Greenland

[Spekkio]

I think in general the MAGA crowd sees those bases as the US "protecting" Europe out of the kindness of our hearts and values and at the cost of our checkbook without any understanding that they are strategically critical for our own interests military and otherwise, and often well beyond Europe.

Trump has a 35% approval rating (40-45% among registered Republicans) and fewer than 1 in 5 Americans support whatever he plans to do with Greenland.

There is no maga 'crowd.' Deposing the leader of Venezuela and annexing Greenland weren't on the list of Trump's campaign promises.

 

[Spekkio]

Do folks not realize that violating not one but two treaties we have signed it basically invalidates every piece of paper we have ever signed as a country? Every treaty, trade agreement and defense pact would be worthless, to include treaties with countries like Japan and the Philippines and even our closest allies, the 'Five Eyes'.

Why would anyone, from Poland to Singapore and everyone in between, ever trust us again? Are people really that stupid not to see that?



If a 6-7000 troop rotation to Europe is taking up a 'quarter of the Army' and 'eroding readiness and retention' that sounds a bit more like an Army problem.

Even then, none of that in any way justifies getting into a conflict with a longstanding close ally who has done nothing to against this country.

Flash, the world doesn't trust the United States. They never did.

They deal with us because they believe it's advantageous or in their best interests to do so. They do it knowing that we're going to get our pound of flesh from the deal.

 

[number9]

Trump has a 35% approval rating (40-45% among registered Republicans) and fewer than 1 in 5 Americans support whatever he plans to do with Greenland.

There is no maga 'crowd.' Deposing the leader of Venezuela and annexing Greenland weren't on the list of Trump's campaign promises.

One of his campaign promises was to end the Russia/Ukraine war on, literally, "day one". How is that going?

 

[Flash]

Flash, the world doesn't trust the United States. They never did.

They deal with us because they believe it's advantageous or in their best interests to do so. They do it knowing that we're going to get our pound of flesh from the deal.

You'd be surprised that some allies actually like us, particularly the ones that have shared values. The problem with this is all 'deals' are off if we forcibly take over Greenland.

 

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

The problem with this is all 'deals' are off if we forcibly take over Greenland.

Which, again, WOULD BE FUCKING ILLEGAL.

 

[Flash]

Yeah, I'm stupid. Ok, dear.

Poland in particular is in a bit of bind: they've invested heavily in US armaments (largest FMS customer in the world)...And what's the alternative? Germany, the country that tried to exterminate Poland a couple of generations ago and whose chancellor (Schroeder) retired from public life to become Putin's bitch?

Actually yes, along with most of the rest of Europe.

Polacy of all political stripes trust in one thing: that US soldiers on Polish soil are the surest guarantee against outright Russian aggression, and they'll do whatever they can to keep them here. AEGIS ashore they'll keep for as long as they possibly can. They'd probably welcome US personnel kicked out of other countries.

After violating treaties with a longstanding ally of over 80 years? A fellow democracy, and against the will of the people being occupied? They'd rethink that, as would everyone else in the world.

 

[Spekkio]

You'd be surprised that some allies actually like us, particularly the ones that have shared values. The problem with this is all 'deals' are off if we forcibly take over Greenland.

If we want to isolate ourselves from countries who have different cultural values, then we are going to find outselves alone pretty rapidly.

Value and morality based foreign policy arguments sound great when criticizing things you don't agree with, but they're not rooted in reality in the way the world works and rapidly make countries into hypocrites the moment that they strike trade deals with some less than scrupulous regimes.

One of our biggest trading partners in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia. They practice Sharia law, were the primary funding source of Al Qaeda, and 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals.

When I buy a car, I don't care if the car salesman cheats on his wife or does coke in his spare time. In fact, I assume he's a dishonest dirt bag. I just want a car, and he wants my money. As long as that relationship benefits us, we do business.

 

[Spekkio]

One of his campaign promises was to end the Russia/Ukraine war on, literally, "day one". How is that going?

Not well. Turns out you can't just berate a world leader on camera then say pretty please to the other over a telcon and end a major conflict.

 

[Flash]

If we want to isolate ourselves from countries who have different cultural values, then we are going to find outselves alone pretty rapidly.

We don't, and that's not even the point. Our closest allies by far are those with which we share strong cultural and historical bonds along with common values. A forceful takeover of Greenland would gravely damage even our closest allied relationships, on which we rely heavily and likely much more than folks seem to realize to include some here on this forum apparently.

 

[Brett327]

Say it with me… By, with and through. This is the way.

 

[Flash]

View attachment 44357

To add a little bit more to what I said in my previous post, while Greenland certainly lays in the traditional path of a Russian ICBM those are not the only nuclear threats from them. The Russians have long developed delivery systems to bypass BMD, from SLBMs and nuclear arms bombers from the 50’s and 60’s to nuclear powered cruise missiles and ‘torpedoes’ of today. So while a good defense against some more ‘traditional’ nuclear threats there are ways to bypass it.

Not only that but a forcible seizure would likely cause considerable harm to homeland defense too.

The map also highlights Canada’s central role in helping defend our homeland, what happens with them if we forcibly take over Greenland? Domestic pressure for Canada greatly reduce or even end their defence relationship with us would be enormous, and would likely happen to a degree, undercutting whatever advantages we have with Greenland.

What happens next? Seizing the Northwest Territories an Nunavut? Where does it end?

 

[taxi1]

Flash, the world doesn't trust the United States. They never did.

On my last deployment, to an unusual place, I spent a majority of my time in civvies outside the wire. I have to disagree. Plenty that hate our guts, but plenty that looked to us as that beacon of freedom.

 

[Spekkio]

On my last deployment, to an unusual place, I spent a majority of my time in civvies outside the wire. I have to disagree. Plenty that hate our guts, but plenty that looked to us as that beacon of freedom.

I'm talking about political leadership, not John Q. Citizen.

 

[Lawman]

Do folks not realize that violating not one but two treaties we have signed it basically invalidates every piece of paper we have ever signed as a country? Every treaty, trade agreement and defense pact would be worthless, to include treaties with countries like Japan and the Philippines and even our closest allies, the 'Five Eyes'.

Why would anyone, from Poland to Singapore and everyone in between, ever trust us again? Are people really that stupid not to see that?



If a 6-7000 troop rotation to Europe is taking up a 'quarter of the Army' and 'eroding readiness and retention' that sounds a bit more like an Army problem.

Even then, none of that in any way justifies getting into a conflict with a longstanding close ally who has done nothing against this country.

I’m sorry but where are you getting this number?

There are anywhere between 5-6k troops in an Armored BCT. We had 2 from each division forward… along with the sustainment, aviation, engineering brigades, and DivArty.

That’s the problem. The heaviest 4/5 Divisons in the Active Army (2x Strike, 2x Mech Inf) are on a rotational constant to maintain forward presence in Europe we stupidly downsized during the Obama admin as part of the greater downsize. And the reenlistment rates for those divisions are significantly under the average. This is a problem, and since the money for things like flying hours and the SSAs in Europe were not forthcoming since it’s not a combat environment units get worse over there not better.

So any presentation that Trump has simply stopped caring or is actively retreating for our commitments to Europe seem pretty stupid seeing as that’s where I’m planning to spend 2027. There is more useful ground combat power in that single Division(-) forward than in the entire Bundeswehr, but for years we got to listen to people line up to defend Merkle from Trumps very real and very accurate criticisms which were just brash forms of the same thing Obama did before him. The difference now is Metz may actually start fixing the problem.