5 ms·

Would 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://ww

• nubg 9mo ago
  I 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 ago
  I don't think you can capture a >800k square mile island in the same way you can kidnap a dictator.
  • vinni2 9mo ago
    Except most of that >800k square mile island is empty. They only need to capture the capital.
    • cosmicgadget 9mo ago
      Why 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 ago
    There'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 ago
      Isn't there a rather large country mostly in the way between the USA and Greenland?
      • AlotOfReading 9mo ago
        I'm sure Canada cares about what's happening, but planes and ships don't need to cross Canadian borders to get to Greenland.
        • 9mo ago
• ryandvm 9mo ago
  We 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 ago
    If 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 ago
  Which 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 ago
  From 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.