16 ms·
European military personnel arrive in Greenland as Trump says US needs island
- vinni2 9mo agoWould we see a war if US tries to capture Greenland like they did in Venezuela? That’s the end of NATO as we know it and it will be it would be ETO? https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/05/world/europe/trump-greenland-denmark.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/05/world/europe/trump-greenl...
- nubg 9mo agoI believe that's true: if Trump attacked Greenland, NATO would fall apart (regardless of Europe's response, if they allow it or not), and then Putin would have a once in a generation chance to take the baltics, maybe mess with Poland. He would have to take that chance, and then Europe would have to retaliate, and its effectively WW3. Spooky times, let's hope things fizzle out back to a rule based Pax Americana. Edit: Interestingly, the likelyhood of things fizzling out would jump up quite a bit if Trump or Putin were to die. I think the US system of government is prone to electing Trumps, but it's not a given, I think the cult of personality would die and things would relax for now.
- general1465 9mo ago> Putin would have a once in a generation chance to take the baltics, maybe mess with Poland No resources for that. Russians are increasingly using horses instead of mechanization like IFVs or APCs. If he would try it, then it would open second frontline with Europe in Baltics while still fighting with Ukrainians. Awfully stupid idea.
- ben_w 9mo ago> Awfully stupid idea. Yes. But would that stop him?
- MentatOnMelange 9mo agoI don't think you can capture a >800k square mile island in the same way you can kidnap a dictator.
- vinni2 9mo agoExcept most of that >800k square mile island is empty. They only need to capture the capital.
- cosmicgadget 9mo agoWhy does the capital matter?
- ben_w 9mo ago"Need" or "want"? Remember, the US already has treaty rights to build bases: the defence strategy of Greenland before this nonsense was "be a member of NATO, nobody would be dumb enough to attack us because if they did the USA would defend us".
- AlotOfReading 9mo agoThere's no reasonable debate about whether the US has the capability to capture Greenland. Obviously they do. It's in their backyard in an area the US military has been patrolling for decades, with (admittedly decrepit) US bases already present. The question is whether the US is willing to pay the costs to do so. Sending European troops is attempting to raise the costs of invasion so that any rational actor would decide against it. Of course, we wouldn't be in this situation if all the parties involved were rational actors.
- arethuza 9mo agoIsn't there a rather large country mostly in the way between the USA and Greenland?
- AlotOfReading 9mo agoI'm sure Canada cares about what's happening, but planes and ships don't need to cross Canadian borders to get to Greenland.
- ryandvm 9mo agoWe would see exactly what people in the US have been dealing with for 10 years. Everybody would wring their hands and say "unbelievable!" and then nobody with the actual capability to do anything about it actually does. The entire world is just rooting for Father Time on this particular problem.
- Dah00n 9mo agoIf the US actually did invade Greenland it would mean the end of US Europe trade and cooperation as we know it and the end of NATO (and likely UN). China would suddenly be the main trading partner, also in military equipment. It would be the end of US as it is today.
- Zigurd 9mo agoWhich would be more consequential? The end of US participation in NATO, or the end of maintenance and updates to every ASML machine in the US?
- pjc50 9mo agoFrom the UK: I suspect the response would be the same as the response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the use of chemical weapons in the UK: a stiffly worded letter and some legal action, followed by efforts to disentangle economically. Maybe we'll sanction an oligarch or two.
- anacrolix 9mo agoI'm not even American, but wtf is Europe doing. They were once a moral bar now they're dropping the ball everywhere.
- nubg 9mo ago? How is this Europe's fault?
- alephnerd 9mo agoIn 2006, the big 5 Western European states (UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain) had a similar share of global GDP PPP to the US, double China's, and 4x India's. In 2026, their share is now half of the US and China's and is comparable to India's. The "rules based" model that the EU promulgated only worked in the 1990s-2000s when we lived in a unipolar world where the US and the EU represented the bulk of global production and those 5 countries had the economic power to successfully negotiate or pushback against the US. The rise of Asian economies, EU expansion leading to the inclusion of hybrid regimes like Hungary and Poland under PiS who monkeywrenched procedural work within the EU, and the EU+UK's lost decade due to the Eurozone Crisis and Brexit degraded their comparative power. Additionally, countries like the US, China, Russia, India, Japan, South Korea, etc also began strategically leveraging FDI in order to negotiate with subsets of EU states unilaterally, which reduced the EU's aggregate negotiating power. Edit: Can't reply > Why does being rules-based have anything to do with it? Access to markets and capital along with defending IP are predicated on mutually agreeing to those terms. When the EU (then including the UK) was at it's peak in the 2000s, it was able to drive favorable IP protection and market access agreeements to help underwrite innovation. The European "rules-based" system also eschewed large scale subsidized industrial policy, viewing these as potentially accelerating trade wars. This is less true now in the 2020s, with countries like the US, China, Japan, India, and others adopting large scale industrial policy and subsidy programs (IRA/CHIPS, Make in China, GX 2040, PLI) and co-opting pillars of European industry like Volkswagen, BMW, Stellantis, Renault, ZF, Bayer, Sanofi, GSK, Dassault, Airbus, Leonardo, Safran, Rolls Royce, Siemens, EDF, TotalEnergie, etc to join these programs on their terms and having them lobby for their interests in Brussels. > I think the main "culprit" is energy Industrial energy prices in Europe only began spiking in 2022 following Russia's escalation of it's invasion in Ukraine (it started back in 2014). The trends I mentioned began all the way back in 2007-12 when energy prices were at all time lows.
