reversed after a market panic].

Treasury secretary Bessent adds:

What I am urging everyone here to do is sit back, take a deep breath, and let things play out.

I am finding this extraordinary. He is saying people should ignore Trump and wait the tantrum out.

It is very weird to ask that everybody in the china shop remain calm when you are running around smashing all the china.

'Donald Trump has gone into full Lex Luther mode'- Michael Gove.

We all know Trump appointees, still in their positions, aren't going to point out how crazy it all is.

Also I think you need to see Bessent at the weekend:

QuoteWELKER: Is Greenland or NATO more essential to US national security?

BESSENT: That's obviously a false choice

WELKER: Not from the perspective of European leaders

BESSENT: European leaders will come around and understand they need to be under the US security umbrella. What would happen in Ukraine if the US pulled its support out? The whole thing would collapse.

I think that is a misreading of the European position and views on this - but implicit in what Bessent is saying is after tariffs, the coercion moves to security. The US suspends weapon sales for Ukraine again and halts intel sharing again, or withdrawing the US security umbrella (e.g. withdrawals from Europe).

Having said all that there is a bit of me that wonders if there's going to be some convergence/agreement between Europe and the US on this a Davos. I have no policy or political idea about it (although apparently pushback from Congressional and business leaders in private). But I just wonder from a producer/"it'll make great television" perspective. Obviously nothing was going to be done at the meeting with Vance because he's just the dumpy sidekick. It feels like whatever happens the way Trump will want to end the narrative arc/season is him centre stage declaring victory and maybe Davos is an opportunity for that: dramatic setting, world and business leaders all around him, the centre of the world media when its on.

Edit: Although - maybe I'm wrong - I feel like the markets are kind of with Bessent. I've been surprised at how little reaction therre's been - I think the governor of the BofE has described it as "more muted" than they'd worried it would be. It certainly seems less severe than the market reaction to the April tariff announcement which I'm slightly surprised by - I can only guess they're thinking like Bessent?

That interview with Bessent was an absolute train wreck...as it would be trying to justify the unjustifiable. That snippet isn't even the most absurd part...

The markets, like the trumpians, seem to live in la-la-land though. Are they even connected to the real economy anymore?

Have not been for a while now

Quote from: Tonitrus on January 20, 2026, 07:21:05 AMThat interview with Bessent was an absolute train wreck...as it would be trying to justify the unjustifiable. That snippet isn't even the most absurd part...

Yeah, his argument that the US needs to start a war in Greenland in order to avoid getting drawn into a war in Greenland was straight out of Idiocracy.

brought to you by Koch Industries

Civil preparedness planning is in full swing in Greenland, they're taking various measures, may recommend households stockpile food for at least 5 days. A lot of men are brushing up at the rifle range.

Quote from: garbon on January 20, 2026, 04:20:10 AMWe all know Trump appointees, still in their positions, aren't going to point out how crazy it all is.

Well, Bessent's son is making a killing on these tariffs.  He sells tariff insurance to companies.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2026, 06:59:06 AMwithdrawing the US security umbrella (e.g. withdrawals from Europe).

Hegseth already told Europeans to go fuck themselves.  US priorities have shifted, they're toward Asia.  At the same time, they told Taiwan in no uncertain terms they won't intervene in their defense against China.  Except with tariffs.

Man, we need nukes, ASAP.

Malheureusement, les bombinettes en question, il faut plutôt des années pour en développer.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2026, 06:59:06 AMI think that is a misreading of the European position and views on this

It's a misreading of Bessent to think he cares about the European position and views. He has a constituency of one.

With Bessent, Vance, Rubio, we are dealing with people in a powerful co-dependent relationship with a highly disturbed, abusive and dangerous person.  Their overwhelming motivation is to placate Trump.  And as Tamas astutely observed, it is common for people in that position to feel genuine anger and irritation at outsiders, who though objectively are acting rationally, are perceived as being "difficult" because they aren't cooperating with the essential agenda of pleasing the abuser.

The other powerful dynamic at work is that all three are maneuvering for the rapidly approaching (?) post-Trump GOP landscape. As dominant as Trump is now, a third term is probably beyond his reach.  Bessent, Vance, Rubio are all extremely ambitious people with little to no fixed principles, and Vance and Rubio happen to be the two leading candidates for the GOP nomination in 2028.  But  their prospects depend on keeping their current position and good graces with Trump.  If the cost of securing that means blowing up NATO for no reason, they will gladly set the charges.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2026, 06:59:06 AMAlso I think you need to see Bessent at the weekend:

QuoteWELKER: Is Greenland or NATO more essential to US national security?

BESSENT: That's obviously a false choice

WELKER: Not from the perspective of European leaders

BESSENT: European leaders will come around and understand they need to be under the US security umbrella. What would happen in Ukraine if the US pulled its support out? The whole thing would collapse.

I think that is a misreading of the European position and views on this - but implicit in what Bessent is saying is after tariffs, the coercion moves to security. The US suspends weapon sales for Ukraine again and halts intel sharing again, or withdrawing the US security umbrella (e.g. withdrawals from Europe).

There is no US security umbrella anymore as Trump already said that he does not value NATO. So that's an empty threat at this point.

