The Danish government has announced a huge boost in defence spending for Greenland, hours after US President-elect Donald Trump repeated his desire to purchase the Arctic territory. Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen said the package was a “double digit billion amount” in krone, or at least $1.5bn (£1.2bn). He described the timing of the announcement as an “irony of fate”. On Monday Trump said ownership and control of the huge island was an “absolute necessity” for the US. Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory, is home to a large US space facility and is strategically important for the US, lying on its shortest route to Europe. It has major mineral and oil reserves.
More 4d chess to get US allies to increase their military spending.
I really hope that’s what this is, but I’m not sure he’s that smart (or willing to listen to people who are).
God I hope this was /s.
Yarr
I’d be shocked if it isn’t being repeated in all seriousness though. Especially by Dilbert.
Who would NATO article 5 favour in the situation of an invasion of greenland? Would it come to a vote between all members over who to fight? Or would article 5 not be invoked at all?
It’s less that and more the rest of article 5 which lets each signatory decide what level of response is appropriate.
So really, the question you should be asking, is if the US invades, which other signatories would take armed action and declare war against the US, which I suspect is probably not ‘everyone’.
Greenland is Danish territory which means that the EU defence clause applies which has no “let’s see what we want to do” carve-outs, it’s “obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power,”. All means. Which means that suddenly French nukes are on the table.
If the US want to have Greenland there’s exactly one reasonable way to have it: Convince Greenland to declare independence, which under Danish law they have the right to anytime they want, secondly, convince Greenland to join the US.
Adding to the French nukes part, while France is generally considered a weaker nuclear power, their nuclear doctrine gives them a warning shot to demonstrate their deterrence capability and to notify an opponent that they crossed a line. If the USA were to invade Greenland, french nukes could theoretically be used without retaliation.
Fuck that, if it comes to it I’m not joining our military against them, I’m going against our military.
As a Canadian I would also see an answer to that that question.
Nato article 5 is a defense contract, in theory it would not side with the attacker
It’s about natural resources. With increasing global warming ice will melt away and make it easier to access resources. There are promising raw material deposits like uranium or rare earth materials that would be accessible outside China or Russia.
Analysts say that the plan has been under discussion for a long time and should not be seen as a direct response to Trump’s comments.
what i find interesting is that Denmark has been one of the more consistently helpful countries to Ukraine
I will take up arms against the republican regime before I ever help them. You want a war? It’s going to be on our soil, fucker.
deleted by creator
