Trump doesn’t care if Americans die, neither do the Republicans who support him.
Honestly, you’ll get more actual traction from this pathetic excuse of a populace if war with Denmark interrupts the availability of Lego.
It also would threaten our supply of cheap but delicious butter cookies. 
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the fact of Denmark being a NATO member mean that the other members of NATO are bound to defend Greenland if we invade, meaning anything but a short decisive American victory? I’m sure the U.S. military is more than a match for all the other NATO members’ militaries combined, but it still wouldn’t be easy-peasy, unless the rest of NATO decides to stand down militarily.
Also, I understand Europe has a number of economic ‘nuclear options’ it could take to cripple the U.S. economy. As well as mark the U.S. as an international pariah on par with North Korea for many years to come. It seems to me that an invasion of Greenland would be absolutely disastrous for us.
Something like the Symbionese Liberation Army, Weather Underground, or FALN is possible.
I do not think there are enough Greenlanders to win, but it would only take a few dozen committed militants to become a major issue.
As to where they might launch attacks from, they could theoretically attack U.S. assets anywhere in the world.
They are are assuredly more able to survive in marginal areas than the US troops who would be sent in to hold them
Sure, the elite US Forces could do a blitzkrieg style take-over, the USA has probably the best fighting force in the world.
But that did not work out so well in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it may go less well in Greenland.
Was it Napolean who said, “never fight a winter war in Europe”? In this case, the scope changes to “never fight a war in the Nordics, regardless of the season”
I’m sure this is almost all that this is about.
I’ve always loved maps (can’t you tell?), but at this moment I wish they never existed, or at least that Trump had never seen one.
It isn’t a matter of right or wrong — we are speculating.
My speculation is that almost all NATO members would fail to live up to their obligations. They are not going to accept the economic and human price of aggressively defending Greenland against the United States.
Sure, I’m not arguing or disagreeing with you; I’m speculating too. It’s entirely possible that the other members of NATO might stand down militarily, and either fail to implement economic sanctions, or implement sanctions that are so toothless as to be mostly symbolic. They might choose to literally ‘pick their battles’, banking on this madness hopefully being mostly over in 3 years (or less).
That outcome might be even worse in the long run, as it would embolden trump even more, and he might continue with increasingly insane, brazen actions until we are embroiled in something even worse than a clash with NATO.
AKA: If we just give Trump the Sudetenland, we’ll have peace in our time.
I think you don’t understand the deep feeling of 80 year old history among Europeans.
I certainly hope NATO would do whatever possible to stop Trump. It won’t be pretty. But he must be stopped.
I would not count on that.
How do Americans feel about the US capturing Maduro?
Overall, about 36% of adults approved of the operation and 39% opposed it, the surveys found. About 25% said they were unsure how they felt about the strike.
Mind you, that opinion on Venezuela was not influenced by trade or over factors affecting Americans, the Greenland issue, with all the factors in, is not likely to change public opinion to become supportive of Trump now.
Did you read any of my posts in this thread besides the latest one? I wasn’t saying that was the most likely outcome, just allowing, in response to PhillyGuy’s speculation, that it was a possible one.
I’ve seen my first Facebook post from a MAGA “friend” justifying taking Greenland:
Summary
For those confused about Greenland. This is a long (but somehow brief) synopsis of why. Forget your hate for a man for a few minutes, and remember your love of America.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗜𝘀 𝗥𝗲-𝗔𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮 𝗜𝘀 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴.
𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗣𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗜𝘀 𝗔𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀.
If You Think This Is About Greenland, You’re Already Behind.
“𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐬.”
That sounds reasonable.
It sounds polite.
And it completely ignores 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬.
𝐀 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬:
You can read 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐬 that repeat the same talking points without ever giving you the full picture.
Or you can spend 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 and actually understand what’s happening.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬.
This post is only for 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐲𝐨𝐮.
If you are prone to getting your feelings hurt, do not read this post. On second thought, if you are prone to getting your feelings hurt, perhaps you should read this, 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬, and 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲.
Before reacting, ask yourself one question honestly:
𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭?
At this moment, China’s leader, 𝐗𝐢 𝐉𝐢𝐧𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠, and Russia’s leader, 𝐕𝐥𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐫 𝐏𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧, are likely having daily conversations, some serious and some humorous, as they watch America’s landscape and quietly wonder how the United States ever became a superpower, or how it managed to keep that position for so long.
