"What is the point of NATO anymore?" Topic

Ukraine kicked off because of Russia and nobody else is to blame for that. Russia took advantage of political collapse and their existing military presence to snatch Crimea. Then exploited a large land border to invade and supply their forces.

Those circumstances don't exist for Greenland. The US has article 5 as a reason to militarily act if Greenland is attacked in the same way it could if it was US territory that was attacked i.e. 9/11. So what is the reason for the President's interest in Greenland other than a resource grab?

I disagree -- I'm talking about the apparent vim and vigor of the Europeans over Greenland vs Ukraine. They could have demonstrated resolve over Ukraine, and declared that the EU was united in response and mobilized to send troops and assets to Ukraine. They didn't because they are weak, and fear risk and escalation.

They talk tough about Greenland because they are weak, and DO NOT fear risk and escalation.

Well seems France may be deciding it's unnecessary. 🤨

"MPs from France's far-left party have set their sights on NATO, targeting the United States and its leadership role.

A senior lawmaker from Jean-Luc Mélenchon's La France Insoumise party has introduced a draft resolution calling for France to begin planning a full withdrawal from the US-led military alliance.

Clémence Guetté, vice president of the French National Assembly, announced the move publicly, claiming that NATO as an organization is designed to serve Washington D.C.'s interests rather than Europe's sovereignty. Her comments reflect growing fractures inside Europe over America's role as the backbone of Western security."

Interesting so you are now advocating NATO forces take on Russia in Ukraine? And how exactly would the current President have stopped Russia from invading other than using US forces in that same way?

EU has sent hardware to Ukraine and there are troops there training Ukranians as well as hosting training.

Once again look at the logistics of Russia or China taking Greenland and then supporting that effort long term.

They got away with it in Ukraine as no Article 5 is in force there, let's face it Putin invaded so Ukraine couldn't join NATO (one of his war aims) as well as to rob their resources.

Greenland is covered with article 5 so again why does it have to be a US owned territory? One of the reasons for NATO is mutual defence so the US flank is covered there as long as the US upholds the treaty obligations.

As for the outrage it's because there is a country is threatening an article 5 country and one which has been a solid ally of the US until the most recent President decided that obligations don't exist anymore.

Interesting so you are now advocating NATO forces take on Russia in Ukraine?

Where did I say that ?

And how exactly would the current President have stopped Russia from invading other than using US forces in that same way?

Well as I have said many times. Putin took advantage of the Biden admin's incompetence. Putin saw how that Admin handled the A'stan debacle. And saw his chance to take on the 2d Tm. Putin would have been less likely to have invaded with a stronger, more capable POTUS in the WH. All that is not only my opinion.

EU has sent hardware to Ukraine and there are troops there training Ukranians as well as hosting training.

The US has done same. Even starting after Putin took Crimea in 2014. However, the POTUS then didn't give them all the weapons they could use in case of war.

Once again look at the logistics of Russia or China taking Greenland and then supporting that effort long term.

Yes, I'm well aware of the logistics involved with such an op. When I was not in a combat leadership position I was running logistics.

But both China and Russia are pushing to expand their footprint in that region. The US can't wait for either or both of them trying to influence that strategically located island. And that has got back to WWII identifying the importance of that piece of real-estate. They both have been "influencing" in many places in South America, Africa, etc.

However, their influence on the Mid East has since diminished partly because the new POTUS's handling of the situation better. Better than Obama and of course Biden.

So before they try anything. E.g. making a deal for Greenland's natural resources, etc. Expanding their reach, etc. into the Western Hemisphere. They have to be reminded that is our backyard. There is a long US precedence of letting others know this is our sandbox. I.e. the Monroe Doctrine, TR's expansion of the US Naval, Gitmo, etc., etc.

They got away with it in Ukraine as no Article 5 is in force there, let's face it Putin invaded so Ukraine couldn't join NATO (one of his war aims) as well as to rob their resources.

Yes we know what all his war aims were and to a point still are now. However, it was well known Ukraine had a small chance of being in NATO or the EU. And chances are never will. However, NATO expansion East was a sidebar.

Compared to his quest to regain the Imperial Russian Empire plus taking Ukraine natural resources. He didn't want to make an economic deal. Like the US wants to do in Greenland. He wanted to overthrow Ukraine's gov't and install a puppet gov't that was beholden to him. As Stalin did with every place, he pushed the Nazis out of. And in turned occupied …

Greenland is covered with article 5 so again why does it have to be a US owned territory? One of the reasons for NATO is mutual defence so the US flank is covered there as long as the US upholds the treaty obligations.

As I said, we don't know what really is going on behind closed doors. And again this move/ploy may be more for our enemies' consumption. Then anything else. In the meantime, Demark is talking about making deal as I mentioned before. Regardless this Greenland/Demark/US deal is not over.

Plus I think the POTUS may not trust NATO's ability to really pull its weight. With the massive downsizing that went on when the Cold War was over. It took the POTUS a little bit of prodding to get all of NATO to increase their NATO Dues to 5%, IIRC.

