EU and NATO, NATO is larger than the EU itself. It would be a political, economic, and military disaster (even if the US "wins" the conflict) for the US. Losing 31 ally nations (possibly more) overnight and all those facilities would be a long-term military disaster, and a longer-term political disaster. Who would ever ally with the US again for the next several decades knowing that the US will turn on allies?
There is no law of geopolitical physics that says regime change operations must be confined to developing countries. In the event of a serious deterioration in US-EU relations you shouldn't expect the US to sit idle. The European far right does not care about Greenland one bit.
We could very well end up in a situation where we have the US and Russia working together to destabilize the EU, perhaps European leaders fear this and will let Greenland go.
> Losing 31 ally nations (possibly more) overnight and all those facilities would be a long-term military disaster, and a longer-term political disaster.
And they should also consider all equipment, munition and weapons stored at those facilities, including the B61 nukes, null and void. Because their former NATO allies will never ever allow the US to take equipment which could be used against them later on back home.
And if they come with the argument "But that is against international law", they should have thought about that before illegally abducting a foreign president from a country at peace according to those same international laws.
The effects are probably more profound that just losing allies. It also could crash financial market, and tech wise would force EU to develop it's own industry, like baidu or yandex
I included the economic disaster in my list. I just felt that I needed to explain why I considered it a military disaster even though the US could likely "win" Greenland. It would lose Europe and the ability to project military power through Europe. This impacts the ability to project power in Africa and the Middle East. It'll lead to a cascading military failure which leads to lots of other problems including further economic problems.
This. I would hope for this. Let them take Greenland to save lives. But while the win the battle they lose the war. No more NATO. No more allies in Europe. The next time something goes wrong America will be alone because Trump ruined anything decent with America.
Trump already has ruined America. I'm not sure Americans understand how alienating this stuff is. As a formerly very Atlanticist Brit who used to genuinely look up to America and thought we had so much to learn from it, this shit is completely insane. The Americans have gone insane.
I’m an expat living in Berlin. Trust me. I can’t believe how bad it’s gotten. Maybe entropy and his bad diet will fix things … problem is JD Vance is even worse.
Why let them walk away? I can't imagine it happening either, but if it happens, they are enemy combatants. EU should arrest them and treat them as prisoners of war.
You must have forgotten the world has rules and weight classes. But reality hits hard and doesn't care. The USA with this administration is not to be tested. If there is anything you can say about trump. The world is actually terrified at what he will do because he will do anything he thinks is right. Not what is. But he's controlling the strongest most intelligent military on the planet. If you think war or capturing prisoners as another country is safe. You're dumber than the ring leader himself.
They will play the same game as Russia. They will not annex the whole of Greenland and will try to keep the intensity below that which would justify a full-scale armed conflict.
They will claim to annex only the territory of the American bases, then it will be a 10-mile strip around the bases, access to the sea, airspace, the exclusive economic zone, etc.
They can play this game for months and years if we let them.
Crimea came under Russian control because it was home to Russia's largest naval base, Simferopol.
In case of attack by the US, their troops would be effectively stranded in enemy territory, in particular their nukes.
I doubt that the US would invade Greenland without first pulling out of Europe (unless they do an all-out attack with also the troops in continental Europe, but that is something i doubt even Trump would do)
Replacing one colonial ruler with another colonial ruler, at best, whilst losing every single one of America's allies in the process. Truly the Art of the Deal.
Almost. I’m admittedly being pedantic, but here’s the nuance:
Greenland is not part of the EU. Their citizens are Danish citizens, and as such, they are EU citizens. Confused yet? Greenland is a member of NATO - which is actually much more problematic. If Trump invades Greenland, he’s delivered NATO’s head on a silver platter to Vladimir Putin. I’d call that aiding and abetting an enemy - an act of treason - but I’m old school.
Since this is HN, what’s the tech angle?
The EU will restrict or outright ban U.S. Big Tech. Big Tech stocks will tank, and we can expect hundreds of thousands of layoffs as a result. More concerning, EU consumers will boycott as many American products as they can - just as Canadians have done. That means a wave of U.S. business failures and even more job losses. It’s also a big win for China, who will happily fill the gap.
Oh, and all U.S. military personnel and their families? Deported immediately. My crystal ball isn’t telling me what happens to the materiel.
- Greenland and Denmark don't want to sell to the US.
- Denmark is a close ally of the US, and is a NATO member.
If the US decides that the only way to get Greenland is to take it by force, than that's the end of NATO. And it will usher in a new and unprecedented time where Europe will treat the US as hostiles. Whatever values US hopes to extract from Greenland via their natural resources will absolutely pale in comparison to the new economic world that springs up.
And even if by some miniscule chance the US manages convince the majority of Greenlanders that they should break off from Denmark, and sell to the US, they can pretty much set the price. Or it's up to the above point.
Even more important: Trump and his cronies will be long tone until anything would materialize.
This is nothing but Trump wanting to make a huge splash before he fades away. Even if there are billionaires working behind the scene, I fully expect a future non-MAGA president to completely abandon any idea of annexing Greenland, and work on repairing the damage that Trump has done to international relations.
Doing a surgical strike on a known enemy of the US / ally of Russia and China (Maduro and Venezuela) is one thing. Going to war with allies and destroying NATO is a completely different matter.
I wouldn't describe Trump as seriously wanting to take over Greenland. Vs. being kinda desperate to talk big, get headlines, flex his ego, and distract folks from his domestic problems & waning voter approval numbers.
