Dem
47
GOP
53
We are not going to do a Minneapolis item today. It's a very disheartening story, we need a breather, and we think readers do, too. It will be back on Friday, though.
We do want to do the companion to yesterday's piece on Greenland, however. We have no particular expertise in military operations conducted in a very cold environment using 21st century troops and technology. So, when it comes to an unlikely but not impossible American invasion of that island, we are torn between two conflicting instinctive responses: (1) the American military is very big and powerful and will be hard to defeat, and (2) invading a frozen tundra is no small task, especially if you face serious opposition.
Fortunately, we have readers who know more than we do, and so we can pass along their insight. First, a couple of views on American military readiness for this fight, from the U.S. side of the pond:
D.A.Y. in Troy, MI: Something that is starting to be discussed is that the United States is physically incapable of taking—let alone holding—Greenland by military force. It is not that the U.S. military lacks the numbers, but rather the unique capability to fight over and occupy an arctic island.
The United States has a grand total of one military icebreaker, an ancient and decrepit one at that. This means invading by sea, as well as resupply by sea, are non-starters. And Canada would instantly close their airspace, meaning any air attack and supply lines would have to go around. Depending on the air would also mean being susceptible to the weather.
Then there is the problem the U.S. military has had since the end of World War II. Their equipment, training, and tactical and strategic doctrines are based on the last war. Our equipment is designed to fight in deserts. They would have to be retrofitted for extreme cold and troops would need to be trained to fight on an ice cap. All of this would take years, by which point Donald Trump will be gone.
I do not think Trump realizes what Greenland actually is. It is the world's biggest bowl of shaved ice. You take away the ice, and there are parts of its interior that are below sea level. Even if there are resources there to exploit, they are buried under thousands of feet of ice once you get away from the coasts. There is a reason only a few tens of thousands of people call it home, and they mostly stick to those coasts. No one is going to want to go to the trouble to extract those resources when they are more accessible elsewhere.
This is purely a vanity project. Trump wants maps to change from Greenland (Denmark) to Greenland (U.S.) because of him. Though if he really wanted to make his mark on the maps, he could support statehood for Puerto Rico. If he was the president to grant P.R. statehood, it might be a magenta state rather than the indigo state it would likely be if done under a Democratic president. The fact that this evades him as he tilts at windmills in the Arctic just shows logic and sanity have long since left what he calls his mind.
E.L. in San Diego, CA: Regarding the possibility of the U.S. attempting a military takeover of Greenland, you wrote: "There is no way the European troops could stave off an American attack... "
You may want to reassess your evaluation of the situation. For now, the European NATO countries are sending just a "scouting team" to Greenland. In reality, the U.S. military is ill-prepared for Arctic warfare at sea and, especially, on land:
The Equipment GapThe Personnel Gap
- While the U.S. has the world's most powerful military overall, its Arctic-specific land and sea inventory is currently dwarfed by the specialized, high-readiness fleets, ice-breakers, and vehicle pools maintained by its Northern European allies. Collectively, allies like Canada, Finland, Norway and Sweden operate a combined fleet that is roughly 10 times larger than the U.S. inventory.
- In addition, U.S. equipment frequently faces hydraulic and electronic failures at -40°C, whereas Nordic allies use platforms designed and "NATO-certified" specifically for these extremes.
- The U.S has an Arctic force of 11,000-12,000 troops (based in Alaska). While the U.S. can deploy more troops globally, only this division is dedicated to high-latitude warfare.
- The European NATO allies have an estimated 60,000+ Arctic trained and equipped troops. Countries like Norway, Finland and Sweden maintain large, permanent Arctic brigades.
- Finland alone can mobilize a massive reserve force of nearly 1 million, with tens of thousands of active-duty and high-readiness troops specifically trained for Lapland's sub-arctic conditions.
- Sweden is currently engaged in its largest military buildup since the Cold War.
- In addition, NATO includes specialized units like the U.K.'s Royal Marines and Canada's Arctic units.
Ok, we're sold—invading Greenland is a stupid idea. Well, actually, we already thought that. But now we are persuaded that it would be folly from a military perspective, as well as a geopolitical and domestic political perspective. We retract our previous remarks about the likelihood of U.S. success.
And to round it out, how about a couple of perspectives from the other side of the pond?
