2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[Kirkhill]

A bit more on a possible NATO security force for Greenland

Britain is in talks with NATO to counter Russia and China in the Arctic

Britain is discussing with NATO allies how to enhance Arctic security against Russia and China. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said Sunday that these talks are routine and not a response to U.S.

apnews.com

 

[Remius]

“Russia” and “China”.

Yes of course…

 

[Kirkhill]

Russia and China are occupying a coal mine at Barentsburg on Norwegian held Svalbard, about 600 km from Greenland, 300 km from Norway and 600 km from mainland Russia. But only 300 km from the newly revitalized Russian base at Nagurskoye in Franz Josef land.

The distance from Greenland to Canada is now 0 km. We share a land border on Hans Island.

China is desperate for energy and other resources. The Arctic offers opportunity.
Russia needs the Arctic to hide its subs and ICBMs.
Both need to control the entrance to Murmansk and the North East Passage.

There is reason for the interest up north.
And both China, and Russia, have demonstrated to play by fair means and foul.

The Americans asked us to secure the north. They have been asking it since VJ day in 1945.
The Europeans asked us to secure the north, only to be told by Justin he would never reach 2%, didn't want to become a Scandinavian and wouldn't sell them any energy.

 

[Altair]

The Americans asked us to secure the north. They have been asking it since VJ day in 1945.
The Europeans asked us to secure the north, only to be told by Justin he would never reach 2%, didn't want to become a Scandinavian and wouldn't sell them any energy.

America threatens Denmark...

Blame Canada/Trudeau

 

[Kirkhill]

America threatens Denmark...

Blame Canada/Trudeau

Blame suggests that Trudeau is a proximate cause.

My actual point is that there has been cause for concern for some time and we have done nothing to alleviate it.

To much time spent on arguing about what to call the square at Yonge and Dundas and not enough time on iron mines in the Arctic.

 

[Altair]

Blame suggests that Trudeau is a proximate cause.

My actual point is that there has been cause for concern for some time and we have done nothing to alleviate it.

To much time spent on arguing about what to call the square at Yonge and Dundas and not enough time on iron mines in the Arctic.

We? Who is we?

Trump isn't talking about us or to us on the Arctic. He's talking to Denmark. He's talking to us about a fake fentynal smuggling crisis and Ronald Reagan ads.

He's talking to the Danes about fake Chinese and Russian fleets surrounding Greenland while ignoring that he could boost troop numbers in Greenland all he wants to counter said fake Chinese and Russian Fleets his dementia-addled brain believes is surrounding Greenland, or remind China or Russia that Greenland is part of NATO and he would nuke anyone who tries to take it.

We...

 

[GK .Dundas]

Peak Scotland: Draping your wet clothes across the radiator at night only to find them in the morning, frozen

Reminds me of an Apartment I rented here in Winnipeg.

 

[RangerRay]

Blame suggests that Trudeau is a proximate cause.

My actual point is that there has been cause for concern for some time and we have done nothing to alleviate it.

To much time spent on arguing about what to call the square at Yonge and Dundas and not enough time on iron mines in the Arctic.

And Denmark and Greenland has been very accommodating to Washington in the past. These threats are the opposite of helpful.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It may well be that experience is shared by all that have to work with Naval Officers, regardless of their nationality.

My worst experiences were with the British Army.

But dont let me get in the way of your critique of Naval officers, I can share a few dits about that too.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

My worst experiences were with the British Army.

But dont let me get in the way of your critique of Naval officers, I can share a few dits about that too.

Dude. It was a joke.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Dude. It was a joke.

But he wasn't joking: Some of the ol' MARS (now NWO) officers were down right arrogant and lazy in the way they treated the crew. Need I mention that none of these NCM volunteered assistance to help enhance the career of those officers.

 

[suffolkowner]

We? Who is we?

Trump isn't talking about us or to us on the Arctic. He's talking to Denmark. He's talking to us about a fake fentynal smuggling crisis and Ronald Reagan ads.

He's talking to the Danes about fake Chinese and Russian fleets surrounding Greenland while ignoring that he could boost troop numbers in Greenland all he wants to counter said fake Chinese and Russian Fleets his dementia-addled brain believes is surrounding Greenland, or remind China or Russia that Greenland is part of NATO and he would nuke anyone who tries to take it.

We...

the US doesnt care its the fever dream brought on by UTI induced dementia

https://twitter.com/x/status/2009970629014106242

 

[Altair]

the US doesnt care its the fever dream brought on by UTI induced dementia

https://twitter.com/x/status/2009970629014106242

I mean, of course. It's a lie. I know its a lie. You know its a lie. Same as fentanyl flooding the USA from Canada, we all know it's a lie.

