US - Greenland Crisis Thread

[HVC]

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.

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

You've clearly forgotten your nations early history

: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"

 

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

[Jacob]

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.

[Duque de Bragança]

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.

[Legbiter]

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.

[The Brain]

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.

[crazy canuck]

What is wrong with making an obviously accurate statement?

[Legbiter]

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.

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.

[The Brain]

What 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.

[Jacob]

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.

[Jacob]

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.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'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!

[Legbiter]

And 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.

[Jacob]

They 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?

[crazy canuck]

What 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.

[Jacob]

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.