V.W. in Wiltshire, England, UK: You wrote: "There is no way the European troops could stave off an American attack... "
I wouldn't be too sure about that. You are of course correct that nobody can rival the United States in terms of sheer firepower—the 'blowing everything to bits' part. But to actually take and hold the largest island in the world with its harsh climate? See Ukraine, 2022 (ongoing), and Finland, 1939/40 (or if you want to go further back, Virginia in the late 1770's). It could well end up as Vietnam-on-ice. In particular, some of the European NATO militaries, while small, are especially well trained, equipped and adapted to fighting in extreme cold/Arctic conditions (especially Finland, but also Norway, Sweden, Denmark/Greenland, with Britain, the Netherlands and Canada also having significant capabilities). While we would absolutely hate to be put in that position, if the United States were to attack Greenland, then I think most or all of European NATO would feel obliged to support Denmark. Exactly what form that support might take is TBD. But it should not be assumed the U.S. would only face token resistance.
You are right to acknowledge the challenges faced by Napoleon (and Hitler) in securing a big, sparse, cold landmass. You are also right to think that such events would open a huge set of questions that until now nobody thought were on the table. Until very recently, nobody here doubted that in the event of strife, America would have our backs. The first Trump Administration's messaging made Europe take its own defense more seriously than it had been and that was no bad thing (he wasn't wrong).
But the prospect of America actually being the aggressor against us takes things to another layer of batshi**edness. RAF Fairford, RAF Mildenhall, and Ramstein... will we have to ask you to take your planes and go home, or even (and I can't believe I'm typing this) attempt to destroy them on the ground? Do the likes of Germany, Poland, Italy, Sweden (and indeed maybe Denmark!) need to urgently seek to acquire their own nukes, or come to some nuclear-sharing arrangement with the U.K. and France? Do we all need to urgently reduce our militaries' reliance on American suppliers? None of this is good, for either side of the Atlantic. Someone needs to tell your President to knock it off.
S.S.T. in Copenhagen, Denmark: I would like to add a few comments, on an evening where I have just read about Donald Trump stating that he needs Greenland mainly for a feeling of "psychological success."
While it is true that the Danish authority arrived by historical accident, it is firmly rooted in international law.
That said, a lot of Danish politicians still act with impunity and colonial arrogance, even if Greenland has had home rule since 1979. My personal opinion is that when Greenland decides to activate the clause in the agreement from 2009 with Denmark about full independence it is all the better for both Denmark and Greenland.
Also note that the Palaeo-Eskimo cultures of Dorset and Saqqaq were long gone by the time the Norse arrived. The present Inuit arrived around 1100-1200 and the Norse communities were left in the early 15th century (apparently in an orderly fashion). Denmark reimposed authority in 1721 and managed to retain the Faroes, Iceland and Greenland, which rightly belonged to Norway, when the two kingdoms were separated by force in 1814.
This infuriated the Norwegians who, after gaining full independence from Sweden in 1905, questioned the Danish rights to Greenland in international courts. The courts ruled firmly for Denmark in 1933.
During the Second World War, the Danish ambassador to the U.S., Henrik Kauffmann, made a deal with Franklin D. Roosevelt on American bases on Greenland, and this deal was formalized within the NATO framework in 1951 and reconfirmed in 2004 when the Igaluk agreement was signed by the Greenlanders, the Danes and none other than Colin Powell.
As to possible arrangements, by law, Denmark cannot sell Greenland. It is really as simple as that. The Greenlanders may choose full independence and will then naturally seek American protection, but I think they will be very leery of the Micronesian arrangement, and they certainly don't want to be an American state. Considering that most Greenlanders are VERY left-wing that would also be a very stupid thing to allow for the GOP. The two present representatives in the Danish Folketing are both WAY to the left of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
So, let's review. First, the Trump administration has no legal leg to stand on here. Second, if the Trump administration makes a move of any sort, it will aggravate everyone, and they will take a giant sledgehammer to the United States' military presence abroad (e.g., shared bases). Third, if the U.S. is actually foolish enough to invade Greenland, it will be yet another case of American military leadership overreaching, since the U.S. is not at all prepared for this kind of war.
And all of that is before we talk about the vast economic blows that would rain down upon the U.S. Anyone and everyone has already talked about how a trade war would be a given, leaving the U.S. cut off from most or all of its most important markets. We've also had a few readers write in to point out another angle that's not getting enough attention. China and the various European powers hold vast amounts of U.S. currency and U.S. Treasury bonds. If they get angry enough, they could flood the market, triggering an economic downturn for the U.S. that will make the Great Depression look like a game of patty cake.
One hopes that Trump's people will finally talk him out of this foolishness. Failing that, one hopes that the Republicans in Congress will be so frightened of the consequences, they will finally put their feet down, and will put a stop to it. But given what's happened in the last decade, you certainly can't be positive about either of these things. If Trump does pull the trigger, and the foreseeable consequences come to pass, then it could turn a potential blue wave into a blue 1,000-year flood. (Z)