Denmark was reportedly preparing for full-scale war with the US over Greenland

https://bsky.app/profile/chriso-wiki.bsky.social/post/3mhfsau25uk2f

by mariuz • 4 months ago

417 520 4 months ago

bsky.app

throwa3562622• 4 months ago

Those Danes should study the Falklands war.

Using F35 in this situation is like brining in a billion dollar paperweight to the battle.s

jacquesm65• 4 months ago

That doesn't matter. It is not so much about whether the USA could do this and expect to win, of course they can. Nobody has any doubt about that. It is about gross miscalculation of consequences. Attack Greenland ->attack Denmark, attack Denmark -> Attack the EU.

So you don't attack Greenland. Because that would be wrong.

Unless all that stuff about shining cities on hills was nonsense. Instead of making America great again the US has ceded power to China.

ericmay12• 4 months ago

The US wouldn’t even need to “attack” Greenland. What is there to even attack? 50 Danish soldiers? They could just say “that’s ours”, ignore whatever Europe says, and start doing whatever they wanted to do and instead force the EU to attack American forces or civilian business interests.

I’m not suggesting this is a good idea or anything but there’s a ton of other ways that something like this could play out which involves more difficult ways to counter than you might think.

Instead of making America great again the US has ceded power to China.

What power has the US ceded?

petterroea4• 4 months ago

Living in Japan, I meet and talk to Chinese when out drinking. Many of them are almost literally ROFLing about how the US practically just gave away everything they had to China. It's as if the US is playing poker with their cards facing up on the table. Chinese already consider themselves the defacto superpower.

If mainstream media in the US showed this, I bet the politics would look different.

1over1372• 4 months ago

It is not so much about whether the USA could do this and expect to win, of course they can. Nobody has any doubt about that.

Um, lots of us have doubts about that. The USA couldn't win against Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq; why do you think it could win against Greenland? Greenlanders actually have a lot of guns; and likely most of Europe and Canada would also go to war against the USA.

eunos• 4 months ago

Attack Greenland ->attack Denmark, attack Denmark -> Attack the EU.

Rhetoric and public support aside, I honestly very much doubt that there will be a solid EU military response. For many countries like Baltic, Eastern Europe and Nordic countries (ironically DK included). US military support means life or death of their countries. I imagine they'd stall response like what Hungary did and hope that Greenland annexed become fait accompli.

fulafel5• 4 months ago

From military consequences pov, EU isn't a military alliance but it would of course also be attacking NATO.

WinstonSmith84• 4 months ago

Argentina didn't lose the war because they came with fighter jets, but because their fighter jets were throwing scrap metal at British boats. Had these detonated, the outcome would have been different, and expensive for UK. I don't doubt that F35 are working very well in comparison to the junk Argentina was using.

throwa3562622• 4 months ago

Wasn't there a kill switch in the missiles?

Didn't UK get really really annoyed with France in the one instance their kill switch Didn't work?

KaiserPro5• 4 months ago

They did study the falklands war, thats why they were planning to blow up the runway should shit go wrong.

The idea was to make it as difficult as possible to invade, not to stop it, because that’s largely impossible.

IAmBroom• 4 months ago

I'm sure they'd be grateful for your expert analysis. Maybe you could offer to teach at their war college?

tim3333• 4 months ago

I'm not sure what lesson they are supposed to learn from the Falklands. It was somewhat swung when we sank the Belgrano using a nuclear sub.

Sometimes these billion dollar high tech things work.

jacquesm65• 4 months ago

Of course they were. The United States has never before damaged its own reputation in Europe as much as they did in the last 12 months.

And the same goes for Canada, possibly worse. You don't go around threatening your allies unless you really have plans and that's why you don't elect senile old guys to positions of power.

philipallstar• 4 months ago

that's why you don't elect senile old guys to positions of power.

Anyone of principle would have been saying this before 2025, and far louder.

jacquesm65• 4 months ago

Note that this is from a country that wouldn't exist if not for the allied countries and that the US has somehow managed to all but erase that reputation. We recognize our debt, we also recognize that this is to a country that no longer exists in a meaningful way. All we have now is multiple variations of the mob.

chewbacha2• 4 months ago

Jake Tapper was on the case… against Biden.

zeroCalories• 4 months ago

And partisan hacks will say that a stubbed toe and terminal cancer are both bad.

drcongo2• 4 months ago

Lots of us were, but we were mostly shouted down as being hysterical for warning that fascism was coming.

outside1234• 4 months ago

C'mon, everyone was saying this in 2024. It is just that people hate women and people of color more.

lo_zamoyski• 4 months ago

Men of old age are indeed generally ill-suited for the presidency (as are the young; middle age best balances vigor with prudence and wisdom). The elderly function better as advisors where they may be consulted for their experience, or as amici curiae.

That being said, I don't think we can pin this particular expression of derangement on age, or at least not age alone. Trump has nothing to lose. He cannot run again. He doesn't care one whit about the common good or even tawdry partisan interests. This is his unhinged narcissism at work, abetted by a cultish, smarmy, obsequious coterie of yes-men that surrounds him.

equilibrium• 4 months ago

Europe and the rest of the world.

empath75• 4 months ago

The only way the US can fix our reputation will be to try and imprison our current leadership after they are eventually removed from power. And in particular, the Trump family needs to have all of its assets seized.

nxm• 4 months ago

Imprison based on what and seize assets based on what exactly? You not liking the administration is not a valid reason for asset seizure

roenxi• 4 months ago

On what principle would the Trump family's assets be seized? Just to pre-empt the idea that he corruptly became rich in office, that is actually fairly usual for US presidents to become suspiciously wealthy after their time in office [0, 1]. That's never been a reason to start talking about asset seizure.

