• teuniac_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    5 days ago

    This isn’t about defending Greenland militarily, but about increasing the diplomatic cost to the US to use any force. That’s why other European countries are also sending a few troops.

    • meme_historian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      The political message from Europe has to be clear and forceful: If you touch Greenland, that will be the end of US military bases on the European continent (including Ramstein). Also economic sanctions and asset freezes/seizures for the Trump clan and key members of the administration.

      Will that hurt europe? Will it erode our security guarantees against Russia? Yeah a lot.

      But rather be on clear terms now and plan accordingly, than remaining Trumps bitch and very likely be let down anyways when push comes to shove

      • brachiosaurus@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        The political message from Europe has to be clear and forceful: If you touch Greenland, that will be the end of US military bases on the European continent (including Ramstein).

        Nobody actually said that, there’s an US military base in greenland already.

        • meme_historian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          4 days ago

          Yeah but that’s the point. Either you run your bases in cooperation with the host countries, or your established military presence becomes too great of a threat to the sovereignty of the host country to be allowed to continue

      • Cybersteel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 days ago

        But while Europe is busy with Greenland, at the home front the door is wide open, unprotected from the threats from the east.

        • Lysol@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 days ago

          That’s a thing they’re of course considering. European nationa obviously won’t send 100 000 troops to Greenland.

        • bthest@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          You have to meet the enemy where they land. Trump getting Denmark without a fight is same as Russia getting it without a fight.

    • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s so unfair, isn’t it? People are dying because of Trump. People are fearing for their safety because of Trump. People in countries outside the Untied States are fearing for our national security because of Trump. And he rightfully should be in prison.

  • BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    I’m so SICK! Of people Not letting Pedophiles get WHATEVER they Want! If Trump wants Greenland just GIVE It to Him like it was a Pregnant 13 Year old Girl! WOMAN!

  • sunbytes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    4 days ago

    What if it’s all a big misdirect and Trump invades Denmark while the army is away.

    THINK ABOUT IT

    /s

  • switcheroo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    5 days ago

    The orange cancer don’t care. It’s not like HIS LIFE is on the line. He’d send all of the troops, killing many of them and our once allies, just to assuage his fucking ego.

    Disgusting disgraceful filth.

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Christ, the man looks like a younger, buffer, Dolph Lundgren. I want to see him and Hegseth fight hand-to-hand now.

    • VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Hegseth has to be a master of drunken boxing

      Not like any actual fighting style, just years of experience trying to punch people outside of bars

    • bthest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      I don’t know much about Thule but the area around the base is probably too inhospitable to keep troops around it. Likewise it’s too remote for fascist troops within the base to threaten the populated areas in the south.

  • Pondis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Maybe it’s 12D chess! Trump threatens Greenland, NATO sends troop out of Europe to defend it, now Europe is less defended!

  • gustofwind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    5 days ago

    We shouldn’t kid ourselves. There is no realistic way to defend Greenland with actual arms against America.

    It could cause world war 3

    • assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      This is the mentality they are banking on, it’s the Russian mentality since time immemorial that’s kept Europe in the cuck chair for so long. “Yes but if we respond, they might escalate things!”

      Gotta tell you, as a Canadian I don’t love the concept of the US having even more leverage over our already tenuous logistical connection to European allies. Keeping the Atlantic un-dominated is important for us.

      • gustofwind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 days ago

        Well the other unfortunate reality is America simply does possess the military equipment, experience, and expertise to destroy any country in conventional war, except China I suppose.

        Unless people plan on resorting to nukes Europeans will have to rely on the American military resisting Trump or letting him take Greenland and retaliating with dramatic economic sanctions and boycotts + closing ties with China

        • assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 days ago

          Yes the US wins any individual conventional conflict for sure. But putting up a resistance force on Greenland could dissuade the US from trying, as even military win may prove to be a loss, especially if the rest of NATO can take some Americans with them when Greenland falls.

          Simply pulling out of Greenland is a non-option, even if the US would win the battle for Greenland.

          • GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 days ago

            Why does everyone think the USA could win any war?

