2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[Retired AF Guy]

Two Danish AF C-130Js (C/S DAF5438 and DAF5347) in the air this evening heading west. DAF5438 landed in Iceland a couple hours ago and just took off, again heading west. DAF5437 in trail, just south-east Of Iceland.


View attachment 97834

Source: ADS-B Exchange

Edit: Add source

If anyone is interested, DAF5347 is just descending into NUUK, which probably means DAF5348 has already landed. What they were carrying; who knows? But most likely personal/equipment related to the exercises the Danish Armed Forces have previously announced and mentioned earlier in this thread.

Edit. Fixed C/S number.

 

[brihard]

Ummm, so apparently Thule AFB (USAF) is still operating in Greenland under a new name? Pituffik now.

That’s a pretty big detail to have missed, Rick. Yes, US Space Force still has a presence in Greenland, and I’m sure any reasonably articulated security threat requiring basing rights to address would see that accepted as an act of solidarity among NATO allies… The very ongoing existence of Pituffik shows it already is.

If I was a little devil standing on Trump's shoulder I would say this
"Dude, people cheered your sacking of Maduro, but this Greenland business is way past funny or tolerable. Please, please, make a sweet ass deal with Greenland, guaranteeing their sovereignty,

Greenland is already sovereign.

taking the burden off Denmark (who lets be realistic can't do it either)

That sovereignty is already guaranteed by NATO writ large. The only ongoing threat to Greenland’s sovereignty comes from the U.S. itself. You’re saying the U.S. should simply promise not to rape them if they otherwise do as they’re told.

, and load up your USAF bases and USN ports.

Have they even actually asked to position more forces in Greenland yet? Without any sort of extortion?

In return, Greenland gives American company mining rights to their vast minerals.

In return for what? There’s nothing on the table Greenland wants. If American companies want to make a go at Greenlandic resources they can pursue economic projects through the normal means. The fact that they aren’t already clamouring to deploy significant capital suggests they don’t see compelling investment opportunities.

And Greenland will purchase American food and goods they can not provide or make for themselves."

Greenland seems to already be supplied with these things just fine.

This is all just a proposed protection racket with nicer language. Greenland doesn’t seem to be inclined to side with the U.S. It’s Greenland’s sovereignty to make its own decisions on.

 

[Jarnhamar]

NATO spilled a lot of its own blood to support the US in Afghanistan, and many even followed into Iraq. I don’t think I would assume away their willingness to fight when it will be in defence of themselves.

Even pre-Trump I doubt many countries were in going to risk saying no to the US.

We'll really see NATO's resolve if Trump makes good on his word.

I hope I'm wrong but I bet they look at their feet.

 

[Altair]

Even pre-Trump I doubt many countries were in going to risk saying no to the US.

We'll really see NATO's resolve if Trump makes good on his word.

I hope I'm wrong but I bet they look at their feet.

The more pertinent question is whether America is willing to kill Danes, French, Dutch, Germans, Swedes, Norwegians and Canadians to achieve their goals.

 

[HavokFour]

Maybe to Cuba, but not it appears, China:

Vitol and Trafigura Secure U.S. Licenses to Trade Venezuelan Oil | OilPrice.com

Top independent oil traders Vitol and Trafigura are offering Venezuelan crude to refiners in China and India for March delivery after obtaining special U.S. licenses to market the oil.

oilprice.com

It's going to be about the drugs now.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Too little too late if they allow him to first attack NATO before they act.

What are they supposed to do? Congress already has sole authority to declare war, which means the constitution already doesn't allow him to attack NATO. If Rand Paul decides to press ahead with the resolution he's mused upon, what does that change? "The president isn't allowed to declare war - the Constitution". "We resolve that the president isn't allowed to declare war on Greenland - the Senate." So what? Is there a message there that the WH isn't already receiving through back channels, as well as openly in the media, from the House and Senate?

 

[Kirkhill]

When was the last time anybody anywhere declared war?

My sense is there have been no wars since WW2.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Apparently Congress is "acting" in both directions.

NATO Unity Protection Act (Senate, bipartisan sponsorship)

Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act (House, one sponsor)

[Add: the Senate joint resolution of Jan 08 (against unauthorized war in Venezuela) passed with 52. That is reasonably a lower bound for the number of senators who will not authorize war against a NATO ally. Only 51 are needed.]

