5 ms·

If anything, I think the tariffs are signaling Trump meeting resistance from the military. One thing is for sure: If Trump for whatever reason manages to attac

If anything, I think the tariffs are signaling Trump meeting resistance from the military. One thing is for sure: If Trump for whatever reason manages to attack Greenland, there will be some signals beforehand. Like moving any and all US personnel currently in Denmark, out of Denmark. There's a good chance US personnel in neighboring countries would also need to be moved out, like in Norway. A military attack on Greenland would send the US and Europe into a geopolitical crisis.

wyldfire 9mo ago
If he loses Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (the Tariffs case in front of SCOTUS) then he has no power with which to negotiate. Because, as you suggest, his military is unwilling to execute the unlawful orders to seek conquest without a declaration of war. So that might indicate some of the apparent urgency to make this happen now before SCOTUS rules. Unfortunately a lot of damage is already done, even if we walk it all back our allies will no longer trust us - nor should they.
- CGMthrowaway 9mo ago
  He still has Sec 232
dvfjsdhgfv 9mo ago
> moving any and all US personnel currently in Denmark, out of Denmark Why? I mean, if this was another president and another scenario, I'd agree. But I can very well imagine Trump taking Greenland by force and at the same time leaving all American units in Europe as they are.
- johnnyanmac 9mo ago
  He justified not notifying Congress about Venezuela as "not wanting leakers". He'd 100% would have American soldier blood on his hands if he felt it'd make for a better attack.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 9mo ago
    While I don't disagree, I see zero chances of American soldiers in Denmark fighting with Denmark/EU forces. Because nobody wants to kill American soldiers, it makes zero sense. And I think (or at least hope) there is a similar sentiment on the other side - at least some American generals show it quite clearly, attacking a close ally is very stupid. Moreover, nobody wants any military activities inside Denmark - the possibility of having it in Greenland is depressing enough. So, if the unthinkable happens, I believe American soldiers would be quite safe staying in Denmark.
    - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
      >Because nobody wants to kill American soldiers, it makes zero sense. Of course it makes no sense. You're trying to apply logic to the illogical. We should know by now that this is an admin driven by ego. Not by duty nor even something sensible like greed or ideology. >if the unthinkable happens, I believe American soldiers would be quite safe staying in Denmark. I sure hope you're right. Meanwhile; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-20/greenland-leader-tells-people-to-prepare-for-possible-invasion https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-20/greenland...
palata 9mo ago
> A military attack on Greenland would send the US and Europe into a geopolitical crisis. I think that the US threatening to invade Europe or Canada already qualifies as some kind of geopolitical crisis, doesn't it?
- nebula8804 9mo ago
  No: huff and puff allows for an offramp: ie. a new defense agreement and everyone can save face. Action is permanent.
  - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
    even that offramp is doing irreparable damage to the US's soft power. We're past putting the genie back in the bottle and pretending nothing happened.
    - nebula8804 9mo ago
      Sure, you are likely correct, but I didn't really say anything about that. All I did was try to see past all the nonsense in the news and try to observe actions. In a way they have forced EU to do part of what they wanted: take security more seriously and signing some sort of "deal" allows everyone to walk away. This was a really dumb way to go about it but Trump does not do smart politics. The long term mess will be inherited by his successor and they will be blamed for it.
      - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
        I understand. as early as a month ago I may have agreed with you. But we're already off to a horrid 2026 between Venezuela and Minnesota, and even Jerome Powell. This isn't just big words anymore. Trump's shown he's willing to escalate to foreign intervention, shoot citizens in the street in broad daylight, and disrupt the core Dollar itself to fit his needs. I wouldn't rule out anything at this point. >The long term mess will be inherited by his successor and they will be blamed for it. Sure, but that was never in question. Trump appointed Powell and no one in the media brings this up. People still think Biden is the one who screwed up the immediate COVID response (hell, Trump caught COVID and I almost feel we're in some bizarro world that no one talks about this). And I've even seen absolutely fringe takes that Biden was president during Jan 6th. We're sadly in a post truth era. You don't change the minds of people like that with obvious, verifiable facts. I don't know what to do with them. I feel it takes less energy to focus efforts on those who can still be reasoned with than to convert the devout.

