731
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
731 points (100.0% liked)
World News
54190 readers
1975 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
We shouldn’t kid ourselves. There is no realistic way to defend Greenland with actual arms against America.
It could cause world war 3
The US attacking allied territory of the EU is basically the death of NATO, one way or another. WW3 is a hop and a skip from that.
I've not been following super closely for mental health reasons, but if it is just Denmark? We are looking at another Ukraine. Everyone is going to hem and haw and say "just give it to the pricks" to "avoid World War 3". Whereas, if we start seeing other EU/NATO nations deploying troops to protect Greenland... there is a chance that SOMETHING remains and we don't just have russia running over everyone else one by one.
Germany just sent a first batch of soldiers, so that's a good sign IMO.
As did Sweden, Norway and France.
EDIT: And as a Dane, I am so grateful toward our real allies!
And the Netherlands and Canada.... And my axe!
There's talk of sending the EU rapid reaction force. It's only 5000 troops but they're the good shit.
Now I imagine them like modern day spartans. In mechas.
We (swedes) love to tease you, but brother, I’m so fucking furious about this. The only positive about the development on the world stage in recent years is we in the Nordic countries have come closer than ever.
How can anyone say Trump ISN'T beholden to Putin? Even if you know nothing of their 30 year relationship, Trump is doing everything that a puppet of Putin would do. Russia really just... won the Cold War ultimately. They did it. They have a Russian asset as POTUS, Russian asset at head of intelligence at ODNI, and many many others scattered throughout.
All of this is straight out of "Foundations of Geopolitics" by Dugin.
Nailed it. Prez does not have the juice to straight pull out of nato. So this jingoistic adventurism is meant to gin enough support for it.
I do not think they will find the support they need here though. We all like europe and canada here.
Based on reports that generals are considering it a truly illegal order to attack Greenland or an ally I’m fairly certain Iran and a few South American countries are going to be sacrificed instead
So if anyone was wondering where the line for an illegal order was it’s probably here, attacking Greenland/NATO
That being said there is still a chance of anything happening so we obviously can never be comfortable
I assume there is no line for an illegal order, since Trump has purged military leaders who don't think Trump's word is law.
Yep. I love how people keep thinking there's still a rule of law in the US.
Which also means that all the smart military leaders were replaced by idiots who probably couldn't come up with a strategy for anything more complex than a tic tac toe game.
The only certainty is that after Venezuela with 0 repercussions they now got the taste for it.
Ukraine's armed forces alone are 15x the total population of Greenland. This is more of a Grenada than a Ukraine.
I would be much more worried about the power projection of the world's largest military by a factor of 20 than the country currently caught in a quagmire halfway into the Donbas.
The Forsvaret (Danish Army) has the obligation to also defend autonomous territories of Denmark, i.e. Greenland and Faroe Islands. Its personnel is 100,000.
Ukraine now has 6 times more army personnel than before the war (~2022).
The US could theoretically take island in days with raw force, but if a coalition Europe force holds enough territory to bring in more troops through then it's going to be a bloody brutal slog.
All becuase roughly half of America voters preferred a pedophile war criminal over a relatively normal politician
Ah, but she had a weird laugh and a less than ideal reply to a gaza question.
Lordy we are fucked.
In terms of escalation with Europe: next would be any European territory in the Caribbean / Gulf of Mexico (e.g. BVI’s; side note: no fucking way will I ever use the regime’s idiotic rename of that body of water), then any European holdings in South America (e.g. French Guiana), then straight up annexation of countries in central/South America. Then probably an attempt to sweep up any other extraterritorial European enclaves in other areas (Canary Islands? The Azores? Who knows?).
This is what “sphere of influence” politics means. This is the new reality.
Computer, end program.
…
Computer, door.
…
…
Fuck.
Sorry, someone else already turned off the safety protocols. We’re screwed.
Trump seems to forget Europe has nuclear missiles as well. It doesn't take thousands for mutual assured destruction.
Do you think Europe is gonna fire a nuke over Greenland? Be honest
Honest? I don't know if politicians are adamant enough.
However, Trump (bullies in general) only respond to strength and violence.
Rolling over will only embolden them more. Hopefully pointing a few nukes at the US mainland will cause their government to rethink their strategy. But this will only work if we're willing to execute when push comes to shove.
For some reason Russia causes Trump to roll out the red carpet, when Putin decides to grace Trump with a visit. This when he could easily force them to end the war in a few days. They are suffering terrible losses at the hand of a small country supported by NATO. I think it's because he perceives Russia as "strong", but in reality the only edge they have is nuclear power.
So in short - yes, honestly I think Europe should stop trying to be diplomatic and start drawing a red line and seeing that strategy through.
The united states' government is now so obviously an enemy to Europe that diplomacy is clearly no longer an option.
I think as soon as Europe starts putting their big boy pants on, Canada will join. Because if the US controls both Alaska and Greenland, Canada is next. They will probably already realise that. Hopefully talks are already underway between Canada and European nations. I would be surprised if this isn't already a scenario they take into account.
