> If there really was just a, damn the alliance we want Greenland approach - and there's not, the EU including its nuclear armed states would not be able to do

> If there really was just a, damn the alliance we want Greenland approach - and there's not, the EU including its nuclear armed states would not be able to do a single thing about it. I can't fully parse this sentence, because the first part, "If there really was just a, damn the alliance we want Greenland approach", that's exactly what it looked like to us, but the second part I can't make fit with that: "and there's not, the EU including its nuclear armed states would not be able to do a single thing about it." - are you saying the EU couldn't stop such a thing despite France having nukes? Because to me it looks like we stopped an invasion by putting a tripwire force on Greenland and telling the US "FAFO". Or that the US wasn't taking the "damn the alliance we want Greenland approach" because France has nukes? > To be clear, are you suggesting the United States in general is the "immediate problem" and not Russia's invasion of Ukraine? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view here very clearly before I respond and want to give you that opportunity. We have two immediate problems, China isn't one of them. Important point: Ukraine isn't in the EU or NATO. We're friends with Ukraine, we're not as far along the path as allies, not yet. Russia was the immediate problem because of what would happen if Ukraine lost, but the moment it started looking like the USA was about to actually invade Greenland, then the USA became an even higher priority. Because that's not "a friend", that's "us". > You can't make the claim that the EU gets to do this with respect to China but the US doesn't get to do it with the EU. China has not threatened to invade any EU or NATO territory, which is the specific "it" that the EU is upset that the US has done.