1. As part of Nato Greenland is already protected by such aggression. The idea of anybody triggering WW3 over Greenland is ludicrous as anything interesting there it's easily obtainable just by...putting money on the table. I'm sure Greenlanders will welcome royalties while you mine or do whatever in such a terrible environment.
2. Neither of the two has any military capabilities to conduct military operations in such a place and so distant from their countries. So close to North America moreover. Just to put it in perspective: Greenland is closer to Boston, and by a significant margin, than it is to any major Russian port.
3. While Russia has a long history of aggression and territorial expansion, anybody who's intimate with Chinese history knows well that an aggression on Greenland makes no sense and does not fit any pattern seen in the history of China.
The countries that have legitimate reasons to worry about Chinese aggression are those that were part of China in the pre colonial era: Taiwan, Kyrgyzstan, most of southern Siberia and Mongolia. This is why, e.g. China has annexed Tibet, but never gave two damns about neighbouring countries it could grab in an afternoon like Nepal: never been part of China, they don't care.
I am beginning to think "Greenland" is a wedge to undermine NATO; it is a ruse used to unravel the NATO alliance. If "Greenland" doesn't divide NATO, maybe the next ruse is for the US to unilaterally claim large chunks of the Arctic Ocean that violates the territorial sovereignty of other allies.
The stated objectives for this administration was to be understood as: Weaken USD. Cheaper oil. Weaken NATO.
This should surprise no one. Undermining NATO fits the now well known negotiation style perfectly, you can try to get a good deal from allies to put it back together, while simultaneously playing those allies against an alternative and opposite deal with Russia for doing business again. The latter has the added bonus of even cheaper oil. Neither is good for Ukraine and Taiwan unfortunately.
> The ad’s central message—that US allies should pay their fair share—remains a core principle of Trump’s foreign policy today. His longstanding skepticism of NATO, confrontations with international leaders, and demands for more financial contributions from allied nations all stem from the ideas he publicly expressed in 1987.
There are ways in which the Trump admin is aiding Ukraine right now that cannot fit the narrative though.
If Putin controlled Trump outright, Ukraine would not be using US intel to more effectively strike Russian oil infrastructure. Trump blocked this intelligence sharing for a little bit during the initial "Peace talks" but now we are back to helping the find routes for weapons that won't be intercepted.
That is in line with Trump being sympathetic to Putin's narrative, but not in line with Trump following Putin's orders.
That infrastructure is critical for Russian state budget, something that is very strained, and for maintaining cheap energy internally to keep the populace apathetic.
Putin would also not have wanted the US to waltz into Venezuela unopposed. Makes Russia look very weak to have an ally who they supply with military aide be so comprehensively owned.
Unfortunately, Trump just idolizes Putin for being a powerful and oppressive dictator, because he likes power and wants that for himself. He has no moral qualms with the immoral things done by Putin. He loves the fake "Manly" persona. He's jealous of how effective Putin propaganda is.
It's truly vile how he treats the office and the democratic values he's meant to uphold and defend.
Why is he not impeached? Where is the American people?
He treats you with such contempt that he isn't above using the office for fraud and scams. He has done more to harm the US than Putin could have ever dreamed possible. Where is the American people? Hello?
Impeachment doesn't mean what (I believe) you think it does. There were previous presidents of the US who got impeached and remained in the position as well. This part is not novel (the only novel part is that he managed to get impeached twice).
Removing Trump from office would require votes from some Republican Party members in Congress, and so far not enough are willing to vote for it.
He's been impeached twice, in his first term when Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, which is where impeachment happens. But removing a president requires trial and conviction in the Senate, and enough Republicans there voted against conviction. Several presidents have been impeached; none have been convicted.
> Where is the American people?
My belief is that the right wing in the US has almost absolute information dominance over a segment of the population. They can say anything and that segment will believe them and support it.
I don't think Trump is explicitly an asset. He just likes oligarchs and dictatorial strongmen, and is usually the dumbest man in the room. There's no doubt that there are ties there, but Trump is not a loyal man. These things combined means he can swing back and forth between doing Putin favors and being genuinely upset by perceived slights, then back to friends when Putin gets his ear to smooth things over.
Rather than specifically being a Russian asset, he's an asset to the last charismatic man he remembers speaking to.
