What future do you wish for Greenland?

[forkup]

The closest point as the crow flies from Russia to the north coast of Greenland is over 3,000 miles but ships go not cross the artic in a straight line due to ice. The real distance from nearest Russian naval base to Greenland is 4,000 to 5,000 miles. A fast Russian cruiser in perfect weather might be able to make the trip in 7 to 10 days. However with the typical weather in the Arctic, it would take several weeks and if the ice was really bad it could be close to a month.

Glancing at a globe, one might think Russia and Greenland are very close, but they aren't.

I didn’t think they were close to begin with.

And to circle back to this increasingly ridiculous claim that Russia or China could “take Greenland”:
This isn’t a game of Risk where you just move a piece onto a square and call it conquered. Taking territory from a nation-state means occupying it, supplying it, reinforcing it, and holding it.

In the real world, that means Russia or China would have to move troops across thousands of miles, establish secure supply lines, and then defeat or neutralize the U.S. Navy and Air Force long enough to keep those troops alive. Otherwise, whatever force they land would be cut off, isolated, and starved out in short order.

So no, this isn’t about whether a ship can physically reach a point on a map. It’s about whether Russia or China can fight, and win, a war against the United States in its own backyard, while triggering NATO’s collective defense obligations.

They can’t.
Anyone claiming otherwise is either arguing in bad faith or doesn’t understand even the most basic requirements of modern military power projection.

 

[Flopper]

Are you really that naive to believe that NATO would do anything if China or Russia moved on Greenland?

Neither Russia or China are going make a move Greenland and here is why:

China relies heavily on it's huge standing army of over 3.5 million. Unlike the US, they do not fight wars far from it's border, the Korean War (1950-53), the Sino-Indian War (1962), and the Sino-Vietnamese War (1979). The reason for this is they do not have the logistics, medical, maintenance, and supply chains to maintain combat over 5,000 miles from their homeland.

Russia has no desire for war over Greenland witch would mean war with NATO and the US. They can not match NATO and US on land, sea, or air. Just the likelihood of a Russian occupation of Greenland would force the US into a full nuclear response against Russia. Secondly, unlike Ukraine, Greenland has nothing that Russia needs. It is just another Siberia, an undeveloped arctic wasteland.

 

[Flopper]

Are you really that naive to believe that NATO would do anything if China or Russia moved on Greenland?

Neither Russia or China are going make a move Greenland and here is why:

China relies heavily on it's huge standing army of over 3.5 million. Unlike the US, they do not fight wars far from it's border, the Korean War (1950-53), the Sino-Indian War (1962), and the Sino-Vietnamese War (1979). The reason for this is they do not have the logistics, medical, maintenance, and supply chains to maintain combat over 5,000 miles from their homeland.

Russia has no desire for war over Greenland witch would mean war with NATO and the US. They can not match NATO and US on land, sea, or air. Just the likelihood of a Russian occupation of Greenland would force the US into a full nuclear response against Russia. Secondly, unlike Ukraine, Greenland has nothing that Russia needs. It is just another Siberia, an undeveloped attic wasteland.

 

[Mac1958]

I wouldn't dismiss the idea entirely with Trump in office. It would not surprise me if tomorrow he said Denmark is next.

There are no barriers. We're a predator country now, and the world knows it.

Lebensraum.

 

[MostBoringManInTheWorld]

It isn't easy being Greenland.

 

[fncceo]

Status quo.

No peaceful nation or territory deserves to be threatened by an aggressive predator nation, especially one that used to be a good friend and ally.

It’s OK. We made up now.

 

[22lcidw]

There are no barriers. We're a predator country now, and the world knows it.

Lebensraum.

We are top dog in a three-way race. internally we have a globalist movement that has pushed agendas that have weakened us on purpose. Russia has a massive nuclear deterrence and a smaller economy. China has the greatest potential due to manufacturing infrastructure. We are a nation that realizes power is made on conquering. Take Greenland as payment for defending Europe for so long and give Europe North Africa and we take the rest of it.

 

[Failzero]

Kinda a combination of Guam and Puerco Rico ( with a hint of the Philippines )

 

[Seymour Flops]

700,000 sq.miles of an uninhabitable ice sheet with about 3,000 starving polar bears.