- sjw987 9mo agoDoes anybody get the looming impression that the probability they'll die in war is approaching 1? I don't know which country / group of countries it'll be against, but I get the impression that a lot of our fates are being written out right now. Advertisements around where I live are gradually all becoming about joining the military. My country is sending troops to territories as if they are tripwires.
- nubg 9mo agoYes. Not necessarily 1 but a once in three generations high number, idk a 0,25. I wonder how to survive? Nomad lifestyle?
- Tostino 9mo agoThat is exactly what these troops are. A tripwire force which hopefully doesn't get used for their intended purpose.
- DetectDefect 9mo ago> Does anybody get the looming impression that the probability they'll die in war is approaching 1? No. If I had this level of anxiety, I would disconnect from news and online media for a little while to take a walk in the forest to clear my mind and calm down.
- sjw987 9mo agoI'm already there. I never use social media and I limit news consumption to once per week for catching up. I'm seeing these messages in the real world. Adverts on the side of buses are telling me to enlist in greater frequency, and job sites have positions in the Royal Army pinned above everything else.
- IAmBroom 9mo agoThis forum is social media.
- 9mo ago
- ferguess_k 9mo ago> However, the European Nato deployment consists of only a few dozen personnel as part of Danish-led joint exercises called Operation Arctic Endurance. While heavy in symbolism, it was not immediately clear how long they would stay. Like, we came, we saw, we gone? How many ppls can they deploy in the long term?
- standardUser 9mo agoEurope isn't the US and it isn't China, but it is collectively one of the preeminent military and economic powers in the world. So, as long as they'd like.
- pjc50 9mo agoOne of the more stupid things here is that there's almost certainly many more US personnel already in Greenland in their internationally-agreed bases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituffik_Space_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituffik_Space_Base https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/07/brief-history-of-us-military-bases-in-greenland https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/07/brief-history-... I suspect the main limit is that nobody wants to be deployed in a dull frozen wasteland for very long.
- jandrewrogers 9mo agoIronically, the US military has historically had more military personnel deployed in Greenland than Denmark. The US has continuously operated a military base at Thule for the better part of a century. These kinds of joint exercises are pretty common and largely symbolic. (The wikipedia page about this contains blatant partisan propaganda. Gross.)
- Dah00n 9mo ago>These kinds of joint exercises are pretty common and largely symbolic. Danish Air force Hercules are doing their best impression of the Berlin air bridge to transport as much as they can to Greenland, airlines have transported personnel, several countries are sending navel ships, planes have already been doing exercises. While this isn't the first exercise there this is absolutely not common and just symbolic. Sure it isn't a force that can fight the US, but it is historic and unprecedented in Danish/Greenlandish history and it is a tripwire. To put that into perspective the US has around 150-200 staff in Greenland.
- josefritzishere 9mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- sys32768 9mo agoDid you have that discussion about Biden?
- esseph 9mo agoInvading a NATO ally was never on the table. No body would do that, only an insane person.
- toomuchtodo 9mo agoHe wasn't invading or threatening to invade multiple countries at a time, including those of allies.
- MentatOnMelange 9mo agoImagine how much better things would be if we did have that discussion. Lets not make the same mistake twice
- cosmicgadget 9mo agoWe did have that discussion and almost certainly the DNC also had it with more than a handful of media appearances written off as gaffes. They decided their best chances were to stick with Biden.
- beej71 9mo agoYes, we did. And that discussion had a most definite conclusion.
- senordevnyc 9mo agoBiden was ostensibly too old when he became President, but he hadn't started the obvious decline that we all witnessed in 2024. And I still would much rather have had Biden for those four years than have had to face what we're facing now with Trump back then. Except with Trump being 4 years farther away from death than he is now...
- DetectDefect 9mo ago[flagged]
- hartator 9mo agoYes, it seems almost counter-productive.