NATO and other militaries were side by side with the US in Iraq and A'stan. Of course, the GWoT was important to the West, etc. All saw militant islam and Saddam were a threat. But what would happen if the Chicoms made a move in the PTO ? Or in large numbers in the South American, etc.

Bottom line this is only the end of the first quarter … the game is far from over. And it has to be clear the POTUS is not a politician … he's a businessman … He sees a situation differently than the old DC clan. Many of which have been there too long. Way passed their expiration date.

They got away with it in Ukraine as no Article 5 is in force there, let's face it Putin invaded so Ukraine couldn't join NATO (one of his war aims) as well as to rob their resources.

The Europeans didn't and don't need NATO to act in Ukraine, they could have been as chest thumping there as they are about Greenland now.

Greenland is part of NATO… Ukraine is not… as Moldavia or Austria…

Armand

Thwere are great gains from Nato dissolveing. Europe will not obliged to buy US wepons which appart from the Overpriced F35 are hopeless compared to European ones and even the F35 is nowounder weapon as the Grippen has some advantages, not least as capable and FAR cheaper than the F35.

Europe recoognised that many US bases sereve the US interest more than Europe. Even a US podfcast said Ramstine works for US forign wars more than it serves Europe.

Starlink is being replaced by a far safer Euopean system.

Plus we won't have to send vital intellegence to a VERY doutful Allie.

I agree the end of NATO can't come soon enough. HUrry up and dump us so we can see true American colours.

UshCha

🤔

So are weapons are hopeless?

Iran, Venezuela and other countries might dispute that, but no issue.

Don't buy and defend yourselves. More power to you. 👍

Over on the closed thread, Incavart introduced the idea of the right using the explanation of "reverse-engineering brilliance" regarding some aspects of the unilateral foreign policy activity implemented solely by the WH.

I often experience high anxiety every time we try to explain some new comment from POTUS that sounds like diplomacy-free one man rule on the latest threat of a proposed theater of operations. Some of POTUS's talk feels like a giant tarp being thrown over those pesky files being investigated at home, or the economic issues for everyday Americans. And the need to be admired is strong in this one.

But I also agree that sometimes he does not mean what he says and some of this really is effective. Still, IMO the chaos method, shaking up world order by turning from one region to another and showing your hand to everyone will not impress our clever, quieter opponents, IMO. They will adjust and could turn our over-committed overseas actions to their advantage even as they absorb setbacks in places like Venezuela but see the US turning to long term national building there – unthinkable to many of us a short while ago.

POTUS is scuttling alternative energy strategy to make us dependent on oil, at least part of the Venezuela action, also a concern. Technology is racing along. Maybe we can find a way to lead without him.

In the end, getting Maduro or getting Europe to pony up for NATO are good things, but in my opinion, doing this without even bothering with the Congress that POTUS has controlled for the last few years undermines the system of checks and balances. Maybe he is racing the clock as he is concerned about being impeached after the next election. Let's postpone the next election! National emergency..ha, ha just kidding folks, that's just how I reverse engineer ideas…. High anxiety….

Tort, you are still listening too much to MSM and your neighbors. 😉

For 80 years plus now, we have taking the World view first (I know some will disagree) but it's true. Prior to that, it was what is best for the U.S. first. Now my belief is that should be the leaders first priority.

He wants to protect our shores first, and since he cannot be re-elected, he feels free to take the actions he feels is necessary. Also he does not need the donations or the Republican funds, he#l he does not even take a salary, so he beholden to no one.

Although this President has shaken some of that, he has not completely. But he is the first of any party in a long, long time who has told "our allies" to pull their pants up and help pull the rope.

Disagree or not, that is what he is doing and he is doing things so fast domestically and globally, his opponents cannot keep up.

His opponents cannot attack one subject for more than a couple of weeks before jumping to the next.

I don't agree with all he does. I disagree with taking GL by "force". I disagree with giving everyone a rebate from Tariff money. But I do see all the positives, because I don't rely on the MSM to tell me them. (Don't! Because they won't. 😉).

I'm just going to grab one here, since it is the most recent domestically, illegals being sent home. His opponents are fighting it tooth and nail and lying the whole time.. but enough people buy those lies to create issues. I won't go further unless someone forces my hand. But at least listen to the Democrats during the Obama administration and then ask why today is different.

Remember this is only one example.

Subject: MAZE on X: "An incredible clip on many levels. It represents the hypocrisy of so many in politics and media regarding immigration. 2014. Democrat Luis Gutierrez accuses Republicans of having Obama Derangement Syndrome because they don't appreciate how well Obama enforces the immigration t.co/BO2UkSBv7m / X


link

@Tortorella

"Over on the closed thread, Incavart introduced the idea of the right using the explanation of "reverse-engineering brilliance" regarding some aspects of the unilateral foreign policy activity implemented solely by the WH."

It seems like it was my post with a photo of me as clown that prompted the closure of the thread. I thought it was a humorous way to respond to being called a clown. Oh well. Anyway, it's a photo of me assisting a guy, a navy diver – did mine clearance during Desert Storm, who did clown shows for children in hospital. That's me getting ready to help out.

