In my oppinion exactly the opposite. EU would fall devided and be in between USA and Russia, most countries would just decide for one side in order to be “protected”.
Well, ‘NATO’ as defined today can’t exist if any NATO member attacked another one, just from how the organization is defined as it is, that wasn’t a possibility it was defined to be capable of handling.
A “just like NATO, but not specifically NATO” that excludes the US I could imagine forming soon enough for it to be essentially an equivalent thing.
But knowing politicians, they had better have drafts of what that specifically should be ready to go, because politicians might just take forever to settle details of what should be a straightforward arrangement. For example, reworking it so that removing a member is actually defined, and that accepting a new member does not require perfectly unanimous agreement.
I would imagine NATO would exclude the USA and remain as it is. IIRC, Trump spoke of leaving NATO in the past as well, so he’d be happy to sell it as his own.
I assume such efforts have not been made yet because the USA remains an important member on paper, because of its military, as long as it has not taken that action yet, and because politicians hope that Trump’s term will end with a shift back to cooperative politics.
I think it would just break down in THIS event: No country would want to stand against US for an icy island that isn’t their own. So one after the other would just let Greenland fall to the US, and that would practically mean the NATO is done - because there would be proof that the treaty doesn’t help in a real case.
Of the things that would trigger a Civil War, I think Greenland is low on the list. Wildly unpopular but not the existential domestic threat that would trigger the people to go hot. ICE and domestic military deployment, particularly if he declares no elections, that has potential, but no foreign event is going to sway the domestic population that much, only domestic events have that strong an effect. That sort of thing can matter at the ballot box, but isn’t enough to make people go to the ammo box.
Maybe you get some European powers to conduct clandestine operations against key US leadership, maybe someone like Stephen Miller gets assassinated by a foreign power, I don’t know. More likely, they make moves that royally screw the US over economically. But I don’t think a civil war or direct military conflict with a foreign power is in the cards over Greenland.
The NATO would cease to exist. Countries would need to decide which NATO country to stand by, and, seriously, NONE would oppose the USA. Thus, no NATO anymore.
Nope. They sent “troops” (like 15 people e.g. German), not AGAINST US, but exactly the opposite: To show Trump, that they take his security worries for real and that they can protect Greenland. Ridiculous.
Are you suggesting that NATO would break and the soldiers there would immediately lay down their guns and surrender to the US? Like Trump has just found one weird trick that NATO hates?
NATO would break down, yes.
Soldiers would lay down guns: I didn’t say anything about that.
It’s so weird people cannot see that a mutual protection treaty ends, once there’s fighting WITHIN the group - especially if it involves the strongest party. It’s so logical and clear it doesn’t even make sense to discuss.
That said, I’m outta here. Let’s hope it won’t happen.
I didn’t realize we were arguing about whether NATO would dissolve… of course it will. Frankly I didn’t think that question was really all that contentious, in fact it’s fairly obvious isn’t it?
NATO will instantly be invalidated, dissolve, whatever, and the Allies will switch over to other mutual defense agreements.
I don’t need to imagine, you said it plainly. There would not be a war.
What I’m saying is that there are EU and Canadian troops there. They are likely going to get in the way of the US if the US decides to occupy a port, or whatever it is the US decides to do to ‘take Greenland’. If the Allies try to prevent it and the Axis kills someone in the process, that will be difficult to just brush off politically. If Greenlanders die due to bombing, same thing.
I would be interested to know how anyone can imagine an Axis occupation of Greenland that doesn’t involve Axis powers exercising lethal force. What is the actual plan from Trump?
It wouldn’t draw the NATO to war. It would be the end of NATO.
Then it’s a new alliance, without the US and Russia.
In my oppinion exactly the opposite. EU would fall devided and be in between USA and Russia, most countries would just decide for one side in order to be “protected”.
You think a NATO without the US could not exist at all?
Well, ‘NATO’ as defined today can’t exist if any NATO member attacked another one, just from how the organization is defined as it is, that wasn’t a possibility it was defined to be capable of handling.