- usrbinbash 9mo agoScenario 1: US troops land and just stay there Scenario 2: US troops land and would now have to deal with some NATO soldiers. Regardless of how many NATO soldiers we're talking about, the geopolitical stakes in S2 are orders of magnitude higher than in S1. And so is the political backlash, problems at home, reasons for other nations to respond, etc. So yes, these few troops, being there, in an official capacity as a NATO deployment no less, matters. Alot.
- GJim 9mo ago"Counter force"? I'm genuinely questioning your mentality in using this term. It sounds like something Fox News would say.
- DetectDefect 9mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- hulitu 9mo ago> This reads like the start of a satirical joke Why jump directly to conclusions ? Just take some popcorn and enjoy the development. From my POV the whole "show" looks a lot like a cheap porno with a gangbang at the end. /s
- jleyank 9mo agoFrom Tuchman's The Guns of August: A question that [Brigadier General Henry] Wilson asked of [General Ferdinand] Foch during his second visit in January 1910, evoked an answer which expressed in one sentence the problem of the alliance with England, as the French saw it. “What is the smallest British military force that would be of any practical assistance to you?” Wilson asked. Like a rapier flash came Foch’s reply, “A single British soldier—and we will see to it that he is killed.” People's attitudes often change when their sons and daughters are on the line.
- jfengel 9mo agoI'm not sure I understand the quip. Is it meant to say, "Please send us cannon fodder, but we can't/won't make use of any of your tactical units"?
- nistiminic 9mo agoI don't know what the original source meant by it, but I interpret it as being a tripwire force. It works by the invading army killing the deployed forces. War is also about internal politics. Do you really think someone can invade and potentially kill the military of your allies without repercussions? But let's ignore that and game out the next steps. So some countries are pissed off for them killing military assets but the invading army think they wouldn't escalate? That's fine. Let's continue from the scenario where this happened. Let's talk about killing civilians. You don't think that taking over Greenland will be without civilian deaths? Even if that's ok then let's continu to the next point: Greenland is now part of the USA, this means border protection. This means you need to import border patrol or ICE or whatever into Greenland. How do you think that would work out? Non-military persons overseeing deporting non-greenland people in the artic. The US doesn't have that much equipment or people trained for artic conditions. Most of your guns, tanks, etc... don't work there reliably. Anyways... Do you want the military overseeing deporting non-greenland people from your now US territory? Even when it's the most peaceful takeover ever in the history of humankind, it's still going to be a mess and people will die. I've given you the most optimistic situation: Canada will allow overflights to take over Greenland. Greenland won't resist. The EU will do nothing even when their people are killed. etc... To return to your question, killing an allied soldier will have some effects in the internal politics of the allies of the US.
- incomingpain 9mo agoGermany has done more to secure greenland than Ukraine?
- pjc50 9mo agoGreenland is a non-EU territory of an EU member. Ukraine currently is not part of the EU or its surrounding organizations.
- rsynnott 9mo agoGreenland is in NATO.
- fatbird 9mo agoAfter the U.S., Germany is the largest donor of money and kit to Ukraine, approximately 1/3rd of what the U.S. gave under Biden. The cost of 13 soldiers hanging about in Nuuk is a footnote.
- Dah00n 9mo agoThat's not how this works though. This is a tripwire. If 13 German soldiers died at the hand of the US it would cause a bit more of a reaction in Germany than sending money to Ukraine.
- juusto 9mo agoEurope experiencing what LATAM, SE Asia and Africa have had to deal for a long time but now the shoe is on the other foot and it's a huge deal all the sudden.
- pjc50 9mo agoI've been saying that the re-election of Trump firmly turned the US into a Latin American country: repressive right-wing government run for the benefit of US corporate interests, with questionable election integrity and widespread paramilitary violence against street protests.
- xg15 9mo agoFrance is sending 15 soldiers, Germany 13. Not sure how much the other countries are sending, but at that rate, they seem to expect a US invasion force of 100 people and probably a few dogsleds?
- ginko 9mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force?useskin=vector
- pjc50 9mo agoThe above comment referencing Guns of August has it: the point is not to put up significant resistance, but, like the Minnesotans, force the US invasion force to have to kill or capture them in a way that produces as much negative publicity as possible if they do want to take Greenland.
- arethuza 9mo agoIt only takes one soldier to down an incoming US transport aircraft with a MANPAD?
- pjc50 9mo agoOk, and then what happens, Sun Tzu?
- arethuza 9mo agoI have no idea - nothing good, that's clear.
- Dah00n 9mo agoThe end of the US as we know it happens. Sure the US could win a war ("win"), but the US without US Europe trade, EU turning to China as its main trading partner including in military equipment, no more bases in EU, less access to other parts of the world, and so on. That would be a US that would wither and die.
