3 ms·

If Europe isn't willing to send troops to Greenland, it's clearly already lost. Why are they not doing that already? If Europe wants to claim they can defend Gr

If Europe isn't willing to send troops to Greenland, it's clearly already lost. Why are they not doing that already? If Europe wants to claim they can defend Greenland then this literally seems like the test.

georgemcbay 9mo ago
Not sure what you're talking about here..? Europe (Denmark) has forces in Greenland currently. But Europe as a whole also has no chance to defend Greenland no matter what they do if the US really decides to take it by force. Europe has inadequate long distance power-projection to put up any kind of a fight there (if not being assisted by the US, which of course it wouldn't be in this case). I'm American, but this reply certainly isn't me being jingoistic or pro-American. I fucking hate what we are both doing and threatening under Trump with every fiber of my being and I think it ultimately is going to make America a far weaker failed empire within a world that is deeply unstabilized for no reason other than to stroke the ego of a malignant narcissist with no understanding of second order consequences.
- dataflow 9mo ago
  What I'm saying is I think there's a decent chance the US wouldn't actually engage in significant combat over Greenland. What I think the US is betting on is that there simply won't be any meaningful military resistance at all. (They basically said exactly this.) Therefore, if Europe sent enough forces and indicated they would actually fight instead of capitulating, that would probably be their best bet at preventing Greenland from being annexed. Realistically, this needs to be more than whatever tiny(?) amount of forces Denmark already has there. They'd probably need assistance from other countries. You essentially need to be reading headlines about warships from some European countries heading to Greenland for this to have an effect, IMO.
  - hdgvhicv 9mo ago
    US starts conducting military excercises Then expands its existing bases without telling or asking for the rubber stamp Then starts mining They don’t need to fire a shot, and Denmark isn’t going to fire first.
    - dataflow 9mo ago
      No. You make it seem like Europe has to just roll over and take whatever happens without even a proverbial fight. That's not how it needs to play out at all. There's a lot more they could do if you get a little creative. Let me outline one possible way I think Greenland/Denmark/Europe could proceed here that doesn't require just capitulating: - Station more forces right now to make it clear they would defend Greenland militarily. Get as many NATO countries to join as possible. Probably better to stay closer to their own civilians instead of going near American bases, I imagine. This is critical so that nobody gets a chance to claim they lost by default due to not even meaningfully attempting to defend the territory. - If the US starts expanding its military activity... either ignore them and wait out this administration, or file a lawsuit in the US (and possibly elsewhere, wherever feasible) and see how courts respond, if for no reason than to put everyone on the official record. [1] - If the US starts sending civilians to mine or whatever... send their own unarmed law enforcement to stop them, probably while livestreaming the whole thing globally. [2] File additional lawsuits every step of the way. [1] - Wait for US courts to respond. Appeal immediately and get SCOTUS on the record. [1] If the response is negative then proceed to attempt enforcement under their own laws. - If US law enforcement fires their first shot -- send their own armed law enforcement to respond. File more lawsuits as much as possible at every step and wait for courts to respond. - If US military gets involved and starts firing -- send military (their own + as many other NATO countries as would be willing to join) to respond accordingly. Yes it will risk some lives, but there's a decent chance the US won't shoot NATO allies. The whole bet seems to be that there will be zero physical resistance to begin with. And if they do respond, it's important for everyone to actually see that. If they play their cards right, I actually think it's quite likely Greenland/Denmark/Europe would win this fight, quite possibly before anyone gets injured. But they really need to play by the books and exhaust every single peaceful avenue available to them before letting combat power decide the matter. FWIW, I can think of other ideas too. But I think this should be plenty enough to get my point across that this isn't a necessary loss. [1] For whatever it's worth, the current US administration is still engaging the judicial system. As insulting as it might feel to other countries' sovereignties, utilizing this is currently their best option. They need to get the US on the record in domestic court about exactly which laws it recognizes and which ones it's willing to break. There needs to be zero ambiguity to everyone, especially Americans themselves, who exactly is breaking which laws in whose name. [2] It needs to be on undeniable record who started whatever ends up happening.

