1,321 words
Trump’s raid to capture Nicolas Maduro was well-executed. While the situation remains open-ended, Trump has made it clear that he is following Hegseth’s vow to avoid mission creep and open-ended commitments. And it advanced American interests. It’s about the oil. And it was a refreshing break from the farce of international law.
Shortly after the Venezuela raid, the administration and MAGA resumed their saber-rattling about Greenland. I assumed this was simply due to a temporary surge in jingoism which would fizzle. But it has only intensified.
Like Stephen Miller, I don’t care about international law. But I do care about rationally pursuing American interests. And unlike Venezuela, aggression towards Greenland is not in our interests.
Trump recently dropped the pretext of rare earth minerals by explaining that they aren’t really all that rare. Only the processing facilities are, and he plans to change that. An X user explained that while Greenland has 25 of the 34 “critical raw materials,” extracting them would be a logistical nightmare due to permafrost, constant darkness, the need for custom alloys that don’t snap in the cold, fuel and lubricant freezing, lack of roads or rails, and brief shipping windows. And instead of helping, global warming is destroying what little infrastructure exists. Maybe Trump is thinking a century or two ahead. But that’s very out of character for him. Thus, I doubt that the seemingly inexplicable aggression towards Greenland is primarily about mineral wealth. It’s a secondary motive at best.
It’s tempting to dismiss annexing Greenland as Trump’s latest vanity project. But too many sophisticated people who are not shallow or impulsive are also supporting it, such as Stephen Miller.
The minerals appear to have been a pretext for defense. But even the defense rationale doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Trump has complained about Russian and Chinese ships around Greenland. But there are virtually no Chinese ships. He also accused Denmark, which owns Greenland, of only adding an extra dog sled to its defense in 2025. But as a community note on X states, Denmark has added sixteen F-35 multirole stealth fighters, two arctic patrol ships, maritime patrol aircraft, a new early warning radar, and drone systems totaling $4.2 billion. And in addition to being part of NATO, Denmark like most European countries is deeply concerned about Russian aggression. Thus, it would be best to work with them against Russia to secure Greenland.
Unless the “defense” Trump has planned for Greenland is something very secret and offensive. So much so that Denmark would probably veto it or even blab about it. At this point, the past may be the key to the present.
In the early 1960s, the US tried to build a clandestine nuclear project in Greenland codenamed Operation Iceworm. The idea was to build a vast 2,500-mile tunnel network under the icesheet in which 600 modified Minuteman missiles would have been transported about on tracks and sleds. Concealment and mobility would ensure a robust second-strike capability in a nuclear exchange. And one very close to Russia due to the curvature of the Earth.
But like a glacier, the icesheet moves a few feet each year. This meant that the tunnels would collapse faster than even aggressive maintenance could repair them. Thus, Operation Iceworm was canceled in 1963, and the “research base” of Camp Century was closed a few years later. It was so secret that even Denmark didn’t know until 1996 when related documents were declassified.
Maybe Trump’s obsession with Greenland is just another personality quirk like his strange diet and obsessing over black rappers, Israel, and the Nobel Peace Prize. But given the number and nature of other people involved, I think there is a method to the madness. The administration has latched onto some scheme which is possibly as ambitious as Operation Iceworm.
I’m all for Fortress America. But this is not a good thing.
NATO may already have nuclear forces in Europe, but they are tactical, not strategic nukes. It takes between two to four tactical nukes to render a single infantry division inoperable. They are ultimately meme weapons that are nice to have as a backup, but which are generally too expensive, dangerous, destructive, imprecise, and bad optics to use.
Posting strategic missiles in Greenland would be a highly aggressive move. Currently, all the US’s land-based strategic nukes are in the continental United States. They’re not even in Alaska. And if the US wants to put strategic nukes closer to Russia, Alaska is a logical place to do it.
We don’t need a heightened nuclear deterrent against Russia when we are winning conventionally. Taking control of Venezuela’s oil and the ongoing seizure of Russia’s shadow oil fleet as their navy haplessly looks on is a turning point in the Ukraine War.
Now that the great powers of the world have finally realized that nobody wants to be the first to launch a nuke, they are more likely to clash conventionally. But those clashes will become more dangerous if there is a return to nuclear brinksmanship. I am no pacifist, nor one of those pundits whose takes always seem to coincidentally align with Kremlin interests. Nor do I believe in international law. But strategic arms limitation is wise and in everyone’s interest. There are safer, cheaper, and more efficient ways for the world powers to compete.
There is no need to provoke a “Greenland Missile Crisis” when America is already making a comeback against Russia conventionally. But Russia wouldn’t be the only perturbed party. Denmark and Europe would also be displeased. Russian aggression is their number one defense priority. But they do not want to confront it with nuclear brinksmanship, which is why Operation Iceworm had to be kept secret even from Denmark. They know they would be in the middle of a nuclear exchange.
The problem is further exacerbated by how Europeans don’t know if America is more of a defender or an aggressor due to the White House’s meme-driven foreign policy. America should cooperate with Europe through a coherent, consistent, holistic, and transparent policy on defense, freedom, and remigration.
In fact, US aggression towards Europe will undermine efforts to popularize remigration there. The powers that be would like to ban parties and candidates that favor remigration, but they generally can’t on those grounds because remigration has become too popular. Allegations of colluding with a foreign aggressor might serve as a useful pretext, however. It has already happened with Romania banning Călin Georgescu in large part due to allegations of Russian sympathies when the real reason was that he was a patriot who wouldn’t reverse mortgage his country. Tainting remigration with guilt by association with American aggression could catastrophically undermine it.
I’m not opposed to an invasion of Europe, particularly the UK and Belgium. They are weak and illegitimate countries. But we should come as liberators, not as opportunistic land grabbers.
Part of the problem here is that many Americans, including those in the administration, seem unable to admit even in private that Europe’s sorry state today was a product of neoliberal US meddling going back to 1945 and perhaps before. The USAID scandal shows that the American occupation of Europe never ended, it just became more sophisticated and sinister. America berating Europe for being weak and liberal is like a pimp getting a hoe addicted to crack and then complaining about the resulting crack budget.
Every non-commissioned officer knows that standards must be clear for standards and discipline to work. Thus, the best American policy towards Europe would be to directly predicate conventional defense on freedom of speech, the elimination of anarcho-tyranny, remigration, and Europe meeting specific defense goals like NATO’s 2% of GDP spending target. (Denmark is currently over 3%.) That means not snuggling up to Moscow, not making unclear demands and then saying the resultant efforts are not enough, and not threatening to unilaterally annex territory.
And it definitely means not attempting shenanigans in Greenland with a secret nuclear base out of a James Bond movie.
56 comments
Very, very few people voted for what Donald Trump is doing. He has lost his mind. Listen to him talk. He is about as articulate as Joe Biden was at the end of his term. Sycophantic “advisors” are no help whatsoever when it comes to controlling the dangerously insane.
No one voted to invade Greenland. The idea is preposterous. Instead, we voted to close the borders to mass immigration, to deport all illegal aliens, to end DEI & AA, to jail trans-perverts & child molesters, and to release the Epstein files – just for a start. That should be enough to worry about.
America is on its last legs. The neconservatives are in overdrive because they know the country is in its death throes. They clearly plan to just move the empire to Israel just like they moved it here during WWII. Trump is not going to focus on domestic issues. He is just doing the bare minimum of what is necessary to pacify us while they loot the country.
I like to think that the end of America will result in the rebirth of a White nation.
The thing is, though that if America took Greenland then Europe would realize that it’s really on its own and would have to build up their own militaries and become independent of the United States. I really doubt that the United States is going to be able to turn it around for a very long time. And it’s very likely that the deep state or the left will be in power again and they will use their ties and influence to poison Europe. However, if America is already in adversarial position and Europeans know they can’t trust America then that whole process really has a wrench thrown into it. Essentially if America takes Greenland, then we might see the end of European nation states being vassals of America, and any political party in Europe that toes the line with Washington will become much more unpopular. The downside is that any political party that Trump or Vance plays Footsy with or has played Footsy with in the past would be guilty by association. (Afd, national rally, etc) So I’m kind of divided on this. On one hand if we take it then we’re separated from Europe, which I think would actually be a good thing in the short term and it would really force europeans to re-arm and re-nationalize and kick out all the American influence from Europe, including all the military bases. On the other hand, it does kind of taint things that Trump does like re-migration. I’d like to hear more information and arguments about this.