But I’ll come back to that.
Let’s focus on 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝.
What 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 has done is say out loud what leaders have whispered for decades:
𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤, and the free world has grown comfortable with that.
𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐎 𝐈𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈𝐭 𝐔𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐞 — 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐊𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐈𝐭
NATO was built at a time when Europe was strong, disciplined, and serious about defending itself. Leadership still remembered the consequences of World Wars I and II. Leaders who understood how global conflict begins, not just how it ends.
That is no longer the case.
Many NATO countries have:
𝐂𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠
𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥
𝐀𝐝𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞
𝐄𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐟𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦
Then they look to America and say,
“You’ll cover us, right?”
𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩.
𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲.
𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐲 — 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲?
Let’s stop pretending.
An ally is not someone who smiles while you fund them
and 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐬.
An ally is not a country that talks about shared values while refusing to defend itself.
A real ally:
𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐬
𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞
𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞, not just when it’s convenient
Many of our so-called allies no longer meet that standard.
They weakened their militaries, outsourced their security to the United States, adopted policies that hollowed out their nations, and then demanded protection while criticizing the very country that makes their survival possible.
𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞.
𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲.
There is another uncomfortable truth that needs to be said.
𝐀𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐲 𝐢𝐭.
Liberalism imagines an ally as an unconditional friend, someone obligated to support you no matter the cost, no matter the imbalance, no matter who is doing the sacrificing.
𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐲.
𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐞.
Real allies are sovereign nations that put their own countries first.
They become allies only when cooperation is mutually beneficial.
That is precisely why liberals attacked 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩.
Trump understood something they refuse to accept: alliances are not built on emotion, gratitude, or moral signaling. They are built on 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭.
When the United States insisted that NATO countries step up, pay their share, and take responsibility for their own defense, the response was not cooperation.
It was outrage.
It was criticism.
It was resentment.
That reaction alone revealed the truth.
𝐀𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐰𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭.
𝐀𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧’𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭.
That reaction was not the behavior of an ally.
𝐈𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝.
𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐝𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫.
Now ask yourself an honest question first:
If the United States announced tomorrow that it would no longer defend Canada, how long do you think Canada would last?
Russia would be thrilled.
It would immediately abandon fighting hardened warriors in Ukraine and turn its attention to a far easier, softer, and far more valuable target.
Canada.
How long do you honestly think Canada would survive without the protection of the United States?
A week?
A day?
I’m guessing surrender within 24 hours.
And yet Canada feels completely free to speak ill of the United States and its leadership.
Why?
Because they know something they rarely admit out loud:
𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐚 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫.
Their freedom to criticize us exists precisely because we protect them.
Think about that.
Worse, many of these governments are now controlled by liberal ideology, and I’m not going to sugarcoat this.
Liberalism is dangerous on a global scale because it is emotional, unserious, and unprepared for a world that exploits weakness. It imagines a safe world, somewhere between the matrix and Disneyland, that does not exist, then crushes its own people to enforce that fantasy.
In parts of Europe, the UK, and Australia:
People are fined or arrested for speech
Governments decide which opinions are acceptable
Dissent is treated like a crime
That is not freedom.
And that is not the behavior of an ally.
When governments silence citizens, disarm them, and criminalize disagreement, they have already abandoned the values America was built on. At that point, calling them an “ally” is just a word.
Now ask yourself honestly:
Do Russia or China allow uncontrolled borders?
Do they accept millions of unvetted people from hundreds of countries?
Do they tolerate dissent when power is threatened?
No.
China is imprisoning millions of Uyghurs.
Russia has killed over a million Ukrainians, people who share their own bloodline.
China has nearly doubled its military spending, built the world’s largest navy, and developed missile technology the United States cannot yet fully defend against. It has also purchased land across the globe to install military infrastructure.
Those missiles are not decorative.
They are not theoretical.
And they already have targets.
Meanwhile, liberal leaders in the West pretend the world is not dangerous, while relying on American strength to shield them from the consequences of their delusions.
That illusion exists only because the United States is still strong. And let’s be perfectly clear: the United States is strong again because Donald Trump made it so.
The very threats outlined in this post were ignored by the Biden administration and remain ignored today because they are not understood by liberal socialist Democrat leaders.
Can you even imagine facing this threat under the leadership of Kamala Harris?
She was given one of the most basic responsibilities of any sovereign nation: protecting the border. Her response was to say she would “look into the root cause.”
