We Canucks are supposed to stand together. Don't make me start speaking smack! I am waiting for Trump to demand Grand Manan Island.
Heck, give us all of New Brunswick while you are at it. The Northwestern border of New Brunswick aligns pretty close to the Northwestern border of Maine anyway. Just kidding.
Austria's NATO enlargement committee chairman, Gunther Fehlinger, has issued a stern warning to the U.S. if it were to pursue Greenland. In a video posted to social media, Fehlinger claimed that if the U.S. annexed Greenland, all the other U.S. bases in Europe would be confiscated, and the U.S. would "have to leave. Full Report here.
It's being reported that Danish troops in Greenland have been told to "shoot first, ask questions later" in the event of an invasion.
Which sounds like brave words when your miniscule military is pitted against the largest in the world, however the Danish do have long experience in Greenland and they do have some well-trained troops. Conversely the US military obviously have also been there a long time.
It would likely be a short but bloody campaign if the Danes decided to resist. But the optics would look terrible, Europe would essentially be at war with the USA.
More likely I feel is that the US unilaterally expand military bases in remote Greenland, coincidentally taking adjacent mining land. The Danes don't like it, but decide the risks of confrontation are too high. The population of Greenland which is almost entirely in the South and coastal parts remain largely unaffected because the invasion is almost nothing to do with the people.
So Greenland becomes divided like Cyprus. Or even more similar to Cuba, where the government dislikes the Guantanamo bay military complex but is unable to do anything about it.
And probably Trump would get away with it and as a result get stronger.
As to closing NATO bases, I wonder if this isn't the main objective. The Trump administration doesn't want to be in Europe. And I think they don't regard the UK as Europe, so having bases here give some strategic advantages which make the others in Europe unnecessary anyway.
The whole thing is madness on various levels but control of the arctic potentially puts pressure onto the Chinese, gives an upper hand over the Russians and gives a reason to withdraw from activities in Europe.
Time for the Danish to position some anti-ship missiles along the coast and fire at anything that gets too close. If the Houthis can drive the American armada out of the Bab el Mandeb strait surely the Greenlanders can do the same.
It's being reported that Danish troops in Greenland have been told to "shoot first, ask questions later" in the event of an invasion.
Which sounds like brave words when your miniscule military is pitted against the largest in the world, however the Danish do have long experience in Greenland and they do have some well-trained troops. Conversely the US military obviously have also been there a long time.
It would likely be a short but bloody campaign if the Danes decided to resist. But the optics would look terrible, Europe would essentially be at war with the USA.
If you look at the King's Royal Guard in 1940, the Danish military has previous on lamming into overwhelming opposition and hang the consequences, and I bet that bit of Danish history is taught to every recruit.
But on the other hand after 1864 Denmark never actually went to war until Iraq 2003, on the basis that there was no point fighting against overwhelming odds (i.e. against Germany) - is that not correct?
It's a sobering thought, but I read somewhere (possibly in the Guardian) that an armed invasion of Greenland would probably result in US troops being sent home in body bags.
Would that bother Trump? I doubt it, but US families might beg to differ...
But on the other hand after 1864 Denmark never actually went to war until Iraq 2003, on the basis that there was no point fighting against overwhelming odds (i.e. against Germany) - is that not correct?
Not quite. Danish troops have been involved in UN peace-keeping actions since WW2. There's a memorial in Copenhagen which lists the conflicts and the casualties. I was surprised how many there were.
As a matter of principle, Denmark decided to commit troops to any UN initiative involving armed force.
As to whether Danish troops would open fire on existing US bases or any additional US troops landing on the island, well it depends whether that would be a token opposition to make a point or whether they think it would be the risk of a heavy-handed US response.
The small British garrison in Port Stanley in the Falklands put up a bit of a fight when Argentina invaded. They wounded s few Argentinian troops but therefore no fatalities and they surrendered once 'honour' was satisfied as it were.
If there were any resistance to US incursion it would come from small detachments of Danish troops. I suspect they'd be quickly overwhelmed however good an account they gave off themselves.
The question is, would Trump risk an all-out confrontation with a NATO ally? Not that NATO means very much to him of course.
Neither does the term 'ally'.
I think Keir Starmer's immediate change of tack from vague comments on Venezuela to a public pronouncement on support for Denmark shows that the UK government takes the Trumpian threat seriously though.
It's a sobering thought, but I read somewhere (possibly in the Guardian) that an armed invasion of Greenland would probably result in US troops being sent home in body bags.
Would that bother Trump? I doubt it, but US families might beg to differ...
Consider the shock and awe that happened in Venezuela. There are around 109,000 active duty military personnel in Venezuela with 32 Cubans hired as Maduro's personal bodyguards. Reports are saying all of the Cuban bodyguards were killed. We do not know how many Venezuelan military were killed.
How many American casualties were there? The Trump admiration claims two service personnel were injured.
How many Danish service personnel are on Greenland? I think it is no more than 9,000. If America did a shock and awe strike on Greenland, do you really think the result would be American body bags?
As was pointed out faced with overwhelming odds, the prudent thing for Denmark to do is to yield the ground.
But according to a YouGov poll taken on Jan 7, 2026, only 7% of Americans favor military force to take Greenland.
Any sane president would hesitate to use the military against Greenland.