One other strategy also would be for the new right to position itself as saying that this is ridiculous. That would allow the new right in America and Europe to have close ties with each other despite Trump doing this.
One thing that’s absolutely true though is the amount of seething from Europeans on X is hysterical hahaha. I have a friend who is Danish and has told me that before this no one gave a fuck about Greenland and almost all the natives that live there are dysfunctional alcoholics.
As a Dane I am well and truly surprised by the amount of fervor that this has created on the Danish corners of Facebook… Especially given that under the current state of affairs, Greenland is nothing but a drain on the Danish budgets (Essentially, the Greenlandic home-rule gets to decide what to do with any income from Greenland, while the Danish state subsidizes them…)
The stuff going on online is one of the reasons why I’m leaning a little bit more towards US taking Greenland. I’m seeing nationalist talking points from leftist European accounts as to why Greenland is a sovereign nation, and you can’t just trample over them. All of these posts, arguments, and talking points that left is currently bringing up can be recorded and then used against them in the argument for national sovereignty for European nations and peoples.
Especially if these sort of arguments and talking points are used by the mainstream political establishment in countries like Denmark as to why Trump can’t do this and it’s wrong.
Although, we do know that things online and the interactions are not reality and can warp your perception of things. It’s much more important to have the mainstream politicians be saying things that are close to blood and soil as a reason why they need to go and defend it. Because we can then turn right back around and start doing very similar arguments for our people.
Sadly, Trump is strengthening the EUrocrats by allowing them to posture as defenders of European sovereignty while maintaining the whole raft of their anti-European policies. Trump will also damage remigration in Europe by associating it with his bellicose blowhardism, even though he is saying correct things about Europe’s demographic problems.
Great article! You are right, the time for acquiring Greenland was at the end of WWII, or better yet at the end of WWI, but alas America has never possessed forward thinking statesmen. 🙃
The US is already the de facto owner of Greenland. We have military bases there right now. We have complete control. There is no need for Trump to bully Denmark. Denmark is not an enemy of any sort. It is a good ally of the US, and has been since 1949.
Our number one enemy is internal. Focus on that, not on all these foreign adventures, which are irrelevant to our national interest.
You are another example, you should have a “Top 100” icon next to your “Insider” icon. 🙃
I still can remember the word Thule Air Base, since as a military interpreter I had to study the bases of the “potential enemy”, but now I know that this base is called Pituffik. I like the name Thule much more, because it is something really “Norse”.
I thank the author for this interesting article. Perhaps in 2014, when Crimea was annexed, my comrades in the Russian national movement and I experienced similar feelings of bewilderment. The Kremlin’s foreign policy adventure has distracted public attention from truly significant problems: the rigged 2011-2012 elections, the uncontrolled flow of immigrants from Central Asia, the economic downturn, restrictions on freedom of speech, and the adoption and enforcement of repressive laws against protesters.
In 2013, it seemed that Russian society had finally organized itself, but then the Crimean adventure upset all the plans. Unfortunately, for many people, emotion prevailed over reason. All previous experience has convincingly demonstrated that Putin’s government systematically acts against the interests of the Russian people, pursuing the same policy of replacement as in most European countries. But for some patriots, it was too tempting to celebrate “victory” (even if it was imaginary), completely forgetting that the true national interests of Russians are incompatible with the goals of Putin’s neo-Soviet multicultural empire.
Ultimately, such shortsightedness and inconsistency led to the split of the Russian national movement, and then to its defeat by the efforts of Putin’s special services. The problems of 2012 seem insignificant compared to what’s happening in Russia now. And the invasion of Ukraine turned into a full-scale, bloody war that has lasted four years.
