Anyway - Greenland
If the EU and UK put on a joint military exercise on greenland using the excuse of bolstering anti russian defences would that not act as a great deterrant to a US military takeover as they would end up firing on allied troops? I cannot see the US military obeying orders to do so? simp0listic view?
Here is a typical Danish response to Miller's ridiculous claims
Just in case anyone was in any doubt that this is about anything other than natural resources. There already is a treaty signed in the 1950s that allows the USA to do pretty much whatever it wants from a defence perspective in Greenland. Secondly the us base already there currently has 200 of the 10,000 its built for actually there because the threat is so high
If the EU and UK put on a joint military exercise on greenland using the excuse of bolstering anti russian defences would that not act as a great deterrant to a US military takeover as they would end up firing on allied troops? I cannot see the US military obeying orders to do so? simp0listic view?
Nice idea TJ, can't see it working for all sorts of reasons. A few off the top of my head:
- How long would this "exercise" last? Unless it is indefinite (in which case it's not an exercise) the US could simply wait until "endex" is declared. The logistical effort to sustain such a large scale exercise long term, in such a remote and hostile location would be massive.
- Should things escalate, it would be relatively easy for the US to interdict the air and sea supply routes.
- Greenland is huge, the number of specialist arctic trained and equipped troops the EU could deploy and sustain is relatively small. They couldn't cover all possible likely invasion points and critical infrastructure. Invading troops could simply bypass them without firing a shot.
- If they did make a stand near one of the key points, their numbers would be so small and they would be so overmatched they wouldn't last long.
- I don't share your optimism that US troops wouldn't fire on European troops I'm afraid. Some individuals might not, but the majority will imv.
- Europe, particularly the Baltic and Scandinavian states and the UK do have some very capable arctic troops. Arguably better trained and equipped for that environment than any the US can field. Just not enough of them.
- There just isn't the backbone and political will across a fractious Europe to make such a thing happen.
For a fantasy "what if" Europe (and Canada) decided to defend Greenland from a US attack, have a look at this. It's a tad optimistic from a European perspective but it does give some idea of the geography, potential assets that could be deployed and how it might play out. It also explains what an extremely harsh operating environment Greenland is for any military. It's never going to happen mind.
Ta
Oh well - it was a nice idea
We seem to be overlooking the fact that an increasingly annoyed Canada sits as part of NATO and between the US and Greenland. Denmark is not quite so isolated in terms of support.
How much fuel does a US airbase hold? Presumably it's not flown in.
An interesting take from the Rest Is Classified podcast was maybe there is an element of Trump frightening the Greenlanders from pursuing independence, the theory being that a fully independent Greenland may opt to form closer political ties to Russia or China and/or may be more likely to form mining/extraction/infrastructure projects with Russian or Chinese companies.
Or a fully independent Greenland could try to kick the US out of the existing base(s).
Or, they could thwart extraction industries (First Nations in Canada and US have proven quite capable of derailing large infrastructure projects which cross tribal/indigenous land when they want to...)
With the status quo, at least Copenhagen is mature/stable enough to know not to rock the boat too much with US/NATO
We seem to be overlooking the fact that an increasingly annoyed Canada sits as part of NATO and between the US and Greenland
Yes, and Mark Carney seems to want to poke the bear:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cevnek9k32no
Expect more anti-Canada Trump sabre-rattling next week
An interesting take from the Rest Is Classified podcast was maybe there is an element of Trump frightening the Greenlanders from pursuing independence
I think that is whishfull thinking, and is going back to the old and stupid idea that he is playing 3d chess. They have proudly and loudly signalled everything they have done. Far too many political commentators are struggling to see the new reality, they are hoping for the comfort blanket of the less confident befuddled first term, they still think this is going away through democracy, they don't want to believe what they see and are still applying the rules as they were in the past not the present to the logic of this administrations actions.
Interesting poll here:
https://today.yougov.com/topics/travel/survey-results/daily/2026/01/07/85f9f/3
Extremely unpopular idea.
Not surprising that Republicans are less unlikely to support it:
But interesting that Hispanics are most supportive overall.