Note to AFF: Allied naval forces have been able to control the strait off Yemen largely through standoff forces. I think the US has two carriers, one in the Red Sea and the other in the Indian Ocean keeping that body of water under control.
We all know the US military can put on an impressive 'shock and awe' show. They've got the toys to do it.
They aren't quite so impressive in difficult terrain or tricky landings. Some of the GIs in the invasion of Grenada were carrying so much kit they sank like stones to the bottom of the sea.
Not that I think that an amphibious invasion of Greenland would be that difficult. They could easily land unopposed on the many miles of undefended coastline and also blast from a distance any Danish installations that put up a fight.
This is getting a bit boys with their toys though. I wouldn't wish casualties on either side but I don't think any US invasion force would be able to seize Greenland without incurring some casualties, even if it were just a handful.
Not that I want to see my hypothesis put to the test.
If there were US, Danish or Greenlander civilian casualties they'd all be victims of Trump's hubris and he'd have their blood on his hands.
We all know the US military can put on an impressive 'shock and awe' show. They've got the toys to do it.
Right, but they have to move their toys first and that should give everyone plenty of time to decide how they choose to react.
Yes, it took several weeks for the US to move forces into the Caribbean before Trump was able to pull the trigger.
There happens to be a pact between the US and Denmark which was signed in 1951 which allows the US to place any number of forces on the island in the name of defending it. Under the treaty Denmark retains full sovereignty over Greenland but the US receives operational rights. See: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp?utm
Under this pact
The US may build, maintain and operate military bases on the island
The US may station unlimited personnel on the island
The US may control air and sea movements related to its operation, and
The US may use any part of Greenland for defensive purposes.
BUT
The US cannot claim or annex Greenland
The US cannot act outside the defense of Greenland and the North Atlantic treaty area--it must be tied to NATO obligation.
The US cannot expand military bases without Danish consultations
The US cannot interfere with Greenlandic or Danish civil governance, and.
The US cannot exclude Denmark from oversight.
Bottom line: The US has everything it needs to expand its military presence.
Of course, Denmark has the right to declare this treaty null and void.
Putin thought he would get no effective resistance from Ukraine - I think Trump would be wrong if he thought he could just take over Greenland and have no resistance.
The terrain will be a significant issue for a start.
Sounds like the US already has everything it needs from the treaty - other than the rare-earth minerals or oil.
Has anyone pointed out to the POTUS that there is already an agreement in place for the US to expand its military bases in Greenland without having to threaten its sovereignty?
I'm sure someone will have done but such a treaty won't be good enough for him because it doesn't give him the opportunity to throw his weight around and intimidate his country's allies.
Putin thought he would get no effective resistance from Ukraine - I think Trump would be wrong if he thought he could just take over Greenland and have no resistance.
The terrain will be a significant issue for a start.
Not really. Even back in the 80's I received Arctic training. I remember the "Bunny Boots" fondly. I long had my Arctic coat after I separated from the military, We have had experience north of the Arctic circle since the early 1900s. We will not be moving people from the Caribbean to the Arctic without proper provisions. At least, I hope not.
I wasn't really thinking about whether they'd be warm enough - but more that it is massive, difficult to navigate and slow to cross. The Ukrainians were able to bog down Russian troops in ploughed fields.
I think Greenland's different though. Only a few settlements and any Danish military would be located in a few key installations where they could be quickly contained.
It's not as if they could fan out into the tundra to wage a guerilla war.
If there were a military confrontation I suspect it would be very one-sided and over very quickly. I would envisage some US casualties though - through incompetence and friendly fire - sorry @Gramps49 but your guys have form that way - as well as the Danes picking off a few GIs for 'honour's sake.'
But the outcome would be inevitable. A US 'victory'. A victory for venality, gangsterism and hubris. A victory that would be no victory whatsoever in any recognised definition of morality.
I wasn't really thinking about whether they'd be warm enough - but more that it is massive, difficult to navigate and slow to cross. The Ukrainians were able to bog down Russian troops in ploughed fields.
You forget the Russians were using antiquated equipment, and were poorly trained. This is like comparing an apple to a turnip.
I ultimately find it very difficult to conceive of Danes actually shooting to kill US soldiers as things stand. It would be an appalling historical moment. It would take a lot to get there from here, probably more than an invasion of Greenland.
Sure, I suspect Trump will use intimidation rather than direct military action. Denmark has said that its troops would 'shoot on sight' if American forces did invade.
Is that rhetoric?
Whatever the case, it's a sorry state of affairs that they should even feel the need to say such a thing. I can't remember a European country ever issuing a statement of that kind in relation to an ally - which is what the US is supposed to be.
It's an indictment of the Trump administration that we are even having this conversation. Completely unthinkable in living memory.
I wasn't really thinking about whether they'd be warm enough - but more that it is massive, difficult to navigate and slow to cross. The Ukrainians were able to bog down Russian troops in ploughed fields.
You forget the Russians were using antiquated equipment, and were poorly trained. This is like comparing an apple to a turnip.
We lost in Afghanistan, we lost in Korea, the US lost in Vietnam, Russia has been fighting for years and has not conquered Ukraine. Unless you plan to actually colonise - you can not hold a nation state in subjugation by force alone following invasion.
But Greenland has a tiny population compared to any of those countries and a much less hospitable environment. It seems much less likely to be able to sustain guerrilla resistance.
