Denmark launches $2 billion Arctic security plan, seeks EU unity on Greenland

A hot conflict in Greenland between EU and US was not on my bingo card for 2025. Reality has jumped the shark somewhere around 2016.

It actually IS on my bingo card. Yay?
- You had a random sentence generator making that card, didn't you.
- What else is? I wanna see if you are close ro a bingo.
- Darn, I have Gotland and Svalbard on mine. Well, there's still hope.

So, I’ve heard tell from MAGAts(sadly my town has plenty them and I can’t afford to escape yet), not only do they support takeover of a sovereign nation, but they’re ready for hostile takeover. They expect “adoption” of Greenland to be purely political and transactional, and funded by China through all the tariffs (🙄), but are not against armed conflict.

First, what the fuck, but second, how ready is NATO to turn on supposedly one of their own? I know Trump wants out of NATO, and surely this would be a quick way out, but would anyone chicken out of the fight and let Trump move in? I keep getting told that the “magic Article 5 argument isn’t a guarantee of support. There are no requirements to go to war for an ally, just pre-emptive permission to join in. It’s still voluntary, and few are so stupid as to stand against the [~~Empire!~~] USA!” (Brackets mine).

This timeline makes me sick.

Greenland is, for the time being, unless and until Greenland decides otherwise, EU territory. The EU's mutual defence clause is not voluntary, it's "obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in [the member state's] power". All the means, not just any. Only way to get out of that is to be a traditionally neutral country which, with Finland and Sweden aligned, now should only be Austria.
The EU has a harder defense clause than NATO Article 5
funded by China through all the tariffs

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha I wonder when they're going to realize
- Maybe when some actually stick. He’s toeing the line now, uses them for threats to seal the deal but none have stuck yet.
  
  But MAGAs will twist it into a win either way. Things get too expensive to import? Yay domestic factories! Jobs! Economic independence! Companies won’t give all our jobs to China when it costs more than employing us!
…People are actually discussing this seriously? IRL? Are you kidding?

Please tell me you are making this up.
- I wish. I really wish. A good /s tag would have been nice but no.
  
  I’m sorry but there are people that side with Trump on Greenland, Canada, and Panama. They think Panama will be easiest because Trump will find some loophole to annul the original treaty because we’re “being shafted with fees funding China”. Then when we get it, we’ll get all the fees and that’ll solve our national debt.
  
  Greenland is next easiest because they “already want out from under Denmark. We can help with that.” Of course that supposedly secures our Arctic interests.
  
  Canada is the fuzziest. They agree they want it, because “America has the means and the will to get out those resources they are just sitting on, and the ability to turn all that empty land into livable space and end the housing crisis.” But they seem to think Canadians are fed up with their leadership and “broken healthcare you wait months for” and are just going to offer themselves up.
  
  All in all, it’s what you might expect. A bunch of people who feel they aren’t getting what they want in today’s world are looking backwards to the “good old days” of like the American West. They want more land of opportunity, frontiers to go out and stake a claim to. Legit a few of them like to think that there will be homesteader claims on any new territory the US picks up, so they can finally leave their tiny lot and go stake a claim on 10 acres of Greenland or Canadian wildland to run as their own little kingdom.
  
  No, take that MAGAs at their word. Trust that they are exactly who they say they are, and that Trump and all he says will be attempted or at least used to make some lesser capitulation seem reasonable. Maybe he won’t take Panama, but he will threaten to until Panama cuts US trade fees significantly, things like that.
First, what the fuck, but second, how ready is NATO to turn on supposedly one of their own?

Turkey has been threatening to invade Greece since forever. Thats why both countries joined NATO together, at the same time(in 1952). And while there is some confidence regarding article 5, you cant have your country existence depend on "hope". Thats why recently Greece signed a separate defence agreement with France.

And generally Greece is one of the few NATO countries that consistently spends more than the required NATO 2%. It generally tries to maintain a 1:3 ratio when it comes to Turkey military spending which might not be enough to beat Turkey 1:1 but it is enough to make Turkey think twice about doing anything weird. The issue is that Turkey is 8x bigger and not that poor anymore(while Greece is smaller and poorer than in the past).

I keep getting told that the “magic Article 5 argument isn’t a guarantee of support. There are no requirements to go to war for an ally, just pre-emptive permission to join in. It’s still voluntary, and few are so stupid as to stand against the [Empire!] USA!” (Brackets mine).

All agreements between nations are "voluntary". You cant force a country to do anything, they are a sovereign state, ie they can do whatever they want. The article 5 has very strongly written language and it is one of the most "mandated" agreements you can have. But ultimately, it is about trust and belief in it.

Thats why Russia's plan is to erode the belief in article 5 though hybrid warfare(and trump, if you think trump is compromised). Let's say Russia goes and occupies 500sq meters of a baltic state. Would the US send 10 aircraft carriers and declare war on Russia? Maybe they will and then Russia would go "oups, my bad, didnt notice the map line". Or maybe they wont. But even the discussion over whether NATO allies would strongly react to such a development, would corrode belief in article 5.

So how does NATO article 5 work when the attacker is also in NATO? I guess if Trump leaves NATO as he's been promising it won't be an issue anymore.

NATO article 5 will side against the aggressor.
- NATO will simply dissolve when a NATO member is the attacker.
  Article 5 is triggered by a unanimous vote among all members. So the US could just veto it.

given denmark is part of nato I assume us troops would be required to defend it.

Maybe this will be the reason Trump makes the US leave the NATO

Each EU country should send 11 soldiers to Greenland. We can call them the EU 300 and they can use the "come and take them" motto. They will function as a tripwire, in case of an american invasion and it would show the EU commitment to the defense of the union.

Wondering, in this scenario, would the US military follow orders, or would we see a coup, deposing Trump?

glad to hear it