When you become better informed about the troublesome logistics of any 'invasion', it seems more like a prelude to attempting to buy off the local population with large sums of cash so that they vote to abandon their ties with Denmark. That would be a trivial sum of money compared to a Louisiana/Alaska purchase deal, given the potential mineral wealth.
But Trump and his inner circle are deranged or stupid enough to try to put boots on the ground in Greenland, I suppose. You wouldn't put anything past them at this point.
But Trump and his inner circle are deranged or stupid enough to try to put boots on the ground in Greenland,
The way Trump operates is that he throws stuff out there to see what gets traction and then just goes by instinct. That's how he does his political rallies, he picks up on anything the crowd responds to and then just hammers away at it. I don't think they really have any plan with Greenland, it's basically just trolling to see how the world responds. If it flops, they'll just say it was all a joke and people should get a sense of humour. The danger is that Trump is now in a bubble and doesn't get the feedback that he used to get at rallies, it's all social media and Fox News, plus a bunch of advisors telling him he's a genius. Completely unpredictable what he'll do, but that's mostly just because there is no plan and he is likely to change his mind on a whim.
Pissedmagistus on Instagram brought to my awareness that Greenland is also about trade routes. So despite Trump et al being massive climate change/global warming deniers, they're going to take full advantage of the melting ice opening up new trade routes from Asia, for which Greenland is strategically placed. Other sources of this info available. News to me. I kinda feels like I'm in a planet sized game of Risk.
We are
We are
The way Trump operates is that he throws stuff out there to see what gets traction and then just goes by instinct.
I'm not sure this is true in this instance at least. Trump has been talking about doing this since 2019 and its not really a natural Maga rally point either. People really seem to underestimate Trump time and time again. I think its because he is so far away from how people believe a president (and a grown up human being) should act that most people simply don't understand he is lazer focussed on getting stuff he wants. The perfect combination of narcissistic personality disorder and dictator worship. Rather than actually having a number of ideas and giving up on the ones that don't fly, I see him more like a toddler who will not stop at anything to get the forbidden chocolate biscuit packet, steal the toy in the toy shop.
But Trump and his inner circle are deranged or stupid enough to try to put boots on the ground in Greenland,
Again, they already have boots on the ground in Greenland. There is a US base there! There are 57,000 inhabitants, mostly Inuit and a few settlers and 200-300 US soldiers with cutting edge weapons. I can't imagine its going to take more than simply saying 'we are now in charge' There may be a few protests but as we have seen recently, the US administration are quite happy to shoot their own unarmed citizens in the face for daring to protest so killing a few native Inuits are not going to concern them......
I can't imagine its going to take more than simply saying 'we are now in charge'
This is a bit like the Iraq invasion. It was obvious that the U.S. could destroy the Iraqi military and invade the country without raising a sweat, the question was, what then? The rosy predictions that liberty would blossom once Saddam was overthrown were obviously based on wishful thinking and there didn't seem to be any long-term strategy for stabilizing and rebuilding the country.
With Greenland, the U.S. would just need to fly in a few C17s loaded with troops and weapons to take over the place. But then what? I'm guessing that they would be suspended from NATO and barred from all European bases and intelligence gathering and sharing. NATO would not try to retake Greenland militarily, that would be incredibly stupid, they would just need to wait until next year when the U.S. House of Representatives will almost certainly have a Democrat majority. Ignoring the almost certain impeachment proceedings that would follow, all spending bills must pass the House, so Democrats could just shut off any funding related to Greenland. Occupying Greenland is extremely unpopular with U.S. voters and it would only take a few Republican senators to join Democrats to pass legislation requiring all U.S. military to leave Greenland. Invading Greenland would be an absolute disaster for the Republican party and most Republican members of congress know that.
they would just need to wait until next year when the U.S. House of Representatives will almost certainly have a Democrat majority. Ignoring the almost certain impeachment proceedings that would follow, all spending bills must pass the House, so Democrats could just shut off any funding related to Greenland.
Do you really think that after all that has happened so far in this administration, Trump, Vance, Hesketh etc are just going to let themselves be voted out......especially to face corruption charges and jail????? What's the other thing Trump has been talking about for the last year....oh yes, a third term. Again people have been laughing it off as funny old Trump saying stupid things. When will they learn.
