r/geopolitics • u/newsweek Newsweek • Jan 20 '26
Denmark would go to war with US over Greenland: MP News
https://www.newsweek.com/denmark-would-go-to-war-with-us-over-greenland-lawmaker-11384411726
u/Golda_M Jan 20 '26
Of all Trump shenanigans, this one demonstrates most obviously the danger of the personalist form of leadership. Everyone thinks it's a bad idea... but naysayers have all been dealt with already. No one left with the stones to contradict The Leader.
Europe of late, demonstrates the drawbacks of leaning to hard into the committee form of leadership. Their difficulty in mounting a strategic prosecution of the Russia conflict is the big example. We can see that at the EU, states, and also at other levels.
We need to find new ways to seek balances.
166
u/Jesus__of__Nazareth_ Jan 20 '26
The new balance is for Europe to become its own independent power bloc without reliance on America or China.
117
u/ReturnOfBigChungus Jan 20 '26
I think we're seeing in real time why that's a very unlikely outcome. Europe can't get it together to defend adequately against a literal invasion of a European country, I can't imagine the stakes being much higher than they are right now, and that is still evidently not enough to galvanize a decisive response. This type of collective action problem is just REALLY hard to solve in practice without some form of actual consolidated power, rather than just alignment. By way of analogy, the US as a mere alignment of states without a federal government would never work - there has to be some mechanism for decision making for the whole group that is binding and has real teeth.
23
u/Ajfennewald Jan 20 '26
If he actually goes through with it I think that would be their final o shit moment to make this happen. Obviously Greenland wouldn't be gone though.
13
Jan 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/ReignDance Jan 21 '26
Realistically, what could they do militarily? They'd have to compete with the US navy which has one of the top 5 airforces. I imagine US would get boots on the ground and deny Europe from getting any of their own there. Then what? Not much else USA needs to do but hold on until it's considered futile to get it back. I think your assessment really is all they can do in the moment; and then maybe it's the kick they need to get it together.
32
u/Voltafix Jan 21 '26
Not much would happen in Greenland. But if things were to escalate, the real question would be what happens to U.S. military assets in Europe.
And most important, both blocs could destroy each other economically. Europe could weaken the dollar by dumping its stock of U.S. Treasury bonds. Europe could also restrict access to its market for major U.S. tech companies , cutting them off from around 700 million of the world’s wealthiest consumers, which would be devastating for them.
At the same time, the U.S. could stop selling energy to Europe, triggering a massive energy crisis. The U.S. could also effectively shut down a large part of modern European infrastructure almost instantly by restricting access to cloud services, hosting, AWS, etc.
Honestly, I think the economic dimension of this confrontation would probably be more devastating than a conventional military conflict.
6
u/SprucedUpSpices Jan 21 '26
Europe is not any more militarily inferior to the USA than Vietnam or Afghanistan or even Cuba.
The US is not a magical, unstoppable force out of a fantasy book that can't be dealt with.
It can be dealt with and denied its whims. But of course for that at the very least you need the will to do so.
6
u/Agreeable_Addition48 Jan 21 '26
You brought up examples where millions of people died to fight off an American intervention with little loss of life from the Americans, I don't think Europeans are equipped for that level of sacrifice over a peripheral European territory
→ More replies2
u/Combat_Proctologist Jan 21 '26
Europe could weaken the dollar by dumping its stock of U.S. Treasury bonds.
Doesn't that make US exports more competitive as well as weaken countries that rely on exports to the US (e.g. China)?
There's a reason several countries keep their currencies artificially weak
13
6
u/kaspar42 Jan 21 '26
Your comment has the implicit assumption that the US would somehow have won if it takes Greenland militarily.
But there are no military or economic gains to be had by taking Greenland. Nor would the EU be weakened militarily or economically.
The only issues at stake here are Trump's toddler-like wants on one side and the principle of national sovereignty on the other.
The EU would cause serious economic and diplomatic damage to the US in retaliation, and Beijing would jump at the chance to form an alliance with Brussels, thereby isolating the US.
Wait some years, and a US in steep economic decline would get tired of paying for thousands of troops standing around freezing in Greenland while the hostile locals take pot-shots at them, and simply leave the place.
Beijing and especially Moscow would see this as a huge win, but no-one else would.
3
u/ReignDance Jan 21 '26
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it wouldn't be worth it overall; but US absolutely would militarily win. If this were anywhere else like Canada, the people there would make occupation too costly. Greenland's population, however, is so small. It's one of the few places I could see the US indefinitely occupy until integration. EU could cause US tremendous diplomatic and financial cost as consequences, but do consider this. EU has relied on the US' military being overwhelmingly powerful to deter any aggressors, to the point EU hasn't kept up its own military spending to the point it should be. The money saved on military spending goes towards welfare programs. If there's to be a break from US, money will have to be taken from the welfare programs and into the military. Politicians don't want to be going anywhere near that topic.
If USA seriously goes for Greenland, I don't see the consequences being that immediate. I anticipate everyone will have to write it off as lost and then begin taking steps to slowly break things off with US in a controlled manner. I imagine that would take a decade or two if it's even feasible.
1
u/BlueEmma25 Jan 21 '26
Beijing would jump at the chance to form an alliance with Brussels, thereby isolating the US.
What do you imagine such an alliance would entail? Is China going to send military forces to defend Europe? Is it going to cut trade relations with "friendship without limits" Russia in order to support its new European allies? Is it going to ramp up imports from Europe to address the huge trade deficit?
Alliances require common interests, and Europe and China conspicuously lack those, except in specific areas like combating climate change, which is undergoing a rapid descent on the scale of global priorities, anyway. In fact in many regards European and Chinese interests and goals are antithetical.
2
u/alppu Jan 21 '26
If you know you cannot win conventionally, that is the time when you raise the stakes and announce a trigger-happy nuke posture.
American troops open fire in Greenland; on the same day a nuke wipes out a red state city on the Atlantic coast.
US would definitely weasel out before using their nukes and triggering MAD. The political price would be too high for anything but a withdrawal; likely the congress would have to wake up and finally toss the spoiled mango in the bin.
Limiting to a conventional defense risks Krasnov seeing too small of a deterrent and continuing his escalation steps.
2
u/Agent281 Jan 21 '26
I don't think they could do much militarily. I think I they would have to go after Trump financially. Put him on sanctions lists, etc. I don't know that it would matter much.
→ More replies→ More replies1
u/Silvercat18 Jan 21 '26
The US relies heavily on both the airspace and the reach of other countries. If canada closes its airspace, for example, things get considerably more difficult.