            They haven’t won a war in decades and have lost against much much weaker countries, like Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan. All lost, embarrassingly.

            If anything, the track record shows that the USA are really terrible at conventional wars and are only good at “hit and run” operations, like the one on Venezuela.

            Can the USA take Greenland overnight? If not, it will be bloody war with no certainty of winning.

    • GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 days ago

      Tell me about how the mighty USA with their mighty military won the war against much, much weaker militaries, like Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan. Oh wait, they lost all of those…

      Hmm, do you know when the USA last won a war without their EU allies’ help? I don’t.

      I do remember though when a Swedish diesel sub bypassed all their defenses and “sunk” the US carrier.

      Or that time when Netherlands sub “sunk” one.

      Or that time when Australia “sunk” one.

      Or that time when Canada “sunk” one.

      Americunts can’t win a war without their EU allies because the EU are the ones with successful strategies, like how to bypass the “most advanced navy” defenses and sink their most precious carriers.

      Americunts are only good at drive bys and hit and run attacks, like the one in Venezuela, they don’t know how to fight a proper war, as proven by their track record.

      If they can’t take Greenland overnight, it will cost them very dearly to go to war with the EU, with no certainty of winning.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      In a direct confrontation, the US would walk over them as if they aren’t there. That’s why you don’t do that, you apply guerilla tactics. That’s why a bunch of basically goat herders in Afghanistan, of all places, managed to beat the Russians and the Americans.

      Let there be no doubt, the US got its ass handed there, and Afghanistan is a good part of the reasons why the USSR folded.

      I assume the Danish generals know this and likely have prepared something similar, but now with highly trained and well equipped soldiers.

      I think an invasion of Greenland would finish the US, especially since the Danes have a lot of experience in how to fight winter conditions while the US not so much.

      I think something similar applies as well in, for example, Mexico. There are boat loads of highly (US military) trained criminals over there with a lot of experience in sending messages. Once the hundredth soldier was found dangling from a bridge, or cut up in a salad, it might become hard to explain to Maga base why really is worth it.

      The US is awesome at invading. It absolutely sucks at keeping anything

        • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 days ago

          Peace for our time" was a declaration made by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in his 30 September 1938 remarks in London concerning the Munich Agreement and the subsequent Anglo-German Declaration.[1] The phrase echoed Benjamin Disraeli, who, upon returning from the Congress of Berlin in 1878, had stated, “Lord Salisbury and myself have brought you back peace — but a peace I hope with honour.” The phrase is primarily remembered for its bitter ironic value since less than a year after the agreement, Germany’s invasion of Poland began World War II.

          The Danish Foreign minister mentioned Chamberlain 3-4 times today after the meeting at the white house, clearly stating that he was not that and he could not promise peace

        • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 days ago

          Whoosh.

          Parent’s point is that there will not be any long-lived peace trying to appease fascists. It only buys a little time, and lets them creep further and further…

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 days ago

      There is no realistic way to defend Greenland with actual arms against America.

      Spoken like someone who hasn’t studied any US military history more recent than the 1940’s.

      • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 days ago

        It’s crazy how many people insist the US is this unbeatable force that has already doomed everyone and I invincible.

        Bro the gigant has feet made of mud.

        • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 days ago

          The Vietnamese beat us with a few guns, tunnels, and booby traps.

          And we napalmed the whole-ass jungle.

          Sure, the US can bomb the shit out of Greenland, but that’s not the same as ‘winning’, and this is especially true if we alienate all of our allies in the process.

    • hatsa122@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 days ago

      In your average conflict this might very much be true, but this is the artic, its a completely different scenario. Ive been hearing a few military experts talk about how much complicated are simple things like keeping ur vehicles moving because of the low temps and how hard would be the logistic to simply maintain control on the ground.

      EU will never beat the US air superiority, but alas. Invading Greenland is the end of NATO and most likely will trigger WW3

    • demonsword@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      This is obviously unpopular around here, but yeah, you’re mostly right. At the end of the day, this is all posturing. The most realistic scenario is Denmark folding, they’ll receive some token compensation for this, and then the land changes hands.