Forum menu
I think its pretty obvious what's going to happen.
The US will take Greenland.
Then, they will utter an ultimatum to Europe: You are either with us or against us.
Countries that fall in line will get some kind of 'protection', those that don't will be actively harassed.
Anyone thinking there will be free and fair elections in the US going forward is deluded - I doubt even the mid terms will happen and if they do I suspect they will favour Trump.
Of course, how useful both Venezuela and Greenland will actually be as strategic assets is another story but by then the damage will have been done to Nato which is another win for Trump anyway.
JFK part 2, I think
Nope, We need a 4th season of Designated Survivor but this time make it only one episode with nothing left standing, and while we’re at it can we blow up mar a largo
^
Reminder set
of course if china wanted to side with the EU they could pretty much shaft the US.Not just defence. Modern infrastructure is completely dependent on US companies. The latest being the rush to put everything in the cloud that has entrenched our status as digital vassal states. What would be left working if they pulled the plug on our access to their tech?
https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/22/europe_gets_serious_about_cutting/
Politicians in both Greenland and Denmark would be happy with an independent Greenland. What they don't want is to be told what to do.
An independent Greenland would continue existing agreements on US military and mining operations and develop them as needed. Denmark only signed some of those agreements in 2024.
Independence would be the cheapest option for the world's greatest deal maker, and for Denmark, which wouldn't need to finance a remote state.
None of the talk of invasion, compact of free association or anything similar is needed, but for some reason the US won't rule any of it out. None of it makes sense on any level
None of it makes sense on any level
its because Trump is an absolute ****ing moron
he looks at a map and thinks that he could be the president that doubles the size of America
a lot of this is the fault of the Mercator projection, perhaps if he was shown a more realistic map his senile mind would move on to something else
Honestly though, other forums I'm on manage to discuss this stuff on just one thread, it's only STW where we feel the need to separate discussions into ever smaller sub-topics.
Well, the Ukraine thread is largely Russia/Ukraine, with Dozy Don as an add-on, Trump, covers a shit-ton of stuff, a Greenland thread would cover as much European/NATO as Dozy Don, so unless readers suffer from a restricted attention span, I don’t see an issue with having a separate thread for Greenland, especially when it’s already running. 🤷🏼♂️
Oh noes we're wasting the bytes...
Pls stop
I think having a dedicated thread is ok. The number of threads about world issues is currently manageable.
If the US did attack Greenland and the latter invoked NATO's article 5 then in theory all NATO members would have to come to it's aid. It is very unlikely that military force would be used but there could be closing of US bases in NATO countries and closure of airspace which would have a significant impact on the US's ability to project power although the likes of Israel may offer base facilities.
Trump has encouraged the far right in several European countries and his crony Musk has done some egregious shit interfering with politics in those countries.
I wish I had faith in the US military and populace to change this but for every sensible officer in the former there will be several unscrupulous, ambitious arseholes willing to do anything for advancement and the latter may be bought off with short term gimmicks before the mid-terms if they even run.
I think the MAGA architects plan to secure power and destroy democracy before Trump shuffles off to hell and they may well be able to do it before the end of his term.
I feel that I should be doing something to oppose it but don't know what that could be.
Of course he isn't ruling out military action, to do so when a negotiation is about to be had about Greenland removes one of his key bargaining chips (if we don't find a solution I can take it anyway)
And a discussion is needed. Greenland is more strategically important in this new world order than it has been in the last 50 years, and old norms no longer apply. Ideally it's for the people of Greenland (and Denmark) to decide but they need to be fully aware of the options and implications. A strong united NATO with a bigger presence, would be my opinion, but that's falling by the wayside currently and whether NATO-US is strong enough, I'm not the military expert. At the other end, Denmark alone maintaining the security doesn't seem tenable. There needs to be a supportive military power beyond Denmark and right now a vaguely friendly US remains an alternative. And there would need to be some nose holding to enable that for sure.