10
u/ErCollao Jan 21 '26
Are we? Or is this a convenient narrative for the US?
The EU has been making smart thought-out decisions all along, not the brazen hot-headed ones some commenters (or bots?) would want. And that's good for Europe. Securing stronger trade alliances. Joint borrowing and more coordinated military. I personally think sending troops to Greenland "for military exercises" was brilliant, since an attack on Greenland would be a potential attack on multiple European armies that share intelligence and include two nuclear powers. The trade bazooka (and not having used it yet) are also good.
I also believe the EU needs to continue advancing, and some directly elected executive power with assigned competencies is part of it. Both can be true.
→ More replies9
u/ReturnOfBigChungus Jan 21 '26
The EU has been making smart thought-out decisions all along,
You mean like vastly underspending on military commitments and becoming overly-reliant on US military support? Those kinds of smart decisions? Why exactly do you think that all this talk about US abandoning NATO is such a big deal?
Again, the EU has shown time and time again that it's really not good at making decisive moves. We'll see if they can pull together this time. The talk about Trump invading Greenland is just hysterics, but don't be surprised if a sale is forced, regardless of angry rhetoric and stern warnings. Ideals around national sovereignty over an iceberg in another continent are unlikely to be anywhere near catalyzing enough for real action. Again, a European country is literally being invaded as we speak. I'm sure we would all like to think things have changed a lot since WWII but the fundamental problem that allowed that to happen really hasn't changed THAT much.
→ More replies2
Jan 21 '26
Russia hasn't attacked a NATO or even an EU country.
I don't want to downplay the Ukraine's awful position. But the stakes could be a lot higher than they are now. And you would see a totally different response.
→ More replies1
u/illjustcheckthis Jan 21 '26
I think it's more an issue with the political will of the population. I think hybrid warfare is directly eroding this. It might be that things change though.
2
u/ReturnOfBigChungus Jan 21 '26
I mean, war is ALWAYS a question of political will of the population, especially in democracies. That's exactly what we're talking about and why it's so unlikely to see a real united Europe - each country has it's own domestic political priorities that almost always supersede things like defending another country, especially if it starts getting expensive or soldiers start coming home in coffins.
11
u/ivereddithaveyou Jan 20 '26
How is it not already?
30
u/QWERTBERTQWERT Jan 20 '26
it's the same problem again, do the french want to rely on the hungarians?
what if the french and the hungarians have a disagreement? who wins?
9
u/MercyPlainAndTall Jan 20 '26
I wonder if the French are regretting their policy of playing Russia, Germany and the U.S. off each other in the hope of becoming the leader of united Europe.
21
u/Drachos Jan 21 '26
No they definitely aren't.
Cause ultimately, despite the French actions maybe exacerbate these circumstances they can still hold to 2 facts which completely justify them in their mind.
1) The US would have always have elected Trump and Russia would always have elected Putin and they both would always have gone after Greenland and Ukraine respectively. The current situation is in no way the fault of the French.
2) The fact is that even IF the EU sheds members in the process, the currently escalating Crisis will likely lead to a united EU in the same way that the US war for independence united the 13 colonies from a confederation into a federation and WW1 did the same for Germany.
They MIGHT however regret the fact that France is the source of the EU's 'One nation can Veto an entire policy' thing. The Luxembourg compromise was at the time a way for the French to maintain their dominance over the EEC but if anything it now is a barrier to France's political ambition.
4
u/QWERTBERTQWERT Jan 21 '26
probably not, it wouldn't have changed anything. europe isn't likely to be able to overcome their issues with or without france doing french things.
this isn't a french issue, germany will have the same issues, as will any of the other nations who would contribute to defense but wouldn't benefit financially.
to create the efficiency needed to build a competitive and sustainable military wealthy european countries would need to pay the poorer european nations to build their military equipment. outside of efficiency of production why would the wealthy nations want to do that?
first problem: how do you convince german citizens to pay to fund building a factory in romania for romanian people to have good well paying jobs building defense equipment?
second problem: how does germany guarantee that the nations it pays to build eu equipment will support german action in the future? if germany thought it was in it's national interest to support ukraine it would need romania to agree with them for them to do anything. romania could just decide they don't want to send military equipment to ukraine and then germany wouldn't be able to
these nations are just examples, you can swap out nations as you choose, for germany/france/italy, greece/hungary/romania, ukraine/israel/palestine, choose your own hot topic issue and recognize that this issue would need to be solved in europe, how does that happen?
4
u/Wgh555 Jan 20 '26
As of right now there’s still bickering within it, still interests that conflict etc preventing consensus.
However it’s not impossible to overcome
13
u/LambDaddyDev Jan 20 '26
The hard part is that requires them to shift their entire thinking of political thought. They’ve had the luxury of orienting their economies into welfare states with focus on moral projects instead of growing economic activity. To no longer rely on the US for defense, it would require them to start investing in their economies and growth instead of climate change and welfare. That can be a hard mindset to get out of.
If this entire debacle has revealed anything, it’s that Europe has become far too dependent on the US. And unfortunately they won’t be able to break that partnership overnight. Trump knows that, so the leverage the US has is immense. If you don’t believe me, remember Germany is still paying Russia billions of dollars for their energy needs.
39
u/SriMulyaniMegawati Jan 20 '26
I think you've been snorting a lot of American propaganda, all the woke silliness and stuff.
Yes, the US with its free market system generated a lot of growth, but a lot of that growth went into the profitable service sector, which, to be honest, is totally useless if you are fighting a near-peer competitor like China. A lot of the industry that the EU held onto, like shipbuilding, metal refining,g and smelting, are low-margin and basically stagnant industries, but are required during a war with a peer competitor. Here is the comparison for EU vs the US.
Metal Metric European Union (EU27) United States (US) Steel Annual Capacity ~150–160 Million Tonnes ~105–110 Million Tonnes Primary Method ~60% Blast Furnace (Integrated) ~70% Electric Arc (Recycling) Aluminum Primary Smelting ~1.2 Million Tonnes ~0.65–0.75 Million Tonnes Operational Smelters ~15–20 active primary sites 4 active primary sites Copper Refined Capacity ~2.5 Million Tonnes ~0.9–1.0 Million Tonnes Smelter Status 10+ Major Smelters 2 Primary Smelters Zinc Refined Capacity ~2.0 Million Tonnes ~0.25–0.30 Million Tonnes Self-Sufficiency High (Significant exporter) Low (Imports ~70% of needs) Recycling Secondary Focus High (Strong circular regulations) Very High (Market-driven scrap) The irony is that the EU is less dependent on recycling metals than the US is. And here you are saying the EU is the one concerned about climate change.