Europe is under the US security umbrella, but the umbrella is folded up and the pointy part is jabbing at them.

Quote from: viper37 on January 20, 2026, 09:52:09 AMHegseth already told Europeans to go fuck themselves.  US priorities have shifted, they're toward Asia.  At the same time, they told Taiwan in no uncertain terms they won't intervene in their defense against China.  Except with tariffs.

QuoteThere is no US security umbrella anymore as Trump already said that he does not value NATO. So that's an empty threat at this point.

Sure on these points but there is a difference between Hegseth and Vance saying things and the US re-deploying from Europe. That is the message that the US is sending to Europe and the reality is that there are still thousands of American service personnel in Europe, on NATO bases.

There is a level of rhetoric that is happening where what you're saying is right. But at the material and operational level there are about seventy thousand US troops in Europe embedded in NATO infrastructure and with our militaries.

I think there is a significant difference betwen the rhetoric happening with tens of thousands of US troops deployed in Europe and the rhetoric happening with tens of thousands of US troops being re-deployed out of Europe.

QuoteIt's a misreading of Bessent to think he cares about the European position and views. He has a constituency of one.

With Bessent, Vance, Rubio, we are dealing with people in a powerful co-dependent relationship with a highly disturbed, abusive and dangerous person.  Their overwhelming motivation is to placate Trump.  And as Tamas astutely observed, it is common for people in that position to feel genuine anger and irritation at outsiders, who though objectively are acting rationally, are perceived as being "difficult" because they aren't cooperating with the essential agenda of pleasing the abuser.

Sure I think that's probably right.

Misreading is perhaps the wrong word - in that I don't think it's about caring what Europeans think. But I think the administration does think that they hold the cards to escalate to the point where Europe folds - and I'm not sure that's true. I think territorial integrity of a European state and ally is not something the US will be able to pressure its way to via tariffs, or withdrawing troops, or blocking the supply of US weapons to Ukraine, or energy (which I think is the biggest vulnerablity).

QuoteThe other powerful dynamic at work is that all three are maneuvering for the rapidly approaching (?) post-Trump GOP landscape. As dominant as Trump is now, a third term is probably beyond his reach.  Bessent, Vance, Rubio are all extremely ambitious people with little to no fixed principles, and Vance and Rubio happen to be the two leading candidates for the GOP nomination in 2028.  But  their prospects depend on keeping their current position and good graces with Trump.  If the cost of securing that means blowing up NATO for no reason, they will gladly set the charges.

I agree and I think everyone going in to the Trump administration knew the cost would be that you go along with whatever he says. The lesson the right took from the first term was that personnel is politics and you can't have internal saboteurs or people trying to "manage" Trump. Project 2025 and the America First Policy Institute were designed primarily to recruit willing cadres of spineless apparatchiks (the latter having far more sway, in my view, precisely because it didn't claim to have a policy agenda).

I think that's true for Vance and Rubio as everyone else in an appointed position in the administration. Having said while I don't think any of those people have "principles" in the "here, I stand" kind of way, I think they do have world views - which they are still trying to push into the whims of what Trump wants to do. But I don't think Trump really has that type of world view. I think the only guiding world views that Trump has are basically those of a mob boss and a reality TV producer.

Listening to a podcast on arctic warfare (in Danish). They've got a security analyst with about 20 years focus on the Arctic (and his own naval service in Greenland) talking about practicalities of an American attack.

Some of the take aways are:

The US' arctic capabilities - the Arctic Angels - are only 2 years old as a unit (indicating the desire to become active in the Arctic). They've been primarily trained by Scandinavians (Swedish, Norwegian, and Finish) who may in fact have larger capabilities - so if the Nordics support Denmark in defending Greenland, it may in fact be a tough fight for the US in the long run.

Another point - most of the US navy is not rated for arctic conditions, and the waters around Greenland are treacherous (lots of hard to spot black ice, for example). Additionally there's a significant lack of nautical charts - many of the waters are only safely navigable by those who have direct experience in sailing in those waters (which is primarily the Danish navy). Arctic storms are very harsh and not infrequent and - apparently - aircraft carriers are essentially useless while they happen.

Similarly, airports are often closed down due to fog and other weather conditions for weeks at a time.

In short, sustaining an invasion and fight in Greenland is potentially going to strain the US military in spite of its overwhelming power globally. Conversely the Danish military, while obviously small, has a long history of being able to operate across all of Greenland - on land, on the sea, and in the air. The US has not yet demonstrated such capabilities (and an aside, when Italy or Hungary or whoever rule out sending troops to defend Greenland it means nothing, because they don't have any troops that could do so. Finland, Sweden, and Norway are another matter altogether - as is Canada, I expect, but I don't think anyone expects Canada to send troops to fight the US in Greenland).

Still, it is likely that the US can project enough force to take the settlements in Greenland; but Greenland is big, about the size of the UK + Germany + France put together. Given the local conditions it may end up being very costly (and potentially impossible) to hold if Europe (and primarily the Nordics with possibly the UK) continue to contest Greenland after an invasion.

[My thought here: unless, of course, the US prevails on Europe to give up and accept a fait accompli or recede under threat of attacks on European assets outside of the Arctic]

Another key takeaway is that we - in Western Europe - need more submarines (both to counter American aircraft carriers in Northern waters, and to counter the Russian Project Nautilus once development finishes).

On Hegseth and Bessent and the messaging...

I've always resisted the whole "I'm going to diagnose Trump psychologically, he's a narcissist" thing, but the narcissism model does explain some parts of Trumps behaviour in a way that I think may have utility.

This is from - I believe - Vlad Vexler (I got it via Anders Puck Nielsen). Essentially the model goes that a narcissist like Trump divides people into two groups.

• People he admire and whose respect and admiration he craves. He gets his "narcissist supply" from their respect. These are people he consider strong - so Putin, Kim, and others like them.
• People he considers weak, so victims or future victims. Trump (and thus his regime) gets his "narcissist supply" from being cruel to them, because they cannot do anything back to him.

Europe's problem - vis a vis Trump - is that he puts them in the second category: as weaklings to be bullied. Attempting to compromise or find common ground or talk things out only compounds the problem.

Anders Puch Nielsen suggests that Europe's best approach with Trump is to demonstrate strength. His proposal is to decisively beat Russia in Ukraine (without American support, presumably), which I think is a good idea.

Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2026, 01:45:18 PMAnother key takeaway is that we - in Western Europe - need more submarines (both to counter American aircraft carriers in Northern waters, and to counter the Russian Project Nautilus once development finishes).

Slightly relevant on this but there was a speech in December by the First Sea Lord which touched on this. This was at an event attended by chiefs of navy from Denmark and Norway. He repeated it more pointedly in an interview with the FT. It does not refer to the US but purely Russia and I think is alarming (and I think despite the reference to the Secretary of State is clearly a plea for more spending):

QuoteJust look at Russia. Despite the millions of lives and the cost of their egregious illegal invasion of Ukraine, they continue to invest billions in their maritime capabilities, particularly in their Northern Fleet, a 30% increase in Russian incursion in our waters just in the last two years.

It's most visibly seen in the presence of their spy ships like the Yantar.

But I can tell you today, the Yantar is only the visible bit you see in the public and it's not the bit that worries me the most. It's what's going on under the waves that most concerns me.

I can also tell you today that the advantage that we have enjoyed in the Atlantic since the end of the Second World War is at risk. We are holding on, but not by much. There is no room for complacency. Our would be opponents are investing billions. We have to step up, or we will lose that advantage.

We cannot let that happen, as the Secretary of State for Defence said recently in his message direct to Putin, we see you and we know what you are doing.

He was doing a launch of a few things but one is directly to address the submarine threat. I understand it involves autonomous drones to identify and track subs, new high tech (I know nothing about miltiary things!) mines and other stuff. I think the Norwegians have also offered to participate.

(And under this is my complaint: it needs more money and more focus.)

Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2026, 01:53:07 PMEurope's problem - vis a vis Trump - is that he puts them in the second category: as weaklings to be bullied. Attempting to compromise or find common ground or talk things out only compounds the problem.

Anders Puch Nielsen suggests that Europe's best approach with Trump is to demonstrate strength. His proposal is to decisively beat Russia in Ukraine (without American support, presumably), which I think is a good idea.

On the pscyhological thing - I agree on the narcissism. But with the weakness and Europe I am, characteristically, a little more pessimistic. I always think of the Martin Amis line on Trump (from reading about his business career but also takeover of the GOP):

QuotePerhaps that's the defining asset: a crocodilian nose for inert and preferably moribund prey.

Trump can sense when an entity is no longer strong enough or lithe enough to evade predation. He did it with that white elephant, the Grand Old Party, whose salaried employers never saw him coming, even when he was there, and whose ruins he now bestrides. The question is, Can he do it with American democracy?

But I agee with this guy's points here. I am not sure Europe is in a position to do it right now. And this is basically my core view on all of this that every statement made by a European leader that is not announcing money or contracts or whatever to rebuild our industry and rearm is just wasting another day when we need to be rebuilding and rearming rapidly.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2026, 02:08:49 PMSlightly relevant on this but there was a speech in December by the First Sea Lord which touched on this. This was at an event attended by chiefs of navy from Denmark and Norway. He repeated it more pointedly in an interview with the FT. It does not refer to the US but purely Russia and I think is alarming (and I think despite the reference to the Secretary of State is clearly a plea for more spending)

This was in fact covered in the podcast, and I agree. "The West" is in the process of losing its supremacy in the GIUK gap.

I expect Denmark will be getting subs in the not too distant future.

QuotePerhaps that's the defining asset: a crocodilian nose for inert and preferably moribund prey.

Trump can sense when an entity is no longer strong enough or lithe enough to evade predation.

I hadn't heard this before, but it agrees 100% with my assessment of Trump and his key skill.

QuoteI am not sure Europe is in a position to do it right now. And this is basically my core view on all of this that every statement made by a European leader that is not announcing money or contracts or whatever to rebuild our industry and rearm is just wasting another day when we need to be rebuilding and rearming rapidly.