 

[Cloud Cover]

The more pertinent question is whether America is willing to kill Danes, French, Dutch, Germans, Swedes, Norwegians and Canadians to achieve their goals.

Yes they will. Just like we will kill them if they come at us. There’s no question about either,

 

[YZT580]

Nice to know you have ties into the Trump administration and can relay to the rest of us plebs that despite everything being threatened, the USA will not use military force

I for one appreciate it

Warsaw August 1939

 

[Cloud Cover]

What are they supposed to do? Congress already has sole authority to declare war, which means the constitution already doesn't allow him to attack NATO. If Rand Paul decides to press ahead with the resolution he's mused upon, what does that change? "The president isn't allowed to declare war - the Constitution". "We resolve that the president isn't allowed to declare war on Greenland - the Senate." So what? Is there a message there that the WH isn't already receiving through back channels, as well as openly in the media, from the House and Senate?

Brad the White House has- since the invasion of Cambodia - seen fit to notify Congress but not necessarily seek approval - for supposedly limited and defensive measures taking the position that everything they do is not usurping the role of Congress. And they get away with it - and will continue to get away with it.
So don’t look for any constitutional legal authority. We’re well passed that now.

 

[Altair]

Brad the White House has- since the invasion of Cambodia - seen fit to notify Congress but not necessarily seek approval - for supposedly limited and defensive measures taking the position that everything they do is not usurping the role of Congress. And they get away with it - and will continue to get away with it.
So don’t look for any constitutional legal authority. We’re well passed that now.

Is Brad saying Congress will limit the president of the United States of America?

That's adorable.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Is Brad saying Congress will limit the president of the United States of America?

That's adorable.

No I think he’s saying that Congress has limits on what it can do, and the President doesn’t care either way.

 

[Altair]

No I think he’s saying that Congress has limits on what it can do, and the President doesn’t care either way.

Yeah, trump doesn't care and Congress is toothless.

 

[Lumber]

So do you believe everything he spews into social media or the news or is he always lying? "He's a liar, TACO, can't believe he said that".... followed by: OMG he said this so I'm taking it literally!".

He lies about the way things are, he tells the truth about what he wants to do, and how.

I'm pretty sure there's been no flip-floping on this from the anti-Trump crowd. Everything we've feared he's do is coming true, if not in the exact form we predicted or in which he himself declared. It's the pro-Trump apologist crowd that flip-flops from "it's all bluster!" to a "yea but..." On a daily basis.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Ummm, so apparently Thule AFB (USAF) is still operating in Greenland under a new name? Pituffik now.

If I was a little devil standing on Trump's shoulder I would say this
"Dude, people cheered your sacking of Maduro, but this Greenland business is way past funny or tolerable. Please, please, make a sweet ass deal with Greenland, guaranteeing their sovereignty, taking the burden off Denmark (who lets be realistic can't do it either), and load up your USAF bases and USN ports. In return, Greenland gives American company mining rights to their vast minerals. And Greenland will purchase American food and goods they can not provide or make for themselves."

This is already the existing situation, Rick. Except for the last part - which makes no sense because why should they give their riches to the Americans, when the Americans claim that they must have Greenland for national security of the US reasons, and not because they want to protect the Greenlander out of the kindness of their heart.

The US has a defense treaty with Denmark, dating to 1951, under which the US can put up whatever military force they consider necessary for the protection of the US's national defense requirements. At the height of the Cold War, the US had 19 different bases and stations in Greenland under that treaty. The US unilaterally let it go down to one base since (Pituffik), and no one has been clamouring for more. But if they did, Denmark just today reminded the US Secretary of State and the VPOTUS that the treaty is still in full force and both Denmark and Greenland are quite willing still to let them put back whatever they feel is necessary for their national defense needs.

Denmark was ignored by those two US representatives, which merely mouthed their boss' message that the must have it, without being even capable of articulating the security reasons for it. Thankfully, the Danes and Greenlanders were smarter and managed to get an agreement to create a joint committee to see what can be done within that framework to accommodate the US' needs. The Americans showing up for that committee in a few weeks had better come prepared with specific national defense needs if they don't want to look like idiots in the eyes of the international community.

 

[GR66]

Apparently Congress is "acting" in both directions.