Obviously, that's no assurance that he won't actually try to do it. But I think he and his inner circle are quite aware that taking it would mostly remove "talk big about taking Greenland" from his rhetorical toolbox. While providing endless opportunities for Trump to look bad, for having "conquered" an undefended, high-maintenance block of ice.
The tariffs turned on a fat revenue stream for Trump's Treasury. And brought a long queue of kneelers to his door, begging for tariff exemptions for their businesses.
Yes, eventually, after they were paused and walked back some. But immediately following Obliteration Day, they caused the stock and bond markets to crash. We were lucky that this time, the toothpaste could be put back in the tube.
But that's a bad thing, special exemptions to tariffs based on patronage is good for Trump but terrible for the US. That's exactly one of the biggest reasons tariffs are so bad.
In International Relations the most dominant theory is called “Realism”[0], which basically says that States will be self-interested and cooperation happens when both sides gain from it, but also factors in each side’s powers, both military and soft. But in the end it’s RATIONAL actors.
Like having the Nuke is great because nobody is crazy enough to mess with you because you can nuke them, but also you will get nuked. Mutual Assured Destruction and whatnot.
I keep hearing people arguing that Trump is rational and making moves “because he can”. And the US absolutely can do pretty much whatever it wants because of it’s position in the globe. Where’s the limit though? What line crossed would make the world actually turn against the US?
To be honest I have a really hard time accepting that his actions are chess moves. The Venezuela thing is borderline crazy but the US has done it before multiple times.
The Greenland stuff.. THAT would be nuts. That would in fact show he’s not rational and his people can’t hold him back anymore.
Or maybe I eat my words and this is more like the tariffs thing, where he barks and growls but in the end is a bully tactic to get others to do what he wants. Because that has in fact worked somewhat well.
> Or maybe I eat my words and this is more like the tariffs thing, where he barks and growls but in the end is a bully tactic to get others to do what he wants. Because that has in fact worked somewhat well.
What if Venezuela undoes that? What if countries decide they're going to squelch on their concessions to Trump as a result?
I don’t know. I see more comparisons with Libya or Syria or Central America in the 60s-70s-80s. Invasions and government toppling of non-central countries that draw a frown, but that nobody would actually jump in the fire to save.
Denmark? An EU, NATO country? Shit that would really be unprecedented.
A local drug lord likes your daughter. He offers to purchase her for a load of cash. He threats to kill your entire family to get her if you refuse.
You do the pragmatic thing and sell her to him so you can save the rest of your family? Doubt so.
For countries, land has the same value of a family member. You don’t sell, you don’t risk it, you don’t let anyone touch it. Or else everything else falls apart.
Other than USA at the moment, who exactly should Greenland be afraid of? If for whatever reason Russia would invade Greenland, then Denmark will invoke article 5. Even if US ignores that, the rest of Europe would fight Russia on Greenland, which in turn would spill over to Europe, and WW3 is a thing.
When the US argues that Greenland is defenseless without them, it's the same as the mafia telling a shop owner that he's defenseless without their protection - when in reality it is the mob who's the threat.
Furthermore it doesn't mater if some Greenlanders want to join the US, it is a democracy. The majority would want it. And by any measure right now, the majority do not want it.
No one is fighting over the 30k people in Greenland. They are a colony of Denmark today and the argument is by what right? This is precedent. If the USA believes it is necessary to her security to liberate Greenland from Danish colonialism then what leg do the Danes stand on? They have a greater right to colonial rule?
You can’t provide properly for your family. The drug lord has a fortune. He can put her in the top colleges, fly her around the world, buy any car she wants - when she is old enough to drive.
Don’t me a bad dad, sell your daughter to the drug lord.
So here's the thing with Greenland. It's mainly indigenous people living there (inuits), a bit under 60k. 40% of their working population (whole working population: 25k) work in administrative jobs, which are more or less subsidized by Denmark. Denmark subsidizes Greenland to the tune of half a billion euro annually. The rest work in fisheries, hunting, whaling, animal husbandry, and things like that.
Very few work in mining, because there's little infrastructure in place to engage in mining. And while it would take a huge sum of money to start mining there, who knows if the people there are interested in working with mines, or if they would even allow it. If you've ever lived in a country with indigenous people, it is a regulatory nightmare to just mine on places they claim to own. I live in Norway, and a minority of our indigenous people (Sámi people) work with reindeer herding. It is a very subsidized sector, and the regulatory red-tape tied to reindeer areas have stopped many projects related to energy and minerals.
My point is that no mater how lucrative the new alternative is, plenty of people will straight up reject it on basis of tradition. Some things you simply can't put a price tag on.
If US rolls up and wants to buy Greenland, from Greenlanders, they also need to convince them to pretty much give up all their land, their way of living, and to take care of them per the Nordic model, for the rest of their lives. The average Greenlander earns something equivalent to $50k / year.
And how much would US be willing to pay? What if the citizens of Greenland have a vote, and say - OK, we'll do, but only if US can pay $50m / citizen ($3 Tn), or some arbitrarily large sum. Or if they say, nah, we're fine as it is. No money in the world will be enough?
Point is, the US is the party that wants Greenland. Greenland knows this. They could chose to say fuck off, we don't want you, or they could demand as much as they want.
If US then decides to take Greenland by force, it would set off things that will cost US much more than what Greenland will ever be worth.
I almost cannot conceive that it would happen.
However, if it does, the EU would have to force all US military personnel stationed on the bases across the EU to leave the region.
reply