Ironically, this kind of mindset is exactly the one that Putin encouraged within Russia because it makes political pluralism impossible. If no matter who wins, 40% of the population is convinced the opposition is inherently wicked and intentionally trying to destroy the country as an agent of foreign (either literally or culturally) interest...
...you eventually end up in situation where most people agree that rule of law, political pluralism, free press and free speech, free inquiry and academic independence are luxuries we can no longer afford because of the foreign threat.
Because after all, we're under attack from evil people who want to destroy us! No compromise is possible and anybody who says they care about general principles is a fool or a traitor.
Trump has facilitated the continued transfer of tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons to Zelensky and accelerated the arming and training ukrainian forces in 2017.
Trying to explain the political and cultural problems of a country internally by reference to foreign plots has not once in history ended well or been evaluated as accurate by subsequent historians with no dog in that fight. The crisis of the present deserves real analysis, not conspiracy theories that crumble in the face of basic numeracy and mutually agreed upon facts. If you have counter-examples from before 2016, I'd love to discuss them and expand my worldview, otherwise I think it's prudent to go with the historical heuristic.
You are harming both yourself and the world by failing to distinguish between what is emotionally satisfying and what best fits the mutually agreed upon facts available without improvisationally multiplying entities that enlarge the scope of conspiracy without evidence.
The strangest thing is that no one has learned from Ukraine and started buying Chines drones let alone larger arms deals as insurance against the threats in proximity.
IMHO: The goal of the political movement (we really need a name for it after so many years in so many countries) is to replace the existing world order with a new one with them on top.
The movement seems to include right-wing (semi-)authoritarians such as Trump and the GOP, Netanyahu, Putin, bin Salman (Saudi Arabia), lesser powers, and many American business interests including in SV.
Leading Trump advisor Stephen Miller expressed one core position, which is that power rules the world - rather than human rights and votes, which is the fundamental of American tradition and law, and the current world order.
So yes, policies like Venezuala and Greenland, as well as immigration policy, anti-science positions, pro-disinformation actions, etc. are intended for a broader political outcome, but it's much broader than NATO. They are playing for the whole thing.
I'm surprised that more people on HN aren't very familiar with their strategy and goals.
Who fucking knows with this guy. It feels pointless to speculate. Remember when he was obsessed with the Panama Canal? And the talk about relocating every person in Palestine? It reminds me of Hitler's writings, where he would divide up the world based on simplistic divisions that sounded like a 5-year-old playing an elaborate board game.
As others have pointed it out it's about splitting NATO.
My real concern is Canada. Trump has made similar remarks about Canada like he did Greenland. If he takes Greenland it will be much harder for the EU should resupply Canada should the US see Canada is fully surrounded. How do Canadians view this?
What does it mean to "surround Canada" and why would anyone want to do it?
Almost the entire population of Canada is huddled against the US land border. Greenland is very far away from where the action would be if the US "takes" Canada. There would likely be few shots fired; Canada lacks the ability to put up a credible defense. The EU has no capacity to resupply Canada in any case. The whole scenario makes bizarre assumptions.
I don't think most Canadians consider the US "taking" Canada to be a serious scenario outside of echo chambers among the "too online" crowd. What would that gain the US that it doesn't already have?
What does the US gain from taking Greenland that it doesn't already have? If the US does invade an ally to acquire territory I think Canadians should be worried. In any case, what the US gains is the wrong perspective. This is about Trump and those around him wanting to build an empire and the American people, seemingly, letting them.
As a European, this is genuinely alarming. Headlines like this make me feel that NATO is effectively over at best, and that war may be approaching at worst.
`”fundamental disagreement" between the Trump administration and European allies.`
Long term it probably even is better if the US just leave, especially if the next president is aligned with the current government, we might as well cut our losses early and restructure before they bully the rest of their allies.
Good riddance, De Gaulle was always right about americans, we might finally be able to get out and build our own stuff instead of being a bully's bitch forever. Given the current situation and trends I don't expect there will be anything good to expect from the US for a while.
NATO has been over for decades, it is now just useful to the US military complex to secure one of their market.
Worst the concept of "European allies" is not real. At the end of WW2 Western Europe became a colony or dominion of the US like Eastern Europe got under USSR control. Europeans might have been told something else by their politicians and intellectuals but it is because they were allowed to save face and part of the "Free World" propaganda.
As the last "EU leaders" of the WW2 generation faded away the next one were too stupid to understand what they are.