wyldfire 9mo ago

If he loses Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (the Tariffs case in front of SCOTUS) then he has no power with which to negotiate. Because, as you suggest, his military is unwilling to execute the unlawful orders to seek conquest without a declaration of war. So that might indicate some of the apparent urgency to make this happen now before SCOTUS rules. Unfortunately a lot of damage is already done, even if we walk it all back our allies will no longer trust us - nor should they.

CGMthrowaway 9mo ago
He still has Sec 232

dvfjsdhgfv 9mo ago

> moving any and all US personnel currently in Denmark, out of Denmark Why? I mean, if this was another president and another scenario, I'd agree. But I can very well imagine Trump taking Greenland by force and at the same time leaving all American units in Europe as they are.

johnnyanmac 9mo ago
He justified not notifying Congress about Venezuela as "not wanting leakers". He'd 100% would have American soldier blood on his hands if he felt it'd make for a better attack.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9mo ago
  While I don't disagree, I see zero chances of American soldiers in Denmark fighting with Denmark/EU forces. Because nobody wants to kill American soldiers, it makes zero sense. And I think (or at least hope) there is a similar sentiment on the other side - at least some American generals show it quite clearly, attacking a close ally is very stupid. Moreover, nobody wants any military activities inside Denmark - the possibility of having it in Greenland is depressing enough. So, if the unthinkable happens, I believe American soldiers would be quite safe staying in Denmark.
  - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
    >Because nobody wants to kill American soldiers, it makes zero sense. Of course it makes no sense. You're trying to apply logic to the illogical. We should know by now that this is an admin driven by ego. Not by duty nor even something sensible like greed or ideology. >if the unthinkable happens, I believe American soldiers would be quite safe staying in Denmark. I sure hope you're right. Meanwhile; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-20/greenland-leader-tells-people-to-prepare-for-possible-invasion https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-20/greenland...

palata 9mo ago

> A military attack on Greenland would send the US and Europe into a geopolitical crisis. I think that the US threatening to invade Europe or Canada already qualifies as some kind of geopolitical crisis, doesn't it?

nebula8804 9mo ago
No: huff and puff allows for an offramp: ie. a new defense agreement and everyone can save face. Action is permanent.
- johnnyanmac 9mo ago
  even that offramp is doing irreparable damage to the US's soft power. We're past putting the genie back in the bottle and pretending nothing happened.
  - nebula8804 9mo ago
    Sure, you are likely correct, but I didn't really say anything about that. All I did was try to see past all the nonsense in the news and try to observe actions. In a way they have forced EU to do part of what they wanted: take security more seriously and signing some sort of "deal" allows everyone to walk away. This was a really dumb way to go about it but Trump does not do smart politics. The long term mess will be inherited by his successor and they will be blamed for it.
    - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
      I understand. as early as a month ago I may have agreed with you. But we're already off to a horrid 2026 between Venezuela and Minnesota, and even Jerome Powell. This isn't just big words anymore. Trump's shown he's willing to escalate to foreign intervention, shoot citizens in the street in broad daylight, and disrupt the core Dollar itself to fit his needs. I wouldn't rule out anything at this point. >The long term mess will be inherited by his successor and they will be blamed for it. Sure, but that was never in question. Trump appointed Powell and no one in the media brings this up. People still think Biden is the one who screwed up the immediate COVID response (hell, Trump caught COVID and I almost feel we're in some bizarro world that no one talks about this). And I've even seen absolutely fringe takes that Biden was president during Jan 6th. We're sadly in a post truth era. You don't change the minds of people like that with obvious, verifiable facts. I don't know what to do with them. I feel it takes less energy to focus efforts on those who can still be reasoned with than to convert the devout.