I’m far from drawing direct parallels between the events of 2014 in Russia and the current political situation in the United States. It’s unlikely that anything similar to the Russian scenario will be repeated in America. But it seems that in any country, flag-waving patriotism is one of the most effective and reliable tools that the political establishment uses when it wants to distract society from the real problems that the system cannot or will not solve.
The parallels are definitely there. Both Russia and America, as colonial “outposts” of the core of White civilization (i.e., Central and Northern Europe) can no longer be considered White countries by any definition. This is why both Russia and America now only have mongrelized, Judaized civic nationalisms, which are completely incompatible with genuine White Nationalism.
The only possible White Nationalist future, on a global scale (with Whites being at or less than 10% of the world’s population) is for a pan-European White Union, which the European Union could actually become, if it were modified in certain respects. The solution for Russia is for it to be greatly reduced in size, to a much smaller and less imperialist but much more racially pure White nation, which would then join this pan-European White Union. The solution for America is for the remaining several million White nationalists (and their families, if they have them) to relocate to the pan-European White Union, leaving the rest of mongrelized, Brazilianized America to continue its course as a sinking ship.
Moreover, both Russia and America are ENEMIES of the continental Europe, just like Imperial Russia and British Empire were enemies of the continental Europe, lead by France in the 19th century, under Napoleon, and in 1914, lead by Germany under Emperor Wilhelm II, and just like the situation was in 1939-45, when Soviet Union and US/UK in common efforts destroyed, parted, occupied and enslaved not only Germany, but the whole Europe too.
I am actively considering that option of remigrating to Europe, and have the paperwork to make it easy. I cannot conceive of the US as anything but a white, European society, but it’s pretty hard to argue that we have it now, let alone in perpetuity.
Every dissident who has the option needs to line up the paperwork ASAP. Sadly, just last year Italy changed the rules, making it harder for Italian descended people to go back — while still being flooded with Third World detritus.
Hello Dr. Johnson, I would be interested in writing for Counter Currents about some of the topics that I mentioned above, i.e., Fortress Europe, the “Russian Question” and the “American Question” in White Nationalism, American White Nationalist voluntary remigration to Europe (including practical details related to this, i.e., paperwork, taxes, residency permits, citizenship, etc.). Also, an overall, truly global perspective on White Nationalism today, including how to bridge the gap between White Nationalist-leaning Europeans and Americans (and Australians, Canadians, etc.). I think an exploration of all of these themes would really take Counter Currents to the next level!
Thank you.
Send anything to [email protected]
You’re absolutely right. The Russian Federation, under Putin’s leadership, has transformed into a neo-Soviet multiracial empire, oriented toward China and flirting with the Islamic world. The dismantling of this pathological formation, geographical separation from non-Whites, and the subsequent founding of the Russian Republic within the territory of the European part of Russia is the only possibility for the biological survival of Russians as a White people. The Russians will find their own national home, and Europe as a whole will forever get rid of the threat from the East.
As for America, I remain cautiously optimistic. It was in the US that Whites, demonstrating will and energy, twice in the last decade repelled the globalist left, whose instrument was the Democratic Party. Yes, it doesn’t change the fact that Whites have no long-term future in a Jewish-controlled United States due to demographic trends. But this success has great psychological significance. And after the end of Trump’s presidency, the following chain of events cannot be ruled out: the return of embittered leftists -> the launch of the red-blue seccesion -> the building of a White ethnostate, which will become the new center of White civilization, a beacon of freedom and hope, including for immigrants from Europe. Thus, the American project conceived by the Founding Fathers can receive a second life.
Would a post-NATO scenario result in recentering around Europe?
If partition of the US along red/blue voting affinities, would white interests be boosted? Maybe other interests would still prevail: the red rump might leave the embassy in Jerusalem and tilt even more Zionst while the blue rump would likely mirror western Europe: recognition of Palastine and be more collectivist but ironically hollow out the middle class.
This is an important point. National divorce in itself does not guarantee the creation of an ethnostate, but only provides such an opportunity.
Secession as a whole is associated with serious risks. However, this outcome may be the best possible one if Democrats, having won a majority in Congress and returned to the White House in 2028, concentrate all the powers of the federal government in their hands. The probability of this is quite high. And I have no doubt that, once in power, the left will introduce censorship and try to establish the same anti-white anarcho-tyranny regime that we are now seeing in the UK under Keir Starmer.