POTUS is scuttling alternative energy strategy to make us dependent on oil

"Alternative energy" is a modern humanist politico-religious fetish. It promises moral absolution for our evil "fossil fuel" sins -- and it crushes your economy when you go all in on Green, and leads ultimately to deindustrualization as we've seen in Germany.

IF you wanted to move to a fossile fuel "lite" economy you need to build steady, predictable high load nuclear power plants. But if you're a Green Acolyte, that's sinful. Our energy policy should be "all of the above." A solid nuclear and natural gas baseline energy supply, buttressed by hydro, wind and solar where it makes sense to do so.

So the current president is a realist, he knows affordable and secure energy is and will be critically important, and that includes oil and natural gas.

This Trumpian world view is based on WHAT WORKS. The world order that ran on autopilot for 30 years after the Cold War no longer works.

China is champing at the bit to take down the US and has spent decades assembling power and allies around the world while building up its military at a frantic pace -- while we spin our wheels and spend out treasure on circumcisions in Madagascar and gay pride marches in Lime, Peru – and many many Americans suffer. The system no longer works, the Establishment has been rejected by half the electorate and support Trump's attempts to reform and reorient; part of the other half is flipping out that their comfy predictable world is at threat of being upended.

This includes the "World Order" and NATO and other power structures who find comfort in a system that's been around for 75 years. But it's busted. Can it be fixed? I dunno, that's largely up to the Europeans who still buy energy from the "Existential threat" of Russia, and seem more animated about sending troops to Greenland than to Ukraine. I think they are more comfortable with Putin than ever, despite their public rhetoric. He doesn't threaten their power in the way that Trump does -- he doesn't chastise them about that free speech and liberty stuff, doesn't warn them over their destructive immigration and economic policies, doesn't browbeat them to spend more, or support their domestic opposition. Nah, Putin just wants to be top dog in Europe and sell oil. I'm sure they could show their bellies for some cheap energy AND being able to stay in power if it came down to it…

Shadoe, your excellent clown picture is still visible. Perhaps it has been restored.

@Dagwood, it was never taken down. It's just that it was the last post before the thread was closed. No doubt that was a wise decision.

SB!! I don't give a flying @#$& about the left or a fossil fuel fetish! I don't want to ever again get @#$&*& by any oil producing nation or any oil corporation. Nuclear, solar, wind, gas, oil, thermal – I want it all on the table now, take the lead, create the strength we need to secure what is literally our power to weather any energy issues, no freakin pun intended. Military and economic security depend on this, in my opinion, as I have said before. We are not really on different pages on this, and I use this word carefully, the need for DIVERSE sources of energy.

I agree with much of what you say but it's sounds like reverse engineering brilliance giving too much credit to POTUS. I can't get his magnet talk out of my head…apparently not reported on the right. And he does not care about birds or dolphins. The oil thing is strictly industry influencing. Money, votes, power. Coal! It's back, have its best year in awhile. The 1900 are over! The logistics of fossil fuels will eventually end its dominance. It's a transition time.

the need for DIVERSE sources of energy.

I'd put "mature" before "DIVERSE", Tort. There's been a lot of money handed over (in effect wasted), and some environmental damage done, by untested, unproven technologies. Here the best example are "wave generators"- which should be re-named "Beach and Seabed Pollution". Why would anyone use (stainless?) steel fasteners on a wave generator? Was their chief engineer drunk or stoned?

Too many companies (foreign and domestic) rely on governments to fund their R&D and solutions for problems with their designs- even airy-fairy solutions (and probably outright scams) that most people would look at and say "You're joking, this will never work because….". Wait until the technology is mature (ie reliable and safe) before wasting tax dollars on it and trusting it in the energy grid. Let the companies fund the problem solving, at least, because they'll make millions off the patents if/when their Sooper Dooper Whatever works. And I doubt that they'll fully re-pay the government funds they received.

I don't entirely disagree Dal, maybe mature and diverse. But some of the process you describe is called "science" in my book – there will be a lot of trial and error on the road to final products. After several decades someone thought to take the lead out of gasoline. It remains one of the more labor intensive and costly items to produce, process, transport, store, distribute and retail. It has never been perfect.

And IMO there is no sector of the economy where we have been gouged and led around by the nose more than what the oil companies have done to us… to the tune of record profits and tax breaks we help make up. We are talking trillions.

Electric cars don't make as much sense when you consider how much oil and coal has been used to create electricity. I get it.

I do not want to fall so far behind the curve that bad actors get the edge over us. Considering some of the other things our government is spending billions on, and I won't give my lengthy list, I would be more than happy to spend some of that on new energy development and let the process roll.

Tort,

I'm not a fan of wind turbines.

Nuclear is probably the best alternative, but no one wants one within miles of their homes. Interesting side note, many of wife's cousins were in easy distance of three Mile island. They had to evacuate when the leak happened there and came to Ohio until they could go home.

Anyway back to wind turbines. Many of the environmentalists who were so strongly advocating it, had no idea this was going on.

"The primary environmentally problematic wood product used in wind turbines is balsa wood (Ochroma pyramidale), which has been linked to illegal logging and significant deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, particularly in Ecuador and Peru.