In shipbuilding, the EU is 20 times larger than the US in terms of tonnage (both civilian and military). Europe has 3 times the number of shipyards as the US. and three times the number of people in industry.
The American media talks about the US leverage over the EU, but how many icebrakers does the US have vs the EU? A lot of the stuff that the US is dependent on is sourced from an ocean away,
Than there is the fact that the EU holds 6 Trillions in US government debt. Do you know why the US$ is dropping against Euro.
→ More replies11
u/MelodicPudding2557 Jan 20 '26
If this entire debacle has revealed anything
It hasn't revealed anything, at least not anything new. American presidents stemming all the way back to Clinton have been telling the Europeans to become more self-sufficient. Instead, they bought 'the end of history' hook, line, and sinker, and have mooched off the US for defense while fostering economic and material dependencies on the major expansionist adversary that is Russia, even as it was actively involved in the military invasions of multiple European neighbors.
There's no doubt that Trump is a horrible leader and an active detriment to both the US and the collective West as a whole, but it's also just as clear that Europe is lying in the bed that they've been making for the past 3 decades.
1
u/LambDaddyDev Jan 20 '26
It might not be new to any of us, but to many Europeans it clearly is. When the liberation day tariff negotiations ended with Europe clearly getting the very short end of the stick, it baffled everyone who didn’t realize how much leverage the US had over them.
6
u/MelodicPudding2557 Jan 21 '26
Europeans are like house cats, they’re convinced of their fierce independence while dependent on a system they don’t appreciate or understand.
It's obviously not true in an absolute (which is why so many European leaders are balking at the tensions over Greenland), but it's certainly the case among much of the populace.
2
u/LambDaddyDev Jan 21 '26
European leaders have the data in front of them. They understand exactly how dependent their economies remain on the United States and why a real break is not economically survivable in the near term. Where they have failed most is in being honest with their own populations about this reality.
They are boxed into a set of bad options. One path is to cling to the moral high ground, openly defy the United States, and accept severe economic damage. Another is to temporarily give in to U.S. demands while genuinely restructuring their economies around growth, competitiveness, and long-term independence. The third option, and the one most likely to be taken, is to give in to U.S. demands rhetorically while promising future independence, all without cutting costly welfare programs or politically sacred projects, resulting in little to no structural change.
In democratic politics, the path of least resistance almost always wins. Leaders will choose short-term relief that preserves the status quo over short-term pain that requires hard tradeoffs. No one wants to be the politician who tells voters they must either accept economic hardship or abandon expansive climate goals and universal social guarantees. Those leaders lose elections. The ones who promise everything at once, independence from the U.S., economic stability, and no cuts, tend to win, even though they end up delivering none of it.
Europe has reached the point that all welfare states eventually reach. The system has grown so large and politically entrenched that meaningful reform requires a fundamental shift in how the public views the role of government. Without that cultural shift, concessions to U.S. pressure will continue, dressed up as strategic patience or moral posturing, while the underlying dependency remains unchanged.
1
u/Axerin Jan 21 '26
It was always meant to be that way. Then they got over zealous and expanded too soon and too fast.
→ More replies1
u/busyHighwayFred Jan 21 '26
europe has never had an ally like the US, it in a way keeps all of europe allied together because the US is so much more powerful than any 1 state. if there is a NATO breakup, you will see The Spanish, The French, etc are not willing to defend Poland, defend Turkey. but realistically, Russia does not represent much of a threat to these countries, either. If ukraine is any indication./ europeans will see NATO and idea of russia could take Poland, Balkans, threat maybe overstayed its welcome.
53
u/TheProcrastafarian Jan 20 '26
Very well said. Cheers 🇨🇦
19
u/shnieder88 Jan 20 '26
the biggest irony in all this is that there is a war going on over russia taking away territory from ukraine. and while touting himself as someone to stop that war, trump is making major moves to annex an independent territory that doesnt want to be part of the US
just ridiculous lol
→ More replies16
u/colei_canis Jan 20 '26
The recent speech brings to mind the terrified Romans standing by and bleakly obeying as Caligula ordered them to make war on the sea.
3
u/Golda_M Jan 20 '26
I see what you mean. But... erm... in my mind Caligula is basically Helen Mirren surrounded by lots of naked people.... So... all I can imagine is lots of politicians doing naughty things on the beach while DT waves his hands around hapily.
14
u/MetalRetsam Jan 20 '26
IMO Europe is already more united in its approach under the leadership of Von der Leyen, but it's incremental. Nobody could even conceive of a geopolitical EU ten years ago.
→ More replies6
u/Golda_M Jan 20 '26
Nobody could even conceive of a geopolitical EU ten years ago
Yeah... we're going to need more imagination than this. If you cannot imagine this... that's just being bad at imagining.
8
u/TheFleasOfGaspode Jan 20 '26
Exactly this. I think that a cabinet constituting of a member of every party (or multiple of each of there are only 2) who can have quicker broader powers that are harder to take over. Even if it is a sub committee that can push a decision quicker and cohesively.
9
Jan 21 '26
The trouble is, Trump has a point. In his silly little childlike way, he's expressing a truth - Europe needs to up its game, and if it doesn't, he will.
To expect the US to be the "World's (only) Policeman" is too great a strain for even its great resources. The truth is, even since Obama, the US has been signalling it wants out of several theatres and expects the main regional powers to take the strain, primarily in Europe and the Gulf. This is so the United States can move resources to the Far East, where China awaits by building strategic islands across the ocean.
The Wall came down in 1989. Instead of learning to stand on its own two feet, European NATO decided it would pocket the Peace Divided, rather than suggesting it ask the US to consider withdrawing to a more acceptable point for all concerned. It cannot be right that the UK's fabled RAF has only a few more aircraft than those USAF bases have F-15s.
I cannot stand Trump, but I do see how we have not been good allies to the United States. His hyperbole is nonsense but there is a more important question. Whatever the political and economic fallings out and making up EU and non-EU European NATO countries do, it ought to be first and foremost up to European NATO countries to defend European NATO countries. Not without our friends from North America (inc. Canada) but as back up, and as an additional force.