Although given the current lunatic escapade it does seem like a good moment to remove him from office. There must be someone somewhere in the administration that thinks another forever war is a bad idea, even if they aren't worried about WWIII. I've never seen a presidency implode so quickly - this has to be the most illegal, unconstitutional, unmandated, immoral and ill-advised war of choice the US has launched in decades.

[0] https://www.newsweek.com/chart-shows-net-worth-us-presidents...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_Unit...

i80and• 4 months ago

The absolute lack of consequences Trump faced after his first go-around all but guaranteed the crime spree we're now seeing, and will probably go down in history as the primary blunder of Biden's DOJ.

ramon156• 4 months ago

Lets also include the Rothschild and BlackRock then

mcv11• 4 months ago

I don't know why this is voted down, because it's absolutely true. The only way for the US to regain the lost trust is to finally clean house, hold its corrupt leadership accountable. Throw them in prison, seize their illegitimately gotten assets, reform that broken political system, and educate your people so this doesn't happen again.

srean20• 4 months ago

Nuremberg style judicial proceedings.

Not necessarily with similar judicial executions. Fair trials and fair and exemplary punitive measures would be enough for me.

I lost respect when Obama let Bush Jr administration off the hook. It essentially set the tone that it is ok to behave like that, that there would be no consequences.

bregma2• 4 months ago

Following the precedents of imprisoning and persecuting the previous regime on "corruption" charges established by the likes of much of Latin America, Pakistan, the Phillipines, and other similar countries will definitely mark the USA as a second-rate tin-pot dictatorship.

Maybe the predecessor regime is corrupt. Maybe not. But the first thing the new regime always does is to arrange the show trials to establish their own bona fides.

sschueller• 4 months ago

And change the constitution to fix the issue of an administration just ignoring the law.

Flip-per• 4 months ago

It was very obvious that Trump is a highly corrupt and incompetent person at the second term election. His voters do not disappear when he is in prison, neither would the US reputation suddenly be way better. Who will these people elect next, why should anyone trust the US anymore?

Imprisonment would be a good starting point though. Together with education, regulation and reforming the political system. But this takes decades.

kingleopold• 4 months ago

This is why two party system is really great. because they both don't try to put old guts into power in last decade. /s

Younger people are not fit to power in 300M country with lots of smart and rich people. Instead these smart and rich people back these old guys because when it comes to election they use half of their brain or sometimes not use their brain at all. One of these rich one was recently bl00mberg and he tried to get elected at age of 500 year old but couldn't do it.

srean20• 4 months ago

I think learned wisdom has institutional memory of a few generations only, unless mythologized.

Thus, some lessons need to be learned again and again. Some rights fought for again and again.

mizzao• 4 months ago

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" ...

DivingForGold• 4 months ago

The Anti-NATO pact.

lynndotpy• 4 months ago

I'm really happy these topics are being discussed here on HN, when they weren't ~1 year ago. When considering a post-USA world, we also get to consider a post-Microsoft, post-Meta, post-Google, post-CloudFlare, post-Amazon, etc world.

I can't say I know much about how the EU operates or how quickly their Open Digital Ecosystems initiative could take shape, but this is a really opportune time to build a better tech industry.

AlecSchueler• 4 months ago

I'm really happy these topics are being discussed here on HN, when they weren't ~1 year ago.

They were being discussed a year ago, too, they just got flagged. Make sure to check /active

mattmaroon3• 4 months ago

I feel like it's ruining HN. The internet did not lack places to talk politics. The comments threads are a solid 20% anti-semitic dog whistles now.

bko2• 4 months ago

What does post-USA world mean?

Who is the leader in culture, business, technology? The only other contender I can think of is China.

And this is better?

rozap• 4 months ago

This thread doesn't appear on the homepage, it is only on /active

So uh, threads with wrongspeak in them are still hidden.

Vaslo3• 4 months ago

As an American, can’t say I’m too worried about Canadian opinion of us, let alone Denmark. Most Americans don’t know the name of a single politician in Denmark.

chneu5• 4 months ago

Most Americans also dont know that most of the world is laughing at us. Americans are oblivious by choice cuz we pretty eagerly consume misinformation, always have. We love our alternate histories that make us feel superior.

jacquesm65• 4 months ago

As an American, can’t say I’m too worried about Canadian opinion of us, let alone Denmark.

Maybe you should be. You might need them one day.

Most Americans don’t know the name of a single politician in Denmark.

Ignorance is nothing to be proud of.

sph2• 4 months ago

As a non-American, it’s attitudes like yours, quite widespread actually, that make me rejoice this moment in history where the US is taken down a peg or two.

It’s not gonna be nice and fun for anybody, but it’s time to learn that you guys are just one country in a whole world, and you need friends to thrive. The ignorant bully attitude has run its course.

DeusExMachina• 4 months ago

The same should be said of the senile old women that damage Europe's reputation. That is, if they were actually elected and not appointed by bureaucrats.

xiphias2• 4 months ago

Probably it's true from reputation standpoint.

Some people in Europe were not that happy when Biden told on public television that the Nord Stream pipeline will be blown up somehow, but luckily the media was good in not talking too much about it and later he listened to his own advisors better about how to communicate.

Planktonne• 4 months ago

That is a very reasonable response to the threats they faced.

matsemann• 4 months ago

Russia's invasion ironically strengthened NATO, with more countries joining or feeling the usefulness of it. Somehow the US managed to break down all that good will in such a short amount of time.. I think it's hard to overstate how much more hostile people look at the US the last few years. So much soft power has been lost.

fortyseven• 4 months ago

I think it's hard to overstate how much more hostile people look at the US the last few years.