Which leaves one of two things as the truth.

1) He believes his own lie and is clearly suffering from cognitive decline, and is unable to tell fiction from reality, and the rest of the world is held hostage by his fake reality that only exists in his dementia addled brain like a hostage is stuck nodding politely to a raving lunatic with a gun.

2) He knows its a lie and this is bold faced reprehensible imperialism at its worse.

And while it's pretty clear he's suffering cognitive decline (watch him talk in 2012, where he is able to articulate himself in long clear sentences, without being distracted by multiple things popping into his head every 10-15 words) it's probably option 2.

Because while going on and on about fentanyl for the reason for tariffs, he says Canada treats the USA very badly more than he ever talks about drugs. He knows its a lie, we know its a lie, the media knows its a lie, his base...well, his base believes everything he says, the epstein files being the rare exception, he knows that we know its a lie, and then he just expects everyone to go along with his lie because if we don't, things will be worse.

 

[Kirkhill]

So contributing to the common defence means allowing Americans to build facilities and staff them with Americans equipped with American made kit bought by American taxpayers?

I rather think the entire discussion with various American presidents has been to get the locals everywhere to take over the bases, take over the staffing, takeover the kitting-out and takeover the tax burden.

Instead, when the Americans left, the entire structure was abandoned. It wasn't mothballed and put into reserve to be staffed in time of need by local reservists. It was decommissioned and the time and resources went into sportshalls, pensions and health care.

As sovereign nations those were our sovereign choices. The consequences are our sovereign consequences.

...

Meanwhile there will be wars. There are enemies. Even if we don't think we have enemies others have enemies and their wars can affect us.

....

WW1 - Britain got involved in WW1 precisely because of this.

Germany and France faced off as the co-belligerents.
Germany couldn't go frontal through the French defences.
So it went right-flanking.
Through neutral Belgium.

Britain had previously given Belgium guarantees similar to those it gave Ukraine in 1992.

WW2 - Do over

Germany and France faced off as the co-belligerents.
Germany couldn't go frontal through the French defences.
So it went right-flanking.
Through neutral Belgium.

But this time it went wide and enveloped neutral Netherlands, Denmark and Norway.

Britain countered to protect its interests by invading Norway and Denmark (Faroes) as well as neutral Iceland. It wanted to take Greenland as well but the US objected and Britain was in no position to insist. Instead the Americans occupied Greenland and the Brits threw in American access to its colony of Newfoundland for good measure. And Canada launched a policy of allowing Americans to build American defence infrastructure in Canada's hinterlands.

...

The geography hasn't changed and nor has the strategic value of the lands and waters.
Technology has changed.
So have the co-belligerents.

Greenland sits in the exact same position relative to the US that Belgium did to France in WW1.

Who is going to guarantee its security?
At what cost?
And to whose benefit?

 

[Altair]

So contributing to the common defence means allowing Americans to build facilities and staff them with Americans equipped with American made kit bought by American taxpayers?

I rather think the entire discussion with various American presidents has been to get the locals everywhere to take over the bases, take over the staffing, takeover the kitting-out and takeover the tax burden.

Instead, when the Americans left, the entire structure was abandoned. It wasn't mothballed and put into reserve to be staffed in time of need by local reservists. It was decommissioned and the time and resources went into sportshalls, pensions and health care.

As sovereign nations those were our sovereign choices. The consequences are our sovereign consequences.

...

Meanwhile there will be wars. There are enemies. Even if we don't think we have enemies others have enemies and their wars can affect us.

....

WW1 - Britain got involved in WW1 precisely because of this.

Germany and France faced off as the co-belligerents.
Germany couldn't go frontal through the French defences.
So it went right-flanking.
Through neutral Belgium.

Britain had previously given Belgium guarantees similar to those it gave Ukraine in 1992.

WW2 - Do over

Germany and France faced off as the co-belligerents.
Germany couldn't go frontal through the French defences.
So it went right-flanking.
Through neutral Belgium.

But this time it went wide and enveloped neutral Netherlands, Denmark and Norway.

Britain countered to protect its interests by invading Norway and Denmark (Faroes) as well as neutral Iceland. It wanted to take Greenland as well but the US objected and Britain was in no position to insist. Instead the Americans occupied Greenland and the Brits threw in American access to its colony of Newfoundland for good measure. And Canada launched a policy of allowing Americans to build American defence infrastructure in Canada's hinterlands.

...