Do you really think that after all that has happened so far in this administration, Trump, Vance, Hesketh etc are just going to let themselves be voted out......especially to face corruption charges and jail?????
This year's elections are mid-terms, for House and Senate seats, not the Presidency. U.S. elections are managed by individual states, not the federal government. Each state holds its own election for House and Senate seats (and electoral college votes in a Presidential election year.) Currently, the Republican party has a majority of five in the house, so losing three seats will flip it to Democratic control. About 25 Republican house members have already announced they won't run for reelection, they know that Trump is unpopular and they don't fancy being in opposition.
The Senate is much tougher for Democrats, Republicans have a 53-47 majority, so Democrats would need to flip four seats. 35 Senate seats are up for reelection this year, 23 of those are Republican. Flipping four of those is a long shot, but many of Trump's policies are very unpopular so it's quite likely that enough Republican Senators will vote with Democrats to torpedo the craziest stuff. Trump is actually much weaker politically than many people realize.
Tangerine Mussolini is only a champion of state independence when they are opposing democrats.
Just describing how everything normally happens doesn't have any bearing on what he does or gets away with. There is nothing normal about what is happening and we are clearly seeing the theoretical checks and balances are completely worthless if enough legislators are unwilling to uphold the law.
This isn't 2015 any more, it isn't even 2020, there is more and more evidence every day that the government body is completely and utterly dysfunctional in keeping him in check.
People really seem to underestimate Trump time and time again. I think its because he is so far away from how people believe a president (and a grown up human being) should act that most people simply don't understand he is lazer focussed on getting stuff he wants.
I agree that he's laser-focused, often to the point of being obsessed, e.g. tariffs, Venezuela, Greenland, etc, which he's carried from Trump v1 to now.
Trump doesn't have a sense of diplomacy, he just "wants", which is extremely damaging
Again, they already have boots on the ground in Greenland. There is a US base there!
Greenland could become independent of Denmark in a short time frame and there isn't a guarantee that the US, Denmark or anyone else would continue to have a lease. I guess that an independent Greenland wouldn't be a NATO member either
That isn't a justification for invasion and I don't believe that the US military would back him anyway. It also means that the "destruction of NATO" narrative only applies if Denmark retains control of Greenland.
The "rules-based" world order means that an independent Greenland must only be retained through trade agreements, lease contracts (the "rules-based" bit) and NATO-membership.
That isn't a justification for invasion and I don't believe that the US military would back him anyway. It also means that the "destruction of NATO" narrative only applies if Denmark retains control of Greenland.
I admire your optimism. What precedent is there for the US military to decline to act as directed by the Commander in Chief?
The destruction of NATO arises from the assault of one member on another. Whether or not there is a figleaf argument about “independence” nobody - well nobody except Keir Starmer - will see it as anything else than an annexation.
Wasn't there and admiral that refused to strike the boats in the Caribbean because it was illegal, who was promptly fired and replaced by someone who's interpretation of the legality of murdering people without due process was rather more accommodating.
Any resistance to Trump from withing the military has been brushed aside, relying on their resistance is insanity, my guess would be that over 90% of them are highly supportive.
Greenland could become independent of Denmark in a short time frame and there isn't a guarantee that the US, Denmark or anyone else would continue to have a lease.
I can't see a newly independent Greenland rejecting US access. Provided it is by agreement, not forced. Although recently reduced, there is a long history of a significant US presence on the island.
I know bar a small minority, most Greenlanders support full independence, from Denmark (and the US). I would imagine though that such a small population and economy would welcome the employment and investment more military infrastructure would offer, especially as it's something they've been familiar with.
This is why all this US ownership stuff is nonsense. The US have always and would always be pushing against an open door if they just wanted military access by consent. I know it's already been said a few times, but it is so obvious that Trump's toddler demand to "own" Greenland is nothing to do with strategic concerns and everything to do with resource exploitation.
People really seem to underestimate Trump time and time again. I think its because he is so far away from how people believe a president (and a grown up human being) should act
This 100%
I think you mean “overestimate”.
The US Pituffik base in Greenland is a US radar/space force base for ICBM tracking and only comprises a few hundred personnel - my old employer had people there. It would need a fair number of airlifts to put any sort of boots on ground presence plus accommodation/welfare units - certainly one that would be immediately noticeable. Whilst they certainly have the capability to do it, the willingness of command to put ‘hostile’ boots on the ground for an extended period is doubtful - not exactly a welcome climate. They’d also have to overfly Canada which is doubtful to be given permission, so probably via Alaska which is a long way around - all adding time and cost. Alternatively, wait until the ice melts and send a few ships. Easy on paper, a logistics nightmare and would cost billions.
You think Canada would engage USA flights to Greenland?!? The idea that this USA administration would “seek permission” rather than just act and ignore the wishes of its “allies” seems overly optimistic at this stage. The USA could move as many troops into Greenland as it wants, and it knows they are unlikely to meet any military resistance, and could expect a relatively peaceful take over (well, except for a few mums being shot in the face for not doing as they’re told). The administration is making it clear that they think their military dominance, if they chose to use it, means they won’t face any serious military challenge within Greenland, or from any other country that allies with it. Peace means power to them.
They’d also have to overfly Canada which is doubtful to be given permission
C17s have air-to-air refuelling capability, their range is essentially unlimited. They could fly from the east coast of the US to anywhere in Greenland without needing to overfly Canada.
I think you mean “overestimate”.
Nope. Definitely meant underestimating him.
Things he shouldn't be able to ever get away with he some how manages to. For example invading another country without authorisation, or giving immunity or pardons to convicted criminals and even law enforcement officers caught on camera murdering an unarmed mother of 3.
If he was overestimated then I'm sure there would be more robust safeguards for his madness in place beforehand.
If he was overestimated then I'm sure there would be more robust safeguards for his madness in place beforehand.
Nope it just shows he is a symptom, although one which multiplies the problem, and not the root cause. The root cause is just how damaged the republican party are in the US after years of corruption and control by those who are happy to destroy the USA but need to deflect attention from the damage they are doing and hence blame, well, pretty much anyone else.
The republicans could control him but they are all too busy being either scared or joining in the looting and destruction of the country.
Nope. Definitely meant underestimating him
Yeah, I understand, but to spell out what I thought was obvious - underestimating generally means that someone is better than we'd imagined, whereas Trump is so much worse than we had imagined.
Nope it just shows he is a symptom, although one which multiplies the problem, and not the root cause. The root cause is just how damaged the republican party are in the US after years of corruption and control by those who are happy to destroy the USA but need to deflect attention from the damage they are doing and hence blame, well, pretty much anyone else.
The republicans could control him but they are all too busy being either scared or joining in the looting and destruction of the country.
It isn't "the republicans" its the whole ****ing system, idiots like Biden and the democrats (and labour in the UK, Mertz in Germany etc) have built and are building the foundations for the these actions. Remember Bidens leaving speach, when he warned about the dangers of the oligarchy, the people who are driving this and want to reshape the world with them as kings. Why the **** wasn't he banging on about that during the last 4 years, why wasn't it a major campaign issue? Because if he had won, he and the other corrupt ****ers running the democrats would have continued as normal, running the economy for the few and pocketing the payoff.
Wasn't there and admiral that refused to strike the boats in the Caribbean because it was illegal, who was promptly fired and replaced by someone who's interpretation of the legality of murdering people without due process was rather more accommodating.
Any resistance to Trump from withing the military has been brushed aside, relying on their resistance is insanity, my guess would be that over 90% of them are highly supportive.
Venezuela was a very different context to Greenland.
Greenland isn't known for its drug trafficking, it's partnership with the IRGC Quds group, sanctions, stationing Russian Oreshnik missiles and pile of other reasons.
Some military commanders could just about convince themselves of the need to invade Venezuela, but Greenland is an open invitation to the Hague should they ever leave the US.
Every step, people keep saying it will end soon, that will be it, lets just appease them a bit more and wait. and they keep taking more, rinse and repeat again and again and again.
Same as the economy, all the morons keep calling every step to the right "the sensible option" we have to now because that's reality" "current conditions mean we have to" and it keeps getting worse and they keep repeating the same bullshit time and time again.
