2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO
- Thread starter Altair
- Start date
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 17,785
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 12,460
- Points
- 1,160
I have proposed this previously. I think the timing could be propitious.
Super JEF!
Why NATO needs an Arctic Expeditionary Force and why Britain must lead it! by John R. Allen, Julian Lindley-French and Jim Townsend The Choice War is here, now, already and the need for NATO and its Northern European nations to be demonstrably strong is as great as at any time since the 1980s.
www.linkedin.com
This particular article was originally posted by @daftandbarmy.
This Globe and Mail article concurs
Opinion: Canada must harden its defensive posture by joining the Joint Expeditionary Force
Canada can no longer take for granted that its security can be ensured by allied neighbours. The country must solidify and diversify its military alliances beyond just North America
www.theglobeandmail.com
That would require us to be able to operate effectively from the Aleutians to Murmansk above 70 N in all domains concurrently.
- Reaction score
- 9,343
- Points
- 1,140
This is the rational that led to France and the UK not intervening when Czechoslovackia was annex by Germany...
It was in "their best interests" to let a democratically elected leader threaten, then annex a soverign nation. Not too long after they learned a very costly lesson about shortsighted thinking and the consequences of not countering the bully from the start.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,236
- Points
- 990
You say this in jest, but the more... creative.. side of my brain says that if we were dealing with a rational actor with legitimate security concerns that there might be a path to de-escalation by offramping Greenland into in a 4th Canadian terrority (if they chose it), under NORAD, with significant Canadian investment both NORAD expansion/ Golden Dome and in Nuuk as a Naval station, and some sort of agreement on how we'd handle the future use of the Northwest passage. Seriously vigorous convening.
But we're not dealing with the bold, so the above would be futile even if we could pull it off.
- Reaction score
- 2,896
- Points
- 1,090
some reading on insurgencies for me to do. A little old but maybe nothing in the last decade will change anything
If you watch the video I posted (the last segment) the argument is what is to be gained at all from an annexion when the US gets everything it wants anyways there. There is absolutely no case for it at all. Denmark has been a loyal ally to the US forever.
- Reaction score
- 6,507
- Points
- 1,260
I'm not so sure. The King came and that visit was very well received. The King also wore the uniform of a Canadian Admiral when he toured HMS Prince of Wales last year. He also put forward an invitation to Trump for the US to join the Commonwealth in some manner. The King cannot speak directly about these things.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 43,714
- Points
- 1,160
European military personnel arrive in Greenland as Trump says US needs island
France says a 15-strong French military contingent has arrived and more forces will be there in the coming days.www.bbc.com
French recce party contingent of 15 just landed. Starting to wonder if European Intelligence knows something…
Meanwhile, in the UK:
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 17,785
- Points
- 1,260
Put the king in armor and send him.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,236
- Points
- 990
I think Zeihan underplays a significant aspect re- Flag on the map with respect to the Arctic/ NWP etc. He kind of hand waved that away by referencing the allowing of passage of Chinese ships as the only benefit- but there's a lot more to it than that. Having Greenland be US fundamentally changes their position relative to us, the NWP, and UNCLOS, as it would give them Denmark's claim to the continental shelf extended EEZ. (Of course ignoring that if they took it by force they throw out all international convention.)
There's reason for the US to covet Greenland- but it's not justified by defense needs, and coveting something in no way grants you right to it.
If there were legitimate defense concerns, given the agreements they have in place they could only be financial/resources based, wanting more done but someone else to foot the bill - without ceding control.
My proposal would address the latter- but it runs in direct contraction to the former (not to mention the ego driven imperialist ambition), which is actually driving things - so it's moot.
Hopefully this is only a short derail.
The King wore his Royal Navy uniform during the visit in question.
Various news outlets tried to hype the fact that he wore Canadian ribbons, such as the Order of Canada, Order of Military Merit, and Canadian Forces Decoration, which he has done for decades.
Edit for spelling.
- Reaction score
- 12,460
- Points
- 1,160
Reference the Zeihan interview that Remius posted
Key element for me.