At the same time the US got confused too. It probably doesn't know if it is the Roman Republic or Empire. So now everybody is confused.
One thing is for sure the so called EU leadership is of very low quality and they have absolutely no idea what they are doing.
They have antagonised their own population and about every other centers of power: the US, Russia and China. No regime can survive this.
My guess is Europe is gonna be split in two again (the fracture line is starting to be clear) or worst go through a hybrid civil war before and rot for a while.
It saddens me to see how so many years of collaboration wasted on this. We were at peace, we worked together. What is this even for? Can't the US just focus on its existing problems instead of creating new ones?
Trump and others in the same political movement want to replace the world order with a new one controlled by them. This is not a problem, but a way to undermine the world order.
>What is this even for? Can't the US just focus on its existing problems
That is exactly what it's for. Starting new problems distracts from the old problems at home.
Always something new, never a moment to catch your breath and focus. Eventually, people will get tired, will stop paying as much attention, and hopefully forget about those older scandals.
Do you want the UE to send 200k troops half way to the other side of the world for a hot conflict with the first military power on their own doorstep ?
I'll give it a try: Germany also sent 5,000 military hats.
More seriously: I don't even think such a tiny contingent of troops would even work as a tripwire if Trump invades. Trump and his people probably don't have the self control, but if they did it seems like they could just bypass those troops and literally ignore them. I'm reminded of the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea: my recollection is many of the Ukrainians just surrendered without shots being fired, because their numbers were too small and their positions completely untenable.
> my recollection is many of the Ukrainians just surrendered without shots being fired
A key detail is that they Europe and the US didn’t support Ukraine to fight. Neat, especially having facilitated Ukraine’s nuclear weapons being removed.
> If I wanted to convince NATO to take arctic security seriously without having to deploy troops and resources of my own, this is how I'd do it.
Sure, you can convince a close friend of yours to take his home security much more seriously by telling him that you'll come by later and rob him at gunpoint.
But do you think he'll be even remotely friendly to you after that?
Yeah rare minerals under permafrost and in a climate that makes operating many machines difficult.
Trump just and underdeveloped idiot that is a waste of human genome and modern medicine who wants a medal and approval from fascist "friends" of him who are not just waste but a cancer that needs to be dealt with. He is just pathetic.
Well if you did, I’d say congrats, the arctic is now more secure, but your once loyal allies now dislike you. Was that worth the cost? In a hot war with a near peer you would want them on your side. The odds they would be willing to do so are now far lower.
Also, if you find yourself saying “Trump is doing just what I would do in this situation!” that is not a good sign. Unless you have tons of experience and expertise in geopolitics and international relations, you probably wouldn’t make the smartest moves in this scenario if you were president.
If I were a Russian assert, how would I cripple the US and undermine/dismantle it's vast array of partnerships, relationships, and treaties. This is how I would do it.
Trump isn't playing 3D chess, he's just a moron laying waste to the democratic values, traditions, and institutions that have enabled the US to succeed.
There's little difference between Trump and a Russian assert. He does the work of the Kremlin for free.
If I wanted to permanently erode trust within the alliance, which by the way just lost 859 European soldiers into America's idiotic Afghanistan adventure, this is how I'd do it.
If I wanted to be the most despicably pitiable person I would concoct absurd scenarios in my mind to convince myself and others that pedophile protectors enact complex long term vile machinations for the benefit of myself and others.
I think we've all allowed our emotions to blind us to the realities of arctic defense. Setting aside the fact that most of the business to be done so to speak would be offshore in any potential confrontation, Russia-US or EU-US. The very thought of defending a landmass as large and sparsely populated as Greenland with a handful of soldiers is laughable.
The Europeans are obviously just trying to make a point. Will it work. My bet is no. It's only going to irk people in Washington. But it's clear this is not a serious attempt at Greenland's defense.
You know that they are not needed as there are 0 realistic threats to Greenland excluding the US.
Neither China nor Russia would attack a NATO country, let alone the fact that they don't have the logistics and resources to conduct operations so far from home and so close to North America. Norfolk, the biggest military port in the world is 2200 miles from Greenland.
The excuse of China/Russia is beyond nonsense.
1. As part of Nato Greenland is already protected by such aggression. The idea of anybody triggering WW3 over Greenland is ludicrous as anything interesting there it's easily obtainable just by...putting money on the table. I'm sure Greenlanders will welcome royalties while you mine or do whatever in such a terrible environment.
