He’s also asking what right Denmark has to it, which is what I addressed. USA gave us that right.
I don’t really think they’re going to do anything just now. USA can already have all the military they want on Greenland. They’re the ones who are supposed to protect it, so if they choose to attack, what the hell are they supposed to attack? The snow?
It would basically mean that they withdraw from NATO, which is a bit over the top for putting a flag in the snow in an area they already control.
I think that it’s all a distraction. They’re probably going for a surprise attack in Panama any day now.
I guess in the CNN interview he said that? I just read the article, which would make me think his response would simply be “Well Denmark’s smaller military means they have no rights”.
But you are absolutely right that USA can pretty much already stage whatever military presence they want in Greenland so long as everyone can rationalize it as supporting NATO objectives, which would generally rubber stamp Greenland. The ‘we need Greenland for defense’ rings hollow with that.
However, I think the military is an excuse, and they really want:
To have probable ports in a potentially more relevant shipping activity and extract some economic control from that position
To hedge bets against warming to have some land that might be more attractive if local temperatures rise a certain amount
Exert greater pressure on Canada to join up, being surrounded basically on all sides by USA.
They see a significant land mass with fewer than 100k as a cakewalk, from a force perspective, and given their ‘might makes right’ philosophy, it could be a likely next stepping stone.
He’s also asking what right Denmark has to it, which is what I addressed. USA gave us that right.
I don’t really think they’re going to do anything just now. USA can already have all the military they want on Greenland. They’re the ones who are supposed to protect it, so if they choose to attack, what the hell are they supposed to attack? The snow?
It would basically mean that they withdraw from NATO, which is a bit over the top for putting a flag in the snow in an area they already control.
I think that it’s all a distraction. They’re probably going for a surprise attack in Panama any day now.
If nobody fights back, it means everyone has withdrawn from NATO.
I guess in the CNN interview he said that? I just read the article, which would make me think his response would simply be “Well Denmark’s smaller military means they have no rights”.
But you are absolutely right that USA can pretty much already stage whatever military presence they want in Greenland so long as everyone can rationalize it as supporting NATO objectives, which would generally rubber stamp Greenland. The ‘we need Greenland for defense’ rings hollow with that.
However, I think the military is an excuse, and they really want:
They see a significant land mass with fewer than 100k as a cakewalk, from a force perspective, and given their ‘might makes right’ philosophy, it could be a likely next stepping stone.