Yes I agree that Europe must rearm, and quickly. I think where you and I disagree is that I still think that Europe can.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2026, 01:44:33 PMSure on these points but there is a difference between Hegseth and Vance saying things and the US re-deploying from Europe. That is the message that the US is sending to Europe and the reality is that there are still thousands of American service personnel in Europe, on NATO bases.

There is a level of rhetoric that is happening where what you're saying is right. But at the material and operational level there are about seventy thousand US troops in Europe embedded in NATO infrastructure and with our militaries.
I think there is a significant difference betwen the rhetoric happening with tens of thousands of US troops deployed in Europe and the rhetoric happening with tens of thousands of US troops being re-deployed out of Europe.

That American troops are here is a fact. But are they friend, neutral or foe these days? Are we still getting mutual benefits (security umbrella) or is it only for US benefit (forward bases)? Not clear anymore based on recent statements of president and war minister.

If the US attacks Denmark (or Canada), there is no rationale for American bases here anymore.

Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2026, 02:15:16 PMYes I agree that Europe must rearm, and quickly. I think where you and I disagree is that I still think that Europe can.

I think we're less further apart than that then :lol:

I also think Europe can. But I don't think it is yet in any meaningful way (with Poland as an honourable exception). And I think basically anything that isn't contributing to rearmament is just noises off and, at this point, just further highlights the gap between what we're saying and what we aspire to and what we're actually doing.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2026, 02:22:02 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2026, 02:15:16 PMYes I agree that Europe must rearm, and quickly. I think where you and I disagree is that I still think that Europe can.

I think we're less further apart than that then :lol:

I also think Europe can. But I don't think it is yet in any meaningful way (with Poland as an honourable exception). And I think basically anything that isn't contributing to rearmament is just noises off and, at this point, just further highlights the gap between what we're saying and what we aspire to and what we're actually doing.

I spoke with somebody that works in a Spanish defence company, and he was pretty bullish about the rearming thing, although the issue was lack of existing industrial capability and the time it will take to build it - but the will for now seems to be there. His literal words were "there's more money than things we can spend it on".

Yeah I should say I have family who work in defence and their companies are all doing very well. The big complaint European defence manufacturers have made is not necessarily just cash (that's the complaint of the militaries) but long term contracts.

As you say the issue is lack of capability and capacity (which is I think we need to rebuild our industry too). But building that up is enormously expensive and will take time. Which is the complaint from industry: there is more money, but there is a willingness to commit to it over a multi-year period. At the minute there is money being spent (not enough) but it's from existing capacity - and Europe's defence industry is a big exporter (five of the top ten countries in terms of arms exports are in Europe).

It's why I keep banging on about Poland as a really good example because they have made those commitments - and not only are spending the money but making sure that there are factories, in Poland, being built to deliver their future orders. It's not just buying more stuff from existing industry but trying to make sure Poland has its own defence industry (they're also diversifying orders so they're getting factories from American, British, French, Korean firms).

The other bit I'd add is about making sure that more of the supply chain for those industries is domestic.

European Parliament has now frozen further deliberation of the lopsided trade deal agreed with Trump last year. I think they should just trashcan it completely.

Danish pension fund to divest of its ~US$100M holding of US treasuries:

Quote"The decision is rooted in the poor U.S. government finances, ⁠which make us think that we ‍need to make an effort to find an ‌alternative ‌way of conducting our liquidity and risk management," Investment Director Anders Schelde said in a written statement.

"Thus, it is not ⁠directly related ⁠to the ongoing rift between the U.S. and Europe, but of course that didn't make it more ‍difficult to take the decision," he added.

https://www.reuters.com/business/danish-pension-fund-divest-its-us-treasuries-2026-01-20/

Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2026, 03:10:37 PMDanish pension fund to divest of its ~US$100M holding of US treasuries:

Quote"The decision is rooted in the poor U.S. government finances, ⁠which make us think that we ‍need to make an effort to find an ‌alternative ‌way of conducting our liquidity and risk management," Investment Director Anders Schelde said in a written statement.

"Thus, it is not ⁠directly related ⁠to the ongoing rift between the U.S. and Europe, but of course that didn't make it more ‍difficult to take the decision," he added.

https://www.reuters.com/business/danish-pension-fund-divest-its-us-treasuries-2026-01-20/

Nice litotes.  :nerd:

Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2026, 01:53:07 PMOn Hegseth and Bessent and the messaging...

I've always resisted the whole "I'm going to diagnose Trump psychologically, he's a narcissist" thing, but the narcissism model does explain some parts of Trumps behaviour in a way that I think may have utility.

This is from - I believe - Vlad Vexler (I got it via Anders Puck Nielsen). Essentially the model goes that a narcissist like Trump divides people into two groups.

• People he admire and whose respect and admiration he craves. He gets his "narcissist supply" from their respect. These are people he consider strong - so Putin, Kim, and others like them.
• People he considers weak, so victims or future victims. Trump (and thus his regime) gets his "narcissist supply" from being cruel to them, because they cannot do anything back to him.

Europe's problem - vis a vis Trump - is that he puts them in the second category: as weaklings to be bullied. Attempting to compromise or find common ground or talk things out only compounds the problem.