Zeihan's summation, and a point made in the body of the interview. Trump is Trumpian but much of what is happening would happen in any event, Particularly the retrenchment back to the Western Hemisphere.
One of the biggest changes is the taking of the shadow fleet off the board by giving cover to seize them. In my view this is not the end of security on the high seas but the imposition of a new security regime, one that looks a lot more like the Pax Britannica.
The US hated the Pax Britannica. It prompted a revolution, allowed Americans to be pressganged at sea by the RN and inyerrupted the slave trade. That latter gave the RN moral cover for its actions but made Britain enemies with every country that had a slave economy. That meant every country. And Britain didn't by out yhose with interests in the trade the way they did with Scottish mine owners and British plantation owners. People that had invested in slaves to operate their businesses lost their investments and had to try to find other money to buy British steam engines.
But that RN presence reduced piracy all over the world and made international trade more secure, if under the control of Admiralty House.
World War 2 saw the US dismantle that system and replace it with one that turned the seas back into commons. Although it was backed by the USN it was policed by everyone. The USN was less focused on patrolling the sea lanes with frigates and sloops to maintain order than it was on power projection with big ships.
Somali pirates, Colombian drug runners and the BRICS shadow fleet are all emblematic of that break down.
The tragedy of the commons repeats itself, If everyone is in charge then no one is in charge. And the problem is not cured by more laws. The problem is only cured by action.
Trump demonstrated that he was willing to act and disregard threats and opinions. This has released others with interests and capabilities to act accordingly and start seizing these shadows in earnest.
If Zeihan is correct then that will take about 5 million barrels per day off the board, or a little bit more than the 4 million currently pimped by Alberta and less than Danielle's 8 million target.
....
Opportunity for a recapitalized fleet and a system of patrols that polices the seas actively. One of the problems, as I recall, with the Somali pirates, was what to do with them once they were captured. Rules said they were to be returned to the failed states from whence they came for non-existent courts to deal with.
....
But back to Denmark and Greenland - I don't think Greenland will be invaded. I don't think Denmark will lose its position. I do think that Trump will be accommodated.
Why is he doing this? I don't think the theatrics are aimed at Denmark. I think that he has got three years, maybe only one now, to accomplish what he wants to accomplish and, I think, from his perspective, the more people that believe he is capable of anything the easier it is for him to accomplish his goals, whatever those are.
I happen to think that by and large those goals are in sync with a large portion of not just the MAGA crowd but a good chunk of the American Establishment. There have been some squawks about tariffs and the independence of the Federal Reserve but I am not picking up much active opposition to the broad tenor of the administration. The market continues to function. Even when Trunp went after defence contractors a few days ago that had zero impact on share prices.
Key element for me.
Zeihan's summation, and a point made in the body of the interview. Trump is Trumpian but much of what is happening would happen in any event, Particularly the retrenchment back to the Western Hemisphere.
One of the biggest changes is the taking of the shadow fleet off the board by giving cover to seize them. In my view this is not the end of security on the high seas but the imposition of a new security regime, one that looks a lot more like the Pax Britannica.
The US hated the Pax Britannica. It prompted a revolution, allowed Americans to be pressganged at sea by the RN and inyerrupted the slave trade. That latter gave the RN moral cover for its actions but made Britain enemies with every country that had a slave economy. That meant every country. And Britain didn't by out yhose with interests in the trade the way they did with Scottish mine owners and British plantation owners. People that had invested in slaves to operate their businesses lost their investments and had to try to find other money to buy British steam engines.
But that RN presence reduced piracy all over the world and made international trade more secure, if under the control of Admiralty House.
World War 2 saw the US dismantle that system and replace it with one that turned the seas back into commons. Although it was backed by the USN it was policed by everyone. The USN was less focused on patrolling the sea lanes with frigates and sloops to maintain order than it was on power projection with big ships.
Somali pirates, Colombian drug runners and the BRICS shadow fleet are all emblematic of that break down.
The tragedy of the commons repeats itself, If everyone is in charge then no one is in charge. And the problem is not cured by more laws. The problem is only cured by action.
Trump demonstrated that he was willing to act and disregard threats and opinions. This has released others with interests and capabilities to act accordingly and start seizing these shadows in earnest.
If Zeihan is correct then that will take about 5 million barrels per day off the board, or a little bit more than the 4 million currently pimped by Alberta and less than Danielle's 8 million target.
....
Opportunity for a recapitalized fleet and a system of patrols that polices the seas actively. One of the problems, as I recall, with the Somali pirates, was what to do with them once they were captured. Rules said they were to be returned to the failed states from whence they came for non-existent courts to deal with.
....
But back to Denmark and Greenland - I don't think Greenland will be invaded. I don't think Denmark will lose its position. I do think that Trump will be accommodated.
Why is he doing this? I don't think the theatrics are aimed at Denmark. I think that he has got three years, maybe only one now, to accomplish what he wants to accomplish and, I think, from his perspective, the more people that believe he is capable of anything the easier it is for him to accomplish his goals, whatever those are.
I happen to think that by and large those goals are in sync with a large portion of not just the MAGA crowd but a good chunk of the American Establishment. There have been some squawks about tariffs and the independence of the Federal Reserve but I am not picking up much active opposition to the broad tenor of the administration. The market continues to function. Even when Trunp went after defence contractors a few days ago that had zero impact on share prices.
- Reaction score
- 11,261
- Points
- 1,040
Some other people are opposed to the US acquiring Greenland, especially if force is used.
HavokFour
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,449
- Points
- 1,040
Add Finland to the list.
yle.fi
Finland preparing to send two liaison officers to Greenland
Several European countries have sent soldiers to the region in the past few days on reconnaissance missions.
yle.fi
- Reaction score
- 11,767
- Points
- 1,160
Is Canada sending anyone?Add Finland to the list.
Finland preparing to send two liaison officers to Greenland
Several European countries have sent soldiers to the region in the past few days on reconnaissance missions.
- Reaction score
- 6,507
- Points
- 1,260
So DND is now saying that we won't be sending any troops to Greenland?
www.thestar.com
Whereas this said:
www.yahoo.com
Are we still convening the meeting on this?
Canadian troops won’t be joining European military force in Greenland
Small numbers of troops from European countries, including Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden and Norway and Britain are deploying troops to the Arctic island.
www.thestar.com
Whereas this said:
Germany Joins Canada, Sweden, and Other Nations in Sending Troops to Greenland as Trump Threats Intensify
Germany has joined other NATO allies like Sweden, Canada, and the Netherlands to send troops to Greenland as Trump intensifies his threats to take over the country.
Are we still convening the meeting on this?
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,946
- Points
- 1,040
There are several comments on that article that more sane than the substance of the article itself.
Probably still being figured out, and those who know will STFU about it.
There’s still a reasonably non-batshit off-ramp for Trump on this. He can just say a bunch of dumb noises and include that he ‘got NATO to take security interests with Greenland seriously, all he had to do was threaten to do it his way’ - and then he can change gears and chase a different squirrel. Damage is still done, but that would mitigate it and let him save face by pretending he got what he wanted.
If he continues the brinksmanship in the face of actual NATO troop deployments, that will tell us a lot.
HavokFour
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,449
- Points
- 1,040
So DND is now saying that we won't be sending any troops to Greenland?
Canadian troops won’t be joining European military force in Greenland
Small numbers of troops from European countries, including Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden and Norway and Britain are deploying troops to the Arctic island.
Whereas this said:
Germany Joins Canada, Sweden, and Other Nations in Sending Troops to Greenland as Trump Threats Intensify
Germany has joined other NATO allies like Sweden, Canada, and the Netherlands to send troops to Greenland as Trump intensifies his threats to take over the country.
Are we still convening the meeting on this?
The Star article could very well be based on out of date information.
EDIT: Or they misunderstood?
NATO nations send scouting teams to Greenland amid US annexation talk
European governments are still coming to grips with the unprecedented situation of a NATO ally threatening one of their own.
www.defensenews.com