True both outside AND inside the country.

varispeed3• 4 months ago

Somehow the US managed to break down all that good will in such a short amount of time

Because US administration is compromised. Putin says jump, Krasnov asks how high.

terminalshort18• 4 months ago

Yes that is clearly the case. Obviously Putin told Trump to start seizing his oil tankers recently.

dismalaf2• 4 months ago

Yes, I'm sure Putin told Trump to take out 2 of his allies in succession...

Imustaskforhelp4• 4 months ago

So much soft power has been lost.

The worst part to me feels like US has lost trust and such soft power loss is irrecoverable no matter what happens now :/

A common statement I hear from people, or maybe its just what I think, but its like "How can we trust US after this" and hey mind you, Trump still has 3 years in office, but even if political parties change, how can we trust the whole system for not having another Trump moment.

So this loss of soft power is quite a permanent loss. US has to now condition itself to live with it accordingly and live with some shame (which is something that I am observing too of people not being proud of being american anymore seeing the devastation caused by it)

Countries across the world will have to treat US as unpredictable from now on and treat its financial markets in the same way as well.

The worst part out of all of this is that it hurts the average day american the most not the people at the top who are doing all of this and the average person has no say in all of this seeing their country being destroyed by wreckless actions.

The sad part is that people did have many wake up calls to be honest, greenland was first joked about and then became so serious that denmark was preparing only to then move to iran now impacting the normal people's everyday life with oil price increases all across the world..

I do think that the people of US tried to stand up against the oppression by protests but some were shot (rest in peace) and others were detained.

The sad part is that the people tried their best but it still wasn't enough to stop all of this from happening. It was maybe too late after the election.

doom2• 4 months ago

Countries across the world will have to treat US as unpredictable from now on

Anyone who has studied American history knows the US has been unreliable. Just look at how they made and then broke treaties with Native Americans. It's part of the foundation of the country.

keiferski3• 4 months ago

I am equally dismayed at recent US behavior; but this is a short sighted view.

1. Geopolitics is always unpredictable. Maybe the US has been unreliable lately, but the idea that there are states out there which have been bastions of reliability is not historically accurate. All great powers have screwed people over or made disastrous decisions. It’s mostly just the US’s turn now.

2. This all happened 20 years ago with Iraq. All it really took was a charismatic president (Obama) to undo the 8+ years of bad international relations. All it will probably take again is a charismatic reliable president to set things back on track.

3. Which leads me to my third point, which is that most foreigners understand that the American government is separate from the people and separate from the corporations. And more importantly, changing the world system dramatically is really hard, and has a lot of friction. It will be a lot easier for states to go back to the pre-2024 status quo than to embark upon something entirely novel.

kqr• 4 months ago

The Apollo missions were the greatest scientific accomplishment by the Soviet Union. History repeats.

srean20• 4 months ago

Could you elaborate ? Intrigued.

originalvichy2• 4 months ago

Covid, Russia and the axis of US+Israel has done massive damage to the European psyche.

Covid showed us how economically dependent we are to major manufacturing countries like China. Paper money != ability to manufacture.

Russia broke any notion of peace that can be funded by cheap energy. It will always be a tool used against you, and Russia will not change.

The axis of US+Israel is breaking down the international system of laws and diplomacy. It’s going to be in a state even worse than the heights of the Cold War. Nukes are now a more favored instrument of peace compared to diplomacy.

Is it worth fighting for what we had, or should we fight for something better? Who knows.

(Edit: I don’t think non-Europeans can appreciate the whiplash suffered in our populations. In the span of around two years, European leaders drew red lines on political, economical and cultural decoupling from Russia based on human rights and the rule of law, then had to explain why preventable atrocities happening to civilians in the Mideast is not against our values and laws concerning human rights.)

velancogito• 4 months ago

I could be wrong, but I've experienced the opposite. Seeing Putin and Trump openly undermine and threaten the EU forced countries to address the situation and take action. It's encouraging. I'm looking at this situation from Hungary tho, where Russian influence began 10–16 years ago. It seems Hungary has a chance to get rid of Orbán, and the rest of Europe is also taking measures finally. It's nice.

The war in Ukraine is literally at the EU's border. It could be destabilizing in many ways. It's not just about moral reasons. By the way, I see similarities between Putin and Trump as they both started wars against big countries without thinking ahead more than three days. It's one more reason to strengthen the EU.

heraldgeezer6• 4 months ago

Damage?

It has strengthened us.

Nordics and the Baltics are very pro Ukraine, we have a common enemy now to focus on.

Poland has stepped up too militarlity.

Sweden where I am has seen a HUGE uplift in military spend, and the companies like SAAB and Bofors (heheh)

Germany is the big loser as they had cheap Russian energy and shut down their nuclear plants.

Where in Europe are you from exactly?

EU overall is pro Ukraine except for Hungary...

In summary, what are you on about? And post your passport.

Oh, and Israel is our ally. I am sick of EU being so pro Hamas and pro Iran. Thankfully our government cut down on grants to the MENA and increased to Ukraine!

fluidcruft• 4 months ago

I'm of pretty mixed feelings about this. It certainly strengthened Europe's collective defense priorities and awareness. That response happens to include NATO but primarily because Europe is too weak without NATO. Europe used to be full of world powers and now they collectively can't manage collective defense without the US? There's something very learned-helplessness about that.

And yes, it certainly has served America's interests to have a weak Europe that's dependent on it. But seeing that as "good will" seems like a distortion.

fifilura2• 4 months ago

Maybe a bit of learned helplessness, but what people tend to forget is that an all-in Russia is a formidable enemy.

This is the moment it helps to have allies. Like an insurance. Even if you can manage without, it hurts less if you have them.