- rich_sasha 9mo agoI think US rapidly crossed from being a useful ally, through being an unreliable one to a genuine hindrance for NATO, from Europe's PoV. Not sure about Canada, and I feel for them. I'm confident Europe can get its act together against Russia. It has more people, far more GDP etc. But it's stuck an an awful trance of defeatism. US meanwhile seems to be setting fire to so much of the world that they may soon be calling on allies to help them out. Ironic that the only NATO collective defense response was Europe joining the US in Afghanistan. Somehow Europeans care more about Greenland than Ukraine, so maybe this is the final straw.
- fatbird 9mo agoEurope has provided massive aid to Ukraine, mostly financial. Their hesitation has been committing themselves militarily to the war, which, if they did, would be a huge benefit to Ukraine. But their current level of support is still very substantial (and necessary). Greenland isn't important because it's Greenland, it's important because taking it shatters NATO. As an attack on Denmark it's actually less important than the deathblow to an alignment that has been foundational to the world order for the last 80 years. If the US takes Greenland, the whole international order breaks down, so yes, they're taking it very seriously.
- rich_sasha 9mo ago> Greenland [is] important because taking it shatters NATO. It's even more striking to me then that the Europeans would draw the line, rather than seek some kind of Trump appeasement. Standing up to Russia in Ukraine does not affect the credibility of NATO, but standing up to Trump does.
- honzabe 9mo agoStriking? Why? Appeasement of aggressors has a terrible track record, both historically (Hitler, Putin) and specifically with Trump (TACO). Danish military analyst Anders Puck Nielsen argues, IMHO convincingly, that Europe should NOT try to appease Trump, but do the opposite - escalate to de-escalate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwRsTDlqU8I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwRsTDlqU8I His reasoning is that Trump is a malignant narcissist, and malignant narcissists separate people into two categories: those perceived as strong, whom they admire (Putin, Xi), and weak, whom they abuse. Appeasement will only encourage further abuse. The only viable option is to show strength. As a European myself, I will support politicians with an uncompromising approach, no matter the cost.
- ChrisArchitect 9mo agoPreviously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46631848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46631848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46617108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46617108 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46624266
- consumer451 9mo agoCan anyone articulate any rational reason for the threat of the US invading and annexing Greenland? Aside from economics, there is nothing preventing US or international mining interests from mining there today, is there? What are the other possible reasons?
- piva00 9mo agoRonald Lauder, the billionaire, has floated the idea about buying Greenland with Trump since his first time in office. The same Ronald Lauder then started buying businesses in Greenland. The Guardian put out a good article on it: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/15/ronald-lauder-billionaire-donor-donald-trump-ukraine-greenland https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/15/ronald-laude... As usual with Trump, it's just brazen corruption.
- Dah00n 9mo ago>The same Ronald Lauder then started buying businesses in Greenland. Yes, and so have Bill Gates, Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos, Bloomberg, etc. etc.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- _DeadFred_ 9mo agoTrump would be remembered forever as the 'president' that acquired Greenland for the USA. It's all ego.
- nullocator 9mo agoMaybe the next president could be remembered as the one who gives it back!
- cosmicgadget 9mo agoThe rational reason for the threat is that it is a good distraction.
- docdeek 9mo agoFrance sends 15 soldiers, Germany sends 13 soldiers - tiny numbers, sure, but 15 and 13 more, respectively, to defend against a possible threat than either of those countries sent in the years since Russia rolled into Ukraine.
- fatbird 9mo agoThey're not there to defend Greenland, they're there to die if the U.S. invades. The U.S. keeps small numbers of soldier on the border with North Korea for the same reason.
- docdeek 9mo agoI understand, though there is a marked difference between the couple of dozen European troops deployed in this fashion and the 25,000 US soldiers deployed in Korea. In any case, the point stands: I would argue that France is willing to put a dozen soldiers in Greenland because it is pretty sure that they won’t be killed by the US, as opposed to sending even a single soldier to Kiev where there is a reasonable chance that they might get killed and we might have to do more than just send money and guns.
- fatbird 9mo agoThe amount of money and guns that have been sent to Ukraine have been critical to its survival. They still have a functioning economy just because of all the financial aid they've received. It would obviously be better if French, British, or German troops were in Ukraine, even if they were just securing the rear areas. But the fact that no one in Europe has voluntarily joined Ukraine's war against Russia isn't comparable to putting a tripwire deterrent in place. If the U.S. seized Nuuk, and Europe mustered a counter-invasion, it would be comparable.
- Dah00n 9mo ago>It would obviously be better if French, British, or German troops were in Ukraine How is that obvious? Unless you have invested in a post-WW3 world.