US - Denmark | Tensions Over US Aspiration to Acquisition Greenland | Jan. 15th-19th

[Deleted account]

I don’t buy that Russia and China are currently a threat to Greenland. But as more arctic shipping lanes open due to climate change, they will be more of a threat to arctic shipping in the event of conflict.

The likelihood of China invading and occupying Greenland is exactly zero - as should be obvious to anyone with access to a map. As for Russia, if the US really was afraid of Russian expansionism, it would be doing everything in its power to arm and assist Ukraine - instead of trying to force it to capitulate to Putin.

Accordingly, the WH argument (that the US needs to annex Greenland for security reasons) is a blatant in-your-face lie.

 

[william]

I take that back.

Quite an Army to defend against

This article says France is sending 15 military personal. Wow!
Now, it is possible that these are advance recon personal. That is standard practice for militaries. Guess we'll see how big the European military presence gets over time.

European troops arrive in Greenland as talks with US hit wall over future

France sends 15 soldiers, Germany 13. Norway, Sweden also participating to bolster security on Arctic island.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Snowfall]

The likelihood of China invading and occupying Greenland is exactly zero - as should be obvious to anyone with access to a map. As for Russia, if the US really was afraid of Russian expansionism, it would be doing everything in its power to arm and assist Ukraine - instead of trying to force it to capitulate to Putin.

Accordingly, the WH argument (that the US needs to annex Greenland for security reasons) is a blatant in-your-face lie.

That’s what I said, I don’t buy they’d invade. But in a future where arctic shipping lanes are open, NATO is going to need more naval bases in the area.

 

[Charmender]

This article says France is sending 15 military personal. Wow!
Now, it is possible that these are advance recon personal. That is standard practice for militaries. Guess we'll see how big the European military presence gets over time.

As the germans, the french troops are there for recon in view of a future bigger deployment.

 

[Onoya]

This article says France is sending 15 military personal. Wow!
Now, it is possible that these are advance recon personal. That is standard practice for militaries. Guess we'll see how big the European military presence gets over time.

The french army/gov stated that those were troops to prepare for a bigger deployment that would include vehicules and aircraft (not at home rn so can't find the precise statement)

 

[Lostpuppy]

The french army/gov stated that those were troops to prepare for a bigger deployment that would include vehicules and aircraft (not at home rn so can't find the precise statement)

My thought, once upon a time the military would do winter exercises?
Maybe the media narative has gone a little off the rails,
I dont think i have everheard of exercises in Norway? Just a thought.??

 

[Charmender]

Macron says France to send more forces to Greenland

During his New Year address to the armed forces at Istres Air Base in southern France, President Emmanuel Macron said France would deploy additional 'land, air and maritime assets' to Greenland in the coming days.

www.lemonde.fr

The french army/gov stated that those were troops to prepare for a bigger deployment that would include vehicules and aircraft (not at home rn so can't find the precise statement)

 

[Charmender]

My thought, once upon a time the military would do winter exercises?
Maybe the media narative has gone a little off the rails,
I dont think i have everheard of exercises in Norway? Just a thought.??

They will be involved in excercises in Greenald...it's just politics.

France is joining a military exercise launched by Denmark, which has sovereignty over Greenland, in what Paris describes as a demonstration of European solidarity and commitment to territorial integrity.

France to deploy more troops, air, naval assets to Greenland: Macron

Europeans have 'particular responsibility' toward Greenland, French president says, adding autonomous territory is part of EU and belongs to NATO ally - Anadolu Ajansı

www.aa.com.tr

 

[Sentry]

Greenland and Denmark have always been very open to U.S. troops coming. In fact, it boosts their economy and until not too long ago they were more than happy to have increased American deployments. If Trump wants to protect Greenland, all he has to do is send a sticky note to the Danish government saying the number of bases he wants. They would never say no. Which leads me to doubt what Trump gains by annexing Greenland from a security perspective. Now, if we're talking minerals, that's a different story...

 

[Deleted account]

Which leads me to doubt what Trump gains by annexing Greenland from a security perspective. Now, if we're talking minerals, that's a different story...

Actually, Greenland was also very open to increased industrial cooperation with the US, and in attracting American investors - so it's not that either.

Everything that's going on is explained by an ego-driven foreign policy adventure. Thus, in accordance with Occam's razor, that's what it has to be.

 

[intel-bank]

If Trump was worried about this damaging NATO, why would he damage NATO by making the threat?

 

[Deleted account]

If Trump was worried about this damaging NATO, why would he damage NATO by making the threat?

I would say that's because he cares about annexing Greenland more than he cares about preserving NATO. And I think that's a safe bet to make. Trump has never been more than lukewarm on NATO, and at times downright hostile to it.

 

[Erecon]

I dived more into the reasons for this theater, appearently the fundamental reason is the Greenlanders wish for independance, and the doubts about its loyalty. Since they would be able to leave NATO, and have been talking about trading with China ( US is afraid like we seen in the Pacific, or Africa about infrastructure and when they can´t pay China would take more control of that contry ) So for this disagreement to go away, USA needs 100% loyalty from Denmark and Greenlanders. No one is going to put it out plainly to say "give up your dreams of independance" to the Greenlanders.

