2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[Czech_pivo]

Act accordingly.

Agree - arm ourselves accordingly and become just large enough that someone can't easily swallow and just big enough that they might choke on.

 

[QV]

You missed what I actually said. I said the U.S. needs to decide is a Russia is a threat to the U.S., and if so, if this includes Russian ambitions in Europe.

U.S. collective defence of Europe against USSR/Russia has always been because the U.S. has held them to be a threat. I believe they still do- if not, why the inane nonsense over Greenland?

If the U.S. believes the Russian threat to Europe threatens American interests, then whatever those interests may be, then that informs America’s rational choices about global military and geopolitical strategy. And likewise if they don’t. But their strategic choices, including as it pertains to NATO, should rationally and coherently reflect that assessment.

In short, if Russia is a strategic threat to the U.S., NATO as it currently exists makes sense. If it is not, then a different security order is called for.

Make sense?

I didn't miss it. I suppose there are many threats against US interests. Russia is also a major threat to the EU. Should the EU get a pass in countering Russia, or is this going to remain the responsibility of the US to continue to champion? I have no doubt the US would still backstop the EU.

Russia isn't the only threat for the US, and might not be the toughest. There needs to be an economy of effort in an alliance. I can see why the US might be prioritizing effort to shore up control/defence in the North American sphere and keeping powder dry for a possible China encounter. The EU needs to pull up its pants on this and handle it's neighborhood. I seriously doubt the EU would backstop the USA against China, so they should at least handle things close to home.

 

[QV]

Agree - arm ourselves accordingly and become just large enough that someone can't easily swallow and just big enough that they might choke on.

There you go! For defence, certainly.

Now do economics...

 

[brihard]

I didn't miss it. I suppose there are many threats against US interests. Russia is also a major threat to the EU. Should the EU get a pass in countering Russia, or is this going to remain the responsibility of the US to continue to champion? I have no doubt the US would still backstop the EU.

Russia isn't the only threat for the US, and might not be the toughest. There needs to be an economy of effort in an alliance. I can see why the US might be prioritizing effort to shore up control/defence in the North American sphere and keeping powder dry for a possible China encounter. The EU needs to pull up its pants on this and handle it's neighborhood. I seriously doubt the EU would backstop the USA against China, so they should at least handle things close to home.

Well then I’m sure you’re happy to see Europe’s significant increases in defense spending, the new entrants to NATO, France’s plans to expand its nuclear arsenal and to extend nuclear deterrence over more continental allies.

Given the renewed European focus on handling things close to home - granted this is long lead time stuff and will take some time to roll out and grow - it still falls to the U.S. to do the analyses and make the decisions I described.

 

[QV]

I certainly am happy to see that.

The US can make an analysis and refocus if necessary. Everyone can stop bitching about what the US will and won't do in the EU now that they are acting with some seriousness on the matter.

 

[brihard]

I certainly am happy to see that.

The US can make an analysis and refocus if necessary. Everyone can stop bitching about what the US will and won't do in the EU now that they are acting with some seriousness on the matter.

Sure- if they cut the bullshit with Greenland.

 

[Czech_pivo]

There you go! For defence, certainly.

Now do economics...

Surprisingly, right now I'd say even with all the problems, challenges and issues facing the CAF, the defense side looks to be the easier of the 2.

The unwinding of 80yrs of inter-twining our economy to the US's, which accelerated in 1988 until the 2020's, will be a near impossible feat to accomplish in my humble opinion. The 'edges' of it can be unraveled rather easily but the inner pillars - auto, energy, nat resources, pharma, services - they might just be a 'bridge too far'. The only possible approach for some of these (auto and maybe services) might be the blowing of them up entirely and rebuilding them separately. Others (energy) might not be even 'allowed' (the unraveling) to occur.

Could you imagine a world were Canada exports 5-6m barrels of oil a day to the coast for export to Asia while not increasing or maintaining the existing flow of subsidized oil to the US 5yrs from now, 10yrs from now, 15? 20? The US's reserves and production will not be at these current levels 15yrs from now. Are they willing to forgo their energy security by allowing us to export to the rest of the world at fair market prices while they are force to; a) pay those fair market prices, and b) rely on the imports from other non-Canadian imports?

Food security is one area that we can, and should, reduce our reliance on the US. Steps are being taken for this to happen already. But again, will the US 'allow' us to cut ourselves off from their exports?