Lastly, anyone that equates what he says he will / will not do with what he actually does needs to be kept away from the planning discussions because they're clearly delusional. If he'd come out overnight and said that he had no intention to invade Greenland, would anyone sensible say that was that then? On past form, I'd send a load of reinforcements to the border!
None of it makes sense on any level
its because Trump is an absolute ****ing moron
he looks at a map and thinks that he could be the president that doubles the size of America
a lot of this is the fault of the Mercator projection, perhaps if he was shown a more realistic map his senile mind would move on to something else
In social media posts, Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego, a Democrat, vowed to introduce a resolution “to block Trump from invading Greenland,” saying the 79-year-old Republican simply “wants a giant island with his name on it. He wouldn’t think twice about putting our troops in danger if it makes him feel big and strong.”
In a sharp departure from the party’s typical partisanship, Republicans also pushed back against Trump’s military-backed expansionism.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican, told reporters Tuesday night that he didn’t think it was “appropriate” for Washington to take military action on Greenland, Politico reported.
Republican Senator Jerry Moran of the midwestern state of Kansas, who serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told HuffPost “it’s none of our business” and warned that the move would lead to “the demise of NATO.”
Nebraska Republican Congressman Don Bacon put it even more bluntly in a post on X: “This is really dumb. Greenland and Denmark are our allies.”
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/67562
The chess pieces are being moved into place
I believe the tariff shenanigans was a test exercise. Firstly to see how countries responded, and secondly to show that the US can effectively cripple any country's economy at a moment's notice, and to ultimately serve as a warning that if anyone interferes with the US' plans, they can crush them economically and there's no defense
BRICS is actively seeking to challenge the US dollar as the preeminent currency for oil trading. If that takes off it will significantly impact the strength of the US economy. Whether it would be a good thing for Western Europe is dubious.
Greenland isn’t about security. If it was there are agreements allowing the US to build new bases etc. indeed the US has massively reduced its presence in Greenland from 10,000 men to 200 and just one base.
It’s about Trumps ego and resources. Trump wants to expand the US territory and create a legacy (much like Putin) and great all those resources. The Greenlanders want to keep their pristine wilderness just that.
Denmark cannot prevent the annexation if US wants Greenland. Nothing Denmark can do to stop it. Denmark will just have to take it with a thankful gesture. The rest of the NATO members cannot prevent that too but look the other way if US decides to annex. Using Russia as a bogie man works well for US as an excuse to extort from the members or alliance.
Using Russia as a bogie man works well for US as an excuse to extort from the members or alliance.
The US fascist regime just wants the rare metals, it's nothing to do with security
I did say strategically because it includes both security and economic aspects, and of course, no use 'owning' the assets if someone else can just walk in and steal them :cough: Venezuala :cough:
It’s about Trumps ego
I doubt Trump could've pointed to Greenland on a map even if it was labelled in massive font
It's the cabal of lunatics behind the scenes that are driving this
By the way Venezuela and Greenland are a weird dangerous distraction from the Epstein files.
There are many examples of US presidents struggling in office who decide that a war is great idea to save their own skin. Reagan, Bush I & II, etc. Thatcher did it with the Falklands too
Thatcher did it with the Falklands too
Really? I could have sworn Falklands was a defensive, rather than offensive, move. Did we just imagine the Argentinians invading and occupying a British Overseas Territory then?
Of course he isn't ruling out military action, to do so when a negotiation is about to be had about Greenland removes one of his key bargaining chips (if we don't find a solution I can take it anyway)
What "negotiation"? What is this insanity? Has someone been watching too many Sopranos reruns?
Thatcher did it with the Falklands too
Thatcher defended the Falklands - she didn't invade another country.
The corresponding 'public good will' did help her politically though.
Now Tony Blair...
Thatcher did it with the Falklands too
She had many faults, but I'm not sure she could somehow engineer an invasion by the Argentinian junta to suit her own ends.