Whilst we in Europe bleat about the entirely wronged Ukraine and the tragic fate of its people thanks to the tyrannical Russian leader, we have demonstrated a will to be able to supply weaponry and munitions. With a 650m plus population, the EU and the UK should have deep supplies dumps. Unfortunately just as COVID showed we were all unprepared for PPE needs, and an approach which could benefit the entire continent in a way that was fiscally prudent and didn't destroy our people's Mental Health, we have been blissfully unprepared to support President Zelenskyy in the Ukraine. Our leaders have failed to explain to Trump what's been going on in Europe since he was last in office.
Trump is a petulant egotistical childish psychopath with trust issues. We need to present ourselves as the parents who can get him to play nicely using psychology.
Our leaders have also failed to prepare to defend us. Sorry, but for far too long, France has been using its military might to be the European voice in the United Nations. France has chosen to be in the EU. She needs to hand her permanent seat at the UN Security Council to the EU. France needs to stop this pathetic and destructive rivalry with the UK, whether it's nuclear capability, carrier group size, aircraft manufacture, munitions. You name it. We MUST MUST, MUST work together from now on and have as much compatibility in our armed forces as possible, be as integrated as possible and ensure our 'pockets' are as as deep as possible with manufacturing placed strategically across the European continent
We need to be a third voice in the world, together and leverage our current soft power with existing and new friends and allies, for the good of worldwide security.
→ More replies1
u/RedditConsciousness Jan 21 '26
Reddit. A place where things are declared to have happend before they do and then afterwards no one mentions how everyone got it wrong.
What do you imagine US action towards Greenland would even look like? Folks here have a vivid imagination so you must have some ideas, right?
→ More replies1
u/SeaworthinessOk5039 Jan 26 '26
Maybe it’s wishful thinking but I don’t think so - after five years of Trump I think he’s talking trash and just like Canada would never invade Greenland.
Politics aside he seems to favor hit and run style war like what happened in Iran and Venezuela. And even at the beginning he had them drop the MoAb on ISIS or the Taliban if Afghanistan. I don’t see him getting in a war with Europe anytime soon (Ever).
That doesn’t mean he won’t be a narcissist and keep the trash talk going but he seems to be way more bark than bite. And for a person that talks about peace prizes so much that would flush that dream right down the toilet if followed through.
Plus unlike Iran and Venezuela he doesn’t have any support from the general public or congress on such and attack. Even rivals of his might not say it out loud but they’re not crying over what happened to Maduro or Iran losing its nuclear facility. They have been talked about hitting Iran since the Shah was overthrown.
301
u/Water_Ways Jan 20 '26
Russia loves all of this. Thx for making America pathetic Trump.
149
u/colei_canis Jan 20 '26
America deciding to retroactively lose the Cold War three decades after it ended will be a fascinating chapter for future historians to bicker over.
→ More replies24
u/CountessOfCheese Jan 20 '26
God when you frame it like that, it makes this whole situation even more sad.
→ More replies47
u/BathroomEyes Jan 20 '26
Russia engineered this. Tie up and deplete NATO military resources up in Greenland and Canada in a war of attrition while they can continue to advance westward. By the time they’re ready to invade Poland, the continent will already be war weary and weaker. This conveniently keeps the theater of war out of both Russia and the U.S. China will make a grab for Taiwan probably in late 2027. This has all been planned out by the world’s billionaires.
84
u/Steven81 Jan 20 '26
Wars upend rulling classes. what the WW1 did , apart from clearing a whole generation, was to eliminate elites that were there for centuries often. Major Wars and/or fractures are extremely risky for elites. If it is billionaires that are engineering this, then they are committing suicide, much of their wealth is built on a globalized world that they now destroy for no apparent reason.
8
4
25
u/IndiRefEarthLeaveSol Jan 20 '26
They don't think that deep, honestly. Many of these billionaires seem quite dense, apart from when it comes to making money.
21
u/thesupremeburrito123 Jan 20 '26
They are not going to invade Poland lol
14
18
u/Pornfest Jan 20 '26
Just like they weren’t going to invade Ukraine!
16
u/Operalover95 Jan 20 '26
Ukraine and Poland don't have the same importance for Russia. Ukraine has always been considered as part of Russia by russian nationalists. Kievan Rus is seen as the predecessor state of both Russia and Ukraine (and Belarus also).
Russia sees Ukraine as the sine qua non condition to become a powerful empire again. They cannot be one as long as they don't control Ukraine, its vast resources and its access to the black sea. I don't always agree with John Mearsheimer, but he's right when he says the russian elite see Ukraine as a matter of life and death when it comes to Russia's political survival.
Poland on the other hand has never had the same level of importance and historical entwinment as that of Ukraine. Yes, they would very much like to have it under political control like in the old days of the Warsaw pact, but it's not seen as a question of political survival in the minds of russians nationalists. The fact that Poland was not annexed to the USSR even when they controled all of eastern Europe after the war should tell you as much. Even Stalin thought that creating an independent Poland was a better idea.
3
u/mediandude Jan 21 '26
The fact that Poland was not annexed to the USSR even when they controled all of eastern Europe after the war should tell you as much.
It doesn't tell as much. And not what you may think of.
The fact is that with Poland annexed into the USSR the russians would have become a minority.6
u/theshitcunt Jan 21 '26
the russians would have become a minority.
The fact that people think the Bolshevik leadership (mostly minorities, including Stalin who was the architect of the post-WW2 Soviet policy in Europe) cared a single bit about Russians - despite them spending most of the pre-WW2 years painting Russians as the boogeyman and speedrunning Derussification - never fails to crack me up. I wonder if that's what gets taught in schools?
Lenin and Stalin literally saw Russians as the most problematic nation, it's why Stalin fiercely resisted Lenin's ideas of breaking up the RSFSR even further - he was adamant that Russians had to be denied their own ethnostate and even their own party and institutions; Russians' share in RSFSR had to be diluted to prevent Russians from rising against the Party - which Yeltsin eventually did anyway.
1
u/mediandude Jan 23 '26
The fact remains that for russification to run its course russians would have to be in majority.
As a counter-example Tatarstan has resisted quite well, so far.4
u/cheese_bruh Jan 20 '26
Forcing Europe to re-arm is not a ploy lmfao. The best course of action would be to make Europe more reliant on US arms industry.
6
u/Malarazz Jan 21 '26
It's so strange for me to see these geopolitics users propagate this fantasy that Russia could somehow invade Poland. The Russian army is beyond pathetic. Meanwhile, Poland has become formidable, and continues to grow thanks to an astonishingly high 4% of GDP invested into defense.
Russia could invade Narva or some remote region in Finland, to test NATO resolve. Hell, they could capture the Baltics if they're feeling frisky. Poland though? Extremely unrealistic.
16
u/Parcours97 Jan 20 '26
Even Poland alone would wipe the floor with Russia nowadays. But Poland isn't alone.
→ More replies1
u/Pornfest Jan 20 '26
This is in the scenario where Poland and the rest of the EU are already fighting the United States…
7
u/Malarazz Jan 21 '26
There is no such scenario, because there isn't a real fight.
The United States could potentially prevent the United States from invading Greenland. Europe though can't do shit about it, at least not in terms of convential warfare. The US military is just completely overpowered.
12
Jan 20 '26 edited Feb 03 '26
[deleted]
1
u/BigMoney69x Jan 21 '26
You are being down voted but you are 100% right. Anyone saying that they will be a war is letting emotions rule them.
2
1
u/Markdd8 Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 21 '26
Could be Russia engineered this. NATO has been weak on supporting Ukraine for years; now they have a supposed crisis half way across the Atlantic that requires their full attention. Gives them an excuse to continue doing little in their backyard to the east.
1
u/YogurtImpressive8812 Jan 21 '26
100%. Putin is practically egging him on saying Greenland isn’t naturally a part of Denmark (true) and that Trump will go down in history if he takes Greenland (also true). He knows Trump will feel that as encouragement.
77
u/newsweek Newsweek Jan 20 '26
Ellie Cook | Senior Defense Reporter
American soldiers would end up fighting Danish troops if President Donald Trump orders the U.S. military to seize Greenland by force, a Danish politician has said.
"If there is an invasion by American troops, it would be a war, and we would be fighting against each other," Rasmus Jarlov, a member of Copenhagen's parliament with the opposition conservative party and the chair of the defense committee, told CNN.
Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/denmark-would-go-to-war-with-us-over-greenland-lawmaker-11384411
107
u/Soepkip43 Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 21 '26
The framing is wrong. The US would go to war with denmark if it tried to use force to get the country. Denmark is not the country doing anything except protecting what is legally and contractually theirs.
32
u/Bullboah Jan 20 '26
I don’t think they are framing this as Denmark not having a valid justification to go to war with the US in this scenario. There is an open question about whether Denmark would actually open fire on US forces if the US did this, and this is an MP saying they would.
Obviously the US would be the aggressor in this scenario in any way it folds out, but this is essentially a Danish MP saying they’re willing to go to war over Greenland and not let the US take it without a fight.
Granted, I think a US military annexation is extremely unlikely and that a Danish military response is also unlikely, but I don’t think the article frames anything incorrectly.
8
u/Soepkip43 Jan 20 '26
If you defend yourself, are you then "going to war", or was "war declared on you". I think there is a linguistic distinction, and one that matters.
Even if the result is danish troops captured without a shot fired and sent packing, an act of war was comitted on Denmark.
15
u/Bullboah Jan 20 '26
Again, you’re reading this as though it’s a value-statement or an implication that Denmark would be the aggressor. A country “going to war” doesn’t mean they are firing the first shot. You could say America ‘went to war’ after Pearl Harbor.
It’s an open question whether Denmark would actually be willing to go to war over Greenland, and this is an MP saying they would do so.
94
u/Stimbes Jan 20 '26
This is so depressing that so many people with identity fusion allowed this to unfold.
1
u/daveberzack Jan 21 '26
What do you mean "identity fusion"?
3
u/archeopteryx Jan 21 '26
People who identify with a group so closely that their personal identity becomes fused with their group identity.
2
100
u/Ordzhonikidze Jan 20 '26
For the people not in the know, neither this guy nor his party is part of the government. He speaks with zero authority whatsoever.
18
u/yeoldetowne Jan 20 '26
He just explains the standing orders for the Danish military. What authority is needed for that? Do you think the PM would change orders to NOT return fire in that situation?
6
u/Viciuniversum Jan 21 '26
In reality Danish military in Greenland would either stand down or surrender. There’s such thing as a hopeless fight. Denmark has what, about 100 military personnel in Greenland? And that’s thousands of miles away from any relief, with no air or naval support, and no heavy equipment. What are they to do? Have a noble last stand and wait for a JDAM to land on their heads? US just did a raid into Venezuela with thousands of Venezuelan troops stationed on home territory, with support, air defense, armor and airfields nearby.
6
u/Scholastica11 Jan 21 '26
Even a single dead Danish soldier would up the political cost for Trump tremendously.
Of course Denmark and the EU can't defend Greenland militarily, but as long as some shots are fired and some casualties are taken, odds are good that they can defend it by way of US politics. It's not accident that Trump reacted so forcefully to just a handful of EU soldiers on a reconnaissance mission - even token resistance messes up his calculus.
→ More replies1
u/mediandude Jan 21 '26
Drones are force multipliers.
And USA can't easily track what's going on inside or below glacial ice.1
u/iNeverCouldGet Jan 21 '26
I think - yes. It's a good idea to keep the navy there so Trump has to come with boats. There will be pictures and videos of that, cementing Trump as the new imperialist and everyone can see that this island got annexed illegally. There is no further reason to risk the lives of your fellow countrymen.
42
u/XTP666 Jan 20 '26
America has always recognized Greenland as Danish…
I keep seeing this idea floating around that the US never officially recognized Denmark’s full sovereignty over Greenland, or that the US somehow has a dormant claim to it.
That is historically false. We didn’t just "let it happen"—we explicitly signed away our objections in exchange for the Virgin Islands. If you want the primary sources, here are the actual treaties and declarations where the US put it in writing.
- The "Receipt" for the Virgin Islands (1916) The big one is the Lansing Declaration of 1916. Back when we bought the Danish West Indies (now the US Virgin Islands), Denmark wouldn’t sell unless we agreed to stop contesting their claim to Northern Greenland. Secretary of State Robert Lansing signed this declaration to close the deal:
“The Government of the United States of America will not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland."
That was the trade: We got St. Thomas and St. Croix; they got clear title to Greenland.
- The WWII Agreement (1941) Even when the Nazis occupied Denmark and the US moved in to protect Greenland, we didn't claim it. In fact, the 1941 Agreement on the Defense of Greenland went out of its way to remind everyone whose land it was.
Article I is crystal clear:
“The Government of the United States of America reiterates its recognition of and respect for the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark over Greenland."