Look at the 'issues' that are just now coming out from the CUSMA talks where the US is pissed off that we are declaring that our digital data ownership is a Sovereign issue going forward. They are totally pissed at this. Not sure if you all realise this, but a fair of the personal financial data here in Canada held/collected by the various institutions is NOT stored in Canada. Visa/Mastercard store your credit card data outside of Canada. The US Cloud Act basically means that if data stored by Microsoft Canada, or Google Canada, etc, can (and does) be legally accessed by the US Government if they decide to do so. This can happen even if the data servers for Microsoft are located in Canada. Another example, every year the CRA sends information provided to it from every single Canadian financial institution to the IRS on every Canadian citizen that also has US citizenship. That represents about 1 million Canadians every year. You cannot stop this from happening, it occurs whether you agree, disagree or are not even aware of it.

 

[QV]

Sure- if they cut the bullshit with Greenland.

It's hardly bullshit. NATOs wishy washy commitments, and more recently EU countries restricting US ability to use the bases they fund and lease as they require now necessitates the US obtain much more control over Greenland than simply a promise from another EU country.

 

[brihard]

It's hardly bullshit. NATOs wishy washy commitments, and more recently EU countries restricting US ability to use the bases they fund and lease as they require now necessitates the US obtain much more control over Greenland than simply a promise from another EU country.

No it doesn’t. They already have all the ability needed to expand presence there under the existing 1951 U.SZ-Denmark treaty while explicitly not impacting Danish sovereignty. They’re anlready in discussions to reopen bases to that end. And it’s only not bullshit if in fact they do still consider Russia a threat. Which, if they do, brings us right back to the need for a continued U.S. role in NATO.

The U.S. has zero legitimate claim to any imposition on Danish sovereignty in Greenland whatsoever. The legitimate defence concerns are already provided for.

 

[QV]

I think the lack of resolve by many NATO countries in allowing the US to use their airspace over this Iran shindig is going to be a major factor in determining who with and how the US decides future defence agreements with.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I think the lack of resolve by many NATO countries in allowing the US to use their airspace over this Iran shindig is going to be a major factor in determining who with and how the US decides future defence agreements with.

The Trump administration should hopefully soon realize why they were bankrolling everything, but I am not sure they have that level of introspection. That reason is it was in Americas interest. It gave them final say. It allowed them to project their power globally without complaints. It meant everyone propped up the USD allowing America to take on insane amounts of debt without having the means to actually pay it back.

A awakened Europe means no more reliance on America. It also means they don’t have to provide the ability for America to project their power anymore.

It also means that why does anyone need to keep propping their currency? Without that support in 50 years America will be like Britain today, a shell of its former self.

This isn’t a good thing for the States and will turn them from a super power to a regional power much to the Wests detriment.

 

[Kirkhill]

NATO, as an alliance, has lasted well longer than most other alliances. It has also probably become too big and bureaucratic.

I think we are just witnessing the natural evolution it, nothing last forever. I get it, that's scary.

I am pretty sure this has been posted before.

The Ten-Year Goal: Upon taking command in 1951, Eisenhower wrote, "If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed".
....
The Brits were taught to look at NATO as "Keeping America In, Russia Out and the Germans Down".
The impediments to the Russians and Germans were obvious.
The impediments to the Americans were less so.

The longer the Americans were engaged spending money and man-power in Europe the more chance the Europeans had of dragging the Americans back while the Europeans regained their rightful place.

https://imgur.com/82TafYL

 

[Kirkhill]

No it doesn’t. They already have all the ability needed to expand presence there under the existing 1951 U.SZ-Denmark treaty while explicitly not impacting Danish sovereignty. They’re anlready in discussions to reopen bases to that end. And it’s only not bullshit if in fact they do still consider Russia a threat. Which, if they do, brings us right back to the need for a continued U.S. role in NATO.

The U.S. has zero legitimate claim to any imposition on Danish sovereignty in Greenland whatsoever. The legitimate defence concerns are already provided for.

What if they don't want to expand there?
What if they just want the Danes, the Europeans and us, to take the load and supply effective forces in the area rather than requiring the US to spend money on territories that we claim?

Trump isn't the first President to ask for the allies to do more.
Some have even suggested buying the territory themselves so that, if they have to defend it they can at least get some benefit out of it.
He is the first one that has taken this tack.
He is also the first one that people actually seem to have paid attention to.

The 2x4 between the eyes seems to have gotten the mule's attention.

 

[McG]

Trump isn't the first President to ask for the allies to do more.
Some have even suggested buying the territory themselves so that, if they have to defend it they can at least get some benefit out of it.

No other president has offered to buy Greenland since before the Cold War & creation of NATO.