I disagree with one note: the US taking Greenland by force would be the end of NATO. Certainly Denmark would pull out. Worse, I think Trump wants NATO to fold up.
I think most of Europe would pull out of NATO: certainly the French and the Scandinavians. The US is not an ally when they attack you: NATO becomes a contradiction in terms.
I am less sure where my own country, the UK, would stand. We seem to have our tongue permanently and firmly stuck up American ass, no matter how smelly and distasteful. We grimace and call it realpolitik.
If the UK did partially or wholly disengage, there would be some serious decisions ahead about hosting US nuclear weapons on UK soil, AUKUS and the five eyes intelligence sharing arrangement. We have already stopped sharing some Russian humint with the Americans for fear it will be passed straight to the Kremlin and it is a matter of public record that we have stopped sharing Caribbean intelligence as our government lawyers fear we would be aiding American war crimes.
"On the one hand, Trump taking Greenland won’t prompt NATO to fold overnight just as invading Ukraine hasn’t left Russia completely isolated." I do not see the logic in your parallel, but it sadly sends a wrong signal, as if business could go on after another major blow to the security system in Europe from one of the great powers. It would indeed greatly accelerate European governments and the European Union's current look for other options (too bad if some still believe it has not started). True, new options cannot be realized overnight, especially when dealing with 27 nations rather than 50 states, but one should not take post WWII Europe's penchant for diplomacy and multilateralism (rather than force and imperialism) for total and irremediable weakness.
You underestimate the effects of the US annexing Greenland by force. I can guarantee that the entire Nordic region would not just mistrust the US after such aggression (as it does now, on the basis of threats alone). You would become our enemy for the foreseeable.
With the Nordics recategorising the US as an enemy, it is likely that the Baltics would follow. The remaining JEF partners, the UK and the Netherlands, would likely come to the same conclusion. Poland would also take note. And it would be unwise to discount the relationship between Ukraine and the JEF nations, who have supported Ukraine without hesitation.
You are on track to becoming nearly as hated as Russia is by the above nations, on the basis of betrayal.
And as a Danish parliamentarian pointed out yesterday on CNN, America has steadily cut back its base presence in Greenland from 30 to a single base. Don Junior will change that, of course. there will be a lot of new crypto bases installed in Greenland when Trump takes it over.
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”
Treaties aren’t just international agreements. They’re constitutional obligations. The 1916 treaty with Denmark - ratified by the Senate - is the supreme law of the land, equal in standing to the Constitution itself.
So when Miller articulates “iron laws” that supersede treaty obligations, when Katie tweets “SOON,” when the administration pursues seizure of territory we formally renounced claims to - they’re not just violating international norms. They’re violating the Constitution.
The True Cost of Greenland. "Privately, they may be wondering about what would happen if the American troops based on their soil turn against them." We only need to look at how the current American administration is using it's own troops against it's own population on it's own American soil to see the outcome. All the hallmarks of authoritarianism are on display in the United States. Greenland will not escape the grasp of authoritarianism. Chaos. Propaganda. Imperialism. Oligarchical Privatization. Economic Uncertainty. Disruption of World Order. Aversion of the Rule of Law. And so much more.
The least that can be done would be for NATO's European members to station a long-term garrison in Greenland. That way, the Trump Regime would look silly at best to attempt any kind of annexation.
Last night Rachel Maddow made the case for Emperor Cheeto’s foreign policy She went through all the excuses that have been raised Cheeto wants to put up the middle finger to a Nobel laureate; it’s the cocaine/fentanyl; it’s broadening campaign support from his wealthy cronies in the oil industry or at Koch Industries; it’s to support Big Oil in order to diminish green initiatives and oppose the ideas of global warming; it’s the poor quality Venezuelan oil or tar/asphalt; it’s to underscore his own “rigged” 2020 election claims by pointing to Maduro’s Venezuelan rigged elections to support election denialism; it’s to serve as a distraction to domestic inadequacies of inflation, ACA subsidies, ICE raids, losses in court, the Epstein files
All of these are plausible but with Paul Ryckoff as her guest (https://bit.ly/4971Mcw at 32minutes) Maddow makes the point that Cheeto wants to dominate the Western Hemisphere and use the powerful US military to achieve his goal But more than that Cheeto wants to show that he alone is in control of the military and get them used to following his unconstitutional use of the them Sure they won’t be asked to shoot peaceful demonstrators But what about just deploying them for the 2026 midterm elections to intimidate voters What would be so wrong with that?
If you take the description of how America has effected its influence by creating An alliance through economic and political cooperation rather than brute force You can look at the US competition with China And see that China is operating loosely within the same parameters or the same business model if you would have it through economic and political cooperation and coercion but not directly by brute force as Russia is doing.
If America moves away from this model entirely and starts adopting more of the Russian model of ruling by brute force and subjugation, will could see China have no choice but to do the same. The consequence is massive, global destabilization.
All of the sudden the world gets to be a very, very dangerous place. One day, we may all look back on this and say this was the “Sophie, don’t die moment”.
Nobody is talking about taking Greenland by force. But why should America pay for the protection of Greenland and the Arctic? Maybe Denmark should do its job and protect the arctic. Maybe Greenlanders should protect their own waters?
And to cite Denmark's contribution to the GWOT/Ira/Afghanistan is a joke, it was symbolic as was every other country's contribution, it was cover for the US to wage its campaign.
I disagree with one note: the US taking Greenland by force would be the end of NATO. Certainly Denmark would pull out. Worse, I think Trump wants NATO to fold up.
Trump definitely couldn’t care less about NATO.