Sure, I suspect Trump will use intimidation rather than direct military action. Denmark has said that its troops would 'shoot on sight' if American forces did invade.
Is that rhetoric?
Whatever the case, it's a sorry state of affairs that they should even feel the need to say such a thing. I can't remember a European country ever issuing a statement of that kind in relation to an ally - which is what the US is supposed to be.
It's an indictment of the Trump administration that we are even having this conversation. Completely unthinkable in living memory.
It is indeed a very sorry state of affairs. But to answer your question I think - although of course I could be wrong - yes, it is rhetoric.
I'm inclined to think so too and agree with your assessment that Greenland is in no way comparable to Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam or Ukraine.
The entire population could fit into a small town.
Nobody could sustain a guerrilla campaign out in the tundra. If it came to a fight the US would very quickly overwhelm key installations. They might lose a few blokes in the process but casualties would be very light.
There might also be a helicopter crash, as there was during the Falklands campaign. Or a few guys accidentally injured when unloading heavy kit in difficult conditions.
But no, this wouldn't be an Afghanistan or Iraq.
But the very fact that Denmark or anyone else for that matter feels the need to issue rhetorical threats in retaliation to gung-ho bloviating from a POTUS shows how morally bankrupt the current US administration actually is.
Whatever the case @Doublethink, I still think you are wide of the mark on the military aspects of all this, should a conflict take place - which I feel is unlikely at this stage.
NATO hasn't got any boots on the ground in Greenland and are hardly likely to send a flotilla across the Atlantic any time soon.
Any US military operation would most likely take the form of helicopter and parachute raids to seize and secure vital installations, with naval support. They wouldn't need that many troops to do that. Military experts - also according to the BBC say that it could be done in a single drop.
If NATO forces did send ships across the Atlantic to defend Greenland, the US could take the island in a lightning strike and set up defences to thwart any incoming fleet.
According to the pundits quoted by the Beeb, US seizure of the island could be bloodless, as @Gramps49 notes from his own military experience. If there were US casualties they'd be very light indeed.
Denmark's forces wouldn't be able to defend such a vast territory and any NATO build up there would take a Heck of a long time - and could trigger a pre-emptive US strike.
Is anyone seriously suggesting that the UK, France and other NATO powers would launch strikes against Washington, Chicago or New York?
No, it would be very difficult for NATO to come to Greenland's aid and Trump knows that. That's why he's trying to bully the NATO powers.
My own guess would be that Trump will offer sweeteners and incentives to the Greenlanders to encourage them to seek independence from Denmark, something most of them want but not at the expense of becoming a vassal US state.
Still, economic incentives would be hard for them to resist. There are only 58,000 of them and many struggle to make ends meet.
Vance is reported to have told 'certain' European leaders to tone down their 'over-reaction' to Trump's threatened annexation of a sovereign territory in what he regards as his own backyard.
He's a lot more wily than Trump and can sound more conciliatory than his boss, but he'll be just as committed to the Donroe Doctrine.
The US is essentially raising a middle finger to Europe and treating its allies with complete contempt. Denmark sent troops to Afghanistan. That's clearly been forgotten or overlooked.
Trump is raising a middle finger to Canada, Europe, China and everywhere and anywhere else that isn't the USA.
He's also doing the same thing internally to state governors and anyone and everyone who doesn't support his MAGA-lomania.
I think you are missing the point, seizing some installations does not equal a successful conquest. We held Camp Bastian the entire time we were in Afghanistan, we did not hold Afghanistan.
I think what scares me the most is that Trump actually sees Greenland as a modern Siberia. He could take land in the isolated North or East, far from anyone else. Denmark and NATO would complain but they're not going to be flying over 8 hours of snow to defend a glacier.
Then Trump builds workcamps, enough to house the "millions" a year of migrants he says he will be removing from the USA.
Again, this is all utter nonsense - using forced labour camps to extract rare earth minerals is an idea from the mind of a madman like Stalin. But I'm scared that's where we are now.
I think what scares me the most is that Trump actually sees Greenland as a modern Siberia. He could take land in the isolated North or East, far from anyone else. Denmark and NATO would complain but they're not going to be flying over 8 hours of snow to defend a glacier.
Then Trump builds workcamps, enough to house the "millions" a year of migrants he says he will be removing from the USA.
Again, this is all utter nonsense - using forced labour camps to extract rare earth minerals is an idea from the mind of a madman like Stalin. But I'm scared that's where we are now.
It's not beyond the realm of possibility for this man.
But I think it's more about controlling the Northern Passage because China and Russia are using it to bypass the Panama and Suez canals. Russia's shipping and infrastucture dominance in the Arctic is decades ahead of Europe and North America's, and the best they can hope for is to slow Russia down while they play catch up.
I think you are missing the point, seizing some installations does not equal a successful conquest. We held Camp Bastian the entire time we were in Afghanistan, we did not hold Afghanistan.
Yes, but Afghanistan was teeming with Taliban insurgents. It's not a comparator in any way, shape or form. 58,000 Greenlanders aren't going to be waging a guerilla war and neither can Denmark mount a sufficient defence still less run some kind of 'resistance' campaign out in the tundra.
NATO hasn't got bases there it can use to conduct covert operations nor could it send a hefty naval flotilla without provoking a serious conflict with the US.
Your analogies are militarily wide of the mark.
When Argentina invaded the Falklands we sent a whopping big task force to recover them.
Argentina is not the USA.
Who is going to stay on Greenland to mount an effective resistance to any US annexation?
Nobody is in a position to do that. NATO would need to have the bases and infrastructure in place already if it were to stand a snow-ball's chance.
We aren't talking D-day landings here. The logistic capacity for NATO to offer any serious defence of Greenland should the US resort to military muscle just isn't there.
Supposing US special forces did seize all key installations in a matter of hours. Who is there to harass them after that? What Danish defenders there were wojld be quickly over-powered and taken prisoner.
A handful of Greenlanders with rifles aren't going to oust the US military nor could NATO mount a successful amphibious operation to wrest back Danish control.
We aren't talking D-day landings here. The logistic capacity for NATO to offer any serious defence of Greenland should the US resort to military muscle just isn't there.
Europe doesn't have it's own command and information infrastructure outside NATO, and NATO's is - of course - reliant on the Americans.
Putin thought he would get no effective resistance from Ukraine - I think Trump would be wrong if he thought he could just take over Greenland and have no resistance.
The terrain will be a significant issue for a start.
Not really. Even back in the 80's I received Arctic training. I remember the "Bunny Boots" fondly. I long had my Arctic coat after I separated from the military, We have had experience north of the Arctic circle since the early 1900s. We will not be moving people from the Caribbean to the Arctic without proper provisions. At least, I hope not.
In 1968 when a B52 crashed near Thule, two of the aircrew parachuted onto the base with 4 more somewhere out there on the ice. Danish and Inuit (civilian) staff on the base donned their own personal clothing, hooked up their dog sleds and were bringing the other airmen back, while the highly trained US troops tried to figure out what to do, and get their expensive snow mobiles powered up. Training is no substitute for having lived in that sort of environment all your life.
@Gramps49 (and going back quite a few posts!), it wasn't I who suggested that US troops might return from Greenland in body bags - it was either a Dane or a Greenlander. I can't remember which, but it was IIRC someone in a position of authority (neither of the two Prime Ministers, though). The person said that there would be 'shooting back'...
I’m pretty sure that any security concerns the US may have about Russia, China and their shipping around Greenland could be addressed under the existing agreement re the US base on Greenland. Annexation is not required to reach an agreement to strengthen US defensive capability.
The only reason Trump doesn’t want to go down that diplomatic route is the Donroe doctrine. “The Western Hemisphere is ours and we can do what we like”.
Ego or not, that’s the way he sees it. I’m not sure Rubio will be able to moderate that position, even if he want to.
Make America Great Again has the corollary of not caring a jot about making anyone else look small.
I would expect that defence to American occupation would involve sabotaging supply lines, some level of guerilla warfare, sanctions from Europe and relying to a certain extent on Trump needing to please his base who do not want to be dragged into long conflicts with little obvious reward, and Trump's ability to be easily distracted as well as having to manage internal conflict - then offering him a treaty out he can pretend is a win as a face saving out.
I'd be astonished if countries within NATO don't have contingency plan for command and control in the absence of the US - especially as each country already has a command and control system for its own forces.
@chrisstiles, yes indeed. I was envisaging a scenario where European nations had to quickly cobble together a 'NATO' without US involvement - but that would of course be impossible within the time-frame required to counter any US military action in the region.
Yet another reason why I think those who suggest that Greenland could slug it out are way wide of the mark. There wouldn't be any cohesive European response and I doubt if any European leader would want to get into a fire-fight with the US over 58,000 Greenlanders and Danish sovereignty. Even though Denmark is a NATO country.
The most likely scenario would be that NATO would implode. Mr Putin would like that.
@Barnabas62 is right. If the US wanted to secure the North West Passsge as the ice thaws and counter Russian and Chinese shipping in the Arctic they could do that within the purlieu of the existing treaty with Denmark.
My father is a retired professional diplomat - he has always told me that the mistake autocrats typically make is to underestimate the determination of democratic states (as we see in Ukraine.)
Europe doesn't want conflict with America, NATO doesn't want to lose the US.
But.
NATO will hold together *because* of Putin, Europe is not blind.
NATO only works if it protects its members - it can not, and I think will not, allow annexation of member's territory without resistance. I would think they will try to bog the Americans down in talks for as long as possible hoping Trump will get deposed or lose interest. Again Europe is not blind, it has watched how Trump operates, they know he is transactional AND only honours his deals if he thinks he can't get away with not doing so. They've seen the tariffs.
The advantages of keeping America onside are rapidly disappearing.
I'd be astonished if countries within NATO don't have contingency plan for command and control in the absence of the US
Then prepare to be astonished. The European strategy to date is to use NATO infrastructure for all executive operations.
Especially as each country already has a command and control system for its own forces.
They'll have something in country but not necessarily something they can deploy with, because they haven't planned to deploy outwith NATO. Even outside that there's an ever smaller number that are completely free of US owned infrastructure (cloud services, starlink etc).
Also even if it were a sensible strategy, who is going to sanction Finnish Terry Peck? The centrist politicians who hope to get their next job from US funded sources like the tech firms and TBI or the far right ones who are pro Trump?
I'd be astonished if countries within NATO don't have contingency plan for command and control in the absence of the US
Then prepare to be astonished. The European strategy to date is to use NATO infrastructure for all executive operations.
Saying it's what they have done, doesn't mean they don't have a backup plan. Do you have any evidence that they don't have backup plans?
I personally would be surprised if they weren't quietly making lots of backup plans right now for a lot of varieties of U.S. horribleness.
This.
I wonder if Trump is aware of Shakespeare's words?
“Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown” is a famous line from Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 2 (Act 3, Scene 1). Spoken by King Henry IV, it expresses the heavy burden and constant worry of leadership, highlighting that ruling is filled with anxiety, responsibility, and danger rather than ease or comfort.
In Trump's case, most of the anxiety (perhaps? Does he ever worry about anything?), responsibility, and danger, are of his own making.
NATO only works if it protects its members - it can not, and I think will not, allow annexation of member's territory without resistance. I would think they will try to bog the Americans down in talks for as long as possible hoping Trump will get deposed or lose interest. Again Europe is not blind, it has watched how Trump operates, they know he is transactional AND only honours his deals if he thinks he can't get away with not doing so.
The way Trump operates, a decent delay with lots of talk and then Trump signs a deal allowing US forces to operate from bases in Greenland - ie: exactly what he already has, but presented as his deal. Pandering to his ego while actually giving nothing away seems to be an effective strategy to deal with Trump.
Even if individual European countries are developing contingencies to head Trump off at any pass he may attempt to reach, they'll have to move pretty darn quick.
He doesn't hsve the patience for long drawn out talks. He wants quick wins and he wants them yesterday.
You still haven't explained how a US-less NATO could coordinate a cohesive response to any putative Trumpoid action in Greenland, @Doublethink.
We don’t have the ships. The UK navy is a fraction of the size of the task force which sailed to the Falklands. Even if - and is a big if - Denmark, Britain, France, Spain and Scsndinavia were to pool resources how would they go about resisting US aggression in the Arctic whilst building up capacity to deter Putin to the east.
You say that the European powers would resist an attack on a fellow NATO member. How?
I don't disagree with your father's point in principle. Autocrats have underestimated the capacity of democratic governments to hold their own.
But in this instance it's hard to see how the various European powers could resist a smash-and-grab raid by an autocratic US President.
What are they supposed to do? Threaten to nuke Washington?
Sorry, @Doublethink this is wishful thinking on your part, I submit.
The only solution I can see is for the Democrats to fillibuster and delay Trump internally, with all the risk that entails in terms of federal pushback from a MAGA Whitehouse, civil unrest and instability within an already volatile USA.
How long will it be before we see shoot-outs between federal agents and individual State law-enforcement officers?
How long will it be before loopy-doopy right-wing vigilantes join ICE agents in raiding neighbourhoods with high concentrations of undocumented migrants?
That might sound alarmist but we've seen violent insurrections in the US before now.
There's a large gap between that and actually having a backup plan that one could use in any reasonable time frame.
You'll notice that's an European Union document, and that's because that is the supranational body in Europe with the largest governing capacity - the side effect is that it doesn't include either Turkey or the UK.
I personally would be surprised if they weren't quietly making lots of backup plans right now for a lot of varieties of U.S. horribleness.
You can do all kinds of things quietly, but there's no state with the capacity to actually implement any of this as a public project, so you'd see plenty of signs in terms of tendering and contract awards. So far, despite the talk, most signs are to the contrary and any capability is going to take years to come on stream.
I would expect the US Senate to pass a war powers resolution to limit any US military action in Greenland, and both the House and Senate to refuse to fund any such action. But this could be symbiotic because Trump would try to steal funds from Peter to pay Paul. The courts would also get involved to stop that.
However, as Trump has said, he does not depend on any law but his own morality.
He will likely be impeached in the next congress. Convicted--iffy. We have discussed this before.
Here is scenario in which Trump could acquire Greenland without firing a shot (at least in Greenland). Say the Russians begin to seriously probe and violate NATO boundaries. The affected NATO countries want to invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Trump holds off on committing US forces until Denmark cedes Greenland to the US, This Independent story seems to suggest this.
NATO only works if it protects its members - it can not, and I think will not, allow annexation of member's territory without resistance. I would think they will try to bog the Americans down in talks for as long as possible hoping Trump will get deposed or lose interest. Again Europe is not blind, it has watched how Trump operates, they know he is transactional AND only honours his deals if he thinks he can't get away with not doing so.
The way Trump operates, a decent delay with lots of talk and then Trump signs a deal allowing US forces to operate from bases in Greenland - ie: exactly what he already has, but presented as his deal. Pandering to his ego while actually giving nothing away seems to be an effective strategy to deal with Trump.
Given what he's said about ownership - they might do some kind of fudge of diplomatic missions / miltary attache's offices attached to American bases, which would make the land they sit on technically American soil for as long as the missions are there.
Comments
Heck, give us all of New Brunswick while you are at it. The Northwestern border of New Brunswick aligns pretty close to the Northwestern border of Maine anyway. Just kidding.
Which sounds like brave words when your miniscule military is pitted against the largest in the world, however the Danish do have long experience in Greenland and they do have some well-trained troops. Conversely the US military obviously have also been there a long time.
It would likely be a short but bloody campaign if the Danes decided to resist. But the optics would look terrible, Europe would essentially be at war with the USA.
More likely I feel is that the US unilaterally expand military bases in remote Greenland, coincidentally taking adjacent mining land. The Danes don't like it, but decide the risks of confrontation are too high. The population of Greenland which is almost entirely in the South and coastal parts remain largely unaffected because the invasion is almost nothing to do with the people.
So Greenland becomes divided like Cyprus. Or even more similar to Cuba, where the government dislikes the Guantanamo bay military complex but is unable to do anything about it.
And probably Trump would get away with it and as a result get stronger.
The whole thing is madness on various levels but control of the arctic potentially puts pressure onto the Chinese, gives an upper hand over the Russians and gives a reason to withdraw from activities in Europe.
AFF
If you look at the King's Royal Guard in 1940, the Danish military has previous on lamming into overwhelming opposition and hang the consequences, and I bet that bit of Danish history is taught to every recruit.
Would that bother Trump? I doubt it, but US families might beg to differ...
Not quite. Danish troops have been involved in UN peace-keeping actions since WW2. There's a memorial in Copenhagen which lists the conflicts and the casualties. I was surprised how many there were.
As a matter of principle, Denmark decided to commit troops to any UN initiative involving armed force.
As to whether Danish troops would open fire on existing US bases or any additional US troops landing on the island, well it depends whether that would be a token opposition to make a point or whether they think it would be the risk of a heavy-handed US response.
The small British garrison in Port Stanley in the Falklands put up a bit of a fight when Argentina invaded. They wounded s few Argentinian troops but therefore no fatalities and they surrendered once 'honour' was satisfied as it were.
But then Maggie sent the Task Force ...
@AFF, the Greenlanders aren't the Houthis.
There aren't that many of them either.
If there were any resistance to US incursion it would come from small detachments of Danish troops. I suspect they'd be quickly overwhelmed however good an account they gave off themselves.
The question is, would Trump risk an all-out confrontation with a NATO ally? Not that NATO means very much to him of course.
Neither does the term 'ally'.
I think Keir Starmer's immediate change of tack from vague comments on Venezuela to a public pronouncement on support for Denmark shows that the UK government takes the Trumpian threat seriously though.
Consider the shock and awe that happened in Venezuela. There are around 109,000 active duty military personnel in Venezuela with 32 Cubans hired as Maduro's personal bodyguards. Reports are saying all of the Cuban bodyguards were killed. We do not know how many Venezuelan military were killed.
How many American casualties were there? The Trump admiration claims two service personnel were injured.
How many Danish service personnel are on Greenland? I think it is no more than 9,000. If America did a shock and awe strike on Greenland, do you really think the result would be American body bags?
As was pointed out faced with overwhelming odds, the prudent thing for Denmark to do is to yield the ground.
But according to a YouGov poll taken on Jan 7, 2026, only 7% of Americans favor military force to take Greenland.
Any sane president would hesitate to use the military against Greenland.
Note to AFF: Allied naval forces have been able to control the strait off Yemen largely through standoff forces. I think the US has two carriers, one in the Red Sea and the other in the Indian Ocean keeping that body of water under control.
We all know the US military can put on an impressive 'shock and awe' show. They've got the toys to do it.
They aren't quite so impressive in difficult terrain or tricky landings. Some of the GIs in the invasion of Grenada were carrying so much kit they sank like stones to the bottom of the sea.
Not that I think that an amphibious invasion of Greenland would be that difficult. They could easily land unopposed on the many miles of undefended coastline and also blast from a distance any Danish installations that put up a fight.
This is getting a bit boys with their toys though. I wouldn't wish casualties on either side but I don't think any US invasion force would be able to seize Greenland without incurring some casualties, even if it were just a handful.
Not that I want to see my hypothesis put to the test.
If there were US, Danish or Greenlander civilian casualties they'd all be victims of Trump's hubris and he'd have their blood on his hands.
Right, but they have to move their toys first and that should give everyone plenty of time to decide how they choose to react.
Yes, it took several weeks for the US to move forces into the Caribbean before Trump was able to pull the trigger.
There happens to be a pact between the US and Denmark which was signed in 1951 which allows the US to place any number of forces on the island in the name of defending it. Under the treaty Denmark retains full sovereignty over Greenland but the US receives operational rights. See: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp?utm
Under this pact
The US may build, maintain and operate military bases on the island
The US may station unlimited personnel on the island
The US may control air and sea movements related to its operation, and
The US may use any part of Greenland for defensive purposes.
BUT
The US cannot claim or annex Greenland
The US cannot act outside the defense of Greenland and the North Atlantic treaty area--it must be tied to NATO obligation.
The US cannot expand military bases without Danish consultations
The US cannot interfere with Greenlandic or Danish civil governance, and.
The US cannot exclude Denmark from oversight.
Bottom line: The US has everything it needs to expand its military presence.
Of course, Denmark has the right to declare this treaty null and void.
The terrain will be a significant issue for a start.
Has anyone pointed out to the POTUS that there is already an agreement in place for the US to expand its military bases in Greenland without having to threaten its sovereignty?
I'm sure someone will have done but such a treaty won't be good enough for him because it doesn't give him the opportunity to throw his weight around and intimidate his country's allies.
Not really. Even back in the 80's I received Arctic training. I remember the "Bunny Boots" fondly. I long had my Arctic coat after I separated from the military, We have had experience north of the Arctic circle since the early 1900s. We will not be moving people from the Caribbean to the Arctic without proper provisions. At least, I hope not.
It's not as if they could fan out into the tundra to wage a guerilla war.
If there were a military confrontation I suspect it would be very one-sided and over very quickly. I would envisage some US casualties though - through incompetence and friendly fire - sorry @Gramps49 but your guys have form that way - as well as the Danes picking off a few GIs for 'honour's sake.'
But the outcome would be inevitable. A US 'victory'. A victory for venality, gangsterism and hubris. A victory that would be no victory whatsoever in any recognised definition of morality.
A victory for the forces of darkness.
You forget the Russians were using antiquated equipment, and were poorly trained. This is like comparing an apple to a turnip.
Is that rhetoric?
Whatever the case, it's a sorry state of affairs that they should even feel the need to say such a thing. I can't remember a European country ever issuing a statement of that kind in relation to an ally - which is what the US is supposed to be.
It's an indictment of the Trump administration that we are even having this conversation. Completely unthinkable in living memory.
We lost in Afghanistan, we lost in Korea, the US lost in Vietnam, Russia has been fighting for years and has not conquered Ukraine. Unless you plan to actually colonise - you can not hold a nation state in subjugation by force alone following invasion.
We did a lot of damage in the process.
It is indeed a very sorry state of affairs. But to answer your question I think - although of course I could be wrong - yes, it is rhetoric.
The entire population could fit into a small town.
Nobody could sustain a guerrilla campaign out in the tundra. If it came to a fight the US would very quickly overwhelm key installations. They might lose a few blokes in the process but casualties would be very light.
There might also be a helicopter crash, as there was during the Falklands campaign. Or a few guys accidentally injured when unloading heavy kit in difficult conditions.
But no, this wouldn't be an Afghanistan or Iraq.
But the very fact that Denmark or anyone else for that matter feels the need to issue rhetorical threats in retaliation to gung-ho bloviating from a POTUS shows how morally bankrupt the current US administration actually is.
Shame on them.
Whatever the case @Doublethink, I still think you are wide of the mark on the military aspects of all this, should a conflict take place - which I feel is unlikely at this stage.
NATO hasn't got any boots on the ground in Greenland and are hardly likely to send a flotilla across the Atlantic any time soon.
Any US military operation would most likely take the form of helicopter and parachute raids to seize and secure vital installations, with naval support. They wouldn't need that many troops to do that. Military experts - also according to the BBC say that it could be done in a single drop.
If NATO forces did send ships across the Atlantic to defend Greenland, the US could take the island in a lightning strike and set up defences to thwart any incoming fleet.
According to the pundits quoted by the Beeb, US seizure of the island could be bloodless, as @Gramps49 notes from his own military experience. If there were US casualties they'd be very light indeed.
Denmark's forces wouldn't be able to defend such a vast territory and any NATO build up there would take a Heck of a long time - and could trigger a pre-emptive US strike.
Is anyone seriously suggesting that the UK, France and other NATO powers would launch strikes against Washington, Chicago or New York?
No, it would be very difficult for NATO to come to Greenland's aid and Trump knows that. That's why he's trying to bully the NATO powers.
My own guess would be that Trump will offer sweeteners and incentives to the Greenlanders to encourage them to seek independence from Denmark, something most of them want but not at the expense of becoming a vassal US state.
Still, economic incentives would be hard for them to resist. There are only 58,000 of them and many struggle to make ends meet.
Vance is reported to have told 'certain' European leaders to tone down their 'over-reaction' to Trump's threatened annexation of a sovereign territory in what he regards as his own backyard.
He's a lot more wily than Trump and can sound more conciliatory than his boss, but he'll be just as committed to the Donroe Doctrine.
The US is essentially raising a middle finger to Europe and treating its allies with complete contempt. Denmark sent troops to Afghanistan. That's clearly been forgotten or overlooked.
Trump is raising a middle finger to Canada, Europe, China and everywhere and anywhere else that isn't the USA.
He's also doing the same thing internally to state governors and anyone and everyone who doesn't support his MAGA-lomania.
Then Trump builds workcamps, enough to house the "millions" a year of migrants he says he will be removing from the USA.
Again, this is all utter nonsense - using forced labour camps to extract rare earth minerals is an idea from the mind of a madman like Stalin. But I'm scared that's where we are now.
It's not beyond the realm of possibility for this man.
But I think it's more about controlling the Northern Passage because China and Russia are using it to bypass the Panama and Suez canals. Russia's shipping and infrastucture dominance in the Arctic is decades ahead of Europe and North America's, and the best they can hope for is to slow Russia down while they play catch up.
AFF
Yes, but Afghanistan was teeming with Taliban insurgents. It's not a comparator in any way, shape or form. 58,000 Greenlanders aren't going to be waging a guerilla war and neither can Denmark mount a sufficient defence still less run some kind of 'resistance' campaign out in the tundra.
NATO hasn't got bases there it can use to conduct covert operations nor could it send a hefty naval flotilla without provoking a serious conflict with the US.
Your analogies are militarily wide of the mark.
When Argentina invaded the Falklands we sent a whopping big task force to recover them.
Argentina is not the USA.
Who is going to stay on Greenland to mount an effective resistance to any US annexation?
Nobody is in a position to do that. NATO would need to have the bases and infrastructure in place already if it were to stand a snow-ball's chance.
We aren't talking D-day landings here. The logistic capacity for NATO to offer any serious defence of Greenland should the US resort to military muscle just isn't there.
