Ok. Point taken and I agree with @Barnabas62 that my response was harsh.
I accept that if Scandinavian units trained in Arctic warfare did arrive in Greenland before any putative US invasion then it wouldn't be quite the push-over that one might otherwise assume it to be.
That still doesn't obviate the possibility of the US striking NATO targets elsewhere if they faced serious opposition or Putin taking advantage of the absence of Finnish units to roll across their border.
Any clash between the US and European powers could quickly escalate or at least weaken NATO to the extent that Putin could lever significant advantage.
Which is one reason why I don’t think it would happen.
At any rate, apologies for my tone last night. It was unnecessarily harsh and combative.
Ok. Point taken and I agree with @Barnabas62 that my response was harsh.
I accept that if Scandinavian units trained in Arctic warfare did arrive in Greenland before any putative US invasion then it wouldn't be quite the push-over that one might otherwise assume it to be.
There are a number of problems with that video; starting with the fact that there are not 100K troops in Greenland, and no way of getting them there and then re-supplying them in the face of the USN/USAF.
When I was involved in winter warfare exercises (80-3), we wore whites over top of our normal khaki uniform. I wonder if global warming or research has had an effect on the current uniform colours.
Yes, but as @chrisstiles says, the Arctic trained troops aren't there and if the Trump administration were serious about the use of military force they'd make pretty damn sure they swooped and seized key installations before they had time to cross the Atlantic.
Which is another reason why I think Trump is blustering with his threat of military seizure.
Even he isn't stupid enough to say, 'We're on our way ...'
No, if the US were ever to seize Greenland they'd do so before the European nations put boots on the ground to oppose them.
No, I haven't done any Arctic warfare training nor any military training of any kind. I've only ever fired a shot gun at clay targets.
But even I have enough strategic savvy to know that aggressors tend to rely on the element of surprise.
Besides, if the European nations were serious about gearing up to resist a potential US attack on Greenland they would have sent more than one British officer and a token 'reconnaissance team.'
All this talk of who'd win a fight in the Arctic wastes is complete speculation.
You may as well speculate whether King Kong could beat Godzilla or whether a Roman legion could defeat a Zulu impi or the horsemen of Genghiz Khan.
Ok, I know all military forces conduct exercises and test out various scenarios and that's all very interesting.
But if a US invasion of Greenland did take place they wouldn't wait for any serious opposition to prepare to meet them.
My reserve duty station was in Grand Forks. One time we were sent to Fairbanks, Alaska for Arctic Training. Turns out Fairbanks was warmer than Grand Forks. Minus 40F wind chill in Grand Forks was not unheard of. We would always say the only thing that was between us and the North Pole in Grand Forks was a fence at the Canadian border, and it was down.
From the little I've read about warfare, sudden offensive operations are always harder to pull off successfully than you'd think. The successful examples this century have been against outdated militaries.
(Autocratic militaries tend to be outdated because modern militaries require lots of competent officers and you don't want competent officers in your army unless they're convinced that government by military coups are illegitimate.)
Harking back to Greenland for a moment - hopefully, they're safe, at least for the time being - here's an interesting piece from today's UK Guardian about the Greenlandic Prime Minister:
( It's a 15 post thread - if you're not familiar with Bluesky keep hitting the + button where it says 'read more replies' to get down the thread)
Last 4 posts here -
12/ Denmark chose to capitulate to the Nazi invasion of April 1940, but has vowed not to repeat that experience. Danish soldiers are under standing orders to resist with force any foreign incursions on the territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, which includes Greenland.
13/ The deployments made it clear that any attempt to seize Greenland would have consequences of the utmost seriousness, including shattering NATO, destroying the relationship between Europe and the US, and causing significant loss of life to US forces
14/ Although this persuaded Trump to back down and Greenland has since faded from the headlines, the Danish government assesses that the US still poses a continuing threat to the island, according to a high-ranking source quoted by DR.