It doesn't end till it is stopped, and there is no sign of anything but complete acquiescence from inside the US government and from most world leaders.
Yeah, I understand, but to spell out what I thought was obvious - underestimating generally means that someone is better than we'd imagined, whereas Trump is so much worse than we had imagined.
And there is an example of him being underestimated. He has proved many times to be better at getting what he wants than we imagined, despite him being a lot worse than we ever imagined in lots of areas.
Greenland could become independent of Denmark in a short time frame and there isn't a guarantee that the US, Denmark or anyone else would continue to have a lease.
I can't see a newly independent Greenland rejecting US access. Provided it is by agreement, not forced. Although recently reduced, there is a long history of a significant US presence on the island.
I know bar a small minority, most Greenlanders support full independence, from Denmark (and the US). I would imagine though that such a small population and economy would welcome the employment and investment more military infrastructure would offer, especially as it's something they've been familiar with.
This is why all this US ownership stuff is nonsense. The US have always and would always be pushing against an open door if they just wanted military access by consent. I know it's already been said a few times, but it is so obvious that Trump's toddler demand to "own" Greenland is nothing to do with strategic concerns and everything to do with resource exploitation.
I agree that a US partnership is possibly 90% + likely, but that's not the same as a guarantee to DJT
Greenland needs an income and trade and leasing facilities is the obvious route. It also fits the current rules-based model, don't steal what you can agree on.
He could exploit all of the resources that he wanted by agreeing to develop Greenland's industry and paying them.
The irony is that Trump's lack of diplomacy makes agreement difficult because he's upped the ante from the start with nonsense about invasion.
Trump businesses have been bankrupt 6 times (never personally, he's happy to shelter behind the law if it suits) so he questions why would anyone else would stick to an agreement.
Let's face it, all this talk is just to gain further concessions to whatever he really wants from Greenland. Ie access to its resources. He seems to mix up 'making a deal' with 'bullying'..
But let's say he does 'invade'. In 4 years or so it'll be handed back by the Democrats when they realise the rest of the world has isolated then (hopefully, surely even that's a step too far for starmer). Maybe even with the added benefit of all thr infrastructure the us will have started putting in place to extract all that wealth.
And if the Democrats don't get back into power I image it'll end in civil unrest, with the fat orange goon swinging from a lamppost a likely result.
And if the Democrats don't get back into power I image it'll end in civil unrest, with the fat orange goon swinging from a lamppost a likely result.
That’s just like the wishful thinking about Putin. It’s not going to happen. Civil unrest will only enable the current federal regime to increase its use of force and lies to maintain control (and protect the President).
Let's face it, all this talk is just to gain further concessions to whatever he really wants from Greenland. Ie access to its resources. He seems to mix up 'making a deal' with 'bullying'..
This.
Opinion in Greenland is one of self determinism, they don’t want to be American or for that matter Danish but they don’t have the wealth to achieve that today. Denmark retains foreign, defence and monetary policy only but Greenland is self governing and has a parliament.
America wants access to the resources and access to this strategic location for defence. The threat of military force is a negotiation tactic and a deal will likely be struck for mineral and land access between US and Greenland.
The boost in the economy of Greenland will eventually lead to full independence.Europe will have little choice but to go along if they want NATO to continue to exist.
Europe will have little choice but to go along if they want NATO to continue to exist.
A NATO with this version of America in it is not a safety shield, Europe needs to start preparing for what comes after rather than trying to wrap itself in an imaginary safety blanket that is more likely kill us than come to our aid.
America wants access to the resources and access to this strategic location for defence. The threat of military force is a negotiation tactic and a deal will likely be struck for mineral and land access between US and Greenland.
nonsense, they already have as much of this as they want
America wants access to the resources and access to this strategic location for defence. The threat of military force is a negotiation tactic and a deal will likely be struck for mineral and land access between US and Greenland.
nonsense, they already have as much of this as they want
if you are going to call out something as nonsense maybe provide a bit of evidence on why you think the US want to take over Greenland? I’m saying its location and its vast untapped resources. What’s your counter view?
I have no idea, but that stated reason is at best a pretext. US already have as much mineral and military access to Greenland as they want. They been steadily reducing the amount of military stuff there for a while FWIW.