Use in Wind Turbines

Balsa wood is prized for its unique combination of being incredibly lightweight yet strong, making it an ideal core material for the large, resilient blades of wind turbines. Its use helps achieve the necessary structural support without adding excessive weight, which is critical for blade performance.

Environmental Issues

While balsa is not listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the high global demand driven by the wind power industry has led to severe environmental and social consequences:

Illegal Logging: A significant portion of the balsa timber supply chain is tainted by illegal harvesting in sensitive Amazon regions.

Deforestation: The sudden surge in demand, particularly around 2019-2020, exhausted existing balsa plantations and led loggers to rush into primary rainforest areas, resulting in rapid, unplanned deforestation and habitat destruction.

Social Impact: Logging activities have caused social and economic disruption in Indigenous communities, often occurring without proper consultation or consent, and bringing related issues like pollution and social division.

Ecosystem Damage: The harvesting disrupts local ecosystems and affects native flora and fauna that depend on the balsa trees and surrounding environment."

They are trying composts now, but they and other elements of the turbines have many difficulties in future disposal.

I want someone to figure out how to extract that silver used in solar panels. $$$$ 😉. But maybe not, as people would be stealing them right and left just like catalytic converters.

UshCha … do you have spell-check/autocorrect ?

Frankly I'd think few in NATO would want the US to drop or even NATO dissolve.

Many NATO members let their military go to seed by rapidly downsizing. With a perceived belief Russia would no longer be a threat. Or anyone would not be a threat.

I'd like to see how well the EU would do with NATO gone. AKAIK at this point they have not rebuilt their militaries to effective levels in case of a major war …

NATO exists as a strong coalition of nations, from Europe and North America. To operate together demonstrating "force in numbers" … "peace thru strength" … Have you ever worked with NATO forces ? Or have any military experience ?

Never mind …

The big businesses will always have their hands in the tax money bags, mate. All they have to do is wave a seven or eight figure future salary in front of a couple of politicians and they'll have all the support they need to ask for more taxpayers' money. But there's too many problems with some of the "greener" power generation solutions. Everything from self-igniting batteries burning down houses to "100% recyclable" equipment that is often 0% recyclable, and quite toxic. As for oil companies, we'll probably never be able to be "oil free", but it would be nice to reduce it to the bare minimum, if we could. It would be a nice kick to the privates for a few countries, as well as a few humanoid greed merchants.

Electric cars don't make as much sense when you consider how much oil and coal has been used to create electricity. I get it.

There's a reason why "carbon free energy" solutions never have their "carbon debts", incurred during manufacture and disposal, detailed. But the climate religion doesn't allow for such heresy to be spoken.

I want someone to figure out how to extract that silver used in solar panels.

Silver, gold, cadmium, copper, zinc, tin, nickel and lead, probably. Unless you own a high-temperature incinerator, with a metals runoff and separation capability, mate, you'll be struggling. Not to mention that the metal retrieved is probably not going to be worth the cost of recovery and separation. If it was easy and enriching then people would be lucky to have their new solar panels on their roof the next morning, let alone the (unrealistic) 10 years the vendors promised.

PS A really bad mental image self-generated. Midnight- 35th, in black clothing, cam-cream on face, trying to be quiet while he's ripping solar panels off his roof (purely for experimental purposes)- and not knowing his significant other is watching from below, arms folded, foot tapping and frowning.

Shhh 🤫

Actually I hit the Solar Farms. 😉

No doubt 35th, a problem that has to be solved. I hesitated to bring up the environmental issues regarding oil but we can list some: land and ocean catastrophic spills, smog, millions of junked vehicles leaking fluids, leaking home and business in-ground oil tanks, acid rain, mercury from both oil and coal, deforestation of rain and other forests for extraction, etc. No tech has done more harm to human health and the environment than fossil fuels.

Oil remains critical, but so does going ahead with new sources of energy.

Greenland says it should be defended by NATO, rejects any US takeover

link

Armand

This link is to a Ryan McBeth video on Greenland, but a lot of the video is on the benefits of NATO:

YouTube link

One key benefit of NATO is standardization to ensure forces can train, operate and support each other effectively, using each other's resources like fuel or ammo without issues. In essence, it turns NATO's diverse forces into a more unified fighting force. With the US in NATO, US standards drive NATO standards. Without the US as the core it would be a far greater challenge for European countries to reach agreements on standardization. So, NATO standardization is a benefit to the US and to other NATO countries whether on a NATO mission or a coalition mission. It's huge force multiplier.

And, it's worth noting that NATO standards 'spill over' to key US allies in the west Pacific – e.g., Australia which is a de facto NATO-interoperable force. Other countries, like Japan, are moving towards full interoperability.

Of course, despite the benefit of standardization and interoperability, that by itself isn't enough to keep an alliance together.

Shad,

Still no Euros siting the advantages of NATO or keeping it together? 🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗

35th, not my job or concern. Or, put another way, not my circus, not my monkeys.

FWIW – Speaker Johnson(R) said there will be no military invasion of Greenland. The VP, etc. is having a meeting at the WH now with officials from Denmark and Greenland. A deal with be struck. With everybody being satisfied, I'm pretty sure. So many not just overseas but in Congress, DC, the media etc. just don't get the way this POTUS uses diplomacy, geopolitics, Realpolitik, etc. … He is a NYC businessman, not a career politician. Which DC is over following with. He's expiration date has long passed.