georgemcbay 9mo ago

Not sure what you're talking about here..? Europe (Denmark) has forces in Greenland currently. But Europe as a whole also has no chance to defend Greenland no matter what they do if the US really decides to take it by force. Europe has inadequate long distance power-projection to put up any kind of a fight there (if not being assisted by the US, which of course it wouldn't be in this case). I'm American, but this reply certainly isn't me being jingoistic or pro-American. I fucking hate what we are both doing and threatening under Trump with every fiber of my being and I think it ultimately is going to make America a far weaker failed empire within a world that is deeply unstabilized for no reason other than to stroke the ego of a malignant narcissist with no understanding of second order consequences.

dataflow 9mo ago
What I'm saying is I think there's a decent chance the US wouldn't actually engage in significant combat over Greenland. What I think the US is betting on is that there simply won't be any meaningful military resistance at all. (They basically said exactly this.) Therefore, if Europe sent enough forces and indicated they would actually fight instead of capitulating, that would probably be their best bet at preventing Greenland from being annexed. Realistically, this needs to be more than whatever tiny(?) amount of forces Denmark already has there. They'd probably need assistance from other countries. You essentially need to be reading headlines about warships from some European countries heading to Greenland for this to have an effect, IMO.
- hdgvhicv 9mo ago
  US starts conducting military excercises Then expands its existing bases without telling or asking for the rubber stamp Then starts mining They don’t need to fire a shot, and Denmark isn’t going to fire first.
  - dataflow 9mo ago
    No. You make it seem like Europe has to just roll over and take whatever happens without even a proverbial fight. That's not how it needs to play out at all. There's a lot more they could do if you get a little creative. Let me outline one possible way I think Greenland/Denmark/Europe could proceed here that doesn't require just capitulating: - Station more forces right now to make it clear they would defend Greenland militarily. Get as many NATO countries to join as possible. Probably better to stay closer to their own civilians instead of going near American bases, I imagine. This is critical so that nobody gets a chance to claim they lost by default due to not even meaningfully attempting to defend the territory. - If the US starts expanding its military activity... either ignore them and wait out this administration, or file a lawsuit in the US (and possibly elsewhere, wherever feasible) and see how courts respond, if for no reason than to put everyone on the official record. [1] - If the US starts sending civilians to mine or whatever... send their own unarmed law enforcement to stop them, probably while livestreaming the whole thing globally. [2] File additional lawsuits every step of the way. [1] - Wait for US courts to respond. Appeal immediately and get SCOTUS on the record. [1] If the response is negative then proceed to attempt enforcement under their own laws. - If US law enforcement fires their first shot -- send their own armed law enforcement to respond. File more lawsuits as much as possible at every step and wait for courts to respond. - If US military gets involved and starts firing -- send military (their own + as many other NATO countries as would be willing to join) to respond accordingly. Yes it will risk some lives, but there's a decent chance the US won't shoot NATO allies. The whole bet seems to be that there will be zero physical resistance to begin with. And if they do respond, it's important for everyone to actually see that. If they play their cards right, I actually think it's quite likely Greenland/Denmark/Europe would win this fight, quite possibly before anyone gets injured. But they really need to play by the books and exhaust every single peaceful avenue available to them before letting combat power decide the matter. FWIW, I can think of other ideas too. But I think this should be plenty enough to get my point across that this isn't a necessary loss. [1] For whatever it's worth, the current US administration is still engaging the judicial system. As insulting as it might feel to other countries' sovereignties, utilizing this is currently their best option. They need to get the US on the record in domestic court about exactly which laws it recognizes and which ones it's willing to break. There needs to be zero ambiguity to everyone, especially Americans themselves, who exactly is breaking which laws in whose name. [2] It needs to be on undeniable record who started whatever ends up happening.