4 ms·

Tripwire force intended to signal commitment and achieve deterrence by creating uncertainty about the costs involved.

lm28469 10mo ago
> creating uncertainty about the costs involved. Is anyone uncertain about the cost of invading a military ally to acquire more "vital" space?
- actionfromafar 10mo ago
  I mean, normally, no, but nowadays, yes. The only language Trump and Putin speak is blunt power. (Except Trump also responds well to flattery. I doubt you'd get very far with Putin speaking that language.)
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- rsynnott 10mo ago
  I don't think Trump cares about the diplomatic cost. However, even for Trump, significant human losses might be difficult to spin.
mothballed 10mo ago
There is certainty, however, in cost in sending troops to Denmark. So it allows US to sap the resources of the adversary, making it even more expensive to hold Denmark. And that is ultimately the goal, because the more pain in the ass and expensive it is for Denmark to hold Greenland, the quicker there will be for pressure for Greenland to become independent. And independence is only a hop, skip, and jump away from foreign influence; given that Greenland is indefensible without alliance and economically heavily subsidized.
- lm28469 10mo ago
  > given that Greenland is indefensible without alliance and economically heavily subsidized. That's valid for like 99% of countries on the planet so I'm not sure what signals it sends. They could use the same logic to invade Germany tomorrow if they wanted, who's going to stop them anyways ?
  - mothballed 10mo ago
    Who said anything about actually invading? I'm talking about the threat of invading to make it cost Denmark even more than it currently does to hold. The US doesn't need to invade, only create a bluff to make it more painful to hold it. And no, 99% of countries on the planet do not get 10-15k of outside subsidies per resident. Also I think you are ignoring nuance on the importance of alliance; the population density and population is incredibly low and they are situated quite close to the US. The US has disproportionately strong-armed virtually every nation around it of similar size/strength; that's why central America and the Caribbean are chalk full of stories of US meddling. It's not similar to places like Brazil where an invasion of a world power would still cost an adversary a lot more than they bargain for in ground losses even without alliance even if the adversary would doubtlessly win a clear victory. They are far weaker at the negotiation table than, say, Germany, when in comes to foreign influence.
    - palata 10mo ago
      > The US doesn't need to invade, only create a bluff to make it more painful to hold it. When you create a bluff pretending to be an enemy, do you still count as an ally?
      - mothballed 10mo ago
        Possibly not, but I don't think you can count on 1:1 pairing of enemy/ally pre and post Denmark as the sovereign of Greenland.
      - JohnFen 10mo ago
        No. If you're militarily threatening someone, you are their enemy. Even if you used to be an ally.
- energy123 10mo ago
  A tripwire force doesn't cost much because it's minimal. That's by design.
- Quothling 10mo ago
  > So it allows US to sap the resources of the adversary Considering we provide the same amount of benefits to all the citizens in our kingdom, the cost of sending a few extra soldiers up there to accommodate all the other EU troops coming up there... well... you wouldn't even notice it on our national budget. Hell, with how things are going with everyone looking to turn down their dependency on US tech, the Microsoft licenses savings in our public sector will be absolutely enormous. There is massive public support for defending Greenland though. So I'm not sure cost will ever be an issue for us. Not that we realistically could defend Greenland if the US invaded.
  - kcplate 10mo ago
    I just can’t imagine NATO countries not strongly pressuring Denmark to make a deal before any sort of military action was even close to actually happening. And knowing Trump, it might not take US ownership either, it might just come down to just the right deal that scratches Trumps itch for rare earth minerals and ability to protect against the perceived Russia threats. Perhaps something like a FAS status. The reality is this…Is choosing to challenge and not placate Trump control really worth risking losing $980B per year from the military budget designed to defend Europe from Russia? My guess is no.
    - Quothling 10mo ago
      What sort of deal woul they be pressuring us to enter? One where USA has basically free reign to do whatever they want in Greenland militarily? Because we already have that deal. One where US companies can enter agreements with Greenland to extract minerals? Because we already have that. One which blocks Russian interests in Greenland? Because we've been in a pseudo war with Russia for a while, with them seizing Danish assets and companies in Russia. So it would be unthinkable to allow them any sort of presence in Greenland. If the US was so concerned about security in Greenland it's sort of weird that they've gone from 20ish bases to just 1 over the past few decades. As far as losing an ally goes... We already did that. EU is being diplomatic because we hope the USA comes to their senses, and because why wouldn't we? But internally everything is shifting away from US reliance because nobody actually belives USA would show up to protect Estonia if Russia invaded. So what our NATO allies are doing is sending troop to Greenland to make it very expensive for the US to attack it. The deals that can be made are also sort of limited. Greenland is not ours to give away. The people of Greenland could democratically decide to leave the kingdom and enter some sort of deal with USA, and they might have, if they hadn't been threatened with invasion. Though it would frankly be unlikely considering they'd trade the Danish welfare and healthcare systems and workers rights for whatever the USA has.