With this deal …

Both Greenland and Denmark will get their part of the mining of so many untouched natural resources.

Which is important for keeping the Chicoms and Russians from opening businesses, etc. on a critically strategic island within the US/North America, etc. sphere of influence/the Western Hemisphere.

Plus the US forces will set up many defensive measures, e.g. Golden Dome, etc. to protect the island, the US, etc. from the Chicom and Russian intrusions. The Arctic is becoming even more important today than before. The Chicoms and Russians are spending a lot of time in the region. With the plans to spread their influence, either politically, economically or even militarily …

This deal is a very good move for not the just the Western hemisphere but NATO, etc. too …

What is so hard to understand ? I Still think too many base their comments of disdain for the POTUS and his Admin.

Untapped natural resources which we don't have to be dependent on our enemies for. And defense from these enemies … Get it … China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and militant islamists are not our friends. And probably won't be anytime soon. Iran is still WIP. What are some not seeing here ?

Plus again many believe without the USA … NATO will have limited effectiveness at best. The POTUS just wants them to increase their defense spending. Again Strength in numbers and Peace thru strength … Are some reading a different history book than I am, or many of us. Are some living in a different reality ? I know what my 1SG would say … " Get your head out of your !!!! " …

Nor do I believe it is. 🙂

But since you were one of those expressing the positive advantages for an alliance that is currently to Europes benefit, I wondered if you noticed none of them expressing any positives?

One key benefit of NATO is standardization to ensure forces can train, operate and support each other effectively, using each other's resources like fuel or ammo without issues. In essence, it turns NATO's diverse forces into a more unified fighting force. With the US in NATO, US standards drive NATO standards. Without the US as the core it would be a far greater challenge for European countries to reach agreements on standardization. So, NATO standardization is a benefit to the US and to other NATO countries whether on a NATO mission or a coalition mission. It's huge force multiplier.

And, it's worth noting that NATO standards 'spill over' to key US allies in the west Pacific – e.g., Australia which is a de facto NATO-interoperable force. Other countries, like Japan, are moving towards full interoperability.

Of course, despite the benefit of standardization and interoperability, that by itself isn't enough to keep an alliance together.

Bingo !!! Some may have to read this again and then maybe a few more times after that. It's in English and not rocket science … Get your heads … well you all know the rest.

@35thOVI,

I don't check people's profiles for where they claim to reside. I prefer to consider a poster's argument on its own merit. But I will take your word for it that you have done the 'check' and no EU citizen has posted on this thread expressing the positive advantages of NATO. That might be because they don't believe there are any but it could just be they don't want to engage in this 'discussion'. For the life of me, I just can't imagine why not. It's not as if the original title was provocative. :)

Shadoe1

Are you saying people on TMP would lie about their location?! Would not use their real Names?! No names at all you say!? 😱😱😱

They don't have the intestinal fortitude to do so and want to hide behind anonymity??!! 😱😱😱

"Anonymous comments are the refuge of cowards."
Michael Hyatt

"* Anonymity debases public debate; by being anonymous you forfeit your right to be taken seriously. John Rawls, the foremost political philosopher of the last half-century, wrote about what types of arguments were legitimate in the public sphere. To satisfy the condition of "public reason", he says, people have to justify their political positions with reference to "public values" and "public standards", something that implies openness and accountability, as well as "civility".

A conclusion you can draw is that only opinions that people are willing to defend publicly should be taken seriously."

The Irish Times

"Not long ago, Facebook marketing director (and sister of founder Mark), Randi Zuckerberg announced that anonymity "should go away." She said, "I think anonymity on the Internet has to go away. People behave a lot better when they have their real names down. … I think people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors.""

Phil Cooke

Sorry could not resist. 😉

WAIT!!!
Are you really Canadian!!?? 🤨
😂

@Legion 4,

Thanks for the 'gold star'. It's appreciated.

One of the things Ryan McBeth talks a lot about is the upcoming conflict between the US and China. If that's the case then European allies contributing to the defence of Greenland (and the wider Arctic) makes sense given Chinese activity (and potentially Russia as their ally – since Russia has a few IOU wrt China).

On the other hand, an adversarial takeover of Greenland would mean the defence of Greenland only by the US while also confronting China. As the Zen Master says, "We'll see."

Take care.

U R Welcome … "I calls'm as I sees'm!"

The meeting today at WH with the POTUS, VP, etc. was not really successful for the US. Regardless, talks will continue.
But both Denmark and Greenland dug their heals in, not unexpectedly.

Just saw on FOX, it is reported that Germany and other members of NATO are planning to be sent to Greenland. To defend against the US ? What !?

Everyone in NATO and elsewhere, do not want the Chicoms to have any influence, businesses etc. on Greenland.

Denmark has done nothing to utilize the natural resources there. Which would do NATO, etc. a lot of good. And as the US points out all involved will benefit. So we are still in a situation with the disposition of that island's future.

