2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[HavokFour]

If you ignore that France and the UK operate carriers and SSNs, and Iceland isn't that far away...

I wonder where the Tourville is haunting these days.

 

[Altair]

Tears of joy(?) at the idea of being absorbed into the US.

Greenland minister tearful as she describes ‘intense pressure’ amid Trump’s threats

Vivian Motzfeldt was one of the foreign ministers who met with US vice-president JD Vance at the White House to discuss the future of the Danish territory

www.independent.co.uk

So, not about security?

White House shrugs off presence of European troops in Greenland

As European countries send small numbers of troops to Greenland, the White House says their presence will not affect US President Donald Trump's ambitions for the island.

www.abc.net.au

It was never about security.

I feel bad for everyone here who twists themselves into knots trying to make sense of the lie that it's about security.

 

[McG]

Its a question not a comment. And again you cherry pick without full context.

You asked what we shpuld do, made made a flippant remark about “convene vigorously” in response to a US attack on NATO, dropped a rhetorical statement about wasting Canadian lives to defend Ellesmere Island, and then speculated that we would both be fighting in the north if Canada foes to war. Whether one takes the middle statement that I quoted or your whole paragraph that you requoted, that middle rhetorical statement looks to be colouring outside the lines that the site asked us to stay within. Canada is worth fighting for.

Can NATO mount an occupation of Greenland without the US?

What do you intend to mean when you say “mount an occupation”?

They could sustain it until the shooting started.
Then it's hard no.

The US could not beat the Taliban. If Trump starts a war with NATO, he will find that NATO is tougher than the Taliban.

 

[Kirkhill]

Tears of joy(?) at the idea of being absorbed into the US.

Greenland minister tearful as she describes ‘intense pressure’ amid Trump’s threats

Vivian Motzfeldt was one of the foreign ministers who met with US vice-president JD Vance at the White House to discuss the future of the Danish territory

www.independent.co.uk

So, not about security?

White House shrugs off presence of European troops in Greenland

As European countries send small numbers of troops to Greenland, the White House says their presence will not affect US President Donald Trump's ambitions for the island.

www.abc.net.au

Or do the Europeans need to up the ante?

 

[Altair]

Or do the Europeans need to up the ante?

It has nothing to do with security.

 

[Kirkhill]

What do you intend to mean when you say “mount an occupation”?

If this thing is about security, and I will stipulate that I don't know a thing about this man's mindset, but if it is about security, I am wondering if Europe has the wherewithal to act independently to provide a sufficient force that would deter both Sino-Russian and US forces?

One benchmark might be the US peak presence which seems to have been a "permanent" presence, for a period, of 10,000 troops and 17 bases plus some radar sites. Might that be the level of commitment that would get Trump's attention?

If that then what level of threat is he perceiving? There are launch points possible but they are not all in Sino-Russian hands and would have to be secured in the first place and then it would take time to conduct the invasion/assault/whatever, giving opportunity to counter them.

Or is it thinking beyond the present and thinking a hundred years out with a view to adopting the same type of strategy that we seem to be contemplating with our north and that is to develop it and turn it into a thriving community, not a wilderness of hamlets?

The man is arrogant. Self-centred. All of that. But I continue to think that we should assume that he has some sort of over-arching objective even if we can't see it.

If we were being swarmed we would perceive chaos, the intent of the swarmer, while opportunities to act were created.

.....

If the situation is that the US, and not just Trump, actually perceives a near term military threat then there is a possiblity that a force of given size and composition for a defined duration could be sufficient to resolve this issue.

Does that force enter with the US's blessing or is it perceived as an annoyance, or worse?
Would a Switzerland be acceptable? A completely unaligned but well secured territory that can look after itself?

Would a beefed up European security presence supply the necessary ease of mind. I suspect that there is a lack of comfort with the commitment of NATO allies to act, so that even if all 32 nations agreed to place a force on Greenland, that there is a question as to whether the other 31 would act vigorously, in a timely manner, and whether or not they could sustain the commitment to the cause over decades and over multiple, and continuous, political changes?
And would any commitments made today, for today's conditions, be valid in a hundred years?

