Europe will fight USA if they invade Greenland

[Bronco 24,955]

37 minutes ago, PartySick said:

straight head to head, the US wins.

And yet the US has lost every war except the 1st gulf war its fought since the second world war. 

And in every conflict it was the largest military force by a country mile. 

The US military has size and money. But every NATO military that's worked alongside it slags off the US troops as drugged up failures with no common sense. 

Even if the US touched down on european soil, the second the military went underground and switched to guerilla conflict the US military would end up in a quagmire unable to progress any further. It'd burn through ammo and lives. And the eventual result would be a US withdrawal and the EU states being colonized by Russia/China who would naturally have helped fund and supply the domestic opposition in any conflict with the US.

 

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

52 minutes ago, DopeEnigma said:

1) I do think you give Russia a bit too much credit.

2) The US has become richer because of us buying its debt. If we were to liquidate it and our other European allies it would be catastrophic for the US.

3) He won’t do it, he’s a coward and the consequences would be severe.

1) Yes, together, with US help, they can keep Russia in check.

If the US cooperates. Macron has talked so much about sending air troops, etc., to Ukraine, but never did it because he doesn't dare without US support. The whole of NATO is based on the US; if they don't cooperate, NATO is ineffective. So the US can exploit this and make support for Eastern Europe dependent on their "loyalty." These countries won't fight against the US because:

 a) it's pointless, since the US will win anyway;

b) they need the US in the fight against Russia;

c) if they lose their troops fighting the US, they have less to defend themselves against Russia.

All very good reasons not to fight against the US.

2) It's true, the Europeans helped the US remain a world power. And precisely because the EU allowed itself to be blackmailed by the US and bought US debts, I believe this will continue, and the Europeans will continue to allow themselves to be exploited by the US. What was true before will remain true and will continue to be true.

The Europeans also said they would defend their interests equally in the trade war against the US. Ursula von der Leyen acted like a dwarf and allowed herself to be intimidated by the US and made a bad deal for the EU. Why shouldn't that happen again?

3) The US continues to be an imperial power.

There was a Black Queen in Hawaii. One day, the Americans came and invaded.

There is an indigenous population on Greenland. One day, the US-Americans possibly will come, too.

They took Florida and California from Spain.

Trump announced it, his gov has plans. I don't believe it's just a bluff.

There were peace protests in the past, too, they did not stop the US from invading.

I think it is realistic (50%+) that he will take Greenland. As he said, no one will stop him. Exactly this makes it so lucrative.

Edited January 8 by Ayesha Erotica

[PartySick 172,486]

6 minutes ago, Bronco said:

And yet the US has lost every war except the 1st gulf war its fought since the second world war. 

And in every conflict it was the largest military force by a country mile. 

The US military has size and money. But every NATO military that's worked alongside it slags off the US troops as drugged up failures with no common sense. 

Even if the US touched down on european soil, the second the military went underground and switched to guerilla conflict the US military would end up in a quagmire unable to progress any further. It'd burn through ammo and lives. And the eventual result would be a US withdrawal and the EU states being colonized by Russia/China who would naturally have helped fund and supply the domestic opposition in any conflict with the US.

 

Aye, you know, power doesn't equal competence.

I feel like a lot of those losses are due to the US' inability to actually commit too. Like, at some point we just stop beating the sh*t out of whoever we're victimizing and say "k, I'm out". It gets too expensive or the morality falls too low.

Idk, war is so stupid to begin with, I shant be here defending our track record or those little hillbillies and their Walmart shirts that say "UNDEFEATED" with an American flag  

My initial point anyway was that we have the might but the will and ability are lacking. We'd be a pariah state with a ruined economy before we ever got a soldier anywhere in Europe.

[Bronco 24,955]

3 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Aye, you know, power doesn't equal competence.

I feel like a lot of those losses are due to the US' inability to actually commit too. Like, at some point we just stop beating the sh*t out of whoever we're victimizing and say "k, I'm out". It gets too expensive or the morality falls too low.

Idk, war is so stupid to begin with, I shant be here defending our track record or those little hillbillies and their Walmart shirts that say "UNDEFEATED" with an American flag  

My initial point anyway was that we have the might but the will and ability are lacking. We'd be a pariah state with a ruined economy before we ever got a soldier anywhere in Europe.

Honestly the US's biggest issue (ever since the civil war) is that it never has a plan or concept of success. 

Its why Venezuela will be botched and why Greenland would be botched.

They love the action movie moment, they hate the political movie that follows.

[PartySick 172,486]

Just now, Bronco said:

Honestly the US's biggest issue (ever since the civil war) is that it never has a plan or concept of success. 

Its why Venezuela will be botched and why Greenland would be botched.

They love the action movie moment, they hate the political movie that follows.

The US war room just has a white board that says 

1. Invade

2. Fight

3. ?????

4. Profit (oil?)

[LOVEDRUG 11,254]

1 hour ago, Ayesha Erotica said:

Excuse me, but the British are - apart from perhaps Canada and Isráel - the most loyal countries to the USA. The British, together with the USA, have waged so many wars and interventions in violation of international law and are often in cahoots, as was the case just yesterday when the USA, with UK assistance, arrested a Russian tanker. The British are extremely closely intertwined with the USA militarily, financially, economically, and culturally, so that it is inconceivable that they would militarily oppose the USA in 2026.

In the 1960s, the British annexed an island called Diega Garcia, expelled the population, and then gave it to the USA as a military base. In the 1990s, the British dropped uranium bombs in the Yugoslav Wars, an act of war in Europe from which the population, iin Kosovo and the surrounding area, continues to suffer to this day.

