Betraying an ally isn't just a war—it's the end of global trust and the collapse of an empire
Great question!
Here is the TLDR: A total of 3 major things would happen
- The US military would take Greenland without a fight. The only military assets in Greenland are US assets at US bases, and Denmark doesn’t have much of a military.
- EDIT: Yes, Europe has deployed forces. In total, a grand total of 40….. men. No units, not platoons. Just 40 guys.
- NATO would likely dissolve within a few days, as such an attack would be considered a breach of the alliance's founding principles, involving a conflict between two founding NATO members. It wouldn’t trigger Article 5 just because nobody wants a major war, but it would trigger Article 1.
- Article 1 states: The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations
- The US Military would be gutted, and China would become the dominant power. The US has lots of stuff in NATO nations. Stuff we won’t get back.
Greenland is a territory of Denmark, which is a NATO ally; we all know this. If the leader of NATO attacks a much smaller NATO member (or any NATO member), then the alliance dissolves.
This would be a disaster for the US.
Here is the thing- do you ever wonder how the US can have ships operating near Yemen and in the Mediterranean, and Asia, and the Caribbean, and deploy troops ANYWHERE within a day? The answer: NATO.
NATO members host US bases with US troops. It also hosts US bases with equipment and no troops. Say a war with Russia broke out. Well, it is difficult to transport 1,000 tanks to Europe in a few days. So the US, over the years, has stationed an entire Armored Division in Europe without the men. So if war broke out, we would just fly in the men, and they would hop in the tanks. There are lots of examples of this.
- A huge “medical center” for US forces, thanks to NATO, is in Germany, where many injured US soldiers are sent to recover
- There are air bases and missile defense systems in Turkey
- There are Naval ports in Italy, Turkey, and Spain that allow the US to house and supply ships in the region
- There are hardened bases in Spain and the UK that can load up missiles in vertical launch systems on ships
- Food, medicine, weapons, ammunition, Bradleys, Abrams, Artillery Guns, and more are stationed in ports ALL OVER THE GLOBE, which allows the US to fly in a Battalion and field a heavy combat unit within a day or less.
Now, would any sane nation allow the US to house F-35s and troops in their nation when it is attacking other NATO allies? NO- NEVER.
Understand the magnitude of this. The US has 8,000 to 10,000 aircraft, 6,000 tanks, and thousands of other weapons systems. THESE ARE NOT INSIDE THE USA. Some are, but the US is protected by Oceans and a massive Navy, so the US has deployed the VAST MAJORITY of its military hardware to NATO nations- at bases and depots. That way if we need to fight Russia, Syria, Iran, China, and whoever, we don’t have gear nearby. So if NATO nations become hostile, afraid, they will “take” this hardware because they will be afraid of a US attack (and rightfully so).
Most nations will HAPPILY accept 45 billion dollars worth of 6th-gen aircraft, Abrams Tanks, and state-of-the-art military hardware and give the US the finger. The US can be as mad as it wants, but it just lost 2/3rds of its hardware- it cannot do much but further threaten and alienate allies.
Here is what is even more mind-numbing.
The reason Greenland is important comes down to 3 factors
- Access to trading routes in the North as icecaps melt
- Putting more bases on the Island to control the North
- Mineral and oil extraction
The big thing is control over the North and those trade routes.
The US currently has control through the UK and Iceland, THANKS TO NATO. They would leave NATO over this, meaning the defensive position in the North would weaken significantly. Seriously look at this “region” with NATO nations in blue. Tell me who has “control.”
Also factor in that the US has military bases in Greenland already, THANKS TO NATO. Imagine if it was just Greenland?
DO YOU SEE WHY SMART PEOPLE VALUE NATO?????
Right now, Trump is making a direct military threat against a NATO member. This has other NATO members racing to build their own armed forces to perhaps face the US. Also we all know war with China is likely. Winning that war comes down to the floating aircraft carrier called Japan and the strong regional military of South Korea. Without them the US has a limited footing and these nations may even side with China (though will more likely remain neutral).
EDIT/ADDITION
- Europe did deploy forces, but they sent 40 men, total. France sent 15, Germany sent 13, and then a few other nations sent a unit. These 40 men won’t hold back the US and the UK and France (nuclear powers) don’t want war with another nuclear power, which is the most significant economic partner by a mile.
- Understand the response won’t be “war right now over Denmark's territory, it stole from native peoples”- instead, it will be days of meetings, mobilization, threats, and then the breakdown of NATO.
- These men are a “deterrent” force. This is what the USA should have done in early 2022. If a US Ranger Regiment were “training” in Ukraine, Putin could not invade and risk harming US forces. France, Germany, the UK, Sweden, and so on are hoping the same.
- Reports vary, but it is widely “rumored” that Trump's most loyal Generals ENTIRELY oppose this because they know what it means. Additionally, it looks like it is opposed by everyone except Hegseth.
- I wrote this answer rather quickly based on a few reports from ex-Generals and other people with
Last thing. US doctrine for the Cold War (and still) is to pre-deploy forces because the USA is a long way from Europe. Imagine moving all those tanks, helicopters, APCs, ammunition, and endless other items to ports. It took the US 6 months to deploy a mere portion of its forces from the US to the Kuwait border before Desert Storm.
The gear is an issue, but we will build more. Also, our ex-allies in Eastern Europe will need the extensive hardware we leave behind. The issue is that we will lose
- All of our intel network which are based on cooperation and span the globe. No more British, French, German, Polish, Turkish, Korean, or Japanese intel.
- We lose our bases, which means our “air cover” goes from global to just the USA
- We lose all leverage and control over everything. The US dollar will no longer be the reserve currency anywhere, and nations will seek new trading partners as the US plummets into a depression and then extreme isolationism.
- NATO nations WANT US bases because that means US protection, training, and assistance in weapons production (or just the sale of weapons). This gives the US leverage to sell US products (produced goods like phones or raw resources) in these foreign markets. This will be over, and the US GDP will nose-dive.
- Additionally, many NATO nations hold US debt that they WILL call in.
- I would expect sanctions too against the US over such actions, which again, will KILL the US economy. This, in combination with tariffs, will force trading partners to seek out new markets and abandon the US.
- This is no coming back from this. Attacking an ally is the ultimate betrayal- it is complete proof that your nation cannot be trusted under ANY circumstances. Historically, when nations turn on their allies, their global standing is eliminated, and every single nation seeks to distance itself from EVERYTHING to do with that nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment