π¬π±πΊπΈ NATO officials have discussed sending troops to Greenland in the wake of Trump's threats to use force to seize the island, β The Telegraph
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
πΊπ¦π "Berlin doesn't want to send troops to Ukraine because the situation is 'too ambiguous', but is openly hinting at sending NATO troops to Greenland. It's like a compass without a needle," a NATO diplomat said indignantly.
Sholz is a dork, but hey if anyone should send troops to help Denmark on Greenland it should be Sweden, Norway and Finland. Not only bc we're Nordics best buds but we actually do have people used to Arctic climate...
Lets be clear, Scholz doesn't think that there will be a conflict over Greenland therefore its safe PR, whereas there's a chance of personnel losses in Ukraine, therefore you don't send troops there. Time and again we see this in post 91 deployments.
You musn't be following the war very closely as the Russians are at breaking point. It's just the Ukrainians don't have the manpower to capitalise on this.
A5 doesn't have to be triggered for it to be a world war... It would be a conflict between the most technologically advanced nations, including 3 of them with nuclear weapons and so on. That would in this case constitute a mass casualty war, likely at the same or larger scale as NATO troops in UA
Nice that NATO will defend Denmark against USA.
Thanks NATO! π
- and nice that most countries (besides one) still know how to act when being allied.
Sounds like effete NATO is running away from Ukraine where peacekeeping troops are needed & focusing on benign Greenland. Because gosh, they donβt want to upset dear Putin. The raison dβΓͺtre of NATO is to counter Russian imperialism.
Trump is deliberately trying to overwhelm the media space to provide distractions from his many legal setbacks/pushbacks over the past 2 weeks. Itβs all bullshit and designed to alarm.
Would tRump dare to make a military move on Greenland?
That would be insane, and even more insane would be the Congress approving it.
It would mean making the whole Europe & friends an enemy. Who would the US have left as allies? S. Korea and Israel because they depend on it, and maybe Japan...
the joint force is made up of about 1.3 million active-duty service members and more than 811,000 National Guardsmen and reservists β all of whom swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
It turns out that it is a mistake to elect a president who is not above kindergarten level. On the other hand, no wonder if the voters themselves live at this intellectual level. Educational poverty destroys every system
Comments
I just got back from Copenhagen yesterday and that's what they told me.
Denmark is investing $2 billion in Greenlands security, that explains it all.
Welcome NATO!
Thanks NATO! π
- and nice that most countries (besides one) still know how to act when being allied.
That would be insane, and even more insane would be the Congress approving it.
It would mean making the whole Europe & friends an enemy. Who would the US have left as allies? S. Korea and Israel because they depend on it, and maybe Japan...
https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrection-at-the-capitol/2021/01/12/956170188/joint-chiefs-remind-u-s-forces-that-they-defend-the-constitution
Hopefully most of the NATO troops are from Canada and Denmark if they decide to go. π