I’m consternated that Björk has chosen this moment to campaign for Greenland’s independence. What could she be thinking? Greenland needs Denmark to protect it from Trump. Incredibly poor timing.
My thoughts, exactly.
When I saw the news I murmured “Timing, Bjork, Timing!”.
Even Donald Trump is not dumb enough to fall for that.
I myself thought of posting earlier that Greenland should distance itself from Denmark on grounds that Denmark will not adopt the needed we-shall-never-surrender threat.
Denmark has conscription. Greenland does not. Denmark is not going to accept continuing casualties to help Greenlanders unwilling to make the same sacrifice. And the rest of NATO cannot credibly threaten to fight the U.S. over Greenland either.
Trump wants to claim he ended the forever wars. Greenland can credibly threaten a drawn out low level insurgency. The rest of NATO will not make that threat.
As to whether you can credibly run an insurgency against the U.S. when you have 57,000 people, what can be credibly threatened is something more like a Symbionese Liberation Army of the Arctic than the Vietcong. But it seems possible to me.
If the Greenlanders won’t even threaten that, they may be saved by the proposed U.S. congressional resolution I mentioned before. But Denmark and NATO are not the salvation.
Trump doesn’t give a flying eff about anyone except himself, so I doubt he’d even pause to think about that. You know that bit in Blackadder Goes Forth where Field Marshall Haig is sweeping up toy soldiers with his dustpan and brush? That’s Trump’s attitude, of that I’m sure.
NATO may not be able to stop the US from taking over Greenland, but we can make the US face the fact that they’re making a choice to destroy NATO in order to take Greenland.
Position a few non-US NATO naval assets on the most likely routes the US would take to invade Greenland, and make it clear that they will fire on any military force that appears to be attempting an invasion. And then actually do that.
The US will have a choice to make: Give up their invasion plans, or fire on those NATO ships before launching their invasion.
Yes, this will suck, but at least we’ll all know where we really stand.
I doubt they would kill them. But even if they just closed down the bases it would be a huge blow to US global military capability. Germany in particular is loaded with US Army and Air Force bases (just think how key Rammstein has been to US operations in the Middle East). There are also a half dozen important US air bases in the UK.
Yes, and the Reichsbürger movement (something equivalent to the sovereign citizens known from a neighboring thread) claims that Germany is not a sovereign state, thus they are not subject to our rules. When the German government fails to act on this they will interpret it as proof of their stance. And they will declare their “independence” again. Fascists the world over have many similarities, starting with stupidity, bad taste, morosity and racism. But the list is much longer.
The problem is that Germany will not bomb or even just close or block US air bases in Germany. This is even more unthinkable than the US invading Greenland. It will simply not happen. That is not what the Bundeswehr (German Army) is about.
It’s just Human Behavior I guess.
If we’re seriously contemplating scenarios where NATO allies are firing on one another, NATO is dead. At least a NATO with the United States. Didn’t Germany just say they were going to lead the effort to defend Ukraine? I think Europeans are seriously looking at a future without the United States as an ally.
When I think of the original purpose of NATO… “To keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down…” Harrumph.
There was a meme on reddit a while back. Germans: Just so we’re clear, you want us to build a giant army, march across Poland, and fight Russia?
Then NATO died in 1974.
The Republic of Cyprus was never a member of NATO.
Edited to Add - Never mind, I see you mean NATO forces firing on one another. There was some active combat between Greek and Turkish forces. I still feel like this is a bit of a difference scenario.
There’s definitely, definitely, definitely no logic.
If the US invades Greenland? I could certainly see them blocking them for the duration of any hostilities or occupation if they don’t want to be seen to be facilitating an attack on (what is currently considered) Danish territory.
I don’t see how they could do that. I have seen some bases (from the outside, and only partially, they are biiiiiiig) and remember when they were blocked during protests against Pershing 2 deployment and similar events back in the '80s. It was a nuisance for the German police, not for the US troops. Whatever their mission was, they carried on.
Even if the police and the Bundeswehr were on the side of the blockaders this time, if the USA invades Greenland by force it will have gone full rogue, and if the gloves, moral and decency are off, then Germans stand no chance. It would be like Desert Storm. The only weapon Germans could perhaps use effectively against the USA would be submarines. If at all. But they make no sense against the air bases.
Mad King Donald’s latest idea is to spend $6 billion on bribes.
U.S. officials have discussed sending lump sum payments to Greenlanders as part of a bid to convince them to secede from Denmark and potentially join the United States, according to four sources familiar with the matter.
While the exact dollar figure and logistics of any payment are unclear, U.S. officials, including White House aides, have discussed figures ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per person, said two of the sources, who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Memo to the people of Greenland; demand cash in full up front.
Meanwhile, apparently the admin believes in climate change now.
Good news out today:
From the Reuters articles recently posted by Smapti:
Denmark’s annual contribution to Greenland comes to approximately US$10,000 per Greenlander. No Greenlander should expect that to continue after they become a U.S. territory. So even US$100,000 cash in advance is worse than their current deal, and the low end quoted above is a joke.
US$100,000 per Greenlander comes to about US$5.65 billion.
Some supposed experts say a fairer price would be in the trillions:
CNBC: If it were for sale, it could cost trillions
I say personally that my dignity is not for sale at any price. I hope and think most Greenlanders agree.
Reporter: What did you do with the money?
Greenlander: We bought guns.
If I were a Greenlander, I’d take the money and say, ‘Thank you very much. No.’