US - Greenland Crisis Thread

[Sheilbh]

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"

You've quoted the first sentence. The rest:

This 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.

[Sheilbh]

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.

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).

[Jacob]

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.

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).

[Jacob]

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.

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

[Sheilbh]

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

[Admiral Yi]

Freeriding!   

[Legbiter]

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?

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









*Trump steaks not included*

[HisMajestyBOB]

Congressman Randy Fine has introduced a bill regrading Greenland.





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

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

[Zoupa]

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

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh, 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.

[Grey Fox]

 

Let's join the EU, all of us.

[Jacob]

I don't think honouring an alliance hinges on the specific language of the obligation, but on a combination of political will and ability.

[Zoupa]

I 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. 

[Sheilbh]

I 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.

[The Minsky Moment]

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?

You saw the victory part, right?  We win!  USA! USA!