To me it makes more sense to focus on that perspective.

energy123• 4 months ago

Kissinger warned about this in 1969:

Tutelage is a comfortable relationship for the senior partner, but it is demoralizing in the long run. It breeds illusions of omniscience on one side and attitudes of impotent irresponsibility on the other

mcv11• 4 months ago

Europe's weakness is mostly in their heads. The US is the most powerful military in the world, but the second most powerful military is NATO without the US. If the rest of NATO pulls together and reorganises into an effective military that doesn't depend on the US, it would be a force to be reckoned with.

Europe could easily defeat Russia without outside help (look at how well Ukraine is doing with far less!), but we still fear Russia because that's what we're used to. That's what we were told to do and what we have embraced. We need to grow out of that and stand on our own feet again.

keybored8• 4 months ago

Geopolitical moves like illegally invading a country aren’t necessarily planned to be the one grand thing that weakens the opponent. In particular it strengthening Nato is not necessarily ironic, and it seems like an oversimplification to even suggest it.

epsteingpt• 4 months ago

This isn't true.

People hated Americans in the 2000s invasion of Iraq. There were popular rock songs about it and students were hesitant to say they were American.

It seems to go in cycles. Next president many will forget.

Such is the power and fickleness of the American system.

silvestrov• 4 months ago

* The Danish public broadcaster DR reports ...*

This is the source article (in Danish) for the bluesky posts:

https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/groenland/danmark-forbered...

crispyambulance• 4 months ago

There's a difference between "posturing" for show and actually "preparing for war".

They're wise to the fact that "the Stable Genius" isn't going to try anything violent with Denmark/Greenland, but they still want to prevent him thinking about just stealing territory "peacefully."

jacquesm65• 4 months ago

Trust me, Denmark wasn't posturing.

The assumption was - and still is - that the USA wasn't posturing either.

We (and I realize I obviously don't speak for all of Europe but I have my finger on the pulse in many places here) are also not assuming that when Trump is gone the USA will go back to normal.

Insanity• 4 months ago

And even if they did go back to normal for the next presidency - why trust it? Their entire political system is set up so that the winds can change entirely every 4 years.

If the people voted Trump in to office twice, it’ll happen again. It’s a divided country where propaganda has a strong hold.

easytiger7• 4 months ago

This is absurd in the extreme. In actual war there is absolutely no possibility of success for Denmark, even with the help of allies. Failure to capitulate results in nothing but death and destruction with no hope of strategic gain to begin with. What you are likely experiencing is a modern belief that screaming and shouting will bring popular diplomatic pressure to bear on the opponent, thus arresting their actions.

There was similar tough talk in 1940 and Denmark lasted 6 hours. Without capitulation the country would have been razed. But surrender saw it able to keep some level of control and thus extricate the Jewish population in relative safety which would not otherwise have been possible.

NikolaNovak• 4 months ago

USA cannot go back to normal. The internal damage / changeover is massive - everybody disagreing with current administration policies has either been removed or departed - whether in health or defense (I'm sorry, War) or science or education or other departments.

fifticon• 4 months ago

They will not go back to anything resembling the old normal :-/. Trump & his cronies have obliterated the Overton Window so hard you cannot even tell which side of the house the window used to be in. The successors for Trump will be worse, because they will not be senile old men who sabotage themselves, and the checks-and-balances against this millenia-old crap have now been pretty well dismantled :-/. We are entering an age where US will behave like a weird sort of Russia#2, run by oligarchs. In a way it was of course always run (or influenced) by oligarchs, but nothing like the scale we are going to see from now on. But.. look at the history of US, the last hundred or so years, and how they behaved south of Mexico (I am not particularly calling out US here, of course Europe has also been bad).

Trasmatta3• 4 months ago

This is the type of thinking that convinced people that Trump would never be stupid enough to start a full on war with Iran. And yet here we are.

jnwatson• 4 months ago

Ukraine thought Russia was just posturing and look where it got them.

schnitzelstoat• 4 months ago

Yeah, tbh I was in the camp of 'nothing ever happens' too and I was shocked when they actually invaded.

__bjoernd• 4 months ago

I'm pretty sure Ukraine were taking the Russian preparations as what they were. And they had plans to counter them. Proven by the fact that Putin's 3 days war has now surpassed the Russian involvement in WWII.

jacquesm65• 4 months ago

That's not true. Ukraine was well prepared, they had spent since 2014 on this because they knew the day would come. That's the only reason the country still exists.

Trasmatta3• 4 months ago

The US president wanted to start a full on war with Europe over Greenland of all places. And he still might. And some people will still claim I just have "TDS".

breakyerself• 4 months ago

TDS is an apt description for anyone supporting this senile, psychopath.

Trasmatta3• 4 months ago

Yes. The only TDS is the one exhibited by those that are so brainwashed by his cult of personality.

SideburnsOfDoom• 4 months ago

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

smcin• 4 months ago

Source cited by @chriso-wiki.bsky.social is this article on DR.dk, the Danish public broadcaster:

https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/groenland/danmark-forbered...

seydor• 4 months ago

You mean, they are not anymore?

Havoc• 4 months ago

The goldfish prez seems to have moved on to Cuba now

wewewedxfgdf• 4 months ago

What else would they be doing, watching TV?

fergie• 4 months ago

Thats probably what this was all about then (use Google Translate) -> https://www.nrk.no/norge/gradert-sak-behandlet-i-ekstraordin...

mailund• 4 months ago

I don't think it's very likely that the emergency meeting in the Norwegian government yesterday was called because of the security situation in Denmark 3 months ago. Not unlikely that it is related to US-Europe/NATO relations ofc (although there are plenty of other things that would cause an emergency meeting as well, king has been hospitalized plenty of times lately, wife of the next in line is deep in drama due to both being revealed to have been close with Epstein and having a son that is currently in court for some pretty serious allegations, and sharing a border Russia that is currently waging hybrid warfare across europe)

Just for some additional context, these meetings are held every week, but this caused headlines because there was held an additional one outside of the normal schedule due to some classified time sensitive case, i.e. not something that happened in another country many months ago.

kelipso2• 4 months ago

Lol there is posturing and there is whatever this is.

polotics• 4 months ago

Tu as le droit de perdre, mais tu n'as pas le droit de te faire surprendre. (You have the right to lose, but you do not have the right to be caught off guard.)

emmelaich3• 4 months ago

The idea that the US would attempt to take Greenland by force is utterly ludicrous.

bell-cot3• 4 months ago

Unfortunately, that adjective applies to many things which the US has attempted, often "successfully", recently.

