Indeed. A US attack on a NATO member would in no way be minor. It would be the end of NATO, full stop. Europe isn’t going to shrug its shoulders, pretend that it didn’t happen and go about business as usual. It will cause an irreversible schism between the US and Europe that the US handing it back in 2029 with an “oops, sorry about that” isn’t going to fix.
That the US attacking a fellow NATO nation to seize its territory by force is something that is seriously being discussed is frankly absolutely fucking insane.
Well, Trump never made his disdain of NATO a secret; the narrative of “we’re subsidizing Europe, they need to pull their weight” regardless of whether that’s true or not. Remember, Trump’s basic m.o. is if you aren’t screwing someone over, you’re the one getting screwed. Some pundits even suggest that it would be better for Europe to be independent of American foreign policy, albeit by far less traumatic means.
This makes some sense. Resources are limited, so if you are fighting one war, there is more left over for another.
But:
– Kharg Island is tropical. The resources needed to fight Iran, such as desert-trained troops, do not greatly overlap those needed to grab Greenland.
– In 1941, Japan, bogged down in China, attacked the U.S. Isn’t Trump at least as crazy?
I’ll allow that Trump is a little less likely to launch an arctic adventure while fighting Iran. However, we are getting towards the part of the year – late summer – when risk to Greenland goes up.
I do not know how far to push my prediction here. I can say – the arguments against the risk to Greenland being high are weak.
That’s a good example of fighting two wars with different stuff. The Navy resources committed to attacking the US wouldn’t have had much effect in the war with China. That was mostly an Army thing.
Japan before and into World War II made Trump’s USA look like Switzerland in terms of capable governance and efficiency of the apparatus of state. It is difficult to overstate how dysfunctional their government was. It’s remarkable they were able to conduct a theatre-level war at all.
The context of my comment was the potential likelihood of Canada closing all border crossings with the U.S. if the U.S. were to conduct an unprovoked military invasion of Greenland.
And thanks to Trump, relations between our two countries are so poor that Canada cancelled plans for a celebratory grand opening of the new bridge.
First off, construction on the bridge in question was started years ago.
Secondly, the U.S. has so far not taken any overt hostile action against Greenland (or Canada). But if it did take action against Greenland, the proverbial shit would hit the fan.
And you can close off a border crossing all but instantaneously. Give the order; stop permitting all crossings. That’s it. (You can also reopen it just as fast.)
Yes, closing the border would be highly disruptive. But so is a potential military invasion.