Close Menu
    Europa

    Le ragioni a favore di una presenza militare europea in Groenlandia

    Share.
    View 20 Comments

    20 commenti

    2. a_dolf_in on

      The EU lacks the airlift and sealift capacity to put heavy equipment on greenland or support infantry for a prolonged period of time.

      We have always relied on the US for that capacity. Its not long ago that the french had to actually beg the US for logistics support for their operations in the SAHEL region.

      I just don’t see us

      a) putting a significant force in greenland

      b) actually being able to hold greenland in case of a US military takeover

    3. Massimo25ore on

      For those wondering, here is the article 42 TEU

      Article 42

      (ex Article 17 TEU)

      1. The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.

      2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

      The policy of the Union in accordance with this Section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.

      3. Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.

      Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as “the European Defence Agency”) shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities.

      4. Decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including those initiating a mission as referred to in this Article, shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or an initiative from a Member State. The High Representative may propose the use of both national resources and Union instruments, together with the Commission where appropriate.

      5. The Council may entrust the execution of a task, within the Union framework, to a group of Member States in order to protect the Union’s values and serve its interests. The execution of such a task shall be governed by Article 44.

      6. Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework. Such cooperation shall be governed by Article 46. It shall not affect the provisions of Article 43.

      7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

      Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.

    4. Putaineska on

      The EU should grow up and accept the UK into a defence alliance including for military procurement. And European leaders should get off their arses and organise a naval flotilla into the Atlantic as a show of force. Get submarines into the region, fly into Greenland manpads/AT rockets, and boot out the Americans from their base in Greenland.

      And start pursuing an independent defence capability to replace the US entirely. The relationship can never be the same post the US population electing Trump twice. Canada knows it, and Europe should know it too. We are living in complete denial and our representatives are flying in groups to Washington to treat Trump as a King.

      Rather than organised resistance it seems Europe is more likely to congratulate Trump if/when he invades Greenland.

    5. heatrealist on

      I see no reason why the US would allow this to happen. 

    6. anders_hansson on

      As I have been saying.

      >The most immediate and visible step would be the urgent establishment of a limited European military presence in Greenland, at Denmark’s request, as suggested by France already early in 2025.

      It’s not that difficult. It’s non-confrontational. It would make a difference.

    7. blondydog on

      This is what I think Trump actually wants to happen. Greenland is strategic to NATO and especially the US. It needs to be more heavily militarized as the race for the Arctic heats up. Trump wants the European NATO members to pay for it. I don’t believe he has any intent of invading or taking over Greenland. Its a feint to get the military investment from Europe.

    8. JaNkO2018 on

      One important thing to know: An internal NATO directive shows that, in an extreme case, a NATO commander would have to coordinate the defense of Denmark and Greenland. Responsibility would lie with Joint Force Command Norfolk, which is led by a U.S. vice admiral. This would place him in the extraordinary situation of potentially having to defend NATO allies against his own government. Within NATO circles, there is discussion about how realistic such a scenario is and what the consequences of a unilateral U.S. move would be.

    9. culture_vulture_1961 on

      A couple of hundred Nordic and UK special forces in Nuuk would not stop a full on American assault. The purpose for having them there is not to be a target but a deterrent. If the US landed anyway the ball is then in the American’s court. Are they going to get into a firefight or start negotiating?

      I don’t think it will come to that but a few winter warfare exercises in the Nuuk area would not go amiss. At worst it would provide stark optics as Royal Marines march past their erstwhile allies and onto their transport out. it would ram home who was the aggressor and would be swiftly followed by US military personnel being bundled out of Ramstein, Lakenheath and Mildenhall.

    11. Nepridiprav16 on

      Why aren’t US stocks crashing down with Trump’s latest threats which will destroy NATO? Not taking him seriously?

    12. Awarglewinkle on

      One of the problems with putting a lot of military in Nuuk is that if it does come to actual combat, it’s very dangerous for the civilian population.

      Don’t forget there are no roads leading out of town, and the harbor and airport would presumably be top military priorities, so there would be no way to evacuate civilians. There’s also only one hospital, so if that got hit, or just filled to capacity, it could be a potential disaster.

      Any military preparations need to be very carefully considered.

    13. AdminEating_Dragon on

      It’s a clear cut case: we raise the stakes of a US invasion to “you have to kill European soldiers to take it”.

      Which of course they can if they want, but the stakes become higher.

      So what’s stopping the – historically American lapdog – Danish government to request from other EU members to send troops?

      Is it again this deluded and pathetic European leaders mentality of appeasement, waiting Trump out and bowing their head fearful of the consequences of a full breakup with the US and possible tech and financial retaliation?

    15. goldstarflag on

      Both 🇺🇦 and 🇬🇱 are an attempt to deprive Europe of critical raw materials. The EU and Greenland signed a [massive](https://eitrawmaterials.eu/opinions/greenland-ready-power-europes-raw-materials-future) raw materials deal. 

      https://today.rtl.lu/news/world/geologist-romain-meyer-details-greenlands-coveted-resources-358035339

      *Meyer explains that Greenland holds abundant deposits of many so-called Critical Raw Materials – minerals essential for modern technologies for which Western nations are heavily dependent on suppliers like China.*

      *“Practically all the elements needed today are available in Greenland”, Meyer stated. This includes nickel, copper, and chromium. The largest proven rare earth deposits outside China are located in Greenland’s south, where they are highly concentrated and relatively accessible.*

      Trump and Putin want to cut Europe down.

    16. Haunting-Building237 on

      Why do we think that we will fight the US when we don’t even want to help Ukraine fight a dilapidated Russian military using horses as transport?

      Delusional.

    17. uzu_afk on

      Ah yea. Another round of visits, statements, talking and strongly worded letters.

    18. BernardMatthewsNorf on

      … and maybe some in Canada for good measure. You know, to balance out the Canadians defending the Baltics.

    20. strictnaturereserve on

      why haven’t they threatened to kick the US base out?

    Leave A Reply