NATO Unity Protection Act (Senate, bipartisan sponsorship)

Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act (House, one sponsor)

[Add: the Senate joint resolution of Jan 08 (against unauthorized war in Venezuela) passed with 52. That is reasonably a lower bound for the number of senators who will not authorize war against a NATO ally. Only 51 are needed.]

Well...apparently the Senate isn't ruling against Trump taking more military action against Venezuela

Senate GOP shields Trump from limits to his war powers in Venezuela after Vance breaks tie​

Senate Republicans blocked an effort to curb the Trump administration’s military action in Venezuela, a victory for the president who was incensed that some Republicans tried to tie his hands on a key foreign policy.

Vice President JD Vance traveled to Capitol Hill Wednesday night to cast the tie-breaking vote, derailing the measure that would have forced the White House to seek congressional approval for further military force in the country.

The bipartisan plan initially won over five Republican senators last week on a key procedural vote. But GOP Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Todd Young of Indiana ultimately withdrew their support after an intense pressure campaign from the Trump administration that included calls from the president and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The eleventh-hour flips underscore the president’s significant influence over his party, as well as his willingness to attack any member who steps out of line with his agenda. The initial GOP defectors had endured the wrath of Trump, who railed on them publicly and vowed to end their political careers.

So much for Congress reeling in the President.

 

[Furniture]

If TRump can STFU about owning Greenland (or is he putting people on edge on purpose like he did in realty?),(1) the ONLY viable nation that could defend Greenland with strategic assets would be the USA. Full stop. Denmark, Germany, Norway, etc. can put very miniscule forces in Greenland. Amassing forces there is one thing, but then we start to open up on two fronts (Eastern Europe and the Arctic).

(2) China is poking around the arctic, if they are in our waters, they are for sure in Greenlands. In 2011, on ILP, I was shocked to learn then from the RCAF CWO that Russia was still infiltrating our air space with their bombers. I can assume if they are doing it then, they are doing today. If they are in our air space, they are most likely poking around Greenland.

Do I think Trump should try to acquire Greenland? Hell no. They need to make a beautiful (trump loves that word) deal.

(3)The question I would ask, is do we really want Greenland defended?

This is an asinine response, but I'll play...

(1) Given that Greenland has been Danish for a few hundred years, I think they have done quite well for themselves there. Nobody wants to invade, or conquer Greenland apart from America., so you are right in a way. Only America can prevent America from being idiotic and invading a sovereign ally.

There is no excuse, or rational for America to threaten Greenland apart from one man's fragile ego, and an administration full of sycophants.

(2) If you were on ILP and only learning that Russia was still playing games in the North, that's entirely on your lack of desire to be informed. It wasn't secret, and showed up int he news on a regular basis. As a Pte in Cold Lake I knew about it.

China/Russia sailing a ship up there in international waters to do survey, and other int/science is entirely legal. Just like our sailing around in international waters near them is.

Are you seriously proposing that China or Russia intends to land an invasion force in the middle of the arctic, far from any support, in an attack on NATO?

(3) Ask that about our arctic... Do you think it would be reasonable for America to annex our territories because the CAF is smaller than the American armed forces? Can Canada actually defend Ontario? Should America annex Ontario for America's defense?

Making excuses for Trumps behaviour is pathetic tribalism.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Brad the White House has- since the invasion of Cambodia - seen fit to notify Congress but not necessarily seek approval - for supposedly limited and defensive measures taking the position that everything they do is not usurping the role of Congress. And they get away with it - and will continue to get away with it.
So don’t look for any constitutional legal authority. We’re well passed that now.

So why the bother with the AUMF?

I conclude that there are (obviously) circumstances under which the WH will seek approval.

 

[Brad Sallows]

No I think he’s saying that Congress has limits on what it can do, and the President doesn’t care either way.

There are limits on what Congress can do after the fact, and even more on what Congress can do before the fact. If it wants to emphasize what the constitution says, that's great, but it doesn't increase their constitutional authority unless legislation is involved which adjusts the executive's parameters (eg. agency authorization, budgets).

Congress is very much limited on what it can actually do to shift a defiant president; that has been abundantly clear for decades. But it does have impeachment, and - for now - it has a USSC which very much pays attention to the black letter of the constitution.