 

[Onoya]

I dived more into the reasons for this theater, appearently the fundamental reason is the Greenlanders wish for independance, and the doubts about its loyalty. Since they would be able to leave NATO, and have been talking about trading with China ( US is afraid like we seen in the Pacific, or Africa about infrastructure and when they can´t pay China would take more control of that contry ) So for this disagreement to go away, USA needs 100% loyalty from Denmark and Greenlanders. No one is going to put it out plainly to say "give up your dreams of independance" to the Greenlanders.

I think that's part of the reason, but how the USA acted did the opposite of making Denmark and Greenland 100 loyal to the USA...(which that normal, threatening to invade a country will make it less friendly)

 

[Erecon]

I think that's part of the reason, but how the USA acted did the opposite of making Denmark and Greenland 100 loyal to the USA...(which that normal, threatening to invade a country will make it less friendly)

It could be a "Bad cop good cop" scenario to force the Greenlanders to pick the good cop side. Beside that, I think its just to take headlines from other stuff. ( as I wrote in the earlyer thread, and what the forum admin wrote in this thread )

 

[Yingyang]

This article says France is sending 15 military personal. Wow!
Now, it is possible that these are advance recon personal. That is standard practice for militaries. Guess we'll see how big the European military presence gets over time.

Nato Europe isn't a threat to anyone except itself. Putin knows it aswell. Europe won't challenge the US. This would destroy nato and eu without a shot fired. European military capabilities , boots, weapons, other equipement, logistics are laughable. They are not capable of acting individually with any real affect , they definitely lack communication, commitment and teamwork ,especially in a real case scenario. War games exactly that for eu/ nato.

 

[Onoya]

Nato Europe isn't a threat to anyone except itself. Putin knows it aswell. Europe won't challenge the US. This would destroy nato and eu without a shot fired. European military capabilities , boots, weapons, other equipement, logistics are laughable. They are not capable of acting individually with any real affect , they definitely lack communication, commitment and teamwork ,especially in a real case scenario. War games exactly that for eu/ nato.

let's keep it serious. If you check the numbers, Europe can challenge the US in a military confrontation and have powerful armies that have experience of combat and deployment overseas.

And the solidarity shown by European nations with Denmark shows that we can manage to unite if needed (we will see if that solidarity will last or not)

Yes, the USA have more naval assets, because they are spread out over the world while it's less the case in Europe. If Europe fully commit in Greenland, they will pose a threat to the US navy.

The myth of "the USA is soo strong that they can win against everyone without difficulty" is wrong.
Yes, USA is currently the most powerful military. But that doesn't mean that they can't lose, that they won't have casualties and losses.

Currently, the US aircraft carriers are one of their most powerful assets. But those are spread out around the world. Sending all of them in Greenland wouldn't be really possible.
So it's possible to see the USA unable to invade Greenland if they resort to that, that's gonna depend on how much troops/assets the european commit to defend Greenland

 

[Deleted account]

The myth of "the USA is soo strong that they can win against everyone without difficulty" is wrong.
Yes, USA is currently the most powerful military. But that doesn't mean that they can't lose, that they won't have casualties and losses.

Modern-day USA is great at winning battles and losing wars.

This, I would say, is a consequence of a peculiar collective delusion that seems specific to modern western societies - namely, that war is something that happens to other people. It results in the said societies (USA among them) being unwilling to make the sacrifices required to actually win wars - simply because individual citizens do not regard war as something that concerns them specifically. The current administration continues that trend - they appear to be interested only in quick, painless victories borne out of surgical operations carried out by small, elite units. That's a parochial outlook - and by now the world understands that when the going really gets tough, America always chickens out.

War - the real kind, not an isolated airstrike or a kidnapping op - is not a push-button affair. It's dirty. It's messy. No matter how bad you think war is, it's actually worse. This is a lesson American society seems to have forgotten - and will need to relearn in the coming years, one way or another...

PS. As a kid, I watched a somewhat dumbed-down documentary on the US armed forces (on Discovery). At some point the commentator was gushing over how the "leave no man behind" ethos contributes to the strength of the USMC. I recall thinking: "Wait a second, that's not a strength! That's a weakness! It can be exploited!"

 

[Yingyang]

let's keep it serious. If you check the numbers, Europe can challenge the US in a military confrontation and have powerful armies that have experience of combat and deployment overseas.

And the solidarity shown by European nations with Denmark shows that we can manage to unite if needed (we will see if that solidarity will last or not)

Yes, the USA have more naval assets, because they are spread out over the world while it's less the case in Europe. If Europe fully commit in Greenland, they will pose a threat to the US navy.

The myth of "the USA is soo strong that they can win against everyone without difficulty" is wrong.
Yes, USA is currently the most powerful military. But that doesn't mean that they can't lose, that they won't have casualties and losses.

Currently, the US aircraft carriers are one of their most powerful assets. But those are spread out around the world. Sending all of them in Greenland wouldn't be really possible.
So it's possible to see the USA unable to invade Greenland if they resort to that, that's gonna depend on how much troops/assets the european commit to defend Greenland

I was serious and didn't think for second europe suffered the same issue as america. Apparently i could be wrong by the sounds of it. Unless your belief is a minority in europe compared to america. By the looks of european media reports about military readiness , it dosn't match your confidence.

 

[Snowfall]

let's keep it serious. If you check the numbers, Europe can challenge the US in a military confrontation and have powerful armies that have experience of combat and deployment overseas.

Numbers mean nothing when Europe has less political will for war than the U.S. population does. Which isn’t saying much because the U.S. population has just about zero after 20 years of forever wars.