It’s an interesting tactic. If the US did show up in Greenland wanting to take it over then they’d have to “force” out UK and European troops, even if it’s only one… that would be quite a stand off.
dodge-thesystem on
So we are going to fight Russian and now the USA. Yea that’s great idea not!
nellion91 on
Tells you about the UK commitment to Europe.
The France and danish send troops.
The Uk sent an officer.
This will be read as lack of support by the Other European powers.
Strange strategy. A boat would have been much more elegant and still defendable towards the USA
Hellstorm901 on
In case anyone is wondering the officer is there just like the other countries to liaise with local forces before the main contingent arrives
This is not an invasion for us, you don’t have to drop troops on the freezing cold then think about what to do with them afterwards
As this is friendly territory we send support staff first to scope out the ground, find out where to put barracks, runways, armouries etc and then the engineers and then troops arrive
ResponsiblePatient72 on
For all Starmers faults, he is actually quite good at foreign affairs.
By sending one officer (basically on a fact finding mission) the UK neither commits to either Europe or the US and has room for manoeuvre regardless of what happens next, whilst at the same time keeping both relatively happy.
If the US tries to annex Greenland by force, the UK was there and can side with Europe. If the US does nothing then the UK can state to the US that they were not really involved in the stand off.
Fluffy-Republic8610 on
Yes..it really makes sense that the USA has to be reality checked about taking Greenland. And that reality check has to be the prospect of having to shoot NATO soldiers to take it.
If the USA is so far gone that that order will be followed all the way down the chain of command to the soldier holding the gun, then there isnt much point in letting a second soldier die.
But then the USA will lose Europe..we will all install.linux and flood away from us tech and defence. It will be a shit few years, but they are replaceable. And we will emerge out of it united and determined.
ArgonKew on
Europe needs to stop sucking up to the Americans. They should have done this a long long time ago. We are 750 million people, including the Russians whom we made an enemy of just because of the f****** Americans.
RedofPaw on
I’m just curious about what the US using ‘force’ even looks like.
They’re going to land a big old army at… their own bases. Which was always allowed.
They’re going to march into Nuuk and say “We’re the rulers now” and nuuk says no… so they just stick up their flag? Okay. But what then?
They put more troops on, diverting them from useful locations and spend a bunch of money? For what?
There’s a good argument this is about resources. There’s a bunch of minerals there. I guess they want to extract those without paying for them? Okay. Well… let’s follow that logic. They spend years developing the sites. Then the next US president who is not a scumbag (if they’re ever allowed to be one) gives it back.
SauronOfDucks on
Oh to be a fly on the wall for that conversation.
*”Your orders are in, congratulations you’ve been posted to Greenland”*.
“That’s great! Where do I meet up with the other soldiers going to Greenland?”
*”….other soldiers going to Greenland?”*
Miasmata on
Imagine if Trump’s plan all along was to just say he wanted to take Greenland in order to force Europe to take more notice of Greenland and put troops there to avoid Russia and China coming over. We’ve just done exactly what he wanted lol
10 commenti
It’s an interesting tactic. If the US did show up in Greenland wanting to take it over then they’d have to “force” out UK and European troops, even if it’s only one… that would be quite a stand off.
So we are going to fight Russian and now the USA. Yea that’s great idea not!
Tells you about the UK commitment to Europe.
The France and danish send troops.
The Uk sent an officer.
This will be read as lack of support by the Other European powers.
Strange strategy. A boat would have been much more elegant and still defendable towards the USA
In case anyone is wondering the officer is there just like the other countries to liaise with local forces before the main contingent arrives
This is not an invasion for us, you don’t have to drop troops on the freezing cold then think about what to do with them afterwards
As this is friendly territory we send support staff first to scope out the ground, find out where to put barracks, runways, armouries etc and then the engineers and then troops arrive
For all Starmers faults, he is actually quite good at foreign affairs.
By sending one officer (basically on a fact finding mission) the UK neither commits to either Europe or the US and has room for manoeuvre regardless of what happens next, whilst at the same time keeping both relatively happy.
If the US tries to annex Greenland by force, the UK was there and can side with Europe. If the US does nothing then the UK can state to the US that they were not really involved in the stand off.
Yes..it really makes sense that the USA has to be reality checked about taking Greenland. And that reality check has to be the prospect of having to shoot NATO soldiers to take it.
If the USA is so far gone that that order will be followed all the way down the chain of command to the soldier holding the gun, then there isnt much point in letting a second soldier die.
But then the USA will lose Europe..we will all install.linux and flood away from us tech and defence. It will be a shit few years, but they are replaceable. And we will emerge out of it united and determined.
Europe needs to stop sucking up to the Americans. They should have done this a long long time ago. We are 750 million people, including the Russians whom we made an enemy of just because of the f****** Americans.
I’m just curious about what the US using ‘force’ even looks like.
They’re going to land a big old army at… their own bases. Which was always allowed.
They’re going to march into Nuuk and say “We’re the rulers now” and nuuk says no… so they just stick up their flag? Okay. But what then?
They put more troops on, diverting them from useful locations and spend a bunch of money? For what?
There’s a good argument this is about resources. There’s a bunch of minerals there. I guess they want to extract those without paying for them? Okay. Well… let’s follow that logic. They spend years developing the sites. Then the next US president who is not a scumbag (if they’re ever allowed to be one) gives it back.
Oh to be a fly on the wall for that conversation.
*”Your orders are in, congratulations you’ve been posted to Greenland”*.
“That’s great! Where do I meet up with the other soldiers going to Greenland?”
*”….other soldiers going to Greenland?”*
Imagine if Trump’s plan all along was to just say he wanted to take Greenland in order to force Europe to take more notice of Greenland and put troops there to avoid Russia and China coming over. We’ve just done exactly what he wanted lol