Mexico in the south, joined by a few other south American countries could also join in. As soon as the us is facing pressure from 3 sides, bringing the stakes to their physical borders, the tables might turn.
And then there's like 80% of the us population that could rise up against this. The public opinion is heavily dependent on how close the fight is to their borders.
I believe if Europe starts reaching out NOW to Canada and south america, stop diplomacy with the US, call them out for every Nazi shit they're pulling, and start economic, political and military pressure, we might avoid escalation.
I really hope they already have this scenario on the back burner.
Think I read Germany is sending 13 soldiers.
Yes, trigger troops and recon, no doubt.
Considering NATO without USA has 5x the cold weather trained troops and 10x the cold weather equipment as USA. USA could certainly land but Denmark and its northern neighbors could pretty easily and I don't think even with great cost make it prohibitively difficult to stay. It would end up looking like Finland's Great Winter War IMO.
If you don't live and breathe cold weather fighting, it's very easy to lose in these conditions. Your equipment gets packed with snow, the lubricant in your vehicle turns to sludge, the optics on your gun fog over, your doors freeze shut, your personnel get too cold to fight, etc.
Even just Denmark, Finland, and Sweden could pull this off themselves, or likely just Denmark and one of those 2. The US has a long track record of losing guerrila wars and Denmark's neighbors like Finland know how to win them in conditions like what they have in Greenland.
Let's not pretend it's a knowledge or ability issue. The US has operated several bases in Alaska since WW2. The knowledge is there in how to manage things.
The real question like you said is equipment. The US gave up a lot of its manufacturing abilities, after it destroys its economy invading an ally I doubt it'll be able to build up capacity fast enough.
They certainly have cold weather troops. I honestly have no idea what kind of numbers are needed for such an operation. But I know for sure that it's better to have more rather than less when push comes to shove.
Fucking thank you. It bears repeating. I’m sure USA generals know this very well.
No, the attacking of Greenland could cause a war not the act of defending it.
There is more to a war than the difference in military strength.
This is the mentality they are banking on, it's the Russian mentality since time immemorial that's kept Europe in the cuck chair for so long. "Yes but if we respond, they might escalate things!"
Gotta tell you, as a Canadian I don't love the concept of the US having even more leverage over our already tenuous logistical connection to European allies. Keeping the Atlantic un-dominated is important for us.
Well the other unfortunate reality is America simply does possess the military equipment, experience, and expertise to destroy any country in conventional war, except China I suppose.
Unless people plan on resorting to nukes Europeans will have to rely on the American military resisting Trump or letting him take Greenland and retaliating with dramatic economic sanctions and boycotts + closing ties with China
Yes the US wins any individual conventional conflict for sure. But putting up a resistance force on Greenland could dissuade the US from trying, as even military win may prove to be a loss, especially if the rest of NATO can take some Americans with them when Greenland falls.
Simply pulling out of Greenland is a non-option, even if the US would win the battle for Greenland.
Why does everyone think the USA could win any war?
They haven't won a war in decades and have lost against much much weaker countries, like Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan. All lost, embarrassingly.
If anything, the track record shows that the USA are really terrible at conventional wars and are only good at "hit and run" operations, like the one on Venezuela.
Can the USA take Greenland overnight? If not, it will be bloody war with no certainty of winning.
Would you rather have 'peace ~~in~~ for our time'?
Edit: Fixed the quote.
Spoken like someone who hasn't studied any US military history more recent than the 1940's.
It's crazy how many people insist the US is this unbeatable force that has already doomed everyone and I invincible.
Bro the gigant has feet made of mud.
The Vietnamese beat us with a few guns, tunnels, and booby traps.
And we napalmed the whole-ass jungle.
Sure, the US can bomb the shit out of Greenland, but that's not the same as 'winning', and this is especially true if we alienate all of our allies in the process.
Tell me about how the mighty USA with their mighty military won the war against much, much weaker militaries, like Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan. Oh wait, they lost all of those...
Hmm, do you know when the USA last won a war without their EU allies' help? I don't.
I do remember though when a Swedish diesel sub bypassed all their defenses and "sunk" the US carrier.
Or that time when Netherlands sub "sunk" one.
Or that time when Australia "sunk" one.
Or that time when Canada "sunk" one.
Americunts can't win a war without their EU allies because the EU are the ones with successful strategies, like how to bypass the "most advanced navy" defenses and sink their most precious carriers.
Americunts are only good at drive bys and hit and run attacks, like the one in Venezuela, they don't know how to fight a proper war, as proven by their track record.
If they can't take Greenland overnight, it will cost them very dearly to go to war with the EU, with no certainty of winning.
In your average conflict this might very much be true, but this is the artic, its a completely different scenario. Ive been hearing a few military experts talk about how much complicated are simple things like keeping ur vehicles moving because of the low temps and how hard would be the logistic to simply maintain control on the ground.
EU will never beat the US air superiority, but alas. Invading Greenland is the end of NATO and most likely will trigger WW3