2. Neither of the two has any military capabilities to conduct military operations in such a place and so distant from their countries. So close to North America moreover. Just to put it in perspective: Greenland is closer to Boston, and by a significant margin, than it is to any major Russian port.
3. While Russia has a long history of aggression and territorial expansion, anybody who's intimate with Chinese history knows well that an aggression on Greenland makes no sense and does not fit any pattern seen in the history of China.
The countries that have legitimate reasons to worry about Chinese aggression are those that were part of China in the pre colonial era: Taiwan, Kyrgyzstan, most of southern Siberia and Mongolia. This is why, e.g. China has annexed Tibet, but never gave two damns about neighbouring countries it could grab in an afternoon like Nepal: never been part of China, they don't care.
I am beginning to think "Greenland" is a wedge to undermine NATO; it is a ruse used to unravel the NATO alliance. If "Greenland" doesn't divide NATO, maybe the next ruse is for the US to unilaterally claim large chunks of the Arctic Ocean that violates the territorial sovereignty of other allies.
The stated objectives for this administration was to be understood as: Weaken USD. Cheaper oil. Weaken NATO.
This should surprise no one. Undermining NATO fits the now well known negotiation style perfectly, you can try to get a good deal from allies to put it back together, while simultaneously playing those allies against an alternative and opposite deal with Russia for doing business again. The latter has the added bonus of even cheaper oil. Neither is good for Ukraine and Taiwan unfortunately.
https://news.meaww.com/fact-check-did-donald-trump-take-out-...
> The ad’s central message—that US allies should pay their fair share—remains a core principle of Trump’s foreign policy today. His longstanding skepticism of NATO, confrontations with international leaders, and demands for more financial contributions from allied nations all stem from the ideas he publicly expressed in 1987.
Yes. Trump is a russian asset.
1. ‘The perfect target’: Russia cultivated Trump as asset for 40 years – ex-KGB spy. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/29/trump-russia...
2. British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spie...
3. Now everyone knows that Putin was present when Trump shared intimate moments with "Bubba". They're beyond best friends.
4. Compare how Putin is treated by Trump, and how Zelensky is treated by Trump.
5. The first round of tariffs, every country on earth was included except Russia. Even countries that traded less than Russia-USA were included.
> Trump is a russian asset.
I used to think this was tinfoil hat territory. I'm starting to come round to "this is the only narrative that fits the facts".
Yep, even if you ignore this massive wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates...
and look at everything from first principles, it's a logical conclusion. The simplest answer. Occam's Razor
There are ways in which the Trump admin is aiding Ukraine right now that cannot fit the narrative though.
If Putin controlled Trump outright, Ukraine would not be using US intel to more effectively strike Russian oil infrastructure. Trump blocked this intelligence sharing for a little bit during the initial "Peace talks" but now we are back to helping the find routes for weapons that won't be intercepted.
That is in line with Trump being sympathetic to Putin's narrative, but not in line with Trump following Putin's orders.
That infrastructure is critical for Russian state budget, something that is very strained, and for maintaining cheap energy internally to keep the populace apathetic.
Putin would also not have wanted the US to waltz into Venezuela unopposed. Makes Russia look very weak to have an ally who they supply with military aide be so comprehensively owned.
Unfortunately, Trump just idolizes Putin for being a powerful and oppressive dictator, because he likes power and wants that for himself. He has no moral qualms with the immoral things done by Putin. He loves the fake "Manly" persona. He's jealous of how effective Putin propaganda is.
It's truly vile how he treats the office and the democratic values he's meant to uphold and defend.
Why is he not impeached? Where is the American people?
He treats you with such contempt that he isn't above using the office for fraud and scams. He has done more to harm the US than Putin could have ever dreamed possible. Where is the American people? Hello?
> Why is he not impeached?
He was impeached twice already.
Impeachment doesn't mean what (I believe) you think it does. There were previous presidents of the US who got impeached and remained in the position as well. This part is not novel (the only novel part is that he managed to get impeached twice).
Removing Trump from office would require votes from some Republican Party members in Congress, and so far not enough are willing to vote for it.
He's been impeached twice, in his first term when Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, which is where impeachment happens. But removing a president requires trial and conviction in the Senate, and enough Republicans there voted against conviction. Several presidents have been impeached; none have been convicted.
