5 ms·

You're forgetting several factors which undermine your analysis: 1. Denmark does have allies; they're not completely alone, and they're not completely helpless

You're forgetting several factors which undermine your analysis: 1. Denmark does have allies; they're not completely alone, and they're not completely helpless. 2. The US has a track record of invasions, but not one of successfully pacifying states. Resistance works. You're using the same simplistic logic as Russia invading Ukraine; you can't just compare population numbers and guarantee an immediate victory. There's also a separate issue here: the US invading Denmark would lead to a lot of death and a loss of freedom for its citizens, even if unopposed. Flip your demurral: if they're going to take everything anyway, why not fight?

closewith 7mo ago
Denmark is completely alone and helpless against the US. Other EU nations would protest, but none would enter armed conflict.
- vrganj 7mo ago
  I take it you didn't read the source? > As a source puts it, the French said: "Would you like more soldiers? You could have them. Would you like more naval support? You could have that. Would you like more air support? You could have that too."
  - closewith 7mo ago
    I did, but it simply wouldn't have happened. Whatever about boots on the ground and ships deployed, they would not have fired a shot. There is zero appetite for war with the US.
    - jacquesm 7mo ago
      Europe can wreck the US in 15 minutes and not a shot would be fired. That would have massive effect on the EU too and that's one of the things holding that back. But if the US would invade Canada or Denmark I'm fairly sure that they would not hesitate, especially not if half the USA would be on their side in the decision.
      - closewith 7mo ago
        Europe is not a megalith, there is no central authority to make any kind of decision, and no Government in the bloc has a mandate to destroy it's citizens quality of life and economy by engaging in armed conflict with the US. This includes Denmark, who would not have fought the US, as much as they tried to put on a show.
        jacquesm 7mo ago
        Which part of 'and not a shot would be fired' is so hard to understand. There are so many ways to tell another party that maybe they should tend their own house for a bit.
        closewith 7mo ago
        Are you talking about economic warfare? Too many EU nations are completely dependent on the US economically and it only takes one veto. The reality would be lots of denunciations, some token measures, followed by Business As Usual. Ireland, Poland, Germany, Spain aren't sacrificing their entire economies for Greenland.
        vrganj 7mo ago
        I think you're thoroughly misreading the state of affairs here in Europe.
        jacquesm 7mo ago
        GP is in Europe afaik. Which makes some of their comments that much more strange.
        closewith 7mo ago
        And I'm a former soldier and current defence advisor. I suspect you'd be horrified of the realpolitik within the EU today.
- input_sh 7mo ago
  I'd suggest you read the article or the Bluesky thread.
  - closewith 7mo ago
    I did and it is 100% consistent with my comment. Nice sounds and token troop movements, but absolutely no commitment to fight, which simply wouldn't have happened.
    - input_sh 7mo ago
      Okay, how do you know? Let's go through this step-by-step, in your opinion, what's the difference between a real commitment and a not-real commitment that you can point to before there's a meaningful-enough emergency to make you show your cards? What would be a non-token amount of troops?
      - closewith 7mo ago
        There is no appetite for war in Europe, zero. The Danes know it, the French know it, the US knows it. Every analyst knows it. The idea that France was going to engage in armed conflict with the US over Greenland is absurd. The US could probably take Saint Pierre and Miquelon or French Guiana without triggering a French armed response.
kelipso 7mo ago
The US is very good at turning a functional state into anarchy, razed buildings and infrastructure, and lots of death. It doesn’t really matter if the US can pacify Denmark after its population gets decimated. It’s pure posturing to pretend any government in the EU or NATO countries will do anything to resist.
- Jensson 7mo ago
  > It’s pure posturing to pretend any government in the EU or NATO countries will do anything to resist. Do you really think NATO wouldn't defend a NATO country being invaded? It isn't USA they are fighting against, it is just Trump, and that war wouldn't continue for many days before the congress decides to end it since USA doesn't want it. So I don't doubt NATO would go to defend Denmark there, since they know USA would remove Trump if they did.
  - kelipso 7mo ago
    You say NATO defends etc but NATO is fully lead and controlled by the US. Without US permission NATO does not act. And in all likelihood, NATO cannot act without US approval since the US very likely has remote shutdown capabilities for almost every major weapon that NATO countries can deploy. Joining NATO means you show the US all of your military secrets and basically embed your military into the US military structure.