Supposing US special forces did seize all key installations in a matter of hours. Who is there to harass them after that? What Danish defenders there were wojld be quickly over-powered and taken prisoner.
A handful of Greenlanders with rifles aren't going to oust the US military nor could NATO mount a successful amphibious operation to wrest back Danish control.
You aren't comparing like with like.
Europe doesn't have it's own command and information infrastructure outside NATO, and NATO's is - of course - reliant on the Americans.
The only reason Trump doesn’t want to go down that diplomatic route is the Donroe doctrine. “The Western Hemisphere is ours and we can do what we like”.
Ego or not, that’s the way he sees it. I’m not sure Rubio will be able to moderate that position, even if he want to.
Make America Great Again has the corollary of not caring a jot about making anyone else look small.
I'd be astonished if countries within NATO don't have contingency plan for command and control in the absence of the US - especially as each country already has a command and control system for its own forces.
Yet another reason why I think those who suggest that Greenland could slug it out are way wide of the mark. There wouldn't be any cohesive European response and I doubt if any European leader would want to get into a fire-fight with the US over 58,000 Greenlanders and Danish sovereignty. Even though Denmark is a NATO country.
The most likely scenario would be that NATO would implode. Mr Putin would like that.
@Barnabas62 is right. If the US wanted to secure the North West Passsge as the ice thaws and counter Russian and Chinese shipping in the Arctic they could do that within the purlieu of the existing treaty with Denmark.
This is all about MAGA swagger.
The stench of sulphur hangs all over it.
Europe doesn't want conflict with America, NATO doesn't want to lose the US.
But.
NATO will hold together *because* of Putin, Europe is not blind.
NATO only works if it protects its members - it can not, and I think will not, allow annexation of member's territory without resistance. I would think they will try to bog the Americans down in talks for as long as possible hoping Trump will get deposed or lose interest. Again Europe is not blind, it has watched how Trump operates, they know he is transactional AND only honours his deals if he thinks he can't get away with not doing so. They've seen the tariffs.
The advantages of keeping America onside are rapidly disappearing.
Then prepare to be astonished. The European strategy to date is to use NATO infrastructure for all executive operations.
They'll have something in country but not necessarily something they can deploy with, because they haven't planned to deploy outwith NATO. Even outside that there's an ever smaller number that are completely free of US owned infrastructure (cloud services, starlink etc).
Also even if it were a sensible strategy, who is going to sanction Finnish Terry Peck? The centrist politicians who hope to get their next job from US funded sources like the tech firms and TBI or the far right ones who are pro Trump?
I personally would be surprised if they weren't quietly making lots of backup plans right now for a lot of varieties of U.S. horribleness.
This.
I wonder if Trump is aware of Shakespeare's words?
“Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown” is a famous line from Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 2 (Act 3, Scene 1). Spoken by King Henry IV, it expresses the heavy burden and constant worry of leadership, highlighting that ruling is filled with anxiety, responsibility, and danger rather than ease or comfort.
In Trump's case, most of the anxiety (perhaps? Does he ever worry about anything?), responsibility, and danger, are of his own making.
He doesn't hsve the patience for long drawn out talks. He wants quick wins and he wants them yesterday.
You still haven't explained how a US-less NATO could coordinate a cohesive response to any putative Trumpoid action in Greenland, @Doublethink.
We don’t have the ships. The UK navy is a fraction of the size of the task force which sailed to the Falklands. Even if - and is a big if - Denmark, Britain, France, Spain and Scsndinavia were to pool resources how would they go about resisting US aggression in the Arctic whilst building up capacity to deter Putin to the east.
You say that the European powers would resist an attack on a fellow NATO member. How?
I don't disagree with your father's point in principle. Autocrats have underestimated the capacity of democratic governments to hold their own.
But in this instance it's hard to see how the various European powers could resist a smash-and-grab raid by an autocratic US President.
What are they supposed to do? Threaten to nuke Washington?
Sorry, @Doublethink this is wishful thinking on your part, I submit.
The only solution I can see is for the Democrats to fillibuster and delay Trump internally, with all the risk that entails in terms of federal pushback from a MAGA Whitehouse, civil unrest and instability within an already volatile USA.
How long will it be before we see shoot-outs between federal agents and individual State law-enforcement officers?
How long will it be before loopy-doopy right-wing vigilantes join ICE agents in raiding neighbourhoods with high concentrations of undocumented migrants?
That might sound alarmist but we've seen violent insurrections in the US before now.
Yes, to date they've largely produced documents like this that identify the need for a backup plan:
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8798-2019-INIT/en/pdf
There's a large gap between that and actually having a backup plan that one could use in any reasonable time frame.
You'll notice that's an European Union document, and that's because that is the supranational body in Europe with the largest governing capacity - the side effect is that it doesn't include either Turkey or the UK.
You can do all kinds of things quietly, but there's no state with the capacity to actually implement any of this as a public project, so you'd see plenty of signs in terms of tendering and contract awards. So far, despite the talk, most signs are to the contrary and any capability is going to take years to come on stream.
However, as Trump has said, he does not depend on any law but his own morality.
He will likely be impeached in the next congress. Convicted--iffy. We have discussed this before.
Given what he's said about ownership - they might do some kind of fudge of diplomatic missions / miltary attache's offices attached to American bases, which would make the land they sit on technically American soil for as long as the missions are there.