Well if they seriously do not want him to attack Greenland they can vote to limit his powers. If he still goes ahead and they are truly opposed to it they can impeach him to remove him. Do I think that will happen, probably not but one can wish.
I don't quite understand this train of thought. If anyone attacks a NATO member, it's the obligation of the rest of NATO to defend them. That's the pact. I'm not sure why anyone would think that the rest of the nations would just slink away into the corner.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
My thought was always that they were going to be able to take it without resistance but if a bunch of NATO troops go (let's say British, French, German and a few other countries), I wonder if they're less likely to engage militarily because of the scale of the international incident they'd be creating.
If it gets to that point, I think it will ultimately come down to what Greenland wants to do about it. If they go to the Danish government and asks Denmark to request a NATO military presence on their territory, then Denmark will have to do it and other NATO countries will have to either support it or not.
I know the Greenland government has said that under no circumstances do they want to be Americans, and everything I have seen on the subject does seem to suggest that is the majority opinion of the citizens there. But I also suspect that they don't want to be the epicenter of a conflict that could turn hot. They'll probably opt to live through occupation and try to get full autonomy when another administration takes over. Just my guess.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I don't quite understand this train of thought. If anyone attacks a NATO member, it's the obligation of the rest of NATO to defend them. That's the pact. I'm not sure why anyone would think that the rest of the nations would just slink away into the corner.
I don’t think they would slink away. And I hope they wouldn’t. I was responding to a comment saying no one defend them.
I don't quite understand this train of thought. If anyone attacks a NATO member, it's the obligation of the rest of NATO to defend them. That's the pact. I'm not sure why anyone would think that the rest of the nations would just slink away into the corner.
You honestly think any NATO member will stand up to the US militarily if they invade Greenland? I think it's more likely that we'll see a similar result as the security assurances that Ukraine got from giving up their nuclear weapons, tough words and maybe a few sanctions if we're lucky
I don't quite understand this train of thought. If anyone attacks a NATO member, it's the obligation of the rest of NATO to defend them. That's the pact. I'm not sure why anyone would think that the rest of the nations would just slink away into the corner.
I am not sure if you are purposefully ignoring the scenario being discussed is what if the "anyone" who attacks a NATO member is one of the founding NATO members that happens to have the most powerful military of all NATO members? It kind of changes all pre-existing assumptions about the existence and predictability of NATO as a pact and what its members will or will not do.
The Following User Says Thank You to MBates For This Useful Post:
I am not sure if you are purposefully ignoring the scenario being discussed is what if the "anyone" who attacks a NATO member is one of the founding NATO members that happens to have the most powerful military of all NATO members? It kind of changes all pre-existing assumptions about the existence and predictability of NATO as a pact and what its members will or will not do.
Nuclear weapons are the great equalizer/deterrent. Other founding members of NATO have enough to destroy the US. It needs to be on the table otherwise why even have any?
The Following User Says Thank You to RogerWilco For This Useful Post:
I'm rather annoyed that you're making me agree with Stephen Miller, but he is right that no one is going to nuke the USA over Greenland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Lime
I don't quite understand this train of thought. If anyone attacks a NATO member, it's the obligation of the rest of NATO to defend them. That's the pact. I'm not sure why anyone would think that the rest of the nations would just slink away into the corner.
Because, as with literally any geopolitical question, the answer depends on each nation undertaking a cost / benefit analysis with respect to whether it is in their best interest, in the circumstances, to continue to adhere to the pact rather than just dissolving the pact.
If that cost / benefit analysis boils down to, "well, our leaders signed this agreement about 75 years ago that we'd have to breach, but the alternative is starting a shooting war that could lead to the death of millions", maybe everyone decides Greenland isn't worth the price of keeping NATO around.
Which, as some have pointed out, is part of the point: Trump and his handlers don't really want to be in NATO, either for their own stupid reasons or Putin's, but Congress isn't about to allow the U.S. to withdraw from it, so the other option is to take steps that force its other members to effectively dissolve it.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The implication for Europe of the US taking Greenland has far more complications for Europe than just the US taking Greenland. The US taking Greenland or Canada iMHO will be the start of WWiii. WWiii will most likely involve Nulcear weapons. There will be far more implications for the US than I believe SM can comprehend.
Canada is a different beast. The US attempting to annex Canada would likely trigger a NATO response, but there are lots of other reasons it won't happen.
... I mean maybe just Alberta I guess
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
If, even a long shot for trump, USA takes military advantage of Greenland NATO will act in extreme caution still protecting UsA within nato has its the mass of nato
Article 5 isn't an automatic "make go now" button.
Quote:
But Article 5 NAT can't be invoked by one NATO ally against another, as it would contradict the very spirit of the Alliance. Even if a NATO ally invoked the clause against another, all 32 member states would need to unanimously agree that the actions in question amount to an armed attack. Without consensus, no measures can be taken under Article 5, even if a single member objects. The US would certainly object.
What it does mean is that the US will have declared itself an enemy of NATO, which would most likely result in the collapse of NATO.
You may have notice Trump has completely stopped talking about NATO members boosting their defence spending. I strongly suspect this is because he, Putin, and Xi realized telling your enemy to increase military spending is dumb. The last time I see him mentioning it is way back in June. This was probably the turnaround moment, and between then and now Trump has been convinced to destroy NATO. How do you do that? By going after a territory "no one will defend with force" that belongs to a NATO member.
Putin has wanted NATO destroyed for decades, and he finally found away to make the US do it. The Russians are playing America like a fiddle, and all of MAGA is dancing along.
Last edited by Fuzz; 01-12-2026 at 11:54 AM.
Reason: fix link
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
What does “an invasion of Greenland” look like? The US basically takes a couple of warships there, walk onto Greenland and plants a flag? Crazy.
There are two ways that a country needs to take over another.
1st is physical force, so yeah warships
2nd is to use discursive power, that is to annex administrative power. The first is much easier than the second.
Article 5 isn't an automatic "make go now" button.
Quote:
But Article 5 NAT can't be invoked by one NATO ally against another, as it would contradict the very spirit of the Alliance. Even if a NATO ally invoked the clause against another, all 32 member states would need to unanimously agree that the actions in question amount to an armed attack. Without consensus, no measures can be taken under Article 5, even if a single member objects. The US would certainly object.
What are you quoting here? I'm not an expert on the NATO treaty or anything but this doesn't sound correct to me.
That said the overriding point that it's not an immediate trigger to military action is correct; each member state would determine how to help the party relying on Art. 5 and that may not involve deploying military assets to defend them.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
What are you quoting here? I'm not an expert on the NATO treaty or anything but this doesn't sound correct to me.
That said the overriding point that it's not an immediate trigger to military action is correct; each member state would determine how to help the party relying on Art. 5 and that may not involve deploying military assets to defend them.