By buying Alaska in 1867 Seward bought time and space and freedom of action that allowed the US to adapt their presence to the needs of the time under direct protection of the US forces. There is no ambiguity over ownership rights that could be exploited by third parties and no need to constantly worry about renegotiations and renewals.

If the problem went away by Greenland becoming part of Canada, as has been suggested by some, and was accepted by the US, what might that say about our association with the US? That they trust us? Or just that they are not worried about us because they can handle us?

....

Sorry McG.

I am all over the place.

In my defence, so is the target I am tracking.

I am not convinced that there is no underlying coherence that has the backing of at least some of the US establishment.

 

[McG]

One benchmark might be the US peak presence which seems to have been a "permanent" presence, for a period, of 10,000 troops and 17 bases plus some radar sites. Might that be the level of commitment that would get Trump's attention?

The US peak presence reflects a time when radar did not see as far, fighters did not fly as far, ground based missile defence did not have the same reach, space based capability was less capable, and Russia did not have so many of its old bombers blowed-up by Ukraine. Absolute numbers of people at some historic cold war date vs today are irrelevant.

If the situation is that the US, and not just Trump, actually perceives a near term military threat then there is a possiblity that a force of given size and composition for a defined duration could be sufficient to resolve this issue.

If the Trump or the US perceive a near term military threat, they have not articulated it. Trump has said NATO cannot do more to secure the island to his satisfaction and he has lied that the US needs to own the land to protect itself. You are asking if NATO can change the situation by doing more of the thing Trump has dismissed as being irrelevant to changing the situation.

 

[Altair]

The US peak presence reflects a time when radar did not see as far, fighters did not fly as far, ground based missile defence did not have the same reach, space based capability was less capable, and Russia did not have so many of its old bombers blowed-up by Ukraine. Absolute numbers of people at some historic cold war date vs today are irrelevant.


If the Trump or the US perceive a near term military threat, they have not articulated it. Trump has said NATO cannot do more to secure the island to his satisfaction and he has lied that the US needs to own the land to protect itself. You are asking if NATO can change the situation by doing more of the thing Trump has dismissed as being irrelevant to changing the situation.

Same with tariffs put on Canada because of fentanyl and even if we dropped fentanyl crossing the border to zero he still would not remove tariffs.

The world has seen this movie before. He lies about the reason he wants to do something but the truth is he really wants to do that thing and little will dissuade him.

He really wants to tariff Canada, so he lies about fentanyl.

He really wants Venezuelan oil so he lies about drugs

He really wants Greenland so he lies about security

How does one negotiate with that?

 

[Czech_pivo]

The US peak presence reflects a time when radar did not see as far, fighters did not fly as far, ground based missile defence did not have the same reach, space based capability was less capable, and Russia did not have so many of its old bombers blowed-up by Ukraine. Absolute numbers of people at some historic cold war date vs today are irrelevant.


If the Trump or the US perceive a near term military threat, they have not articulated it. Trump has said NATO cannot do more to secure the island to his satisfaction and he has lied that the US needs to own the land to protect itself. You are asking if NATO can change the situation by doing more of the thing Trump has dismissed as being irrelevant to changing the situation.

Spit balling here - any chance that Trump wants Greenland for its water, locked in the form of ice?

 

[Altair]

Spit balling here - any chance that Trump wants Greenland for its water, locked in the form of ice?

Transporting ice for water is insanely expensive and inefficient.

But this is the man who wanted to nuke a hurricane....so maybe.

 

[brihard]

If this thing is about security, and I will stipulate that I don't know a thing about this man's mindset, but if it is about security, I am wondering if Europe has the wherewithal to act independently to provide a sufficient force that would deter both Sino-Russian and US forces?