> Where is the American people?
My belief is that the right wing in the US has almost absolute information dominance over a segment of the population. They can say anything and that segment will believe them and support it.
I don't think Trump is explicitly an asset. He just likes oligarchs and dictatorial strongmen, and is usually the dumbest man in the room. There's no doubt that there are ties there, but Trump is not a loyal man. These things combined means he can swing back and forth between doing Putin favors and being genuinely upset by perceived slights, then back to friends when Putin gets his ear to smooth things over.
Rather than specifically being a Russian asset, he's an asset to the last charismatic man he remembers speaking to.
He is the ultimate useful idiot. And as such he is a most valuable asset for Russia
Imagine the dirt they must have on him…
Ironically, this kind of mindset is exactly the one that Putin encouraged within Russia because it makes political pluralism impossible. If no matter who wins, 40% of the population is convinced the opposition is inherently wicked and intentionally trying to destroy the country as an agent of foreign (either literally or culturally) interest...
...you eventually end up in situation where most people agree that rule of law, political pluralism, free press and free speech, free inquiry and academic independence are luxuries we can no longer afford because of the foreign threat.
Because after all, we're under attack from evil people who want to destroy us! No compromise is possible and anybody who says they care about general principles is a fool or a traitor.
Trump has facilitated the continued transfer of tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons to Zelensky and accelerated the arming and training ukrainian forces in 2017.
Unless The Atlantic and Obama are in on the conspiracy as well, it's unclear why he would say this and express policy: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-oba...
Trying to explain the political and cultural problems of a country internally by reference to foreign plots has not once in history ended well or been evaluated as accurate by subsequent historians with no dog in that fight. The crisis of the present deserves real analysis, not conspiracy theories that crumble in the face of basic numeracy and mutually agreed upon facts. If you have counter-examples from before 2016, I'd love to discuss them and expand my worldview, otherwise I think it's prudent to go with the historical heuristic.
You are harming both yourself and the world by failing to distinguish between what is emotionally satisfying and what best fits the mutually agreed upon facts available without improvisationally multiplying entities that enlarge the scope of conspiracy without evidence.
Yeah, it sure smells "Putin-y"
The irony in needing to contain Russia by taking Greenland, also while bleeding Ukraine dry and appeasing Russia.
The strangest thing is that no one has learned from Ukraine and started buying Chines drones let alone larger arms deals as insurance against the threats in proximity.
Hence, you don't hear anything negative from Putin about it.
IMHO: The goal of the political movement (we really need a name for it after so many years in so many countries) is to replace the existing world order with a new one with them on top.
The movement seems to include right-wing (semi-)authoritarians such as Trump and the GOP, Netanyahu, Putin, bin Salman (Saudi Arabia), lesser powers, and many American business interests including in SV.
Leading Trump advisor Stephen Miller expressed one core position, which is that power rules the world - rather than human rights and votes, which is the fundamental of American tradition and law, and the current world order.
So yes, policies like Venezuala and Greenland, as well as immigration policy, anti-science positions, pro-disinformation actions, etc. are intended for a broader political outcome, but it's much broader than NATO. They are playing for the whole thing.
I'm surprised that more people on HN aren't very familiar with their strategy and goals.
Who fucking knows with this guy. It feels pointless to speculate. Remember when he was obsessed with the Panama Canal? And the talk about relocating every person in Palestine? It reminds me of Hitler's writings, where he would divide up the world based on simplistic divisions that sounded like a 5-year-old playing an elaborate board game.
Congratulations!
For the first time since 1783, there are now "Hessians" (German state troops) in North America with their guns pointed at the United States.
That the US operates a large military base in Greenland kind of undermines the narrative that people are trying to push in these articles.
As others have pointed it out it's about splitting NATO.
My real concern is Canada. Trump has made similar remarks about Canada like he did Greenland. If he takes Greenland it will be much harder for the EU should resupply Canada should the US see Canada is fully surrounded. How do Canadians view this?
What does it mean to "surround Canada" and why would anyone want to do it?
Almost the entire population of Canada is huddled against the US land border. Greenland is very far away from where the action would be if the US "takes" Canada. There would likely be few shots fired; Canada lacks the ability to put up a credible defense. The EU has no capacity to resupply Canada in any case. The whole scenario makes bizarre assumptions.
