Trump’s invasion of Greenland would be ‘the shortest war in the world’ – POLITICO
www.politico.eu

The U.S. has — by far — the world’s largest defense budget, spending $948 billion last year. Its armed forces have 1.3 million personnel — some of them currently stationed in Greenland. Denmark, for its part, last year spent $9.9 billion, has only 17,000 soldiers, and most of its heavy land-warfare equipment has been donated to Ukraine.

  • Anna
    5·
    12 hours ago

    What would US gain by doing this, they already have most of Europe in their sphere of influence, if they break up Europe, France, Germany, and maybe UK (if they fix their shit) will be major players with their own spheres, US won’t have any, and I doubt US will be able to occupy and control Greenland even if they can win it quickly, Greenland is a big land mass and US troops have very little experience fighting in such a cold environment.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      111·
      12 hours ago

      Greenland is a strategic territory, and it has a lot of natural resources US could lay claim to. There is nobody who would meaningfully oppose the US if they did take over Greenland. I’m not sure whom you think US would be fighting there exactly. Meanwhile, European powers becoming some sort major geopolitical players in the foreseeable future is a fantastical idea. The US treats Europe as an expendable asset, and now that times are getting tough, the US is going to take what it needs by force.

      Europeans committed a cardinal error in their assumption that the US was their steadfast ally and guardian. In truth, the relationship is more of a farmer who shelters a goat. It’s not done out of affection, but with the cold calculation of one who knows it will eventually be led to the slaughter.

      • hotspur
        3·
        10 hours ago

        Yeah I basically agree with your point about the unpleasant logic behind such a move, and would only add that Greenland looks appealing if you’re trying to lock down the arctic from both sides of the continent—US has good arctic frontage on Alaska, and Greenland would bookend Canada and allow US more flexibility in countering Russia and expanding oil extraction.

        I was trying to think about where this suddenly came from, and the first thing that kept popping up was Trumps current obsession with drill baby drill, the arctic is the last frontier for potentially easy extraction once all the ice melts and Canada, US and Russia have already been playing footsie there for a decade under the guise of science and commercial traffic trying to lay claim to stuff that was ignorable before.

        Like some dude got in his ear and convinced him the future is in the arctic. It also adds some further explanation to Trump “joking” about making Canada a state. If it was just economic hardball / a new trade deal, they could leave it at tariffs and the like, but they keep saying they want to make it a state…

        All of that makes me sick to my stomach, but as you say there is logic to it.