15/ "This is not over. Trump is here for three more years. And no matter what happens, the distrust and challenge to the [Danish] Commonwealth will persist as long as he has set out to go down in history by expanding the territory of the United States." /end
We have a midterm election coming up in six months. I think Trump is more focused on that over Greenland. Maybe during the interim between the elections and when the new Congress is installed, he might try to do something. After the new Congress is installed, look for a war powers resolution that will severely restrict Trump's ability to make war. Likely an impeachment or two or more. Hope the Senate will convict.
Another issue at this time is our Navy at this point is severely exhausted. Take the USS Gerald Ford. It had a fire on board that was not combat related. I would not put it beyond sabotage, but there are reports toilets had been plugged and, after the fire sailors were forced to sleep on the floor. Morale is very low, not just on the Ford but other task forces as well.
The Ford is now in Crete, I think, for repairs; but other ships are going to have to be retrofitted before they will be able to go to war again.
Just a gut feeling, no evidence, but I think Cuba is next on the hit parade, God help us.
Almost certainly.
I suspect that even the whackos in Trump's entourage realise that any attempt to forcibly take Greenland would only benefit Russia and China. Whereas Cuba could easily become the next Puerto Rico.
Just a gut feeling, no evidence, but I think Cuba is next on the hit parade, God help us.
Almost certainly.
I suspect that even the whackos in Trump's entourage realise that any attempt to forcibly take Greenland would only benefit Russia and China. Whereas Cuba could easily become the next Puerto Rico.
Annexation or installing a puppet regime; how is an aspiring dictator to decide?
Another issue at this time is our Navy at this point is severely exhausted. Take the USS Gerald Ford. It had a fire on board that was not combat related. I would not put it beyond sabotage, but there are reports toilets had been plugged and, after the fire sailors were forced to sleep on the floor. Morale is very low, not just on the Ford but other task forces as well.
The Ford is now in Crete, I think, for repairs; but other ships are going to have to be retrofitted before they will be able to go to war again.
[/quote]
One other thing about the exhaustion our navy is experiencing is the number of hours a naval crew member may experience in a combat zone. While the navy does not put out specific figures, there are estimates that the launch and recovery crews on the aircraft carriers are putting in over 100 hours a week while in a combat operation. Crews on other naval vessels could be putting in 80 hours a week in the same zone.
How long would it take for you, working at 100 hours a week, to burn out?
Denmark's national TV station is reporting that the Danish government took the invasion threat so seriously that it was preparing to send explosives over to destroy runways to prevent US landings and also supplies of blood for its troops based in Greenland.
The Danish government hasn't confirmed that this was the case.
Denmark's national TV station is reporting that the Danish government took the invasion threat so seriously that it was preparing to send explosives over to destroy runways to prevent US landings and also supplies of blood for its troops based in Greenland.
The Danish government hasn't confirmed that this was the case.
Louise's post and the news article I linked covers all of this.
Under the category of whose next, I see US prosecutors are looking at Columbia's President Gustavo Petro alleged links to drug trafficking. Time to do another Maduro. Story here.
Denmark's national TV station is reporting that the Danish government took the invasion threat so seriously that it was preparing to send explosives over to destroy runways to prevent US landings and also supplies of blood for its troops based in Greenland.
The Danish government hasn't confirmed that this was the case.
Louise's post and the news article I linked covers all of this.
Comments
According to you - artic warfare specialist ? Perhaps you could find something that explains why he’s wrong.
I accept that if Scandinavian units trained in Arctic warfare did arrive in Greenland before any putative US invasion then it wouldn't be quite the push-over that one might otherwise assume it to be.
That still doesn't obviate the possibility of the US striking NATO targets elsewhere if they faced serious opposition or Putin taking advantage of the absence of Finnish units to roll across their border.
Any clash between the US and European powers could quickly escalate or at least weaken NATO to the extent that Putin could lever significant advantage.