Anders Puch Nielsen suggests that Europe's best approach with Trump is to demonstrate strength. His proposal is to decisively beat Russia in Ukraine (without American support, presumably), which I think is a good idea.

It was indeed Vexler, saw that video yesterday.

edit: it's not in the video I thought it was, yet I remember seeing it. Bizarre. He did say more or less the same a few days ago (in this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvU3-Cw3YIk) where he mentioned having talked about it a while back.
So odd memory shenanigans, but working out though.

This is the Ander Puck Nielsen on the Greenland Crisis video Crazy Ivan is referring to.

Just watched the last bit of the video, and I agree with his analysis that Europe needs to escalate to descalate to placate/win over Trump. It is the only thing that works with bullies like him.

Quote from: celedhring on January 20, 2026, 02:35:17 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2026, 02:22:02 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2026, 02:15:16 PMYes I agree that Europe must rearm, and quickly. I think where you and I disagree is that I still think that Europe can.

I think we're less further apart than that then :lol:

I also think Europe can. But I don't think it is yet in any meaningful way (with Poland as an honourable exception). And I think basically anything that isn't contributing to rearmament is just noises off and, at this point, just further highlights the gap between what we're saying and what we aspire to and what we're actually doing.

I spoke with somebody that works in a Spanish defence company, and he was pretty bullish about the rearming thing, although the issue was lack of existing industrial capability and the time it will take to build it - but the will for now seems to be there. His literal words were "there's more money than things we can spend it on".

Yeah, that is also the Canadian problem - the Federal government is moving fast but building up industrial capacity takes time. 

Now that the US has lost its best customers, I wonder if they will start selling to countries who should not have access to those arms, further destabilizing the world.

While my sympathies lie with Europe on the Greenland issue, the reality is Europe is viewed by Trump as weak because Europe is weak. It is weak because it isn't a country, and most of its people don't actually care about the well being of Europe as a whole, only about their own country--if even that.

To juxtapose--prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR, despite steadily trying to build support, had failed to convince even 40% of the public that participation in WW2 was to the country's benefit.

One day after Pearl Harbor over 90% of America supported the war, and only a single pacifist congresswoman voted against the declarations of war that followed.

If someone were to attack say, Greece, is there any chance at all someone in Spain or Ireland will care? Maybe enough to Tweet about it. Enough to commit their sons to war over it? Nope. Not a chance.

Americans were willing to send their sons to fight and die because an island 5,000 miles away, that had an American flag on it, got bombed. Europe has nothing like that, and is unlikely to ever have it.

I think you are misreading what would happen if Greenland is invaded.  The rest of the world is acutely aware of what the United States has become.

There's maybe 3 countries in Europe I think have the backbone and the will to actually defend themselves from invasion (Poland, France, Britain), I'm not sure any of those three have the backbone to defend another European country from invasion.

I'm pretty sure a country like Spain or Ireland wouldn't even defend its own country if it were attacked.

Why then do you think they have forces already stationed outside their countries to defend against aggression in the Baltic states, and why are they now deploying to Greenland?

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 20, 2026, 03:33:12 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2026, 01:53:07 PMOn Hegseth and Bessent and the messaging...

I've always resisted the whole "I'm going to diagnose Trump psychologically, he's a narcissist" thing, but the narcissism model does explain some parts of Trumps behaviour in a way that I think may have utility.

This is from - I believe - Vlad Vexler (I got it via Anders Puck Nielsen). Essentially the model goes that a narcissist like Trump divides people into two groups.

• People he admire and whose respect and admiration he craves. He gets his "narcissist supply" from their respect. These are people he consider strong - so Putin, Kim, and others like them.
• People he considers weak, so victims or future victims. Trump (and thus his regime) gets his "narcissist supply" from being cruel to them, because they cannot do anything back to him.

Europe's problem - vis a vis Trump - is that he puts them in the second category: as weaklings to be bullied. Attempting to compromise or find common ground or talk things out only compounds the problem.

Anders Puch Nielsen suggests that Europe's best approach with Trump is to demonstrate strength. His proposal is to decisively beat Russia in Ukraine (without American support, presumably), which I think is a good idea.

It was indeed Vexler, saw that video yesterday.

edit: it's not in the video I thought it was, yet I remember seeing it. Bizarre. He did say more or less the same a few days ago (in this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvU3-Cw3YIk) where he mentioned having talked about it a while back.
So odd memory shenanigans, but working out though.

Hah, I also listen to Vrexler, mostly to fall asleep though. :D

Let's see.

The NATO deployment to Estonia is from the UK, one of the 3 European countries I did list as being capable and willing of self defense.

Latvia's deployment is Canadian, a country with a largely non-functional military that likely could not defend its own borders.

Lithuania's is German, a country focused primarily on leisure and business, and that likely is not willing to fight a real war if it came to it.

Maybe I'm wrong--I'd be happy if I were, but I have very low belief in the backbone of Europe. As Elrond says in Lord of the Rings, "The race of Men is failing. The blood of Númenor is all but spent, its pride and dignity forgotten."

Quote from: PJL on January 20, 2026, 03:45:03 PMJust watched the last bit of the video, and I agree with his analysis that Europe needs to escalate to descalate to placate/win over Trump. It is the only thing that works with bullies like him.

