No they couldn’t. There are lots of rules to joining the EU that Greenland, as an independent country may not meet. The EU is also not a military force in its own right, they would have to join NATO for that to occur - which they probably could but again, rules for joining that they may not be able to meet.
Though I could imagine that Greenlanders feel they should be independent, and likely the Danish would think so too, but currently they’re under Denmark’s ties to EU and NATO so, until the US threat has passed (over, into hell as he richly deserves), it may be best to stay linked. But I’d be asking for another vote in 5-10 years to reassess and to get ducks in a row to quickly sign onto both NATO and EU.
Of course that does not magically turn the EU into a single, efficient military organization; but it is certainly worth considering in the grand scheme of things.
The clause might be stronger, but there’s no EU forces, no EU equipment, no EU AWACS, and no EU command structure, to back up that clause. There’s many individual national militaries, but no dedicated EU military. NATO on the other hand has dedicated forces, equipment, command structure and so on. Logistics wins or loses wars. So even if the clause is stronger, is carries much less weight than NATO.
Being in the EU is however a decent deterrent for most purposes, but maybe not sufficient to deter Russia, China or USA.
No they couldn’t. There are lots of rules to joining the EU that Greenland, as an independent country may not meet. The EU is also not a military force in its own right, they would have to join NATO for that to occur - which they probably could but again, rules for joining that they may not be able to meet.
Though I could imagine that Greenlanders feel they should be independent, and likely the Danish would think so too, but currently they’re under Denmark’s ties to EU and NATO so, until the US threat has passed (over, into hell as he richly deserves), it may be best to stay linked. But I’d be asking for another vote in 5-10 years to reassess and to get ducks in a row to quickly sign onto both NATO and EU.
The European Treaties contain a common defence clause. Some even argue the wording is stronger than NATO article 5.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/collective-defence.html
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_ATA(2022)739250
Of course that does not magically turn the EU into a single, efficient military organization; but it is certainly worth considering in the grand scheme of things.
The clause might be stronger, but there’s no EU forces, no EU equipment, no EU AWACS, and no EU command structure, to back up that clause. There’s many individual national militaries, but no dedicated EU military. NATO on the other hand has dedicated forces, equipment, command structure and so on. Logistics wins or loses wars. So even if the clause is stronger, is carries much less weight than NATO.
Being in the EU is however a decent deterrent for most purposes, but maybe not sufficient to deter Russia, China or USA.