White Nationalists need to prepare for such a situation in advance. A detailed description of the specific strategy deserves a separate article.
I’m hoping this is just some kabuki theater posturing. That is to say, a distraction. Trump has a low boil insurrection brewing back home. I would love to see Trump call that subversive rat Krasner’s bluff and send in ICE agents in Philly. The likely case is that Krasner would simply fold. The unlikely, but more pleasant case would be Krasner trying to look the big shot and arresting ICE agents, then Trump sending in delta force to release the arrested ICE agents and then send Krasner to Gitmo.
What is going on with “The Top 100 Commentators?” I have been reduced from 1,999 comments to 885 comments! Who is Gray Wolf? Is this a test to see who is tracking their number of comments, or a computer glitch? 🙃
As for who Gray Wolf is, I don’t know but I’ll mention that you can change your display name so if you saw a top commenter appear out of nowhere then it may be that one of them decided he wanted to change his name.
As for you being reduced, that is strange but at least it puts me closer to reaching the top. ;-P
I thought Lord Shang was around number two for a long time, though I don’t really look at the list much so I’m not sure.
Why isn’t the “Top 100″ icon” next to your “Insider” icon? 🙃
Good question. Lots of little things have been breaking around here recently… maybe it’s because I changed my display name to test what would happen to my name on the top 100 list, to help investigate this for you, and now I’ve been reset to zero! 😛 Well, one, after this comment…
Ask for your comment numbers back, yesterday I think you had around 865. I just checked, you have 863 under username Adammil. 🙃
And, I have noticed that you are not the only one missing your “Top 100” icon. 🙃
I wish you hadn’t changed your name to help me out, now I feel bad—anyways ask, he might give them back. 🙃
You can’t change your display name, and keep your comment count, you have to start over again; Greg Johnson said that years ago. 🙃
Peter Quint: January 13, 2026 You can’t change your display name, and keep your comment count, you have to start over again; Greg Johnson said that years ago.
Who’s counting besides you, Peter?
Someone in the Top 10 must’ve recently changed his username since I see that I’m now number 10 — something I never expected when I began commenting.
No, that’s not it. The system did a “data dump,” and reverted several years back to when Lord Shang was #2 commentator, and Travis Lynch was #1 commentator. There have been a lot of computer glitches in the comment section in the last couple of months, and it seems to be spreading. You are right about one thing, if I am the only one keeping tabs on it, it might as well be ditched. 🙃
Seriously, what happened to Shang? So many others like Ceres, Alexandra, and Margot I used to see on CC all the time when I first began, have all but disappeared. Hope they’re doing well, still alive, and maybe make a return one day.
Greg Johnson banned Lord Shang a few months back when we were discussing Greg’s article on whether or not Hitler had admitted to the veracity of the holohoax. You should remember it, because it went on two, or three weeks. 🙃
Kok Bori was banned. I miss his perspective. Hyacinth Bouquet doesn’t post much anymore. Lexi very rarely posts now. I wondered if she was actually the same person as Banned Hipster or Hipster Racist.
How is Lord Shang number #2 again, he hasn’t posted in months? 🙃
With the comments I have posted today, and my previous 1,999, I should be at 2,006 comments tomorrow! 🙃
Thank you, James Kirkpatrick was ahead of me with 2,043 or more! Kirkpatrick should be at #4, and I should be at #5. 🙃
Nice piece. If Trump is intent on addressing international threats to us, China is #1. I care about international law about as much as I care about the well being of somolians in the one time Nordic second home in Minnesota. How about passing a federal law to protect any local or federal law enforcement personnel with a 1,000 foot zone of security? We need a national restraining order regardless of whether you support or oppose the lawmen present. And to give it teeth, federal funds evaporate if local authorities refuse to enforce. And the funds dry up for welfare first and then schools. Make it painful to refuse.