Yes it's the best plausible route out of this crisis.

You never really know until the moment is actually there.
Spine needs to be grown however, and that takes time.
And european politicians, as reflections of the electorate, are a bit slow in growing them. Cause they fear losing the next election, and with that access to the gravy (cause if politicians are unwilling to push through necessary but impopular things, then why else are they still in politics?)

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 20, 2026, 04:08:47 PMWhile my sympathies lie with Europe on the Greenland issue, the reality is Europe is viewed by Trump as weak because Europe is weak. It is weak because it isn't a country, and most of its people don't actually care about the well being of Europe as a whole, only about their own country--if even that.

To juxtapose--prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR, despite steadily trying to build support, had failed to convince even 40% of the public that participation in WW2 was to the country's benefit.

One day after Pearl Harbor over 90% of America supported the war, and only a single pacifist congresswoman voted against the declarations of war that followed.

If someone were to attack say, Greece, is there any chance at all someone in Spain or Ireland will care? Maybe enough to Tweet about it. Enough to commit their sons to war over it? Nope. Not a chance.

Americans were willing to send their sons to fight and die because an island 5,000 miles away, that had an American flag on it, got bombed. Europe has nothing like that, and is unlikely to ever have it.

I wouldn't bet against that an attack on Greenland could become a Pearl Harbour moment for Europe. I wouldn't bet on it either though.

Maybe we'll find out.

Otto is dangerously close to copeposting. "Of course the natives won't resist militarily". Invading Greenland would shatter the West, destroy the global American empire, kick the US back to power projecting from Mar-a-Lago, the dollar would cease to be the global reserve currency (no more bass boats for the lower orders, just honest hard work at the toaster factory) and a scramble to acquire nuclear weapons by former allies in a lot of places.

Lol France is deploying their carrier battle group to the Far North on an open ended schedule. So the US will have to bring in a couple of their own to balance that out.

https://x.com/DI313_/status/2013694461520552201 (https://x.com/DI313_/status/2013694461520552201)

What is the HMS Queen Elizabeth doing right now? :hmm:

Is there a non-twitter source for that?

Quote from: PJL on January 20, 2026, 03:45:03 PMJust watched the last bit of the video, and I agree with his analysis that Europe needs to escalate to descalate to placate/win over Trump. It is the only thing that works with bullies like him.

:yes:

Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2026, 08:14:11 PMIs there a non-twitter source for that?

Check around for French sources, it's legit, this was originally just a Far North training exercise, but since the US started scaring the hoes (threatening to kill us en masse...unless), shit suddenly got real.

I think Otto has a point, but is exaggerating it. European countries did respond to the Article V call and e.g. the Baltics mission is serious. Germany for all its leisure seeking is building a heavy mechanised brigade there, by far the strongest postwar foreign mission for us.

And he forgets one thing relevant to the current situation that has actually existed in most European countries in a more or less cohesive political current and is currently boosted extremely: anti-Americanism. You will find a sizeable faction in each country that does not like American hegemony. That has a unifying force and creates political pressure at the grassroots level.

But don't expect much from Germany over Trump's recent threats. Our conservatives have some MAGA fans in their rows (economics minister, faction leader in parliament) so they will not support Macron's call for harsh trade war escalation. They will cave like their party member von der Leyen Last year.

Quote from: Zanza on January 20, 2026, 08:31:34 PMI think Otto has a point, but is exaggerating it. European countries did respond to the Article V call and e.g. the Baltics mission is serious. Germany for all its leisure seeking is building a heavy mechanised brigade there, by far the strongest postwar foreign mission for us.

And he forgets one thing relevant to the current situation that has actually existed in most European countries in a more or less cohesive political current and is currently boosted extremely: anti-Americanism. You will find a sizeable faction in each country that does not like American hegemony. That has a unifying force and creates political pressure at the grassroots level.

But don't expect much from Germany over Trump's recent threats. Our conservatives have some MAGA fans in their rows (economics minister, faction leader in parliament) so they will not support Macron's call for harsh trade war escalation. They will cave like their party member von der Leyen Last year.

Trump decimated the Canadian conservatives with his annexation threats. He has saved the Danish Left who are now the hard-nosed patriots unironically preparing to repel an invasion of Greenland. Locally US foreign policy has completely demoralized the sturdy pro-US bedrock center-right Independence party.

Quote from: Jacob on January 20, 2026, 08:14:11 PMIs there a non-twitter source for that?

https://twitter-thread.com/t/2013694461520552201

Quote from: Zanza on January 20, 2026, 08:31:34 PMAnd he forgets one thing relevant to the current situation that has actually existed in most European countries in a more or less cohesive political current and is currently boosted extremely: anti-Americanism.

Well this is also very true in Mexico and Canada and for decades we did a pretty decent job keeping them managed.

Now anti-Americanism is running amok in those countries with likely very bad long term consequences. Which makes sense. I am pretty anti-American myself these days.

Biden found Trump has poisoned the well in many places once he became President and I suspect if the Democrats regain the presidency in 2029 it will be far worse.

To Conservatives this is all just a big joke. They couldn't care less if everybody hates us and opposes us and tries to undermine our trade and our interests. It's weird. Total internet troll brain.