1over1372• 4 months ago

Lots of what Trump says is utterly ludicrous. But he does lots of what he says (though not everything), so the rest of the world is right to prepare.

vrganj20• 4 months ago

So is the idea that the US would start bombing Iran without a plan, goal, or any thought to the consequences, yet here we are...

Jensson7• 4 months ago

There is a difference, basically the entire world hates the Iranian regime and wants them gone, USA bombing the Iranian regime wont get that much pushback from the world even if the war was started in an underhanded way.

It is entirely different if USA starts attacking NATO allies such as Denmark which isn't a threat or problem to anyone, that is not something anybody would expect and it would ruin American diplomacy completely.

emmelaich3• 4 months ago

Iran has been in a war with the USA since at least 1979. I was about to say "soft war" but that would be ignoring all the deaths.

This is one battle of many and the USA will win it. Whether it is warranted or whether the USA will win 'the war' is another thing.

emmelaich3• 4 months ago

C'mon people, no NATO member is going to attack any NATO ally. Be real.

hermannj314• 4 months ago

France offering support to little ententes to prevent facist revanchism. Seems familiar.

World tension continues to increase.

KaiMagnus• 4 months ago

And this is, in my opinion, why support at Hormuz shouldn’t even be on the table. How can you possibly hold joint patrols when you were just months ago planning full scale war between each other?

verelo• 4 months ago

Also, the "was" in this title feels misleading. If they're not still, they're crazy.

freehorse2• 4 months ago

The original title is better translated as "prepared". The tweeting reposter translated to continuous past tense somewhat erroneously imo, because it sounds as if the preparation was interrupted by something.

lm284695• 4 months ago

And this is, in my opinion, why support at Hormuz shouldn’t even be on the table

Shouldn't? it's not on the table at all lol

freehorse2• 4 months ago

Well it is on the table but only trump is sitting on that table.

Jensson7• 4 months ago

It is on the table, why are you spouting bullshit? People are discussing this right now. Or do you mean Denmark wont help at Hormuz, but I doubt Denmark would help there anyway, but other countries are discussing that.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-military-i...

kasperstorgaard• 4 months ago

Lars Løkke Rasmussen - Minister of Foreign Affairs, said just the other day on Genstart (podcast), that an EU solution for the Hormuz straight could be an option. This would probably be through Aspides.

krona3• 4 months ago

I live very close to one of the USAF's largest European airbases.

While Trump was trolling European leaders about their security posture (by threatening to relieve them of sovereign territory which the US already has extensive access to) the USAF was already moving assets in the opposite direction to the middle east (this was mid-january).

It's fairly easy to work out what's happening if you ignore the orange man and listen to what serious people are saying, what they've briefed on, how they contradict one another, and where the assets are moving.

Obviously European leaders have to pretend to take the orange man seriously, but the reaction in the media was bordering on hysterical.

enoint4• 4 months ago

This is exactly right. The liar who lies to control the narrative is lying again. The chance he’s lying is high but as adults the (likelihood * hazard) of an invasion is worth preparing for.

The narrative he wanted to control was about Epstein. Denmark could have simultaneously prepared for that, but it wouldn’t be on OSInt Twitter.

InsideOutSanta2• 4 months ago

The problem is that his "lies" and "jokes" sometimes suddenly turned out to be not lies and jokes.

techterrier3• 4 months ago

It's fairly easy to work out what's happening

off you go then, what is it?

krona3• 4 months ago

Dunno, start by reading the national security strategy and count the number of times it mentions the words "Arctic" or "Greenland"? (hint: it's zero).

Then maybe look at the Nato chain of command and who was interviewed and what was said in mid-Jan?

0xcb0• 4 months ago

The United States are not longer an allie nor a friend to to EU. Under Trump, they have turned into a Terror regiem, ignoring international law, human rights. They have to be international isolated together with Israel. They are the enemy of a free and civilized world!

Ekaros• 4 months ago

I think that started with Bush and continued with Obama. Who with his financial donators still walk free after committing mass murders.

ZeroGravitas• 4 months ago

The billionaire oligarch who put that (stupid) idea in Trump's head is still out there. His son-in-law will probably be the next head of the Federal Reserve.

If the oligarchs don't feel any pushback they'll continue to wreck the US and Europe.

vrganj20• 4 months ago

As a source puts it, the French said: "Would you like more soldiers? You could have them. Would you like more naval support? You could have that. Would you like more air support? You could have that too."

Thank God for the French. I long thought their strong Gaullist stance on sovereignty was a bit silly in today's world, but turns out they were right along.

Europe can't trust any outside powers. Any external dependency can and will be used against us. We used to be wide-eyed believers in international corporation and global alliances, but those are, as it turns out, always a risk and a liability.

I sure as hell am glad the French kept being stubborn enough to build most capabilities in-house, so now we have our own nuclear deterrent, aircraft carrier and fighter jet programs. Imagine if we had gone all-in on American weapons tech! They'd have us, excuse my French, by the balls!

mamonster• 4 months ago

I long thought their strong Gaullist stance on sovereignty was a bit silly in today's world, but turns out they were right along.

