|
|
|
|
|
|
by adventured
2494 days ago
|
|
|
There would be no fight over it. It's a territorial protection maneuver to protect Greenland, led by the US. US media combo military industrial complex headline: US does the security job that some NATO members refuse to do. The PR push would be that it's not an annexation. It's not an occupation. It is temporary. It's about keeping Greenland safe, defending Greenland. The representation at the EU via Denmark is meaningless. Neither Denmark nor the EU have any military power to stop the US from doing this. The US will easily be able to muddy the water enough politically by leaning on allies in Europe like Poland and Britain, to argue that it is in fact important to keep Greenland safe. In the end nobody will really do anything to stop it. Which part of NATO is going to fight the US to stop this exactly? Right, none of it. You know how batshit crazy Iraq was? 10x more so than what going into Greenland would be by comparison. And yet the US won't do it? Of course it will, if it thinks it needs to in order to prevent China from setting up there militarily. There are countless ways to spin it, to play it, in order to get from point A to point occupation re NATO. |
|
|
China has zero force projection capability outside of Asia. Their is no chance they are pulling off an invasion of Greenland anytime in the foreseeable future.
Also we already have an Air Force base in Greenland--there is no realastic scenario where a US invasion is necessary or even useful.
"Nope we aren't leaving. Any attempt to force us to leave will be seen as a hostile action, as will any attempt to establish a Chinese military presence."
That's all it takes.