(https://i.ibb.co/7d1jKmW3/image.png)

https://newrepublic.com/article/205102/oligarchs-pushing-conquest-greenland-trump

QuoteThe Oligarchs Pushing for Conquest in Greenland
Trump's fixation on filching the island territory from Denmark may seem like the demented ravings of a mad king. But to a cohort of plutocrat weirdos, it makes perfect sense.

Donald Trump's fixation on seizing Greenland has generated plenty of confusion, hand-wringing, and alarm. But one question has always stood at the center: Why? Why has Trump perseverated so heavily, and so suddenly, on this distant island, with its few people and even fewer connections to the United States?

According to Trump, much of it has to do with national security. "We have to have it," the president has said time and again. As Trump claims—and in direct contradiction to any evidence at hand—Greenland is apparently crawling with Russian and Chinese ships, presenting a national security crisis that annexation alone will solve. Seizing Greenland is also part of the emerging "Donroe Doctrine," in which the U.S. has the right to intervene, and even seize, any lands within the Western hemisphere that it feels like taking.

But there's another element to this Greenland obsession that hasn't gotten nearly enough attention—and it is just as important to Trump's designs on plundering Greenland and claiming the island as America's: money. Specifically, the money set to be gained by the kinds of oligarchic interests that have long backed Trump, and that now stand to benefit from American suzerainty over Greenland. To update another phrase, which we've seen recently race to the fore in Venezuela: It's about looting the resources, stupid.

But even here, there's more than meets the eye. Buried within the kind of crony capitalist network that has propelled Trump's imperialism is something far stranger, and far darker, than simply seizing Greenland's resources for financial gain. It's about the opening salvos in a world in which any restrictions on American oligarchy—any oversight, any democratic checks, any hurdles whatsoever—are removed, and a golden, pro-oligarchic age reigns, centered on, but by no means limited to, Greenland.

An island itself nearly the size of Venezuela, Greenland is a veritable treasure chest of critical minerals and high-value resources. Zinc, copper, gold, oil, even things like uranium and platinum—Greenland is a periodic table of elements brought to life. Because most of the island is a combination of glacier and sere tundra, most of those elements are untapped. But that doesn't mean they've been unmapped or that excavation plans haven't been plotted.

And few cohorts have done more mapping, plotting, and planning than the coterie of American oligarchs who have surged to Trump's side in recent years—and who stand to gain hand over fist if Trump wrests Greenland from Denmark's control.

This is hardly speculation. As The Guardian reported in April 2025, "Some of Donald Trump's biggest campaign donors and investors ... are positioned to potentially profit from any American takeover of Greenland." Ranging from tech moguls to fossil fuel company heads, all of these figures and forces have invested in mining and extraction companies across the island—and all stand to profit if only they can cut out any pesky Danish or Greenlandic authorities from regulating or restraining their operations. A "closed loop" of "investors, billionaires, [and] Trump" have emerged to circle Greenland, swirling it like a committee of vultures, eyeing which parts of Greenland to pluck clean. As The New York Times added last year, Trump is "flanked by wealthy investors who have eyed [Greenland] as a potentially lucrative venue for mining metals and minerals."

The figures behind the curtain are by no means obscure. KoBold Metals, a mining outfit helping lead Greenland's "modern gold rush," has seen investments from figures like Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and hedge funds like Andreessen Horowitz. Another company eyeing Greenland is Critical Metals Corp, which is backed by the same hedge fund that Howard Lutnick, now Trump's commerce secretary, spent years running. Indeed, the investors behind Critical Metals Corp have significant overlap with those investors behind Trump Media—creating what Robert Weissman, who helps run the pro-transparency group Public Citizen, called a "circle of grift." Many of those same figures also gave hundreds of millions of dollars to Trump's 2024 campaign, helping relaunch him to the presidency—and helping them profit from Trump's new imperialism.

For years, this tangle of deep-pocketed corporate heads backing American politicians and receiving ever-greater profits has been baked into the domestic firmament in the U.S. So too has this long been part of American foreign policy, with everything from energy majors to arms manufacturers to fruit companies shifting and even spearheading American policy from Central America to Central Asia to West Africa and beyond.

Now, however, this kind of corporate donor class—overseen itself by an emergent American oligarchy, cozying up to Trump's White House for its own benefit—has begun steering not just policy but the machinery of expansionist empire outright. It's a model we haven't seen in over a century, not since the days of American sugar barons toppling Hawaii's government, ushering in an oligarchic police state and steering the islands toward American annexation. But it's a model that, in Greenland, is now impossible to miss. The relationship between oligarchic backers and Trump now "includes the deployment of the [American] empire," Weissman added—regardless of what it might mean for Greenland, or even for the U.S. itself.

Yet even that story—of American oligarchs pushing an imperial president to new land seizures and new wealth—is only part of the picture. Greenland isn't only a treasure trove for some of these oligarchic forces to mine or to extract. It's also a place for experimentation, not only in how to expand American empire but in how to create a world in which all of these oligarchic figures' utopian (or dystopian, for the rest of us) fantasies can come true.