Yes … "We'll see" … 👍👍

@Legion 4,

Greenland should have its own thread, so I won't say much on that but I'm curious – what does 'success' mean for the US in your view? Are the basing of US / NATO military in Greenland and agreements for mineral extraction enough? Is US sovereignty essential? If so, why if you have the other stuff?

The impasse is due to a clash of worldviews – a Western (Euro-US) transactional, ownership‑based model of land versus the relational, Indigenous model of belonging to the land. The former is what I'm hearing from your President (e.g., psychological need). I'm aware of the second because it's a big issue here especially in the north where the Inuit are related to the Greenlanders (also Inuit but called Kalaallit in Greenland). For them this echoes with the indigenous experience of the last few centuries. So, it very much is seen as the US offering a new colonial bondage. Don't seem to see much of the indigenous angle in the media but it's there.

Legion,

If Germany ect are sending troops to Greenland it would make sense. That is what NATO was for. If one of its members was attacked the others would fight to defend it. It was meant against Russia but if the US would try to take Greenland by force then NATO would have the right to defend Greenland.

I agree Greenland is a big topic in itself.

I'm curious – what does 'success' mean for the US in your view? Are the basing of US / NATO military in Greenland and agreements for mineral extraction enough?

Frankly as allies that should be. The US has had a number of bases there before for decades.

Is US sovereignty essential?

I personally don't think so. However, with the US being there, Greenland being a protectorate. That alone would deter the Chicoms, etc. And again, we don't know what really is going on behind closed doors. Unreleased to the media, etc.

If so, why if you have the other stuff?

Again, "we the people" don't know what is going at all times and everywhere, etc. In the WH, DC, NATO, etc.

I would have thought this whole event should have been easier. With everyone involved being NATO … Why Trump choose the path he did about Greenland ? Is yet TBD … We may never know ?

"It ani't over until it's over!" … And it ani't …
at this time.

More closed-door discussions, etc., will have to occur …

@Legion 4,

I revised my earlier post to put in more on the indigenous worldview and why I think it's a very important dimension.

Like you I expect a deal will be worked out – one which meets US needs while preserving the Greenland people's (i.e., the Kalaallit) sovereignty as an indigenous people.

Keep in mind the Greenland people have self-governance over everything except foreign affairs, defence / security which Denmark does.

@shadoe01 and keep in mind that so far all Trump has done is TALK, and the Europeans have been tripping over themselves as being tough on Trump and sending security resources to Greenland -- and there's a growing GREXIT movement that wants to separate and cease being a colonial posession of Greenland. Oh, and now we know how comprised Greenland is becoming with billions in Chinese investments, trade, Belt and Road, etc

@SBminisguy,

Yes, I agree it's talk – so far.

I thought GREXIT was about Greece leaving the EU??? Never knew they were a colony of Greenland.

Greenland's compromised by China??? What?? Chinese interests / investments in Greenland have been halted or blocked by Greenland, Denmark and the US. An example is the rare-earth project at Kvanefjeld. Another is that Denmark/Greenland has rejected airport construction bid – agree with US pressure, but it was blocked. The reality is that Greenland is suspicious of Chinese investment – and rightly so.

Meanwhile the development of Guyana oilfields is a joint Chinese-American venture. Go figure.

FYI – I've done quite a bit of background research on the 'Greenland' question. I haven't as yet formed it into anything cohesive, but a friend asked and I might do it. Anymore I contribute here would be half-done. So, do keep in mind what Legion 4 wrote – stuff is happening behind closed doors, while media narratives are pre-loaded as pro- or anti-administration and not necessarily with a lot of background research for either.

Talk that didn't need to be said. Greenland is already covered by article 5 and has US basing agreements so absolutely no need for this.
Alliances are based on trust and predictability and this is a very poor way to treat your allies.
The economic advantage mentioned for basing and mineral exploitation is true and doesn't need the President to act as he has been for that to happen.
Recent survey said 85% would rather stay part of Denmark than be part of the US. If you consider the social network of healthcare education etc that exists and the political climate of the US vs Denmark it's easy to see why that is.

Shadoe +1

So, do keep in mind what Legion 4 wrote – stuff is happening behind closed doors, while media narratives are pre-loaded as pro- or anti-administration and not necessarily with a lot of background research for either.

Yes, I think more here should read that and understand that … SBm +1

goibinu – Once again your grasp of the reality of the situation is absolutely stunning … Don't take that as a compliment. You probably don't have to continue posting … we already know what you going to say. Which so far is generally incorrect AKAIK/IMO… And I'm not the only one.

China is a clear and present threat to the West and the Western hemisphere. Also many should understand China needs us more than we need them. Especially with their economy not being as good as they try to say.

I know Ireland is not really a player in this as in reality it is too small to even interest the Chicoms or the Russians. Even if it isn't part of NATO. But I do laud Ireland's commitment to the UN … Even if many times many of the members of the UN vote against the USA. But yet they take all the $, aid, etc. the US gives to those nations.