My best guess is that it's more about making Trump look strong for an internal audience. Additionally he seems to love headlines and everytime he mentions Greenland the whole world shits the bed and talks about him non stop for 48 hours.
Europe will have little choice but to go along if they want NATO to continue to exist.
Personally speaking, I don't want NATO to continue to exist in its current form. That is, with a cuckoo in the nest who actively threatens and insults other members and who would almost certainly not honour its treaty obligations if called upon to do so. The US has gone from trusted ally, to wobbly ally to being openly hostile to other members in just a few short years. They are on a trajectory from ally to enemy. I'm not saying they are there yet, but that is where they will end up unless there is a major upheaval in US politics.
We need a new alliance, with a different more globally inclusive name. To include current members (less the US) and others who still believe in some kind of rules based order. Australia, New Zealand, Japan, maybe South Korea. I'm sure there are others.
I say this as someone who worked closely with the US military under a NATO banner, on and off for years in more stable and sensible times.
I’m split on this. Europe needs to be able to respond to threats from Putin without the USA. It is no where near that yet. On the other side I want the USA on the inside of NATO, just as when it once looked remotely possible I wanted Russia in NATO… it’s not just about mutual defence, it’s also about trying to stop members countries from attacking each other. If the USA is talking as if it could be a direct threat to “allies” now, it would be worse if the other NATO countries regrouped without it.
Kelvin I agree, sort of. I'm not entirely serious about rebranding NATO without the US. Not yet at least. I am mostly venting in frustration. I agree that it would be highly provocative and risky. But maybe that's what it might take, to shock the US electorate into realising just how abhorrent their leadership is and how out of step with the rest of the democratic world it has become. If, as I think is likely, Trump ignores the constitution and comes back for a 3rd term even more emboldened, uninhibited and unhinged. Then I think it will be time.
If by then (as I also think is possible) the Nordics, Germany and Poland have become nuclear powers, alongside France and the UK then such an organisation might have a bit more credibility. This is a horrible, unstable vision of the future but it's a direction forced on the world by Washington with their chaotic flip flopping between isolationism and imperialism.
We have to find a way to step back from this version of the US but leave the door open if/when a better version comes back
I say this as someone who worked closely with the US military under a NATO banner, on and off for years in more stable and sensible times
Question if you don't mind - what proportion of US troops would agreed to fire upon Greenland if ordered to?
Suppose every surviving US president put out a statement aimed at US troops, emphasising that firing on a NATO ally would be the worst, most shameful thing the USA had ever done. Would there be enough possibility of mass insubordination to make it infeasible? Or will most people follow orders and do their jobs?
if/when a better version comes back
I think it's optimistic to imagine there will be a time within the rest of my lifespan that the USA is again trusted as it was 5 years ago.
Question if you don't mind - what proportion of US troops would agreed to fire upon Greenland if ordered to?
What proportion of any troops have refused to follow orders, despite those orders being clearly horrendous?
Disentangling from the US is clearly not an overnight job, but surely we have to make a start?
Question if you don't mind - what proportion of US troops would agreed to fire upon Greenland if ordered to?
I honestly don't know. Most are good people and they are obviously not unthinking automatons. There will be a range of differing views. Ultimately though, as a soldier, sailor or airman you are bound to obey a lawful order. They would be placed in a very difficult position if they believed their orders were legal.
What I do know is that the US government is actively trying to corrode and undermine any sense of honour and respect for legal oversight within the military.
Examples. Hegseth sacking a admiral for daring to suggest it was wrong to murder survivors floating in the water. Hegseth cutting Senator Mark Kelly's military pension for pointing out that military personnel had an obligation (in accordance with US law) to ignore illegal orders.The president authorising the military action in Venezuela without congressional agreement. Hegseth, the most unqualified defence secretary in the history of the country gathering all the nation's senior officers for a pathetic and insulting pep talk deriding diversity and equality etc. etc.
Over time, as senior officers with backbone and a moral compass leave or are forced out, more compliant replacements will bring about a different and much more concerning culture.
Thanks. I hadn't thought of the impact of anyone with integrity leaving/getting forced out. Like the Tory party 10 years ago.