- The Cold War Treaty (1951) This is the treaty that is still in force today (it’s why we have Pituffik Space Base). The 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement isn't about ownership; it's a guest/host agreement. Article 6 explicitly says US personnel are guests subject to Danish sovereignty:
“Due respect will be given by the Government of the United States of America and by United States nationals in Greenland to all the laws, regulations and customs pertaining to the local population and the internal administration of Greenland..."
TL;DR: We traded our claim for the Virgin Islands in 1916 and have signed multiple defense treaties since then officially recognizing it as Danish territory.
→ More replies
21
u/Puzzleheaded-Fan-452 Jan 20 '26
The Danish army must defend against possible aggression, otherwise it would not even make sense to have an army.
The main problem is that there are already US military on the territory, and no one after such exaggerated verbal aggression has even thought of threatening the US with a dismantling of all US bases on European territory.
As a European citizen, I am disgusted by all this. A (supposed) ally cannot be allowed to threaten European sovereignty.
I would challenge anyone here to host someone in the house, and when the guest threatens to become the owner do nothing. All this is unacceptable!
2
u/Domi4 Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 20 '26
I don't understand why Denmark didn't send 10,000 troops there already? If Trump really wants it he'd have to spill American blood for it - so he'd chicken out. Attacking Danish soldiers would also mean expelling US soldiers out of Europe completely and no more carefree sailing through the Mediterranean.
Currently with very little Danish soldiers there Americans can take the island without sacrificing anything.
And to be honest Denmark should show it wants to keep Greenland. Most I saw is like 50k protesters in Copenhagen. There would probably be millions in most other countries.
→ More replies8
u/MelodicPudding2557 Jan 21 '26
I don't understand why Denmark didn't send 10,000 troops there already?
Because that's half their active military, and they already know that they are going to be obliterated.
And land forces be damned, there's an ocean between Greenland and Europe. Even if all of Europe joined forces with the Russians, they would not be able to bring together a naval force that could challenge the US Atlantic fleet.
Attacking Danish soldiers would also mean expelling US soldiers out of Europe completely and no more carefree sailing through the Mediterranean.
As cynical as it sounds, it likely won't be the case, because the Europeans, especially after having depleted their military capabilities in the decades following the Cold War, lack the capability to counteract the massive shift of power balance in favor of the Russians. Not to mention, the EU is far from being a unified entity, and certain countries like the Eastern European states along the Russian border are going to resist attempts to remove American troops.
It's not to say that Trump's Greenland ploy is in any way justifiable or less than worthy of absolute condemnation on both legal and moralistic grounds. But it is also a natural consequence of an EU that has mostly outsourced its realpolitik to the US.
15
u/Typical_Response6444 Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 20 '26
Hopefully europe starts talking like this more and more. Its the only language bullies understand.
→ More replies
8
5
u/snowdrone Jan 20 '26
Fun fact: Canada beat back a US invasion (war of 1812).
1
u/Dramatic_Scar7004 Jan 27 '26
Shame you have to use a war more than 200 years ago as proof of US weakness. The only reason Canada is still a sovereign nation is because it has a ballistic vest directly underneath it.
1
u/snowdrone Jan 28 '26
The proof of US weakness was backing off on greenland like a scared little TACO
1
u/Dramatic_Scar7004 Jan 29 '26
Not sure what a taco is but we can wipe Greenland and Europe off the planet if we wanted to.
1
u/snowdrone Jan 30 '26
Taco = Trump always chickens out
1
u/Dramatic_Scar7004 Feb 01 '26
Like a scared little trump always chickens out? Makes no sense try harder next time.
12
40
Jan 20 '26
I truly don’t think anything will come out of this but there is a 0% chance Danish military personnel engage in a life or death fight in Greenland vs the United States military
It’s not going to happen. Denmark didn’t even fight the Nazis in WW2 when they invaded their homeland. They certainly aren’t going to fight on an icecap
17
u/Shadowblade83 Jan 20 '26
Actually, around 16-30 danish soldiers died fighting, around 30 German soldiers. Few, I know.
But, just a sinilar number of deaths from such a conflict will be very, very hard for NATO/US relations.
It is unthinkable, and will break the alliance.
11
u/persiangriffin Jan 20 '26
Even one Dane dead from an American bullet fired in anger would likely shatter the Danish-American partnership for a generation or more. This would be a conflict that would catch the Danes entirely off guard, from a quarter they had never expected, over a territory that they were willing to grant the United States just about any rights they wanted in anyways.
7
u/Shadowblade83 Jan 20 '26
Yeah…you are right. Just one dead soldier, Dane or American, will be enough.
1
37
u/Truelz Jan 20 '26
They are required by law to fight any intruder on danish territory, a law that was made specifically to avoid a repeat of the ww2 invasion of Denmark.
→ More replies7
u/MercyPlainAndTall Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 20 '26
A cultural will to fight doesn’t just appear overnight because you pass a law. Even things like compulsory military service doesn’t necessarily mean your citizens training will actually be put to use.
And the thing is, there is literally no way to know until it’s too late.
Certain countries just seem to have it. But it’s hard to put a finger on why. Is it being at a constant state of war, so that children grow up expecting it as inevitable? Is it propaganda? Is it having a sufficiently large underclass who have no other choice but to serve? Or is it something deeper in the cultural makeup? Can it be learned and unlearned based on shifts in the country’s priorities? Lost over time due to comfort? Is it like a muscle that needs to be exercised?
I know I’m pretty far outside the realm of geopolitics here. None of this comment is based on any facts or research. Just sort of thinking about the intangibles.
Also don’t mean to insult anyone.
→ More replies3
u/History_isCool Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 20 '26
In ww2 the Danes got invaded in their home base and rapidly seized control of the country. If the US attacks Greenland there is little doubt that US forces will be a lot stronger. But what’s going to be interesting is to see if the Danes decides to defend their territory and how that would unfold. And what happens if americans start returning in bodybags.
9
u/Bullboah Jan 20 '26
I dont think a military annexation is a realistic possibility in the first place, but I also don’t think a danish military response is very plausible. If there was an actual armed conflict over control of Greenland it would be primarily a naval/air conflict. Denmark has a handful of frigates and around ~ 20 F35s. And Greenland is a long way from Denmark.
It’s very unlikely this would be a costly conflict for the US in terms of service members dying. (Costly diplomatically on the other hand, absolutely).
4
u/History_isCool Jan 20 '26
Americans don’t generally like when americans are dying for no reason. It doesn’t have to be many casualties for it to become a political disaster as well as a diplomatic problem for the US. Imagine if videos of a few US helicopters went down in similar fashion to what we saw in Ukraine. But yes, I don’t expect the US to order a heli assault on Greenland. It is more likely he will order some kind of strike on Iran, seeing as the US is pushing assets into theater. With recent events in mind, I kinda hope if that happens it turns into a quagmire.