The man long at the center of these murkier fantasies is a slender, sandy-haired American named Dryden Brown. He is the head of an organization called Praxis, which has become one of the centers of the so-called "network state" movement. The definition of "network states" is itself a bit jumbled; a "network state," says backer Balaji Srinivasan, is a "highly aligned online community with a capacity for collective action that crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states."

If you scrape past the techno-babble, the idea for a network state is relatively simple: It is a new nation, both online and on land, that can provide an escape hatch for forces who want to do away with regulatory oversight or financial checks. Who envision a world in which they can expand both their wealth and their influence as wide as they want, and who believe that nation-states—including places like the U.S.—are passé, outmoded ways of organizing societies and that the next iteration of humanity must belong to these self-appointed visionaries, authoring a revolutionary future wherever they can.

Gathering supporters largely from the world of crypto enthusiasts, Praxis emerged in recent years as the leader of this movement. Its manifesto, published in 2024, posited that the world is "at an inflection point where power is increasingly determined by the ability to capture mindshare of globally dispersed communities." Praxis, with Brown at the helm, would create a world in which all the trappings of society—infrastructure, contracts, and more—are placed and tracked on the blockchain. This would all create a "sovereign network" or "digital nation" that would be, as Le Monde reported, a "tax-free enclave, governed by free-market principles and managed by a king-CEO leading citizen-shareholders."

Still, for a "sovereign network" to emerge in the real world, it would need territory on which to operate. While other similar efforts—in Honduras, Nigeria, and elsewhere—have fallen apart, Brown told me last year that one place in particular continued to catch his eye: Greenland. "We think Greenland is a very interesting place," Brown said. "We view it as one of the last frontiers of Earth."

If Brown operated on his own, he'd be hardly worth writing about. But Praxis has received funding from significant investors from across the U.S.—including many of the same oligarchs in Trump's immediate orbit.

There's Peter Thiel, the venture capitalist who has long backed Trump, and who has long called for oligarchic fellow travelers to "escape" democratic oversight. Others, such as Marc Andreessen (of the aforementioned Andreessen Horowitz), have likewise backed funds that support Praxis, with fellow investors like Jon Lonsdale also supporting the group. Even the Winklevoss twins, best known for their early roles at Facebook, have steered investment to Praxis.

Perhaps the most conspicuous oligarch linked to Praxis is none other than Sam Altman. While Altman has never commented publicly about Praxis, his Apollo Ventures firm has funded Praxis directly. "Altman has strange politics," Gil Duran, who has tracked the network-state movement perhaps more than anyone else, wrote in 2024. "His investment in Praxis makes it clear that, despite platitudes about creating a better future, he's betting on some kind of dramatic collapse."

This also may seem a strange, outré cast of figures and forces backing the push to seize Greenland. But those bizarreries help explain how we ended up in this strange place, with Trump, alongside his plutocratic cronies, now threatening to cleave apart a NATO ally.

Last year, during Trump's early rounds of demands that the U.S. be given control of Greenland, Reuters reported that a range of "Silicon Valley tech investors" had begun "promoting the frozen island as a site for a so-called freedom city, a libertarian utopia with minimal corporate regulation." Aligning with Praxis's vision for a network state in Greenland, Reuters reported that these oligarchic investors envisioned transforming Greenland into a supposed start-up paradise for Silicon Valley obsessions, building the island into a "hub for artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, space launches, micro nuclear reactors, and high-speed rail." Some of the names mentioned were those already connected with Praxis. Both Thiel and Andreessen were reportedly propelling the idea, as was Lonsdale, who called outright for "expanding our country to Greenland." (Thiel has denied interest or involvement, while Andreessen declined to comment.) But there was one additional name mentioned: Ken Howery, himself a former venture capitalist who had previously co-founded PayPal, alongside Thiel and Musk.

Yet Howery wasn't simply another hyper-capitalist floating out of Silicon Valley; he was appointed by Trump himself as America's newest ambassador to Denmark—and was specifically "expected to ... lead Greenland-acquisition negotiations," those familiar with his appointment said.

Nearly a year later, those negotiations are reaching their final stages, with Trump telegraphing that he will make whatever move necessary—even military if needed—to steal Greenland. It's a plan that has the potential to fracture NATO and even spark a new age of nuclear arms races and outright imperialism. It is also, as we're now learning, a plan that extends far beyond Trump—and that includes a cast of oligarchs looking to steer American empire once more.

Or as Praxis's social media feed posted in response to Howery's appointment: "According to plan."

Quote from: Legbiter on January 20, 2026, 08:07:34 PMLol France is deploying their carrier battle group to the Far North on an open ended schedule. So the US will have to bring in a couple of their own to balance that out.

https://x.com/DI313_/status/2013694461520552201 (https://x.com/DI313_/status/2013694461520552201)

I have to admit that a French vs. American naval engagement in the Artic escalating into a nuclear exchange was not on my Armageddon bingo card.

We brought the US into this world and by De Gaulle we'll take them out of it.  :sleep:

Kinda reminds me of a HOI2 game where I nuked the eastern seaboard. Good times.

Seems like Rutte is continuing with the Daddy Trump approach. Just because it hasn't worked at all doesn't mean it won't suddenly start working, I guess.