closewith 7mo ago

Denmark is completely alone and helpless against the US. Other EU nations would protest, but none would enter armed conflict.

vrganj 7mo ago
I take it you didn't read the source? > As a source puts it, the French said: "Would you like more soldiers? You could have them. Would you like more naval support? You could have that. Would you like more air support? You could have that too."
- closewith 7mo ago
  I did, but it simply wouldn't have happened. Whatever about boots on the ground and ships deployed, they would not have fired a shot. There is zero appetite for war with the US.
  - jacquesm 7mo ago
    Europe can wreck the US in 15 minutes and not a shot would be fired. That would have massive effect on the EU too and that's one of the things holding that back. But if the US would invade Canada or Denmark I'm fairly sure that they would not hesitate, especially not if half the USA would be on their side in the decision.
    - closewith 7mo ago
      Europe is not a megalith, there is no central authority to make any kind of decision, and no Government in the bloc has a mandate to destroy it's citizens quality of life and economy by engaging in armed conflict with the US. This includes Denmark, who would not have fought the US, as much as they tried to put on a show.
      - jacquesm 7mo ago
        Which part of 'and not a shot would be fired' is so hard to understand. There are so many ways to tell another party that maybe they should tend their own house for a bit.
        closewith 7mo ago
        Are you talking about economic warfare? Too many EU nations are completely dependent on the US economically and it only takes one veto. The reality would be lots of denunciations, some token measures, followed by Business As Usual. Ireland, Poland, Germany, Spain aren't sacrificing their entire economies for Greenland.
        vrganj 7mo ago
        I think you're thoroughly misreading the state of affairs here in Europe.
        jacquesm 7mo ago
        GP is in Europe afaik. Which makes some of their comments that much more strange.
        closewith 7mo ago
        And I'm a former soldier and current defence advisor. I suspect you'd be horrified of the realpolitik within the EU today.
input_sh 7mo ago
I'd suggest you read the article or the Bluesky thread.
- closewith 7mo ago
  I did and it is 100% consistent with my comment. Nice sounds and token troop movements, but absolutely no commitment to fight, which simply wouldn't have happened.
  - input_sh 7mo ago
    Okay, how do you know? Let's go through this step-by-step, in your opinion, what's the difference between a real commitment and a not-real commitment that you can point to before there's a meaningful-enough emergency to make you show your cards? What would be a non-token amount of troops?
    - closewith 7mo ago
      There is no appetite for war in Europe, zero. The Danes know it, the French know it, the US knows it. Every analyst knows it. The idea that France was going to engage in armed conflict with the US over Greenland is absurd. The US could probably take Saint Pierre and Miquelon or French Guiana without triggering a French armed response.

kelipso 7mo ago

The US is very good at turning a functional state into anarchy, razed buildings and infrastructure, and lots of death. It doesn’t really matter if the US can pacify Denmark after its population gets decimated. It’s pure posturing to pretend any government in the EU or NATO countries will do anything to resist.

Jensson 7mo ago
> It’s pure posturing to pretend any government in the EU or NATO countries will do anything to resist. Do you really think NATO wouldn't defend a NATO country being invaded? It isn't USA they are fighting against, it is just Trump, and that war wouldn't continue for many days before the congress decides to end it since USA doesn't want it. So I don't doubt NATO would go to defend Denmark there, since they know USA would remove Trump if they did.
- kelipso 7mo ago
  You say NATO defends etc but NATO is fully lead and controlled by the US. Without US permission NATO does not act. And in all likelihood, NATO cannot act without US approval since the US very likely has remote shutdown capabilities for almost every major weapon that NATO countries can deploy. Joining NATO means you show the US all of your military secrets and basically embed your military into the US military structure.