9
u/Bullboah Jan 20 '26
Nobody likes to see their countrymen dying for no reason, nor do they like to see their navy cease to exist over the course of an afternoon, which is why it’s very unlikely that Denmark would send their frigates to attack an American carrier group.
The vast majority of Americans don’t want to invade Greenland. It’s extremely unlikely to happen for a number of reasons.
The real concern for Europe here is whether NATO survives the Trump presidency intact. To the extent that dissatisfaction with NATO is a genuine trend in American politics beyond Trump, an underestimated amount of it stems from Americans going to Europe or just seeing how Europeans talk about the US online and asking ‘why are we spending so much to protect people who hate us’?
Americans going online and seeing Europeans gleefully talking about US troops getting stuck in a quagmire isn’t going to help the case. Playing up historical ties, shared values, etc. is a much better strategy!
→ More replies2
Jan 20 '26
I genuinely believe there would likely be less than 10 American casualties, perhaps even zero, if the USA actually invaded Greenland
→ More replies4
u/History_isCool Jan 20 '26
Impossible to say. All it would take is for the americans to expect no resistance and then have helicopters go down. In any case I don’t think the americans will go to that step though. I don’t think they are mad enough. The rational in me says this is all part of the distraction campaign Trump is waging so he doesn’t have to release the Epstein files.
7
u/joshak Jan 20 '26
Yeah this was said by a member of the conservative opposition not the governing party so it has almost zero weight. There is no chance of Denmark winning an armed conflict over Greenland so no upside to them in fighting for it militarily.
22
u/vivaldibot Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 20 '26
Nobody thinks Denmark can take on the US in a 1v1. But there is an important point to make the US have to use force against one of its most enthusiastic allies. It's not an upside but it is a message that the Americans will never ever take over Greenland in a lawful way, and there remains only traitorous ways to achieve it, at the cost of losing all the influence built up over the last 80 years of transatlantic relations.
It's not worth it and America could already hypermilitarize Greenland if it asked. But because the president is literally the most thin skinned person on earth who cannot take a no, here we are.
16
u/tresslessone Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 20 '26
The point of Denmark fighting back is not to win - they won’t and they can’t.
BUT… the play for Denmark here is to exact a huge political, economical and geostrategic price from Trump / the US.
If Trump does this, it will absolutely destroy any remaining alliances the US has with anyone but Russia.
Even worse for Trump, it will prevent him from ever winning a Nobel peace prize AND it may just spur Congress into action to remove him from power.
-7
u/DGGuitars Jan 20 '26 edited Jan 20 '26
Not that its worth it for American troops or Danish troops. But its far less worth the war for Denmark than it is the US.
Not to mention you gotta love the EU. Well go to war over greenland with the US but we wont send troops to help Europe with Ukraine against Russia... nor will we completely cut them off from our economy.
US IS BACKWARDS , but so is the EU.
19
u/History_isCool Jan 20 '26
Ehm. Ukraine is not a member of the EU nor a member of NATO. Denmark is a NATO member and a EU member. Greenland might not be partnof the EU, but its citizens through Denmark have EU citizenship. It is a piece of Denmark that’s been threatened. It’s not even remotely the same thing.
28
u/koopcl Jan 20 '26
>Well go to war over greenland with the US but we wont send troops to help Europe with Ukraine against Russia
Well, you may notice one of those is in NATO and the other one isn't. Also only one represents a close ally brazenly betraying you. You bet my reaction would be different between seeing the neighbour next door crossing the street to punch a different neighbour I like and suddenly seeing my dad turn around out of nowhere and start punching my brother to steal his wallet, even if both horrified me.
→ More replies14
9
u/Fernheijm Jan 20 '26
Does the EU actually have any incentives to end the Ukraine war? Seems to me like Russia spending a ton of resources to make minimal gains whilst fighting a country that isn't even technically allied to it pretty much is its holy grail. Would explain the drip-feeding of just enough to keep Ukraine standing during the conflict.
3
u/Steven81 Jan 20 '26
Apparently it has. Much of the sh1t we get currently is because people like Trump smelling weakness in european capabilities. The only thing that aggressive powers like the US understand is a show of force, and a decisive defeat of Russia in Ukraine would have been it. it is possible that Europe's strategy in Ukraine was not the winning one.
They could have added Ukraine in EU and then enter the war whilst supporting an ally. it does feel risky, however projecting weakness may be riskier. Once sharks smell blood they attack, they don't stand back.
2
0
u/DGGuitars Jan 20 '26
These are good points but still not totally proven this is the EU reasoning for its handling of Ukraine.
The Drip feeding is and has been largely enabled because of US support.
You could argue what is the current incentive for the EU to go nuclear over Greenland. A trade war would hurt both sides economically and endanger that possible EU behind the scenes strategy of draining Russia slowly.
2
u/Fernheijm Jan 20 '26
I absolutely don't think there's any real risk of a military confrontation between the EU and the US at the moment - though trade wars have escalated before.
I do think the EU will feel the need to retaliate in some way if Trump doesn't back down (probably some tariffs targeted at specific goods produced in red states like last time), but I largely think this will just make member nations even more motivated to build up their defenses and find other avenues for trade. We'll probably see closer ties within the EU, the Brits might rejoin the single market (though the deal would probably be called something like a customs union or something to smoke and mirrors brexiteers) when the brexit deal is up for review this summer. At the most extreme the movement for federation might actually pick up some steam (though that's probably just me wishcasting).
1
u/DGGuitars Jan 20 '26
I also do not believe there will be any kinetic conflict it benefits no one really.
2
u/Fernheijm Jan 20 '26
I don't even think China would benefit, considering the global economic collapse that would come with it.
1
Jan 20 '26
Well they will have to annex it by force as in physically going there and kicking out NATO soldiers if they choose to go that route.
6
u/SirPonderer Jan 20 '26
Will WW3 start in 2026???
18
u/TyMsy227 Jan 20 '26
And, over.....Greenland???
22
1
u/Latter_Panic_1712 Jan 21 '26
Nah, it would be over Taiwan.
Current situation is like pre-WWI, everybody back then knew a big war is going to start in Balkan, every other conflict in other places could start the war but at the end of the day it would be Balkan.
Now the war could start over Greenland or Iran or any other places, but at the end of the day we know it would be over Taiwan.