That quip about the crack hoe getting hooked so pimpy is sad is classic. What’s next in Venezuela? There’s still communist believers out hounding the populace. The time to install properly aligned government is coming fast. And there oil is heavy and infrastructure duct taped together. Cap em. Rebuild em and start pumping and selling. Provide a number of shares to each citizen and get them interested in capitalism again. There are wealthy citizens there. Use them to get the country in motion again. Otherwise it’s going to fester and any positive momentum will be lost.
It’s like he’s gone nuts. It’s just one whim to the next. Every day it seems there’s some new stupid thing that takes his fancy. In this case someone has fed him this idea, that’s got through whatever firewall should be there that wasn’t robust enough, and it flatters him. And this is a big danger of crazy old men as POTUS.
I also didn’t like the way Trump was put through the grinder. It was stupid and unjust, and you have to admire his resilience, but it also bothered me what that could mean. Was he coming out of this now as damaged goods ?
This talk about ‘might makes right’, ‘power’, these people are picking up stuff from our side, memes and tweets, or people who are not on our side but use similar language, like this Bronze Pervert Jew and running with it I guess. Perhaps we should be careful what we meme into being because the result may be quite different to what we intended with that stuff.
And I just don’t care about American supreeeeeeeeeeemacy and shaping things through that lens. It’s been a global catastrophe. It’s gone hand in hand with an onslaught on everything of value including its own population and Europe’s. You couldn’t create a more stupid dangerous disaster.
At some point you just have to say, ok we’ll live with the risk of American not having a 10000000000000% advantage over everyone else. I’m happy to make that trade.
An enemy of Europe is an enemy of whites, make no mistake. If Trump attacks or threatens a European nation for no good reason, he is not just on the side of the Zionists, he is synonymous with them, and forever incompatible with White Nationalism.
Thanks for being one of the few American media types I’ve seen admit to the US role in how Europe is post ’45. Even back in 16 it was one of my bugaboos about Trump like when he would ask why do we defend Japan, have troops in Europe? etc. He just saw $$ and cents, he didn’t understand the reasoning behind it (as in we didn’t trust Nippon to not go Banzai!! again, in Europe we wanted Germany kept down, Russkies out, and rest of Europe to S can their ideas of keeping empires and thus reasons to drag them into another war (although we sure were inconsistent on that one, slapping down the UK, Belgium, Portugal, Rhodesia and South Africa, but we sure helped the French try and hang on to Vietnam).
One thing I don’t see a lot of people factor into the Greenland situation are a few things, especially considering the US would most want a quick, flawless type op like with Maduro, so while Europe has no hope of destroying all US forces worldwide, they just need like the US did to the UK in 1776, to win more than the other sides max cost commitment to the operation.
To wit, back in 2019 or whenever to last request to buy Greenland was made, Sweden and Finland were not in NATO then, so if they were factoring in potential forces to be brought to bear against them (as I have no doubt a plan for taking it was drawn up as a contingency, just the will to use didn’t exist them). Denmark has access to two nations with large Arctic comfortable forces and a supply chain far less dependent on the US being able to say, shut of software to F-35s like Denmark, or deny replacement parts.
While the US has more men in total, they don’t when it comes to ones that can ski, shoot and deal with the unforgiving cold and conditions of Greenland, not to mention a history of irregular warfare (look up winter war Finland vs USSR) and you can see the US might have a harder time than they figure, especially with equipment (Sweden can land their fighters on a road and be off in a few minutes, try that with an F-35 or F-22) enough time for domestic opinion to turn against the admin.
The other issue is if I were Europe, I would be wondering if I was snookered by the US on a two way flim-flam play, Biden gets us into war in Ukraine, kills our nat gas, economy and weapons supply giving it to the little nose candy enjoyer (allegedly), play on our history of disliking Russia and then tag in Trump to threaten war with NATO when theyre at their weakest. Granted, I think NATO should have dropped the sunk cost of trying to beat Russia years ago, but for us tin foil chapeau wearers, it does make you wonder. So that could make them angry enough to hit a sore spot for the US that would hurt for awhile.
