3 ms·
Denmark is completely alone and helpless against the US. Other EU nations would protest, but none would enter armed conflict.
by 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 agoI 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 agoI 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 agoEurope 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 agoEurope 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 agoWhich 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 agoAre 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 agoI think you're thoroughly misreading the state of affairs here in Europe.
- jacquesm 7mo agoGP is in Europe afaik. Which makes some of their comments that much more strange.
- closewith 7mo agoAnd I'm a former soldier and current defence advisor. I suspect you'd be horrified of the realpolitik within the EU today.
- jacquesm 7mo agoI know who you are, no worries. As for the realpolitik within the EU, I'm close enough to the fire that I can see the slow changing trends and I have some hope that once Orban is dealt with we'll see some serious improvements in how the EU is conducting day-to-day business in times of crisis. We simply were unprepared for countries backsliding due to out-of-EU influence. But that cat is out of the bag and now we need to deal with it without alienating the rest of the Hungarian population.
- input_sh 7mo agoI'd suggest you read the article or the Bluesky thread.
- closewith 7mo agoI 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 agoOkay, 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 agoThere 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.