Every single French president since Mitterand (with a brief exception for Iraq that was more than made up by Libya) spent a large part of their time liquidating Gaullism.

terminalshort18• 4 months ago

History shows that Europe can't trust any inside powers either...

vrganj20• 4 months ago

pre-EU history shows that, which is why we founded the EU in the first place.

To quote one of our founding fathers, Robert Schuman, the point of tightly interweaving our economies this way is to "make war not only unthinkable, but materially impossible"

ekianjo6• 4 months ago

Thank God for the French

France has nowhere the military power to resist a country like the US. They have not invested in the military for a very long time and most of their equipment is completely outdated.

vrganj20• 4 months ago

France has completely sovereign nukes and the only first-strike nuclear doctrine in the world. It has the military power to resist any country.

estearum3• 4 months ago

Ah but alas: have you considered that the US is increasingly run by actual idiots?

It turns out even Iran has the power to resist a country like the US.

tim3333• 4 months ago

Maybe not but they have enough to be useful. They do have nukes - a US invasion of France would not be a good idea. On the more realistic end of things the French are able to provide military intelligence to Ukraine to counter the US president turning it off to help his mate Vlad.

OkayPhysicist2• 4 months ago

You don't need a lot of nuclear weapons to be able to say "Fuck off, or everyone dies". You just need enough, and the widespread belief that you'd actually use them.

France probably has enough, and is definitely credible in their willingness to use them.

bdelmas• 4 months ago

After the failure against countries with no military might like Vietnam, Irak, Afghanistan, and now Iran, I wouldn’t place a lot of importance into how much tech and quantity in the military plays a critical role into winning wars today.

ifwinterco3• 4 months ago

The French took basically the exact opposite approach to the British in terms of post-WW2 foreign policy.

I think partly because of the shared language British elites were able to convince themselves that the US is just like us, and the so called "special relationship" sort of preserved British power albeit as an extremely junior partner riding on the coattails of the US.

With the French there was no such delusion and they've never seen eye to eye with the Americans, they've just been biding their time waiting for this all to play out.

In hindsight, the French were right of course (they usually are as much as it pains me to say it)

jacquesm65• 4 months ago

All this is very funny if you take into account how the United States originated.

davidguetta• 4 months ago

I long thought their strong Gaullist stance on sovereignty was a bit silly in today's world, but turns out they were right along.

Silly ? it originally comes from the american trying to impose a governement to france / print money and administrate it right after WW2. The ONLY reasons this didn't happen is because De Gaulle marched to paris and became the de facto ruler of the nation after that from his popularity, other wise the american plan would have happened.

US has literally had the SAME policy since maybe as early as the 1800 : expand the empire and get as much as influence as possible. They were never exactly friends or at least "kind" friends.

If anything the subsequent presidents who meshed our defense / intelligence / technical appartus so deeply with the US were complete fools, at best.

vrganj20• 4 months ago

I'm not sure you understood my point. I used to think it was silly, but now I agree with your view.

adev_• 4 months ago

I long thought their strong Gaullist stance on sovereignty was a bit silly in today's world

There is very good reasons why De Gaulle was always a bit doubtful about American military protection and why post-war France put a strong emphasis on military sovereignty.

That has nothing to do with any French stubbornness or a so called French anti-American feeling.

The main reason is that De Gaulle experienced the fact American leadership can be untrustworthy first hand.

When he was the leader of the exiled French force during the 40s, Churchill supported him.

Meaningwhile Roosevelt refused to give him any support and actively acted to make him replaced by a puppet, General Giraud. Mainly because it was better aligned with American interests to setup a puppet state in France on the longer term.

The situation changed only later when it became pretty obvious that Giraud was antisemite, an openly nazi collaborationist and a pretty poor politician.

Only then, America started to support De Gaulle officially. Initially only indirectly through the relation between De Gaulle and Eisenhower.

chneu5• 4 months ago

You can always trust americans to do the right thing after we have tried everything else.

Never trust america unless our last option is the one you want. Otherwise, let us stubbornly do it wrong until we come around.

pseudohadamard2• 4 months ago

It was even more than that. In the late 1930s the US told France not to worry about those aggressive Germans next door, if things go pear-shaped we'll stand by you, you can rely on us to help defend you.

This is why France went with its own nuclear deterrent, among other things.

cnd78A• 4 months ago

I can see you aren't french, nor know the culture, else you would have known that those were only words. false promise and pretending isn't seens as really bad in france. Words are just words. Foreign naive beliefs about our culture is realy cute.

MrSkelter• 4 months ago

As a Brit it’s been very obvious CdG was right since the start.

The final straw was almost 50 years ago when Thatcher gave up the UKs space program and satellite plans in favor of giving the money, in cash, to the US.

In return for paying for 1/3 of the keyhole satellite network Regan said we could borrow them when needed.

Then we asked to use them to look at the Falklands and Regan said no.

That was the same period where we traded British missile technology for renting D5s from America. So though we make and own our own nuclear warheads, the delivery systems are American and must be returned to the US for maintenance on a regular basis. Essentially robbing the UK of an independent deterrent.

I am all for unilateral nuclear disarmament but if we are going to have nukes in the current climate they should be entirely homegrown and independent.

The British support of the US military industrial complex doesn’t benefit the UK as it means we have no ability to act alone or in opposition to the US. We are as dependent on resupply as the Israelis.

Obviously that’s great for the US.

gdilla• 4 months ago

French is a lot more American in terms of doing the right thing than the Americans like to think they are (or really, propagandize they are).

beanjuiceII• 4 months ago

lol Denmark yea i'm sure no one was concerned

bryanlarsen• 4 months ago

Keep in mind that militaries are always preparing for war. They have to. A military exists in large part to always be prepared for the unthinkable.