One benchmark might be the US peak presence which seems to have been a "permanent" presence, for a period, of 10,000 troops and 17 bases plus some radar sites. Might that be the level of commitment that would get Trump's attention?

If that then what level of threat is he perceiving? There are launch points possible but they are not all in Sino-Russian hands and would have to be secured in the first place and then it would take time to conduct the invasion/assault/whatever, giving opportunity to counter them.

Or is it thinking beyond the present and thinking a hundred years out with a view to adopting the same type of strategy that we seem to be contemplating with our north and that is to develop it and turn it into a thriving community, not a wilderness of hamlets?

The man is arrogant. Self-centred. All of that. But I continue to think that we should assume that he has some sort of over-arching objective even if we can't see it.

If we were being swarmed we would perceive chaos, the intent of the swarmer, while opportunities to act were created.

.....

If the situation is that the US, and not just Trump, actually perceives a near term military threat then there is a possiblity that a force of given size and composition for a defined duration could be sufficient to resolve this issue.

Does that force enter with the US's blessing or is it perceived as an annoyance, or worse?
Would a Switzerland be acceptable? A completely unaligned but well secured territory that can look after itself?

Would a beefed up European security presence supply the necessary ease of mind. I suspect that there is a lack of comfort with the commitment of NATO allies to act, so that even if all 32 nations agreed to place a force on Greenland, that there is a question as to whether the other 31 would act vigorously, in a timely manner, and whether or not they could sustain the commitment to the cause over decades and over multiple, and continuous, political changes?
And would any commitments made today, for today's conditions, be valid in a hundred years?

By buying Alaska in 1867 Seward bought time and space and freedom of action that allowed the US to adapt their presence to the needs of the time under direct protection of the US forces. There is no ambiguity over ownership rights that could be exploited by third parties and no need to constantly worry about renegotiations and renewals.

If the problem went away by Greenland becoming part of Canada, as has been suggested by some, and was accepted by the US, what might that say about our association with the US? That they trust us? Or just that they are not worried about us because they can handle us?

....

Sorry McG.

I am all over the place.

In my defence, so is the target I am tracking.

I am not convinced that there is no underlying coherence that has the backing of at least some of the US establishment.

Ok, indulging this notion of “could Europe defend Greenland against Russia or China”…

Well, first, without even asking “why the hell would Russia or China do that??”, I would say yes. Greenland would not be easy to approach, gain lodgement in, or resupply. I believe non-U.S. western navies and air forces could kill most or all of a force approaching the populated portions of Greenland and isolate and punish anything that makes it through. Western air defenses could make an airborne operation non-viable.

Now we WILL ask “why the hell would they even do that?” Any Russian or Chinese attack on Greenland would be an invasion of NATO. Full on article 5. That would mean a whole lot of other stuff would be going on. Greenland would be a secondary theatre at best, and likely only for the purpose of clearing the way for attacks into North America. The U.S. would absolutely not let that stand even if they weren’t inclined to defend continental Europe. It would be an outright assault on their revived Monroe doctrine.

So even if we play the frictionless vacuum game, yes, I believe Europe could defend Greenland against Russia or China. Those countries would lack the ability to achieve tactical surprise and would lack the assets needed to forcibly assault Greenland by virtue of geography. And, in any set of facts where this were to come to pass, the U.S. would not allow a Chinese or Russian occupation of that soil any more than they would permit it in Canada or Panama or Cuba.

 

[HavokFour]

Spit balling here - any chance that Trump wants Greenland for its water, locked in the form of ice?

Don needs to use his big boy words then if that's the case, because Greenland is very much open to such types of agreements already.

A very recent example.

Arctic Ice Secures 20-Year Greenland Extraction License Amid Global Water Resource Shifts

Dubai, United Arab Emirates--(Newsfile Corp. - June 25, 2025) - Arctic Ice has finalized a 20-year exclusive license agreement with...

www.newsfilecorp.com

I highly doubt this is the reason, it reeks of an ego/legacy thing.