A “just like NATO, but not specifically NATO” that excludes the US I could imagine forming soon enough for it to be essentially an equivalent thing.
But knowing politicians, they had better have drafts of what that specifically should be ready to go, because politicians might just take forever to settle details of what should be a straightforward arrangement. For example, reworking it so that removing a member is actually defined, and that accepting a new member does not require perfectly unanimous agreement.
I would imagine NATO would exclude the USA and remain as it is. IIRC, Trump spoke of leaving NATO in the past as well, so he’d be happy to sell it as his own.
I assume such efforts have not been made yet because the USA remains an important member on paper, because of its military, as long as it has not taken that action yet, and because politicians hope that Trump’s term will end with a shift back to cooperative politics.
I think it would just break down in THIS event: No country would want to stand against US for an icy island that isn’t their own. So one after the other would just let Greenland fall to the US, and that would practically mean the NATO is done - because there would be proof that the treaty doesn’t help in a real case.
Invading Greenland is overwhelmingly unpopular among Americans. Trump invading Greenland might even trigger a US civil war.
Of the things that would trigger a Civil War, I think Greenland is low on the list. Wildly unpopular but not the existential domestic threat that would trigger the people to go hot. ICE and domestic military deployment, particularly if he declares no elections, that has potential, but no foreign event is going to sway the domestic population that much, only domestic events have that strong an effect. That sort of thing can matter at the ballot box, but isn’t enough to make people go to the ammo box.
Maybe you get some European powers to conduct clandestine operations against key US leadership, maybe someone like Stephen Miller gets assassinated by a foreign power, I don’t know. More likely, they make moves that royally screw the US over economically. But I don’t think a civil war or direct military conflict with a foreign power is in the cards over Greenland.
Interesting point. From my external view, a US civil war looks to be on the verge anyway
I wouldn’t hold my breath on that, tbh…
deleted by creator
It will remove a rogue element from NATO. Fuck the US military.
The NATO would cease to exist. Countries would need to decide which NATO country to stand by, and, seriously, NONE would oppose the USA. Thus, no NATO anymore.
Look at this list of countries and tell me which ones would be on the side of the US: https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/organization/nato-member-countries
I don’t react to orders, sorry. My time at the army is long gone. Also, the question shows that you still don’t get my point.
If the US killed EU soldiers, it might go rather differently than you think.
No EU country will send troops against the US.
They just did. They are certainly not in Greenland to defend it against say Thailand.
Nope. They sent “troops” (like 15 people e.g. German), not AGAINST US, but exactly the opposite: To show Trump, that they take his security worries for real and that they can protect Greenland. Ridiculous.
And even if it was against US, I ment combat. There is no combat in Greenland so far. As soon as this started, NATO would break.
Are you suggesting that NATO would break and the soldiers there would immediately lay down their guns and surrender to the US? Like Trump has just found one weird trick that NATO hates?
NATO would break down, yes. Soldiers would lay down guns: I didn’t say anything about that.
It’s so weird people cannot see that a mutual protection treaty ends, once there’s fighting WITHIN the group - especially if it involves the strongest party. It’s so logical and clear it doesn’t even make sense to discuss.
That said, I’m outta here. Let’s hope it won’t happen.
I didn’t realize we were arguing about whether NATO would dissolve… of course it will. Frankly I didn’t think that question was really all that contentious, in fact it’s fairly obvious isn’t it?
NATO will instantly be invalidated, dissolve, whatever, and the Allies will switch over to other mutual defense agreements.
and - what do you think I’m thinking? And what do you think would happen in that hypothetical case?
I don’t need to imagine, you said it plainly. There would not be a war.
What I’m saying is that there are EU and Canadian troops there. They are likely going to get in the way of the US if the US decides to occupy a port, or whatever it is the US decides to do to ‘take Greenland’. If the Allies try to prevent it and the Axis kills someone in the process, that will be difficult to just brush off politically. If Greenlanders die due to bombing, same thing.
I would be interested to know how anyone can imagine an Axis occupation of Greenland that doesn’t involve Axis powers exercising lethal force. What is the actual plan from Trump?
Nope, I didn’t say there would be no war.