Note To All: China and Russia are sniffing around the Arctic region like dogs in heat. The US wants to put the Golden Dome and other AD systems in Greenland. Look At the Map. Both the Chicoms and Russians are very close to the US and Canada[FYI-both NATO members]. Using the traditional over the North Pole air attack route. Which now includes more high tech missile systems than ever before. Remember why NORAD came in about ? I hope … It is critical to North America's survival. From the #1 threat in that area – China and Russia. If you don't remember look it up …

The paradigm has change with both having hypersonic nuke capable missiles. And Tech continues to evolve … what could be next ?

Denmark has done little to mine, etc. Greenland's massive amounts of natural resources. They don't have the interest or $ for the tech. That it would cost to do that. This mining would not be an easy dig, etc. They don't have a very big economy and choose to spend much of the GDP, etc. on social programs etc. Which is their right … it is their taxpayers, etc. $. USD

Recent survey said 85% would rather stay part of Denmark than be part of the US.

In reality the US does not really need that to happen. IMO the POTUS may not have handled this deal with a lot of finesse, etc. But deservingly so he does not have as much faith in many NATO members as they may like.

The former US ambassador for Denmark interviewed today mentioned how even after they said they would. Denmark had/has limited support for Greenland. Maybe they are concerned if Greenland became more self-sufficient. They would push for their independence from their current owner.

If you consider the social network of healthcare education etc that exists and the political climate of the US vs Denmark it's easy to see why that is.

Yes, I don't doubt some would say that. Based on if nothing else media bias. And personal bias and disdain for the POTUS and the USA. No doubt there is a leftist faction supported from within and without to destabilize the US. IMO this is de facto ACW 2.0 on a very small level. Most in the US don't care who Greenland belongs to. And what is currently going on in the US internally does not or will not affect Greenland. Like in the Mid East the US/West is more interested in doing economic based deals/business with them then anything else.

But we and others in the Western World all really care about our enemies' capabilities to launch hypersonic nuke missiles etc., to target North America. And even other NATO nations.

It has been said repeatedly the US is trying to make a move to the benefit for all involved. And in turn thwart all our enemies' threat to most of the West. As yes, smaller nations, e.g. Ireland really does not have a horse in this race. Again, not they are not even in NATO. And admittedly that is not only small nation that is in that situation.

I'm sure you all know some NATO forces are landing in Greenland for an exercise recently. IIRC including Germany, Denmark, France, etc. About 5 NATO nations total IIRC ?

Is that a demonstration of how NATO Art.5 could work as REFORGER did in Europe. Mostly in West Germany. I was fortunate to have participated in REFORGER '88. The last big REFORGER/NATO FTX before the fall of the USSR.

I think there are some here who are too anti-US, anti-POTUS, etc. to give an unbiased opinion. I'll admit I may be a bit biased as well … to the opposite side of the floor.

Again, discussion is still far from over on the "Greenland Files/"Something is rotten in Denmark" situation …

But I know all the usual suspects will continue to throw stones … Knock yourself out, not matter what side you argument falls on.

@Legion 4,

"Denmark has done little to mine, etc. Greenland's massive amounts of natural resources. They don't have the interest or $ for the tech."

I respect you, but that's a simplification to the point of nearly being outright wrong.

It is true in the sense that the Greenland government controls natural resources and Copenhagen will understandably tread lightly. As for the Greenland people they have expressed a desire of investment / extraction but not at any cost – i.e., done 'respectfully'. Fair enough, it's their land and they have to live with the consequences. So – yes to mining but not at any cost.

The current situation:
Denmark and Greenland are interested
Private companies are interested
The U.S. is very interested
The EU is interested
The bottleneck is cost, logistics – and, of course, regulatory especially due to the arctic environment.

Current and emerging operations:
Amaroq Minerals (gold, critical minerals)
Lumina Sustainable Materials (anorthosite)
GreenRoc Mining (graphite)
Critical Metals Corp / Australian Critical Metals (Tanbreez rare earths)
Energy Transition Minerals (Kvanefjeld rare earths, stalled)
KoBold Metals, backed by Gates, Bezos, Dalio, etc. (AI‑driven exploration)

Obstacles:
- extreme climate
- lack of roads and rail
- remote deposits
- seasonal access
- need for new power infrastructure
- long permitting timelines (average 16 years)

The latter one is an issue where political will can make a difference, but in any event we're talking years to bring operations on line.

I'll just leave this here…

link

Do what you want with it.

You've got to admit though, Smithy, that the article is written from a particular perspective, and the message could seem to resemble a grenade at first look.

Lá maith agat, a chara. Cén cathlán? (don't blame me for the words and spelling, blame Google). BTW, belated thanks for the help in INTERFET.

We've both been in the armed forces, but being a grunt where the blood and bullets are doesn't make either of us a military genius.

No it doesn't, and I've never said, I was a military genius. In reality few are. But I do have a lot of training, experience and knowledge of military operations, history, etc. and an Infantry officer. With over a decade with active-duty Line Infantry units. And I base my comments on those credentials and a few other things …

The five permanent members – UK USA France Russia China have a ruling veto, so please don't try special pleading.

We both know that. And I'm not pleading … I'm just stating a fact, that many in the UN don't vote with, etc. the USA. As it is their right. However, let there be not doubt. Generally Russian and China vote against the other 3 of the P5.