 

[Kirkhill]

The US peak presence reflects a time when radar did not see as far, fighters did not fly as far, ground based missile defence did not have the same reach, space based capability was less capable, and Russia did not have so many of its old bombers blowed-up by Ukraine. Absolute numbers of people at some historic cold war date vs today are irrelevant.

Agreed

If the Trump or the US perceive a near term military threat, they have not articulated it. Trump has said NATO cannot do more to secure the island to his satisfaction and he has lied that the US needs to own the land to protect itself. You are asking if NATO can change the situation by doing more of the thing Trump has dismissed as being irrelevant to changing the situation.

Also agreed.

But have you ever played Gin Rummy with someone that holds all their cards until they can declare Gin!?


As I have said before I may be a fool but I think it is an error to believe that there isn't an underlying coherence to all these individual actions and that rhere isn't a lot of misdirection going on.

I'll admit that I may end up terrified by the endstate if the plan, if there is one succeeds, but I think we are being distracted, intentionally, by noise.

 

[brihard]

Don needs to use his big boy words then if that's the case, because Greenland is very much open to such types of agreements already.

A very recent example.

Arctic Ice Secures 20-Year Greenland Extraction License Amid Global Water Resource Shifts

Dubai, United Arab Emirates--(Newsfile Corp. - June 25, 2025) - Arctic Ice has finalized a 20-year exclusive license agreement with...

www.newsfilecorp.com

I highly doubt this is the reason, it reeks of an ego/legacy thing.

We could just tell him Greenland’s already covered in ICE and maybe he’ll pipe down and toddle off to something new to be senile about.

 

[HavokFour]

I'll admit that I may end up terrified by the endstate if the plan, if there is one succeeds, but I think we are being distracted, intentionally, by noise.

Also a highly possible reason. The Epstein files are still not released in their entirety as legally required.

 

[Kirkhill]

Don needs to use his big boy words then if that's the case, because Greenland is very much open to such types of agreements already.

A very recent example.

Arctic Ice Secures 20-Year Greenland Extraction License Amid Global Water Resource Shifts

Dubai, United Arab Emirates--(Newsfile Corp. - June 25, 2025) - Arctic Ice has finalized a 20-year exclusive license agreement with...

www.newsfilecorp.com

I highly doubt this is the reason, it reeks of an ego/legacy thing.

If water were the goal then cheap energy and desalination plants would be a better investment I would think.

 

[GR66]

As I have said before I may be a fool but I think it is an error to believe that there isn't an underlying coherence to all these individual actions and that rhere isn't a lot of misdirection going on.

I'll admit that I may end up terrified by the endstate if the plan, if there is one succeeds, but I think we are being distracted, intentionally, by noise.

Are Manifest Destiny, ego and greed not plausible sources of underlying coherence to Trump's individual actions?

No need to seek for some type of 4D Chess strategy when base human nature can provide a logical explanation.

 

[brihard]

Are Manifest Destiny, ego and greed not plausible sources of underlying coherence to Trump's individual actions?

No need to seek for some type of 4D Chess strategy when base human nature can provide a logical explanation.

They are the most plausible. They make much more sense than any purported economic or security rationale.

 

[RangerRay]

Are Manifest Destiny, ego and greed not plausible sources of underlying coherence to Trump's individual actions?

No need to seek for some type of 4D Chess strategy when base human nature can provide a logical explanation.

I just don’t think the man is well. He has trouble stringing two words together coherently and he sounds sleepier than Sleepy Joe, never mind his actions. It doesn’t help that he’s surrounded by zealots and sycophants who enable his delusions.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Some more info EU deployments to Greenland:

First Contingent Of European Troops Operating Outside Of NATO Have Arrived In Greenland

The tiny, largely symbolic force arrives as the White House continues to voice its desires to acquire the Arctic island. While very small in number, larger-scale maneuvers are planned for this year, after White House talks about the future of the island failed to bring clarity.

www.twz.com