Then there is the US bases on NATO soil, if its war and leaders are going to swing for the fences, they could wipe those bases out, and while the US seems to be turning its back on Europe, they still very much want those bases for logistics for missions in Mid East and Central Asia. Of course the US would hit back, but you can see how this would easily reach the point of far too costly for the US to continue (as for Europe, they’ve already convinced themselves Russia is going to eat them for lunch) so if the US or Russia destroys them, from their view, does it really matter, it can quickly reach a point where Europe feels it has nothing to lose.
Then throw in a curve ball like the hosers in Canada release the good stuff in the Winnipeg biowarfare lab (the one that the Chinese wanted Ebola & Coronavirus samples from….are those silos designed to filter out viruses in their air supply?) or the UK or France slides them a nuke or two to come from an unexpected direction, not enough to wipe them out, but maybe an EMP to have all that diversity tear you up from the inside when the EBT is gone. Or, my fav, but least likely, cause the leaders there are pussies, invite China and Russia to bring their troops and stuff over. China is already working hard on using container ships to bring troops, use as missile ships etc.
They couldnt get em all over, but they could get enough to negate the whole two oceans insulate us from war blanket. Not enough to take over, but enough to really mess up that chill vibe the civvies have.
While the US is the most powerful military on earth, it also is the most unable to domestically handle losses, take casualties or deal with homeland warfare. Even in a war the public was behind like WW2, when the film of the casualties in Tarawa came out, it freaked them out, of course the wasnt going to stop but look at each war since, it takes fewer and fewer deaths for t to be rules a bad idea domestically. What would the news cycle look like if 4-5 copters got manpad’d in Caracas?
All it would take is that one division of “Arctic Angels” with only a 3-4 years or experience to get mauled by Swedish, Finnish and Danish troops in the snow and cold, and people at home will freak out. A ship or two and maybe some planes get shot down or crash in the cold.
Hopefully, none of this will have to happen, as it will be a lose-lose all around, as mostly the rest of the world is limited to just making it as costly as possible for the US in the end, but even by now, the damage is done, foreign policy wise.
Like Biden bringing in de-dollarization in seizing Russian assets as a “break from usual norms”, Trump has brought in “de-baseification” by threatening Greenland. Unless its a dire necessity, all other nations are now rethinking if they want a new base or keep existing bases when agreements come due for renewal.
In the end, that’s probably a good thing, as the US had too many bases in too many places for its stated goal of “America First”.
The Americans are responsible not for all European follies. The Germans abandoned their nuclear plants not because American pressure, but because the actions of Die Gruenen, which were on Stasi and KGB payroll. Also, the migrants from the Near East and Africa were and are brought into Europe not because Americans wanted it.
If we could somehow purchase Greenland, then I would be all for it. However, Denmark has made it clear that Greenland is not for sale. The language we are seeing from the White House, directed at a long-time ally no less, is simply ridiculous and tarnishes our reputation among Europeans. Right now, many Europeans legitimately think an American invasion of Greenland is possible. I do not think even Trump is reckless enough to do that, but the mere thought of it completely destroys our credibility as a country.
Yes, and if one is just thinking in terms of American power and influence, it is consummate folly to lose NATO to grasp Greenland.
Yeah – The only way this makes any strategic sense, is if the assumption is that the US breaking off from NATO is an inevitability.
What if the old NATO is already dead? Maybe it would be better to replace it with a new block, consisting mostly of Central and East European nations, like Poles, Romanians, Czechs, Estonians + possibly Finns? If we consider the NATO as an alliance against the Russian imperialism and expansionism, then it would be good to have a new alliance with countries, which are strongly opposed just to this Russian imperialism.
This is why CC has advocated exploring the idea of Intermarium for more than 10 years now. https://counter-currents.com/tag/intermarium/
That is good, but how can Eastern Europeans rely on the US when your Trump changes his opinion about the American foreign policy three or four times a day, depending on who he last spoke to?
Exactly. Europeans need to move quickly to another collective security architecture.
As a Dane I have – as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread – been well and truly surprised by a fervor this situation has created among Normie-Danes on the Danish corners of Facebook.