And in the case of countries like Denmark who have few realistic enemy choices, that means they must be prepared for unrealistic invasions, even if the US isn't threatening to invade.

Yes the Danes probably spend most of their time preparing to fight the Russians, but always wargaming the same thing leaves them unprepared for different enemies or unexpected approaches from expected enemies.

Yes, the actions in the links are more than just wargaming, but a large part of it is stuff the military should be doing anyways.

halJordan• 4 months ago

No thats not what this was. These are the actions that the Russians did before invading Ukraine and were the specific actions that the military pointed out and said "these aren't normal actions everyone is always doing"

estearum3• 4 months ago

Hot take: Preparing to defend your country from an ally invading you is actually very bad and indicative of inexcusable behavior from your "ally."

that means they must be prepared for unrealistic invasions, even if the US isn't threatening to invade.

It's not unrealistic to think the US would invade Greenland. We've now had 10+ years of this "it's a joke... no it's a bargaining chip... well it's overstated... okay it's temporary... ahh yes well this is Good, Actually."

magicalhippo• 4 months ago

Keep in mind that militaries are always preparing for war.

There's preparing and there's preparing. They sent soldiers to Greenland with orders to resist an invasion, packing live ammunition, explosives to destroy runways and blood bags to treat wounded.

That's more than a bit of wargaming.

jeroenhd• 4 months ago

Every week, the USA finds a new way to lose credibility as a serious nation. If it weren't for the observably fair elections, you'd almost think America was being taken over from the inside by foreign infiltrators.

It's ludicrous to see the USA threaten to invade a well-connected European country, invade a South American country weeks after, and then now, three months later, beg its European allies to help with the invasion of Iran because ostensibly American leadership couldn't foresee that war in the Middle East might impact fuel prices. I still think it's a ruse to distract the European military by sending the navy to the Middle East but who knows with the current idiot in charge.

I hope the country will recover some normalcy in post-Trump decade(s), but I fear we're witnessing the slow collapse of a world power. Regardless of anyone's feelings on grip the East/West dichotomy has had over the world in the past 90 or so years, such shifts in world power rarely go calmly and peacefully.

jacquesm65• 4 months ago

If it weren't for the observably fair elections

Hehe, that's a good one.

pogue• 4 months ago

The source of this post is this article from a site called dr.dk. Maybe someone can double check the validity of it.

Danmark forberedte sig på muligt angreb fra USA [Danish language - no native translation] https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/groenland/danmark-forbered...

Google translated URL: https://www-dr-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/indland/groenland/d...

hagbarth• 4 months ago

Danish public broadcaster. Probably the best reputation in the world on Danish news.

fasterik• 4 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR_(broadcaster)

DR is a Danish public-service radio and television broadcasting company. Founded in 1925 as a public-service organization, it is Denmark's oldest and largest electronic media enterprise.

the_af• 4 months ago

I have no doubts they took US threats seriously; anyone who doesn't these days is a fool (of course, this doesn't mean Trump will do anything he claims, but he's dangerous enough you can never tell for sure).

What I find harder to believe is that they were preparing for "full-scale war". That makes no sense. Using F-35, American made and very likely with kill switches or otherwise susceptible to American interference? And where would they get their American made parts and supplies? And Denmark stands no chance at all against US military might, with or without assistance from France.

I'm sure they were prepared to engage in token resistance, and also more serious diplomatic and economic struggles, but "full-scale war" is hyperbole.

apexalpha• 4 months ago

We all were... they wouldn't speak it but reading between the lines you could see the leaders were very nervous Trump would unilaterally decide to just 'try it' like in Venezuela and now Iran.

nickdothutton4• 4 months ago

I think there is a pretty good chance US is in the late empire phase. This is not about a single President or party, or even single geopolitical event/development.

iso16315• 4 months ago

This is not about a single President or party

I've seen roughly two types of American commentators over the last year. The ones that cheer this stuff going on, which HN has plenty of, and the ones that think "come the midterms/2028/impeachment everything will go back to normal"

The latter are massively mistaken, it would take decades for the US to rebuild its standing in the eyes of the world, and there is no evidence that it even wants to.

Trump is a symptom of what America truly is, not the cause.

tartuffe78• 4 months ago

He is also a singular political figure. I don't think things will go back to normal, but they won't stay the way there are now.

rntksi2• 4 months ago

I think Naval is right when he was making the observation that history has alternated by being determined by either individuals (think Genghis Khan, Napoleon) or larger forces at play (think socio-economic reasoning to many historical events). In this, I would say Trump is Trump (the individual) making his moves that very much go against the larger forces at play that was "business as usual". So equating him to a symptom of America is true in the sense that sooner or later America was bound to have someone like him deviate the course of history, and I also believe post-Trump America is not going to reverse course.

tastyface• 4 months ago

I haven't seen almost anyone suggest that everything will go back to normal post-2028? Every Democrat I know is expecting a painful and protracted fight for the soul of the country.

Tadpole9181• 4 months ago

I'm sorry, this is just Republican apologetics. This is about a single party. How in the world could you possibly suggest otherwise?

I'd love to hear how Biden, Obama, or Clinton got us into forever wars. Or how they threatened allies. Or how they destroyed our trade or deal-making reputation. Where are the Democrat newscasters saying we should invade Canada? The figure heads calling for internment camps?

Are we all affected? Sure. Does everybody in the world view us through the lens of our worst (people/behavior)? Of course. But it IS about a single party on every. single. issue.

If the Democrats were to regain control and we had public trials for all involved for war crimes, constitutional violations, etc, it would do a lot to fix the damage. Not pretending it would all go away, but actually holding the one party accountable would help because everyone on the planet knows who is responsible.

nickdothutton4• 4 months ago

The Iran war has demonstrated the US cannot adequately defend its allies in the region, regardless of bases, whose existence was predicated on them having that capability. No?

All the current conflict has done is make obvious that reality.

Teever2• 4 months ago

It's difficult to reply to a comment like this because the existence of it disproves what it is arguing for.

I wish this was just a Republican thing, or that people abroad perceived it as such but the reality is that people around the world no longer care about this Democrat - Republican split.

No one outside of America cares a Republican party started this shit. They care that this shit was started at all, because it means that the American system is out of control.

No one outside of America cares ifyou're a democrat or a republican. They just see you as American. And they see America as the source of so many of the world's problems.

Which means they see you as the source of those problems.

batiudrami• 4 months ago

It is interesting to me, as an Australian, that it almost seems like Osama Bin Laden won. The fall of the US commenced when they let the fear in, and that was September 2001.

nickdothutton4• 4 months ago

I occasionally "joke" that it was 9-11 where we shifted timelines to the alternate universe. 1 minute Fukuyama announces the end of history and our future will consist of abundance and TV and shopping, the next...

torginus2• 4 months ago

The F-35 is mentioned in the article as being readied for the defense of Greenland. I wonder what the 'easter-eggs' Danes would've found out about it if they went up against the US.

(I think I know, it has to do with how its 'stealth' works.)

jacquesm65• 4 months ago

In a way that would be great. Then we could grow up a little bit faster.

1718627440• 4 months ago

Yeah at some point we need to know.

throwawayfour• 4 months ago

Well if that were to happen, that would be the end of a lot of defense business that the US does with many countries around the world.

torginus2• 4 months ago

I mean it has already happened. The F-35 relies on very thick (10cm+) layer of radar absorbing structures with special internal geometries (don't wanna go into detail regarding this).

Unfortunately if the precise construction of said structures is known, it becomes vulnerable to specially crafted radar pulses which make it generate strong returns.

So it's paramount that the exact layout be kept secret (and likely there's some variation between manufacturing batches, but this is just conjecture).

Needless to say, the US very likely has this info on every jet it sold, and a sufficiently motivated and sophisticated adversary can likely figure this out if the plane spends a long enough time in front of their radars.

That's why the US has been extremely careful about where and how the F-35 gets to fly.

simonsarris• 4 months ago

Where was this kind of movement when Russia invaded Europe in 2022?

I think Europe's inaction in 2022 will go down as the greatest moral failing of the century. You can't say "they didn't act because Russia is a nuclear power" - the same is true here.

jacquesm65• 4 months ago

Not everybody can be painted with the 'inaction' label, there are plenty of people that are doing a lot of good work.

tim3333• 4 months ago

I think most people in Europe figured the US would oppose Russia invading as that's mostly what has happened for decades. In the Denmark case I don't know if they can count on the US opposing the US invading.

It wasn't until that thing with Trump and Vance shouting at Zelensky in the oval office that Europe figured the US had kind of flipped and it was on us to support Ukraine.

FpUser5• 4 months ago

"Where was this kind of movement when Russia invaded Europe in 2022"

Russia has invaded Ukraine. There is no political entity called Europe. And if you're talking geography than good chunk of Russia is in Europe.

Mr_Eri_Atlov• 4 months ago

You would not trust a bridge that reeked of wood rot.

Why should they trust a country that smells of corruption and lashes out at random like a shambling corpse?

ChrisArchitect• 4 months ago

Source: https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/groenland/danmark-forbered...

Protostome• 4 months ago

Fake report, ignore, move on

AnimalMuppet4• 4 months ago

Bare assertions don't count for much. What is your evidence that it is fake?

keybored8• 4 months ago

Breaking: country that a head of state threatened to invade was preparing for invasion.

The Danish public broadcaster DR reports that officials in Denmark, France and Germany say that Donald Trump's threats to seize Greenland were taken so seriously that wide-ranging preparations were made to forcibly resist a US invasion of the Danish island.

Breaking (2): small country was preparing to forcibly resist (?) an invasion. That was threatened.

burnt-resistor• 4 months ago

Other side-effects of Trump's unwise, anti-strategic hastening the downfall of hard and soft American power and respect for ego and personal gain: alternative defense pacts and nuclear proliferation. Kratocracies only respect North Korea because it has the bomb and an absurd amount of hardware pointed right at Seoul so Ukraine, Cuba, Taiwan, and Iran best get their underground tests on pronto if each desires survival.

jacquesm65• 4 months ago

I wonder how many countries have - reluctantly - decided to pursue nuclear bombs after many years of holding off the boat.

The next decade will be a complete disaster for non-proliferation.

jeffbee• 4 months ago

They'd win it, too. An alliance of Denmark, Canada, Mexico, and Iran should sack Florida and plow all the golf courses under.

giardini• 4 months ago

If the article is correct (a big if) then many in the Danish government and many Danish people, along with a bunch of people/officials in other countries, may not be as stable mentally as I once thought they were.

Critics never miss a chance to sit around and bitch about orange man.

1dontnkow_• 4 months ago

This makes me think of a thought I had the last weeks and months with the geopolitical chaos currently in the world:

While understanding the danger of dictators and technical mistakes and the chaos that would ensue, besides that, what would happen if just every or even just most countries had nukes? Just give them to everybody, and I'm really not convinced we would end up in a Fallout situation but maybe quite a peaceful one? No expert in that but tbh when you think about it most of the countries getting fucked don't have them and the aggressor always seems to do.

I realize this is very simplified and many things I'm probably not seeing but I'm open to learn.

Denmark was reportedly preparing for full-scale war with the US over Greenland

Related Stories