Denmark's Mette Frederiksen said "everything would stop" in the event of a US attack on another NATO country. European leaders have backed Frederiksen while saying the US "is an essential partner."
No, it wouldn’t. Not unless we end up with a world war.
Trump attacking Greenland triggers article 5. Denmark calls for NATO to support them against this act of aggression.
Either NATO steps up and together counters the US, or they collectively pussy out, and from there on every member knows that the alliance is a paper tiger. A promise on paper that means nothing in practice. And Putin immediately invades the Baltics.
The only version of this where NATO survives without a war is one where the alliance is able to strongarm Trump into backing down from an invasion by threatening war, without actually having to go through with it. But if we’ve reached the point of the US actually invading a NATO member, I really don’t see “backing down” being in the cards.
A note: EU treaties also have a mutual defense clause.
So at that point, even if NATO stops existing, the EU would help Denmark fight the US.
Militarily, EU countries won’t be able to defend Greenland. It would get occupied by air. But some could make occupation a misery (e.g. “unfortunately a Swedish submarine has again sunk an aircraft carrier”).
If it became a military conflict, the EU would almost certainly ask China for an alliance (and ask to ensure Russian neutrality in return for alliance, which China could ensure since it contols Russia’s chip supply), and to prevent the US from moving its Pacific fleet to the Atlantic.
Even without Chinese involvement, given their attitude to US adventures, South American countries might make it impossible for the US Pacific fleet to move through the Panama canal, which the US would have to open by force. But it might become blocked with scuttled cargo ships and impossible to pass anyway. At which point global trade routes would be badly distorted. The US would likely try using the Suez canal to move its Indian Ocean assets to the Atlantic. EU would likely try to negotiate its closure or force it closed with sabotage - some cargo ships accidentally sinking there to considerably delay the rate of arrival of US vessels to the Mediterranean, so that they could be sunk there (likely to succeed, back yard fight). The US might try sending reinforcements through the Arctic, which they’re currently not well prepared for (Canada might or might not obstruct them). Meanwhile, global economic crisis would be hammering everyone, but Eurasia being a large contigous piece of land with the most people on it - damage would likely be reduced there.
With the US Pacific fleet sufficiently diluted, China would either negotiate the surrender of Taiwan or conquer it.
Overall, I think the US would get Greenland. In case military activity starts, it would get considerable losses at sea. An exchange of islands would happen. A vast island with 50 thousand people against a small island with 20 million people and globally vital industries.
In any case, everyone would get an exceptionally bad economic crisis. In the worst case, a world war with nuclear exchanges might start, and might escalate into civilization-ending war.
The current US administration should be somehow made aware of this. I wonder how to communicate to them a sentence like “the US seizing Greenland means a 100% chance of China seizing Taiwan and a 50% chance of world war (most likely the last of them)”.
NATO minus 1 would continue, though. Or maybe also minus Hungary and any other deadweight fascist regimes.
No, it wouldn’t. Not unless we end up with a world war.
Trump attacking Greenland triggers article 5. Denmark calls for NATO to support them against this act of aggression.
Either NATO steps up and together counters the US, or they collectively pussy out, and from there on every member knows that the alliance is a paper tiger. A promise on paper that means nothing in practice. And Putin immediately invades the Baltics.
The only version of this where NATO survives without a war is one where the alliance is able to strongarm Trump into backing down from an invasion by threatening war, without actually having to go through with it. But if we’ve reached the point of the US actually invading a NATO member, I really don’t see “backing down” being in the cards.
A note: EU treaties also have a mutual defense clause.
So at that point, even if NATO stops existing, the EU would help Denmark fight the US.
Militarily, EU countries won’t be able to defend Greenland. It would get occupied by air. But some could make occupation a misery (e.g. “unfortunately a Swedish submarine has again sunk an aircraft carrier”).
If it became a military conflict, the EU would almost certainly ask China for an alliance (and ask to ensure Russian neutrality in return for alliance, which China could ensure since it contols Russia’s chip supply), and to prevent the US from moving its Pacific fleet to the Atlantic.
Even without Chinese involvement, given their attitude to US adventures, South American countries might make it impossible for the US Pacific fleet to move through the Panama canal, which the US would have to open by force. But it might become blocked with scuttled cargo ships and impossible to pass anyway. At which point global trade routes would be badly distorted. The US would likely try using the Suez canal to move its Indian Ocean assets to the Atlantic. EU would likely try to negotiate its closure or force it closed with sabotage - some cargo ships accidentally sinking there to considerably delay the rate of arrival of US vessels to the Mediterranean, so that they could be sunk there (likely to succeed, back yard fight). The US might try sending reinforcements through the Arctic, which they’re currently not well prepared for (Canada might or might not obstruct them). Meanwhile, global economic crisis would be hammering everyone, but Eurasia being a large contigous piece of land with the most people on it - damage would likely be reduced there.
With the US Pacific fleet sufficiently diluted, China would either negotiate the surrender of Taiwan or conquer it.
Overall, I think the US would get Greenland. In case military activity starts, it would get considerable losses at sea. An exchange of islands would happen. A vast island with 50 thousand people against a small island with 20 million people and globally vital industries.
In any case, everyone would get an exceptionally bad economic crisis. In the worst case, a world war with nuclear exchanges might start, and might escalate into civilization-ending war.
The current US administration should be somehow made aware of this. I wonder how to communicate to them a sentence like “the US seizing Greenland means a 100% chance of China seizing Taiwan and a 50% chance of world war (most likely the last of them)”.
I’m really not clear on how you imagine those EU defense agreements would hold up if the NATO defence agreements don’t.
“Please help us, Greenland is under attack!”
“Uh, no, sorry, none of us are willing to go to war with the US.”
“OK, but what if we repeat the exact same request, but with EU letterhead instead of NATO?”
“Oh well why the fuck didn’t you say so? Our fleets are already on the way!”
NATO simply could not back down from this