I don't think most Canadians consider the US "taking" Canada to be a serious scenario outside of echo chambers among the "too online" crowd. What would that gain the US that it doesn't already have?
What does the US gain from taking Greenland that it doesn't already have? If the US does invade an ally to acquire territory I think Canadians should be worried. In any case, what the US gains is the wrong perspective. This is about Trump and those around him wanting to build an empire and the American people, seemingly, letting them.
As a European, this is genuinely alarming. Headlines like this make me feel that NATO is effectively over at best, and that war may be approaching at worst.
`”fundamental disagreement" between the Trump administration and European allies.`
> NATO is effectively over at best
Quite the opposite. It has already led to a hard core of NATO countries shifting gears quickly.
If one or more other NATO countries attack them, it would push the hardcore NATO countries even closer together.
Long term it probably even is better if the US just leave, especially if the next president is aligned with the current government, we might as well cut our losses early and restructure before they bully the rest of their allies.
> NATO is effectively over at best
This, at least alliance with US, was stated by US on last years Munich conference and published in text by White House last December.
Good riddance, De Gaulle was always right about americans, we might finally be able to get out and build our own stuff instead of being a bully's bitch forever. Given the current situation and trends I don't expect there will be anything good to expect from the US for a while.
NATO has been over for decades, it is now just useful to the US military complex to secure one of their market.
Worst the concept of "European allies" is not real. At the end of WW2 Western Europe became a colony or dominion of the US like Eastern Europe got under USSR control. Europeans might have been told something else by their politicians and intellectuals but it is because they were allowed to save face and part of the "Free World" propaganda.
As the last "EU leaders" of the WW2 generation faded away the next one were too stupid to understand what they are.
At the same time the US got confused too. It probably doesn't know if it is the Roman Republic or Empire. So now everybody is confused.
One thing is for sure the so called EU leadership is of very low quality and they have absolutely no idea what they are doing. They have antagonised their own population and about every other centers of power: the US, Russia and China. No regime can survive this.
My guess is Europe is gonna be split in two again (the fracture line is starting to be clear) or worst go through a hybrid civil war before and rot for a while.
Or alternatively, Trump is playing 5d chess, and this is how he gets European nations to increase their defense spending :) /s
They already started increasing their defense spending, no need to act like a 5 year old and say that is mine, that is mine. Seriously, who does that?
It saddens me to see how so many years of collaboration wasted on this. We were at peace, we worked together. What is this even for? Can't the US just focus on its existing problems instead of creating new ones?
Trump and others in the same political movement want to replace the world order with a new one controlled by them. This is not a problem, but a way to undermine the world order.
>What is this even for? Can't the US just focus on its existing problems
That is exactly what it's for. Starting new problems distracts from the old problems at home.
Always something new, never a moment to catch your breath and focus. Eventually, people will get tired, will stop paying as much attention, and hopefully forget about those older scandals.
I mean, we were previously working together to invade countries in the middles east, killing millions of people. I wouldn't call that peaceful.
That's exactly what Trump doesn't want, it would seem.
Previously:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46631848
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46617108
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624266
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46634263
To boost its security against the United States of America. The GOP is an abysmal failure.
> about 15 French soldiers from the mountain infantry unit were already in Nuuk for a military exercise.
> Germany will deploy a reconnaissance team of 13 personnel to Greenland on Thursday, its Defense Ministry said.
Any sarcastic comments about these numbers?
No, because obviously it's not about numbers but about politics.
It's a tripwire force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force), and sickening that it is necessary
Do you want the UE to send 200k troops half way to the other side of the world for a hot conflict with the first military power on their own doorstep ?
Because that would be 10 times stupid
How many soldiers does it take to make the beaches impassable? https://www.der-postillon.com/2026/01/legosteine-groenland.h...
That is really funny. Thank you
> Any sarcastic comments about these numbers?
I'll give it a try: Germany also sent 5,000 military hats.
More seriously: I don't even think such a tiny contingent of troops would even work as a tripwire if Trump invades. Trump and his people probably don't have the self control, but if they did it seems like they could just bypass those troops and literally ignore them. I'm reminded of the 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea: my recollection is many of the Ukrainians just surrendered without shots being fired, because their numbers were too small and their positions completely untenable.