Clumsy wording but UK Govt didn't care for Falklands leading up to the invasion so the opportunity arose to defend the Islands and also use the war as political capital
But you get the general point
Only under Trump could an absolute loon like Stephen Miller and up as the White House deputy chief of staff.
He's absolutely unhinged! Completely and utterly mental! He was literally rubbing his hands with glee talking about the prospect of annexing Greenland.
They really, really want to do this, don’t they? 😳
This is the problem now. Cut the head off the snake and it'd just grow another head. US government is now full of so many MAGA lunatics being supported by large parts of the lunatic public they'll just carry on Trump's "legacy" when he's gone.
Clumsy wording but UK Govt didn't care for Falklands leading up to the invasion so the opportunity arose to defend the Islands and also use the war as political capital
No bugger in the UK had ever heard of the Falklands and I doubt many politicians at the time were even aware of them!
Not sure Reagan started any wars either - and went a long way to ending the cold war. The US was involved in various world troubles at the time but that's always been the case.
Feels like the US is as big a threat to European security as Russia. NATO is bust and Europe needs to restore something to fill the role of European protection. Defence spending needs to increase dramatically and fast.
Those saying it'll get better if or when an aging Trump succumbs to ailments or fragility of age, will it? A sworn in Vance is an unknown and scary thought.
There are many examples of US presidents struggling in office who decide that a war is great idea to save their own skin. Reagan, Bush I & II, etc. Thatcher Galtieri did it with the Falklands too
FTFY. There were negotiations under way about the status of the islands. Galtieri was a brutal military dictator who was struggling. He thought he could bolster his support by invading the islands, assuming that the U.K. couldn't or wouldn't fight for them. Thatcher basically had a choice of fight for them or face electoral defeat - no leader of any country can just allow another country to invade their territory without facing electoral consequences. It was a stupid war, but the blame for that one is on Galtieri, not Thatcher.
No bugger in the UK had ever heard of the Falklands and I doubt many politicians at the time were even aware of them!
I suspect the same of Greenland until Trump and a few MAGA beat that drum... and I also agree that vast majority of 'mericans and their politicians can find Greenland on a map, let alone explain why they cannot just expand military bases (Which they have agreements to do) rather than invade the place..
Reagan pulled out of Lebanon peace keeping after awful Beirut bombing then promptly invaded Grenada
It's the cabal of lunatics behind the scenes that are driving this
Agreed 110%, Trump is being played like a fiddle by people who've been trying (and failing) to get this level of power/influence since Ronald Reagan was president
They haven't been failing, they have been slowly chipping away and eroding democracy now they have done enough to accelerate the process and take control completely.
The same has been happening in the UK and Europe, we are just a few years behind on the same path. What has been marketed as centrism is just the first line of the right wing ideology, the "acceptable face" of the erosion of democracy to the interests of the oligarchs and capital, it has only been moving in one direction since the Thatcher Regan years, and it has happened in plain sight.
Do we really need a separate thread about every country or region which Donald Trump would like to include in his new American empire?
There'll be one about Taiwan soon as well once China thinks "I fancy a piece of that action" and finally invades...
There are many examples of US presidents struggling in office who decide that a war is great idea to save their own skin. Reagan, Bush I & II, etc. Thatcher Galtieri did it with the Falklands too
FTFY. There were negotiations under way about the status of the islands. Galtieri was a brutal military dictator who was struggling. He thought he could bolster his support by invading the islands, assuming that the U.K. couldn't or wouldn't fight for them. Thatcher basically had a choice of fight for them or face electoral defeat - no leader of any country can just allow another country to invade their territory without facing electoral consequences. It was a stupid war, but the blame for that one is on Galtieri, not Thatcher.
A bit of rewriting of history there? Thatcher pulled the military support ships out of the area did she not leaving the door open for the takeover of the islands and also sunk the Belgrano while it was heading home during peace talks to scupper any chance of peaceful rewsolution
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.