While liberals examined the “root cause,” Russia invaded Ukraine.
China built hypersonic missiles.
China purchased land around the globe.
China nearly doubled the size of its military.
All of this happened while Western leaders debated theories.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐇𝐚𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐃𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞
This isn’t complicated. And it won’t be resolved by discussing root causes while throwing childish temper tantrums and attacking our own federal government from within.
In the end, the world will follow one of two systems:
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬
𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐚
𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐝 𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬.
Europe cannot defend itself without us.
Canada cannot defend itself without us.
Australia cannot defend itself without us.
If America falls, freedom does not survive somewhere else.
It collapses everywhere.
And NATO knows this.
𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐬 𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐨𝐦 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞
This is not about planting a flag or “buying land” for future profit.
Greenland occupies one of the most critical defense positions on the planet.
It is a gateway to North America.
Russia and China now possess missile technology that travels faster than the systems our current defenses were built to stop.
Greenland is essential for early detection and interception before those threats reach American cities.
NATO understands this.
Denmark understands this.
Military planners understand this.
𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬, 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐞-𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 — 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐃𝐨𝐦𝐞 — 𝐨𝐧 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐰𝐧.
𝐖𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐥𝐚𝐰.
𝐀 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐞, 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞.
So ask yourself:
If NATO truly stands with the United States, why oppose America protecting itself?
They know what’s at stake for both the United States and the rest of the free world, yet they send military forces to Greenland as a signal of opposition before negotiations even begin.
𝐈𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲?
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐅𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐎
Here is the truth they will not say out loud:
They fear that once America fully secures North America, we won’t need them anymore.
And that fear isn’t irrational.
𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐝, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐎.
The harsh reality is this: under its current leadership and border policies, NATO has become more of a burden than an ally.
America has already increased military spending sharply, from roughly 3% of GDP toward 5%.
That alone tells you how serious the threat picture looks behind closed doors.
At some point, it makes sense to stop paying for countries that refuse to pay for themselves.
That does not mean abandoning allies.
It means redefining responsibility.
We can still sell them equipment.
We can still stand with them if Russia or China attacks.
But we should not continue writing blank checks to governments that will not defend themselves.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐭 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐞
While liberal Democrats play childish power games in the United States, they encourage people to put their bodies and lives on the line to protect… what, exactly?
They are not protecting freedom.
They are not protecting the rule of law.
They are not protecting the Constitution.
They are not protecting national sovereignty.
They are not protecting the values that built this country.
𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫.
Their obsession with division has blinded them to the real danger surrounding us. Law degrees and political science credentials have not given them wisdom. They have not given them perspective.
Their immaturity in power comes at the cost of ignorance and historical amnesia.
Does anyone remember what World War I and World War II were actually about?
It’s in the name.
World war is about global dominance.
World War III is approaching, and instead of preparing, Democrats create internal chaos and illusions of safety.
When reality hits, they will stand there stunned, asking what happened, because they never saw it coming.
𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐈𝐬 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐃𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠
This is not aggression.
It is preparation.
Trump and his cabinet understand something many refuse to accept:
𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭, 𝐨𝐫 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠.
Greenland is not about control.
It is about survival in a world that has grown hostile again.
This isn’t comforting.
It isn’t polite.
And it won’t make everyone feel good.
But people over 55 understand this instinctively.
We’ve seen what happens when weakness is mistaken for virtue.
Reality does not care about feelings.
𝐈𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡.
I read it. It’s insane.
Absolutely wackadoodle.
And that’s one of a million things that separates you from MAGAs.
What a blow hard. Unfriend this person.
(I read about half, and lost interest about the time he was circling)
This man wants to invade and annex Canada next. Greenland is just Poland for him.
Holy shit that’s long. Does he acknowledge anywhere that we already have a military base there, and have a pre-existing treaty allowing us to build more?
Wow, a lot to unpack there. A couple thoughts in reply…
Sure, defying our NATO allies and possibly going to war with them to take possession of an arguably strategic piece of land, becoming an international pariah in the process, makes us stronger, not much weaker. Sure. America did everything by ourselves in WWII right? We didn’t bother getting bogged down with stupid weaker allies. That is what happened, right?
In reality, I’m sure Russia and China are fervently hoping that we do invade Greenland.
Also, we already have a long-term agreement to establish and expand upon military bases on Greenland, so there is absolutely no military or strategic reason to take over the country as an American possession (other than, of course, to steal their mineral resources).