Which is one reason why I don’t think it would happen.
At any rate, apologies for my tone last night. It was unnecessarily harsh and combative.
There are a number of problems with that video; starting with the fact that there are not 100K troops in Greenland, and no way of getting them there and then re-supplying them in the face of the USN/USAF.
AFF
Only with the grandchildern.
I have.
Which is another reason why I think Trump is blustering with his threat of military seizure.
Even he isn't stupid enough to say, 'We're on our way ...'
No, if the US were ever to seize Greenland they'd do so before the European nations put boots on the ground to oppose them.
No, I haven't done any Arctic warfare training nor any military training of any kind. I've only ever fired a shot gun at clay targets.
But even I have enough strategic savvy to know that aggressors tend to rely on the element of surprise.
Besides, if the European nations were serious about gearing up to resist a potential US attack on Greenland they would have sent more than one British officer and a token 'reconnaissance team.'
All this talk of who'd win a fight in the Arctic wastes is complete speculation.
You may as well speculate whether King Kong could beat Godzilla or whether a Roman legion could defeat a Zulu impi or the horsemen of Genghiz Khan.
Ok, I know all military forces conduct exercises and test out various scenarios and that's all very interesting.
But if a US invasion of Greenland did take place they wouldn't wait for any serious opposition to prepare to meet them.
(Autocratic militaries tend to be outdated because modern militaries require lots of competent officers and you don't want competent officers in your army unless they're convinced that government by military coups are illegitimate.)
I would, if I were him. Especially the Alberta part.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/31/greenland-prime-minister-jens-frederik-nielsen-rebuke-trump
Mr Nielsen is only 34 years old, and leads a country of less than 60000 inhabitants.
His attitude to the US, and to the egregious Trump, is encouraging.
He has a fascinating bluesky thread on the recent Greenland situation and how very very seriously it was taken - and still is - it's worth a read
https://bsky.app/profile/chriso-wiki.bsky.social/post/3mhfsau25uk2f
( It's a 15 post thread - if you're not familiar with Bluesky keep hitting the + button where it says 'read more replies' to get down the thread)
Last 4 posts here -
https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/groenland/danmark-forberedte-sig-paa-muligt-angreb-fra-usa-floej-poser-med-blod-til-groenland-og-gjorde-klar
The translate link in most browsers is able to make decent sense of it.
We have a midterm election coming up in six months. I think Trump is more focused on that over Greenland. Maybe during the interim between the elections and when the new Congress is installed, he might try to do something. After the new Congress is installed, look for a war powers resolution that will severely restrict Trump's ability to make war. Likely an impeachment or two or more. Hope the Senate will convict.
Another issue at this time is our Navy at this point is severely exhausted. Take the USS Gerald Ford. It had a fire on board that was not combat related. I would not put it beyond sabotage, but there are reports toilets had been plugged and, after the fire sailors were forced to sleep on the floor. Morale is very low, not just on the Ford but other task forces as well.
The Ford is now in Crete, I think, for repairs; but other ships are going to have to be retrofitted before they will be able to go to war again.
Almost certainly.
I suspect that even the whackos in Trump's entourage realise that any attempt to forcibly take Greenland would only benefit Russia and China. Whereas Cuba could easily become the next Puerto Rico.
Annexation or installing a puppet regime; how is an aspiring dictator to decide?
One other thing about the exhaustion our navy is experiencing is the number of hours a naval crew member may experience in a combat zone. While the navy does not put out specific figures, there are estimates that the launch and recovery crews on the aircraft carriers are putting in over 100 hours a week while in a combat operation. Crews on other naval vessels could be putting in 80 hours a week in the same zone.
How long would it take for you, working at 100 hours a week, to burn out?
The Danish government hasn't confirmed that this was the case.
Louise's post and the news article I linked covers all of this.
Ah, right. Apologies. I missed that.