US - Greenland Crisis Thread

[crazy canuck]

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.

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?

[Duque de Bragança]

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.

Une 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?

[Tamas]

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.

Une 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?

[Duque de Bragança]

Well 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.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

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.

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.

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

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.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

P-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?

[The Brain]

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.

[Jacob]

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.

[Jacob]

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.

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.

[Duque de Bragança]

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.

[Jacob]

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.

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).

[The Brain]

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.

[crazy canuck]

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.

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.

[crazy canuck]

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.

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

[The Brain]

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.

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.