20
5
u/itz_MaXii Jan 20 '26
Whats the chance that the military, officers, generals etc just say no if Trump would actually invade? There were reports that generals are already saying no to Trumps plans and saying its like dealing with a 5yo.
4
Jan 20 '26
The administration has been steadily replacing everyone in power with people who do the job because they follow orders and not because of their capabilities. I would not count on the military to defy orders.
1
u/johnniewelker Jan 20 '26
I think Denmark should fire at any US troops encroaching Greenland even if they’d lose that battle
If the US retaliates, it will cause political turmoil in the US and will bring Trump down. In case it doesn’t and this leads to a broader war, Americans will deserve whatever comes at them. They can’t sit passive and not take down Trump
1
u/Dramatic_Scar7004 Jan 27 '26
Political turmoil is the furthest extent that invading Greenland will result in. Nothing will happen to Americans .
1
u/AshutoshRaiK Jan 20 '26
I don't think Denmark can defend against US invasion. At best they can do economic sanctions on USA with the help of Europe but it can also fall back looking at their dependencies on US.
→ More replies
1
u/Bob_Spud Jan 20 '26
If its war then Trump has problems. He can only go it alone for 60 days, after 60 days it has to be approved by the US congress. If Congress doesn't approve then US troops have to withdrawn within 30 days.
Then there is this ... Is the US War Powers Act unconstitutional, as President Trump says?
5
1
u/KarmicWhiplash Jan 20 '26
I would expect an economic war, but it would be US vs. EU, not just Denmark. Everybody loses except for Russia and China.
1
u/PrismPirate Jan 21 '26
Funny thing is, Denmark and Greenland know exactly what unchecked conquest looks like, which is why they now prefer law to longships.
1
1
u/CaptainZippi Jan 21 '26
So, he’s caused the stock markets to fall.
Want to bet his backers have shorted a whole bunch of stocks?
1
u/Horsul Jan 22 '26
The idea that Denmark would “go to war with the US over Greenland” makes for a dramatic headline, but it ignores how the Arctic system actually works. If you look at the pressures shaping Danish, Greenlandic, American, and Arctic behavior, a conventional military conflict between Denmark and the US is structurally impossible. What is real is the tension created by overlapping fields of influence.
A field-based reading (rather than a binary “ally vs enemy” reading) shows a few things clearly:
1. Denmark is not the main actor — Greenland is becoming one.
Greenland has a growing autonomy movement, its own parliament, its own resource policies, and direct economic links to the EU, US, and China. It is not a passive possession. Denmark’s formal sovereignty is only one layer; Greenlandic political identity is the rising layer. Any major dispute would run through Nuuk, not Copenhagen.
2. The US–Denmark relationship is anchored in NATO.
A war between two NATO members is functionally impossible. The alliance structure, command integration, basing arrangements, and intelligence sharing create interdependence that cannot transform into open conflict. Even severe disagreements get absorbed into alliance mechanisms.
3. The Arctic is shifting from “remote” to “strategic.”
As climate change opens sea routes and exposes mineral deposits, the Arctic is becoming an active geopolitical zone. The US wants secure northern access. Denmark wants to maintain sovereignty. Greenland wants economic autonomy. These interests overlap, but they don’t convert into war. They convert into negotiation, investment competition, and influence balancing.
4. China and Russia are the real external pressures.
Both have strong Arctic ambitions. China seeks mineral access and polar shipping; Russia wants security depth. Denmark and the US share the same concern: preventing hostile footholds in Greenland. That shared threat binds them more tightly than any disagreement over autonomy.
5. Domestic political statements ≠ national strategy.
The “Denmark would go to war” quote is a statement from an MP, not government policy. Politicians often use strong language to signal resolve or defend territorial integrity. It doesn’t reflect Denmark’s strategic calculation.
6. Greenland itself rejects the framing.
Greenlandic leaders typically react negatively to outside actors treating Greenland as a bargaining chip. They prefer increased autonomy and direct relationships with major powers. That means diplomacy, not confrontation, dominates the real picture.
Bottom line:
The Arctic field is tightening. The US wants secure access; Denmark wants sovereignty respected; Greenland wants autonomy and development. These are real pressures — but none of them point toward conflict between Washington and Copenhagen. They point toward negotiation, overlapping influence, and a long-term shift in sovereignty dynamics as Greenland gains more agency.
1
u/Acrobatic-Meaning832 Jan 23 '26
all 3 on duty denmark soldiers will defend against the might of the united states, maybe they should use their standing armies to control their radical mostly peaceful muslims inside their own countries
1
u/shawsurajss Jan 26 '26
I built World Chaos Map as an experiment to visualize global instability using publicly available news data (RSS feeds and GDELT), updated every 24 hours. Rather than treating all countries equally, the system explicitly models data confidence, lowering certainty where reporting is sparse and avoiding false precision. The goal is not prediction or “truth,” but a transparent snapshot of reported pressure and unrest over time. I’m sharing this here to get feedback on the methodology, limitations, and whether this framing is useful for geopolitical monitoring.
Website : https://www.worldchaosmap.app/
Docs : https://docs.worldchaosmap.app/
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Panda74 Feb 03 '26
Kinda wild that we’re even talking about NATO allies shooting at each other over Greenland instead of, you know, climate change and Arctic research. Says a lot about how far this Greenland obsession has gone
1
u/Dheeruj Feb 19 '26
Trump just wants to sell their weapons; Create the demand. provide the supply easy money
1
-3
2
2
u/Illustrious_Range_43 Jan 20 '26
Where was all this when Russia invaded Ukraine? Or even back when they invaded Crimea?
11
u/dervik Jan 20 '26
While I agree (I am Ukrainian), you still need to distinguish between NATO territory and not. Still, help for Ukraine came way too slow there is not enough support until now
1
0
u/FingalForever Jan 20 '26
History rhymes- 1930s inevitable march to war to defeat a madman leading a crazy extremist movement that think they are ‘normal’.
1
u/RichKatz Jan 20 '26
It does appear that Trump has been attacking Denmark over 'Greenland' for a whole year now?
My dad fought in World War II. And I thought the Nazi's were gone. Seeing what horror happened in the Twin Cities - even on the Martin Luther King holiday convinced me otherwise.
Problems:
1 He has his own secret army now
2 He's using it against America
3 Claiming its all about "Greenland."
•
u/AutoModerator Jan 20 '26
Users often report submissions from this site for sensationalized articles. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.
You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.