6,000 starving polar bears? That's a bit fanciful, isn't it?

If an animal population is starving, it dies off or migrates until the population is reduced enough that it can live on the available food. If the food was never available i n the first place, the population would not have grown in the first place.

Makes me question your grasp on the facts.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Arguments for a nation's ownership to its land are rooted in the concepts of sovereignty, historical claims, and international law.

As a practical matter Denmark's claim to Greenland stems from its union with Norway in 1380, with Greenland passing to Danish control when the Denmark-Norway union dissolved in 1814.

A nation's claim to land most often originates due to a union or dissolved union such as this or conquest as the case with most US acquisition of states and territories. Who is the most deserving of ownership, the nation who acquires the land by conquest or by agreement.

Then how did Norway get it?

Since the "agreement" was between two European nations, I don't see how it binds the native Greenlanders.

 

[Flopper]

6,000 starving polar bears? That's a bit fanciful, isn't it?

If an animal population is starving, it dies off or migrates until the population is reduced enough that it can live on the available food. If the food was never available i n the first place, the population would not have grown in the first place.

Makes me question your grasp on the facts.

I wrote 3000 not 600”

6,000 starving polar bears? That's a bit fanciful, isn't it?

If an animal population is starving, it dies off or migrates until the population is reduced enough that it can live on the available food. If the food was never available i n the first place, the population would not have grown in the first place.

Makes me question your grasp on the facts.

I wrote 3000 not 6000

 

[Rogue AI]

If US military thought there was even a hint that Russia or China was seriously making a move on Greenland, we would have a military buildup in Greenland going on right now.

The 1951 Defense of Greenland Treaty between the U.S. and Denmark grants the U.S. broad rights to establish and operate military bases, including constructing new ones as well as housing troops there indefinitely.

Officials from Denmark and Greenland have stated the existing treaty already allows the U.S. increased military presence and cooperation from Denmark and Greenland, so why does Trump keep making threats to take over Greenland?

The US will pay the lion's share in any conflict involving Greenland. Largely because Denmark lacks the resources to defend it with limited aid. They are utterly dependent on us to defend their territory. That is ridiculous. How is it liberal loons fail to grasp that?

 

[Billiejeens]

Whatever their residents want,

If we want to use some of their natural resources, then just compensate them.

The residents are basically renters.

The landlord actually owns the mortgage.

 

[Billiejeens]

Dude NATO countries as we speak are sending troops to Greenland to OPPOSE the perceived threat of American troops invading.

Stick your head in the sand as much as you please. But in general alliances don't react well when the countries in it perceive each other as threats.

they aren't.

 

[Billiejeens]

It isn't easy being Greenland.

 

[Rawley]

Status quo.

No peaceful nation or territory deserves to be threatened by an aggressive predator nation, especially one that used to be a good friend and ally.

SO you think Denmark can and will protect the National Security interest of the US when Russia comes?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Denmark is a kingdom.

#NOKINGS, right?

 

[Zebra]

The residents are basically renters.

The landlord actually owns the mortgage.

Renters or rendeers?

 

[Zebra]

Denmark is a kingdom.

#NOKINGS, right?

And no Queens either?

 

[22lcidw]

Neither Russia or China are going make a move Greenland and here is why:

China relies heavily on it's huge standing army of over 3.5 million. Unlike the US, they do not fight wars far from it's border, the Korean War (1950-53), the Sino-Indian War (1962), and the Sino-Vietnamese War (1979). The reason for this is they do not have the logistics, medical, maintenance, and supply chains to maintain combat over 5,000 miles from their homeland.

Russia has no desire for war over Greenland witch would mean war with NATO and the US. They can not match NATO and US on land, sea, or air. Just the likelihood of a Russian occupation of Greenland would force the US into a full nuclear response against Russia. Secondly, unlike Ukraine, Greenland has nothing that Russia needs. It is just another Siberia, an undeveloped arctic wasteland.

China is building a world class navy with no end to their ships. Russia is building ships for the arctic as there is massive oil and minerals there with the sea lanes more opened due to ice melting. Russia survives on resources much more then awe do and has a lot of them.