> my recollection is many of the Ukrainians just surrendered without shots being fired
A key detail is that they Europe and the US didn’t support Ukraine to fight. Neat, especially having facilitated Ukraine’s nuclear weapons being removed.
Those soldiers don't need to die for the attack on them (that is, taking them as prisoners) to be an act of war, doesn't it?
Do you even have to take them prisoner? Just let them wander around, get on a boat, and go home.
How many defending soldiers did your country put up there?
There are already 10 times more US soldiers present on Greenland's Pittufik Space Base.
Question is, to whom this fact is more embarrasing: EU politicians or the US admin?
Why would it be embarrassing for Europe? It is a symbolic/tripwire force to show that Denmark does not stand alone.
[dead]
Have the French surrendered yet?
If I wanted to convince NATO to take arctic security seriously without having to deploy troops and resources of my own, this is how I'd do it.
> If I wanted to convince NATO to take arctic security seriously without having to deploy troops and resources of my own, this is how I'd do it.
Sure, you can convince a close friend of yours to take his home security much more seriously by telling him that you'll come by later and rob him at gunpoint.
But do you think he'll be even remotely friendly to you after that?
Plus the real robber is still out there, and now you can't guard each-other's stuff.
If that's what he wanted, he could've asked.
He's no genius, like you're suggesting. They just want the rare minerals that people like Sam Altman are already investing on.
Yeah rare minerals under permafrost and in a climate that makes operating many machines difficult.
Trump just and underdeveloped idiot that is a waste of human genome and modern medicine who wants a medal and approval from fascist "friends" of him who are not just waste but a cancer that needs to be dealt with. He is just pathetic.
You'd do it by breaking an alliance critical to your security and power? That seems like a bad trade-off.
Well if you did, I’d say congrats, the arctic is now more secure, but your once loyal allies now dislike you. Was that worth the cost? In a hot war with a near peer you would want them on your side. The odds they would be willing to do so are now far lower.
Also, if you find yourself saying “Trump is doing just what I would do in this situation!” that is not a good sign. Unless you have tons of experience and expertise in geopolitics and international relations, you probably wouldn’t make the smartest moves in this scenario if you were president.
Instead of building common cause among your allies, got it. Thankfully I presume you are not in a position where your decisions drive policy.
Allies, eh?
I defer to Sir Humphrey on these matters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVYqB0uTKlE
"To create a disunited Europe"
If I were a Russian assert, how would I cripple the US and undermine/dismantle it's vast array of partnerships, relationships, and treaties. This is how I would do it.
Trump isn't playing 3D chess, he's just a moron laying waste to the democratic values, traditions, and institutions that have enabled the US to succeed.
There's little difference between Trump and a Russian assert. He does the work of the Kremlin for free.
You’d threaten to attack your allies? When the ‘enemy’, Russia, is being pandered to elsewhere?
If I wanted to permanently erode trust within the alliance, which by the way just lost 859 European soldiers into America's idiotic Afghanistan adventure, this is how I'd do it.
If I wanted to be the most despicably pitiable person I would concoct absurd scenarios in my mind to convince myself and others that pedophile protectors enact complex long term vile machinations for the benefit of myself and others.
'by destroying NATO we made it stronger, for a very short time' is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
With 15 French mountain soldiers and 13 Germans?
I think we've all allowed our emotions to blind us to the realities of arctic defense. Setting aside the fact that most of the business to be done so to speak would be offshore in any potential confrontation, Russia-US or EU-US. The very thought of defending a landmass as large and sparsely populated as Greenland with a handful of soldiers is laughable.
The Europeans are obviously just trying to make a point. Will it work. My bet is no. It's only going to irk people in Washington. But it's clear this is not a serious attempt at Greenland's defense.
You know that they are not needed as there are 0 realistic threats to Greenland excluding the US.
Neither China nor Russia would attack a NATO country, let alone the fact that they don't have the logistics and resources to conduct operations so far from home and so close to North America. Norfolk, the biggest military port in the world is 2200 miles from Greenland.
> With 15 French mountain soldiers and 13 Germans?
Small force, symbolic stand: "Remember the Alamo", but "Remember Greenland" instead this time.
By the way, can you tell me the background and meaning of these phrases?
"Don't tread on me!"
"Live free or die"
"Give me liberty or give me death"
"From my cold, dead hands"
That is a tripwire deployment.
If there is a need to redesign the defense of Greenland I assume that would take more time.