I think most of Europe would pull out of NATO: certainly the French and the Scandinavians. The US is not an ally when they attack you: NATO becomes a contradiction in terms.
I am less sure where my own country, the UK, would stand. We seem to have our tongue permanently and firmly stuck up American ass, no matter how smelly and distasteful. We grimace and call it realpolitik.
If the UK did partially or wholly disengage, there would be some serious decisions ahead about hosting US nuclear weapons on UK soil, AUKUS and the five eyes intelligence sharing arrangement. We have already stopped sharing some Russian humint with the Americans for fear it will be passed straight to the Kremlin and it is a matter of public record that we have stopped sharing Caribbean intelligence as our government lawyers fear we would be aiding American war crimes.
"On the one hand, Trump taking Greenland won’t prompt NATO to fold overnight just as invading Ukraine hasn’t left Russia completely isolated." I do not see the logic in your parallel, but it sadly sends a wrong signal, as if business could go on after another major blow to the security system in Europe from one of the great powers. It would indeed greatly accelerate European governments and the European Union's current look for other options (too bad if some still believe it has not started). True, new options cannot be realized overnight, especially when dealing with 27 nations rather than 50 states, but one should not take post WWII Europe's penchant for diplomacy and multilateralism (rather than force and imperialism) for total and irremediable weakness.
You underestimate the effects of the US annexing Greenland by force. I can guarantee that the entire Nordic region would not just mistrust the US after such aggression (as it does now, on the basis of threats alone). You would become our enemy for the foreseeable.
With the Nordics recategorising the US as an enemy, it is likely that the Baltics would follow. The remaining JEF partners, the UK and the Netherlands, would likely come to the same conclusion. Poland would also take note. And it would be unwise to discount the relationship between Ukraine and the JEF nations, who have supported Ukraine without hesitation.
You are on track to becoming nearly as hated as Russia is by the above nations, on the basis of betrayal.
And as a Danish parliamentarian pointed out yesterday on CNN, America has steadily cut back its base presence in Greenland from 30 to a single base. Don Junior will change that, of course. there will be a lot of new crypto bases installed in Greenland when Trump takes it over.
Article VI, Clause 2. The Supremacy Clause.
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”
Treaties aren’t just international agreements. They’re constitutional obligations. The 1916 treaty with Denmark - ratified by the Senate - is the supreme law of the land, equal in standing to the Constitution itself.
So when Miller articulates “iron laws” that supersede treaty obligations, when Katie tweets “SOON,” when the administration pursues seizure of territory we formally renounced claims to - they’re not just violating international norms. They’re violating the Constitution.
The True Cost of Greenland. "Privately, they may be wondering about what would happen if the American troops based on their soil turn against them." We only need to look at how the current American administration is using it's own troops against it's own population on it's own American soil to see the outcome. All the hallmarks of authoritarianism are on display in the United States. Greenland will not escape the grasp of authoritarianism. Chaos. Propaganda. Imperialism. Oligarchical Privatization. Economic Uncertainty. Disruption of World Order. Aversion of the Rule of Law. And so much more.
https://open.substack.com/pub/captainfransentim/p/greenland-is-the-line-cross-it-and?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&shareImageVariant=overlay&r=5jmmex
The least that can be done would be for NATO's European members to station a long-term garrison in Greenland. That way, the Trump Regime would look silly at best to attempt any kind of annexation.
Enlightened self-interest trumps self-interested thuggery. Sooner or later, resistance humbles the bullies.
Cheeto And Control Of The Military
Last night Rachel Maddow made the case for Emperor Cheeto’s foreign policy She went through all the excuses that have been raised Cheeto wants to put up the middle finger to a Nobel laureate; it’s the cocaine/fentanyl; it’s broadening campaign support from his wealthy cronies in the oil industry or at Koch Industries; it’s to support Big Oil in order to diminish green initiatives and oppose the ideas of global warming; it’s the poor quality Venezuelan oil or tar/asphalt; it’s to underscore his own “rigged” 2020 election claims by pointing to Maduro’s Venezuelan rigged elections to support election denialism; it’s to serve as a distraction to domestic inadequacies of inflation, ACA subsidies, ICE raids, losses in court, the Epstein files
All of these are plausible but with Paul Ryckoff as her guest (https://bit.ly/4971Mcw at 32minutes) Maddow makes the point that Cheeto wants to dominate the Western Hemisphere and use the powerful US military to achieve his goal But more than that Cheeto wants to show that he alone is in control of the military and get them used to following his unconstitutional use of the them Sure they won’t be asked to shoot peaceful demonstrators But what about just deploying them for the 2026 midterm elections to intimidate voters What would be so wrong with that?
If you take the description of how America has effected its influence by creating An alliance through economic and political cooperation rather than brute force You can look at the US competition with China And see that China is operating loosely within the same parameters or the same business model if you would have it through economic and political cooperation and coercion but not directly by brute force as Russia is doing.
If America moves away from this model entirely and starts adopting more of the Russian model of ruling by brute force and subjugation, will could see China have no choice but to do the same. The consequence is massive, global destabilization.
All of the sudden the world gets to be a very, very dangerous place. One day, we may all look back on this and say this was the “Sophie, don’t die moment”.
Won't happen
Nobody is talking about taking Greenland by force. But why should America pay for the protection of Greenland and the Arctic? Maybe Denmark should do its job and protect the arctic. Maybe Greenlanders should protect their own waters?
And to cite Denmark's contribution to the GWOT/Ira/Afghanistan is a joke, it was symbolic as was every other country's contribution, it was cover for the US to wage its campaign.