I'm not anti-USA. I'm anti-idiot, and unfortunately the USA seems overburdened with them.

News flash that does not only occur in the US, as I'm sure you know.

Now wait … are you calling me/alluding to that I am an idiot. Well … no matter … doesn't really make a difference anyway … continue …

At least I'm not reduced to spurious ad hominem like

I didn't see it that … however, it was meant to stress my opinion, etc. and how strongly I felt, etc. However, in the spirit collegiality, I will try not to be so … "mean" spirited(?), etc. But as we know sometimes discussions become more "verbally violent". I will try to channel "the angels of my better nature". But I won't make any promises.

And not to be too conciliatory, I do prefer to hear all angles, all sides of a discussion. But at times we will not always agree .. and sometimes disagree vehemently. As well as not be too magnanimous about it either.

So yes … it does work both ways … Until next time … Which I'm sure there will be …

If Germany ect are sending troops to Greenland it would make sense. That is what NATO was for. If one of its members was attacked the others would fight to defend it. It was meant against Russia but if the US would try to take Greenland by force then NATO would have the right to defend Greenland.

Yes I know I was deployed as part of NATO and even the UN. We discussed how NATO and even the UN, as to how they both work, etc.

As we, the US military is part of both of those organizations. E.g. We flew the UN flag along with US and ROK flags on our compounds, guard posts, FOB, etc. in the ROK. And REFORGER was a major NATO exercise. So yeah, I know about NATO and the UN. And yes, individual NATO members can work with other NATO member or any other forces in the world. Without some sort of NATO approval. E.g. All the forces in the PTO are not NATO members. But we always work with them … On both fronts we all have allies, of course …

Shadoe … I see your points. Some of what you posted did enlighten me about a few things I didn't know of forgot. And yes, I was taking a more simplistic vane. As in some ways IMO the solution should be easy. And I don't always agree with some of decisions that come out of the WH, Congress, etc. And yes, I am wrong at times. More than I would like to admit.

So that leaves us back at the beginning … How will all this disagreement be handled? On all sides of the situation. I believe no workable solution is just around the corner.

And if the party in power losses some seats in Congress with the looming mid-terms. All of this may just be a moot point. And fear if another party gets back into the WH 3 years from now.

Many changes, will bring us back to where we were with the last Admin. And things will just become worse. And the US with or without Greenland or NATO will become something that I shudder to think about. With any luck I'll be dead by then.

< end rant mode> < fade to black >

FWIW – report from Reuters in found on line …

The development comes as the Trump administration is pushing to acquire the Danish territory. Germany deployed a reconnaissance team of 13 personnel, France sent 15 mountain specialists and Sweden, Norway and Britain sent three, two and one officers, respectively, according to Reuters.

"The geopolitical tensions have spread to the Arctic. The Government of Greenland, and the Danish Ministry of Defense have therefore decided to continue the Danish Armed Forces' increased exercise activity in Greenland, in close cooperation with NATO allies," the Danish Ministry of Defense said in a statement Wednesday.

So it appears to be an ad hoc NATO detachment in about Plt strength. Good to see at least they are doing an FTX. With the Russians and Chicoms floating are in that region …

When UE was formed, NATO and the EU had few ties because the EU didn't have a defense component. That eventually changed, but because of the organization's differences – NATO remained very focused on security while the EU was more open – there was still room for improvement. In the 2000s, relations grew stronger as NATO and the EU tried to promote more responsibility regarding defense. IN 2002, the NATO-EU Declaration on a European Security and Defense Policy solidified the EU's access to NATO's planning capabilities, which the EU needed for its military operations. From Global Peace Careers

The growth of the EU has changed my opinion. I was a NATO supporter while I served the Navy 1974 to 2003. Now I want the US out of NATO. The EU was created was to compete with the US economically. Why bear the burden of the defense of Europe when EU is engaged in unfair trade with US.

Maybe it is time for NATO to just "go quietly into the good night" ? Let the EU replace NATO and be left to their own devices. However, what do all the NATO and/or EU members think? Should Europe be just left to decide ?

Won't Putin think he'd won with NATO dissolving ? Will the EU be strong enough to stand on its own, if Russia or anyone else becomes a threat ?

Again, what do the NATO members want ?

Regardless, what will the US do either way?

What?? Chinese interests / investments in Greenland have been halted or blocked by Greenland, Denmark and the US. An example is the rare-earth project at Kvanefjeld.

China is now Greenland's 2nd largest trade partner and growing, buying over $400 USD Million in seafood products every year -- and they are relentless at trying to buy their way in. This means leaders have to be determined and vigilant.

But what happens when leaders are bought off and influenced by China??

Like Carney of Canada.

There should be deeper NATO worries about Canada than about the US. Canada, under PM Carney, is sucking up to China and trying to replace the strategic relationship with the US with China instead. He calls China a "like-minded" country on trade, energy and financial issues. He says the "global trading order is changing" (indeed it is as the US demands reciprocal trade deals instead of imbalanced deals), says the Rinminbei will become a more important global trade currency and this means Canada is "well positioned for the new world order."

The NWO -- interesting choice of words.

Bold move, Bob, let's see how that works out!

YouTube link