It seems as if overnight Greenland went from being barely noticed land of dysfunctional drunkards to an integral part of the kingdom of Denmark. Which it simply isn’t. The history of the connection between Denmark and Greenland is complex, but in brief until the dissolution of Denmark-Norway in 1814 Greenland along with Iceland and the Faroe Islands were part of Norway – Afterwards Denmark retains Greenland (and Iceland (Until 1944) and the Faroe Islands) – From then on Greenland is a considered a colony until 1953 when it briefly reclassified as an amt and thus administratively speaking a part of the kingdom (though it retained a lot of its own peculiar institutions), then in 1979 it was granted home-rule, which it has retained ever since. Under the present home-rule act (2009) it is even stated that the Greenlanders are a separate people form the Danes and they have the right to seek independence if they so choose. Greenland is part of the Rigsfællesskab (Normally translated into English as ‘The Danish Commonwealth’) not the actual Kingdom of Denmark
Yet I have seen people claim that giving up Greenland is the same as giving up Southern Jutland or the island of Bornholm. I have also seen a man translate ‘Rigsfællesskabet’ as ‘The Kingdom of Denmark’, which is a highly tendentious translation.
Add to this that under the present state of affairs, Greenland is simply a net drain on Danish resources – The Danish state subsidizes Greenland, while the Greenlandic home-rule is granted all the proceeds from any kind of mineral extraction taking placing within Greenland.
In fairness I have also seen Rune Selsing (A self-professed national-conservative) point out that this fervor for the ‘defense of Greenland’ is a parody of Danish nationalism ( https://jyllands-posten.dk/debat/kommentar/ECE18901329/danmarks-kamp-for-groenland-er-en-parodi-paa-nationalisme/?fp-exp=60671012&fp-alg=606710122 For those who can read Danish) and Lars Boje Mathiesen (Chairman of a Danish populist party) argue that the Greenlanders need to decide whether or not they want in or out of the Danish Commonwealth, and in case they want in to make it clear that Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark ( https://www.facebook.com/LBMathiesen/posts/pfbid0KbAd1s9hiqCw9rPUa963jGAk2Lpfd7sMW64TiB1prKv7QcbmqzVZPcxZo8XezcA3l?__cft__%5B0%5D=AZaKft2JNk2TlVg2NY4n__kzaHg2ZdF1dzf2zt79YfuKayEPncm1ouSw0cGr8atrcJCnymrzf3pkK1e8dqhfrUhAoN9lX5EtggvuYv13lA6qtdY26dZGqi8jc1ASLRPhiSzQ_KcIQcNYeFwMKLa6KPGdJivnuwGql4e7rZFWFF6Jx4U0YAou-FVcOxdXaDdJgtg&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R Again, for those who can read Danish).
Personally, I think the greatest missed opportunity in recent Danish history was not selling Greenland back when Trump first floated the idea. Though I suppose full integration with the Kingdom of Denmark would have its upsides too.
The strange thing is that unless I am misinformed, the US already has free military access to Greenland. So unless, as Zsutty suggests, this interest in Greenland is part of Trumps ‘revenge tour’, it only makes sense if the assumption is that NATO is not going to endure long, and thus the US cannot rely on the existing treaties.
It seems as if overnight Greenland went from being barely noticed land of dysfunctional drunkards to an integral part of the kingdom of Denmark.
Almost the same happened with the Falkland Islands in 1982. Before the Argentinian invasion nobody in the UK cared about the Isles, and many in the Foreign Office would be glad to ged rid of them and to give them over to Argies (but, well, the population of Falklands did not want this!). But after the invasion all the British suddendly wished to keep the Isles, the Royal Navy went there and defeated the Argentinians. I really do not know if somebody NOW still cares about the Isles and their population.
Ordinarily I’d oppose any aggression by the American empire, but evidently Trump’s efforts to grab Greenland by force or threat of force will be enough to shatter NATO, and that would be a good thing.
and that would be a good thing.
Especially for Comrade Pu and his puppet-master Comrade Xi.
Now NATO countries say if Trump keeps up the pressure to obtain Greenland they will weaken NATO and become more independent of America, another of Trump’s long-term goals or, as the adage puts it, cut off their nose to spite their face.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.