The geography hasn't changed and nor has the strategic value of the lands and waters.
Technology has changed.
So have the co-belligerents.

Greenland sits in the exact same position relative to the US that Belgium did to France in WW1.

Who is going to guarantee its security?
At what cost?
And to whose benefit?

That all makes lovely, great sense.

Except the part where the USA takes over Greenland and is then responsible for it's defense, meaning it would be putting more troops there anyways.

As for Greenlands security....its part of NATO. Which has article 5. If China or Russia lift a finger to take over Greenland, it's WW3, regardless of whether the US or Europe owns it.

Unless article 5 is off the table....

 

[Kirkhill]

Article 5 is words on paper.
Just like the Budapest guarantees of 1992.
Just like the declarations of neutrality of 1940 and 1914.

It is a mug's game to trust in words.

Our parliament loves words and yet for all the words we collectively agree upon we still hire police.

And, personal opinion, they should not be seen as an opportunity to neglect personal security.

 

[Jarnhamar]

But he wasn't joking: Some of the ol' MARS (now NWO) officers were down right arrogant and lazy in the way they treated the crew. Need I mention that none of these NCM volunteered assistance to help enhance the career of those offibers

Do the worst of the arrogant navy officers ever get cornered by the crew and have a closed door chat about their behavior?

 

[Kirkhill]

Do the worst of the arrogant navy officers ever get cornered by the crew and have a closed door chat about their behavior?

Floating Republic: The Nore Mutiny of 1797

In 1797, Royal Navy sailors launched a mutiny on the Thames In May 1797, a republic floated down the River Thames. Its provinces were ships, and its citizens were sailors. And these weren’t just any sailors. They were Royal Navy mutineers.

radicalteatowel.co.uk

 

[Czech_pivo]

So contributing to the common defence means allowing Americans to build facilities and staff them with Americans equipped with American made kit bought by American taxpayers?

I rather think the entire discussion with various American presidents has been to get the locals everywhere to take over the bases, take over the staffing, takeover the kitting-out and takeover the tax burden.

Instead, when the Americans left, the entire structure was abandoned. It wasn't mothballed and put into reserve to be staffed in time of need by local reservists. It was decommissioned and the time and resources went into sportshalls, pensions and health care.

As sovereign nations those were our sovereign choices. The consequences are our sovereign consequences.

...

Meanwhile there will be wars. There are enemies. Even if we don't think we have enemies others have enemies and their wars can affect us.

....

WW1 - Britain got involved in WW1 precisely because of this.

Germany and France faced off as the co-belligerents.
Germany couldn't go frontal through the French defences.
So it went right-flanking.
Through neutral Belgium.

Britain had previously given Belgium guarantees similar to those it gave Ukraine in 1992.

WW2 - Do over

Germany and France faced off as the co-belligerents.
Germany couldn't go frontal through the French defences.
So it went right-flanking.
Through neutral Belgium.

But this time it went wide and enveloped neutral Netherlands, Denmark and Norway.

Britain countered to protect its interests by invading Norway and Denmark (Faroes) as well as neutral Iceland. It wanted to take Greenland as well but the US objected and Britain was in no position to insist. Instead the Americans occupied Greenland and the Brits threw in American access to its colony of Newfoundland for good measure. And Canada launched a policy of allowing Americans to build American defence infrastructure in Canada's hinterlands.

...

The geography hasn't changed and nor has the strategic value of the lands and waters.
Technology has changed.
So have the co-belligerents.

Greenland sits in the exact same position relative to the US that Belgium did to France in WW1.

Who is going to guarantee its security?
At what cost?
And to whose benefit?

Question - how many times over the last 10yrs has NATO had to scramble fighters to counter Russian warplanes approaching the northern reaches of Greenland?

2nd Question - how can Greenland not be included in the US's plan for the coverage of the Golden Dome? Is this a ploy to get the Danes (EU?) to pony up funds for an EU version of JORN that Canada has purchased from Australia to cover off our northern arctic areas? JORN will go a significant way towards pulling our weight in the proposed Golden Dome.

 

[Altair]

Article 5 is words on paper.
Just like the Budapest guarantees of 1992.
Just like the declarations of neutrality of 1940 and 1914.

It is a mug's game to trust in words.

Our parliament loves words and yet for all the words we collectively agree upon we still hire police.

And, personal opinion, they should not be seen as an opportunity to neglect personal security.

Except Trump isn't telling the Europeans to spend more on Greenland.

He's telling the Europeans he's going to aquire Greenland by any means necessary.

How does that tie into your theory that this is about increasing the defense of Greenland?