> creating uncertainty about the costs involved. Is anyone uncertain about the cost of invading a military ally to acquire more "vital" space?

actionfromafar 10mo ago
I mean, normally, no, but nowadays, yes. The only language Trump and Putin speak is blunt power. (Except Trump also responds well to flattery. I doubt you'd get very far with Putin speaking that language.)
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
rsynnott 10mo ago
I don't think Trump cares about the diplomatic cost. However, even for Trump, significant human losses might be difficult to spin.

mothballed 10mo ago

There is certainty, however, in cost in sending troops to Denmark. So it allows US to sap the resources of the adversary, making it even more expensive to hold Denmark. And that is ultimately the goal, because the more pain in the ass and expensive it is for Denmark to hold Greenland, the quicker there will be for pressure for Greenland to become independent. And independence is only a hop, skip, and jump away from foreign influence; given that Greenland is indefensible without alliance and economically heavily subsidized.

lm28469 10mo ago
> given that Greenland is indefensible without alliance and economically heavily subsidized. That's valid for like 99% of countries on the planet so I'm not sure what signals it sends. They could use the same logic to invade Germany tomorrow if they wanted, who's going to stop them anyways ?
- mothballed 10mo ago
  Who said anything about actually invading? I'm talking about the threat of invading to make it cost Denmark even more than it currently does to hold. The US doesn't need to invade, only create a bluff to make it more painful to hold it. And no, 99% of countries on the planet do not get 10-15k of outside subsidies per resident. Also I think you are ignoring nuance on the importance of alliance; the population density and population is incredibly low and they are situated quite close to the US. The US has disproportionately strong-armed virtually every nation around it of similar size/strength; that's why central America and the Caribbean are chalk full of stories of US meddling. It's not similar to places like Brazil where an invasion of a world power would still cost an adversary a lot more than they bargain for in ground losses even without alliance even if the adversary would doubtlessly win a clear victory. They are far weaker at the negotiation table than, say, Germany, when in comes to foreign influence.
  - palata 10mo ago
    > The US doesn't need to invade, only create a bluff to make it more painful to hold it. When you create a bluff pretending to be an enemy, do you still count as an ally?
    - mothballed 10mo ago
      Possibly not, but I don't think you can count on 1:1 pairing of enemy/ally pre and post Denmark as the sovereign of Greenland.
    - JohnFen 10mo ago
      No. If you're militarily threatening someone, you are their enemy. Even if you used to be an ally.
energy123 10mo ago
A tripwire force doesn't cost much because it's minimal. That's by design.
Quothling 10mo ago
> So it allows US to sap the resources of the adversary Considering we provide the same amount of benefits to all the citizens in our kingdom, the cost of sending a few extra soldiers up there to accommodate all the other EU troops coming up there... well... you wouldn't even notice it on our national budget. Hell, with how things are going with everyone looking to turn down their dependency on US tech, the Microsoft licenses savings in our public sector will be absolutely enormous. There is massive public support for defending Greenland though. So I'm not sure cost will ever be an issue for us. Not that we realistically could defend Greenland if the US invaded.
- kcplate 10mo ago
  I just can’t imagine NATO countries not strongly pressuring Denmark to make a deal before any sort of military action was even close to actually happening. And knowing Trump, it might not take US ownership either, it might just come down to just the right deal that scratches Trumps itch for rare earth minerals and ability to protect against the perceived Russia threats. Perhaps something like a FAS status. The reality is this…Is choosing to challenge and not placate Trump control really worth risking losing $980B per year from the military budget designed to defend Europe from Russia? My guess is no.
  - Quothling 10mo ago
    What sort of deal woul they be pressuring us to enter? One where USA has basically free reign to do whatever they want in Greenland militarily? Because we already have that deal. One where US companies can enter agreements with Greenland to extract minerals? Because we already have that. One which blocks Russian interests in Greenland? Because we've been in a pseudo war with Russia for a while, with them seizing Danish assets and companies in Russia. So it would be unthinkable to allow them any sort of presence in Greenland. If the US was so concerned about security in Greenland it's sort of weird that they've gone from 20ish bases to just 1 over the past few decades. As far as losing an ally goes... We already did that. EU is being diplomatic because we hope the USA comes to their senses, and because why wouldn't we? But internally everything is shifting away from US reliance because nobody actually belives USA would show up to protect Estonia if Russia invaded. So what our NATO allies are doing is sending troop to Greenland to make it very expensive for the US to attack it. The deals that can be made are also sort of limited. Greenland is not ours to give away. The people of Greenland could democratically decide to leave the kingdom and enter some sort of deal with USA, and they might have, if they hadn't been threatened with invasion. Though it would frankly be unlikely considering they'd trade the Danish welfare and healthcare systems and workers rights for whatever the USA has.