We should stop thinking of the UK as noble and pure and the US as dirty, the UK has a dirty face, too.

  Reveal hidden contents

But we can continue to think of the US as dirty

Also the UK and Norway are not EU members, they are not under EU pressures and EU military decisions do not affect the UK. Iceland isn't in the EU either. So the closest countries in Europe to Greenland aren't even in the EU, which is favor unforable if the EU were to take any meaningful military intervention.

I expect the UK to condemn the takeover symbolically and nothing more, no military reaction, neither financially. Behind the scenes, a few decades later, the Brits will cooperate with the US in the exploitation of Greenland's raw materials.

I would even dare to say, that if the EU were to take military action (I highly doubt it), that the UK will not allow the EU to trespass its territory.

 

Public opinion is huge. We have a government in place currently which is enormously unpopular, and has been making decisions based purely on what they think will play well with the electorate. Normally I would agree with you, there's no way that Boris Johnson or Tony Blair would have gone against the US in such a situation. But we have a government in place that has already been criticised for its willingness to suck up to Trump, is dependent on the support of MPs who have always been anti-NATO because of the US's involvement and the British public already views the United States as, at best, an unreliable ally.

I don't believe that it's nearly as clear cut as you're making out. The UK of today is not the same as the UK of the Yugoslav Wars. This is a government that has made an active effort (without any sense of the electorate even caring) to hand Diego Garcia to Mauritius out of a sense of moral obligation. If this government gets any sense that supporting the US in such a venture would affect their public standing even more than it has already been affected, they would change their view without hesitation. Starmer took a near identical initial stance on the situation in Venezuela to Macron and Merz, and openly avoided outright supporting the US's actions. I loathe our current government, but I do not think they would blindly follow the US as you say they would.

[LOVEDRUG 11,254]

1 hour ago, PartySick said:

Well...the US military is bigger than all of them combined  never said it'd be an easy victory but in a straight head to head, the US wins.

That's not to say Europe is weak by any means. I don't think Americans realize how codependent the US really is on the rest of the world, especially Europe. Europeans wouldn't even have to fire a single shot. Just reclaim US military bases and we've basically already lost.

As a matter of force and state of the art tech, the US dominates. But strategically? No way we'd come out the winner.

.......basically, we're both right  

My argument is certainly not that Europe would win. But I don't think the States would win either, especially in an environment such a Greenland. It would be a long, bloody war, and as I said, would probably grind to a halt as it has done in Ukraine.

[Ayesha Erotica 1,924]

19 hours ago, Economy said:

If EU, Canada, Britain and Oceana + Japan cordinated and coperated, they could all cripple the US and get the US to stand down but instead everyone freaked out and said yes mr Trump

Imo, they are part of the problem, too, because they enable the US and are accomplice with the US by granting them military base presence all over the world. US has bases from Poland to Okinawa, off the coast of China. It's literally the largest empire since the British Empire. And they are bigger than they really are because Japan, Europe and Australia/Oceania allow them to have military bases there. Recently, the US also managed to pressure Australia to allow it to use its bases in the event of a war over Taiwan - Australia remains vague; yet when it comes down to it, the US will simply use it, even if Australia doesn't legitimize it, it can't prevent it - and now Australia will be dragged into that potential war, too. 

[LG2008 6,308]

8 hours ago, DopeEnigma said:

an impoverished and severely isolated US for several many decades to come

Not gonna lie... I'd love to see that  but many countries will suffer too, the world is way too dependent on the US. That has to change somehow

[kwiax 3,028]

It's 2026 and instead of fighting together against Russia, North Korea and China we will fight with US over the Greenland? Gosh, I hate Trump's stupid administration....

[AsleepOnTheCeiling 6,961]

On 1/7/2026 at 7:31 PM, Flippy said:

But I thought someone said @Bronco was fear-mongering?

Also, everyday I wake up and hope that everything that has happened is just a horrible nightmare…

it's just posturing. And notice it's Denmark and a retired French general saying it. Nobody of actual power. Where are all the other countries backing them?

[Bronco 24,955]

32 minutes ago, AsleepOnTheCeiling said:

it's just posturing. And notice it's Denmark and a retired French general saying it. Nobody of actual power. Where are all the other countries backing them?

I mean, its actually been said by the main military powers of Europe in a recent joint letter. 

Not just Denmark & a retired general. 

I actually doubt all of Nato would come to Greenland's defense, I do believe this would split Nato.

But the western european powers have explicitly said they would support Denmark & Greenland. 

[Economy 52,844]

9 hours ago, Bronco said:

I mean, its actually been said by the main military powers of Europe in a recent joint letter. 

Not just Denmark & a retired general. 

I actually doubt all of Nato would come to Greenland's defense, I do believe this would split Nato.

But the western european powers have explicitly said they would support Denmark & Greenland. 

Yeah, i dont really believe when time comes everyone will be all that bold to move a finger

[Bronco 24,955]

4 minutes ago, Economy said:

Yeah, i dont really believe when time comes everyone will be all that bold to move a finger

Europe would likely split along the old iron curtain lines, because that realistically still demarcates whether the risk is US imperialism or Russian imperialism. 

[gagzus 23,038]

The way if we went into a world war most citizens would avoid or oppose conscription as hard as possible. You can’t jail most of your population lol.

But I believe the UK for example is making preparations for a war, because they’ve already said women who aren’t mothers or over a certain age will be conscripted alongside men of all ages.

i’ll just be the Marilyn in my drag singing for the gays in the bunkers, but Gaga’s versions of jazz renditions as Harley

Edited January 13 by gagzus