The UK has played down suggestions that the Joint Expeditionary Force could be deployed to Greenland, stressing that the island’s security is already guaranteed through NATO.
Speaking during a Commons exchange, SNP MP Dave Doogan raised concerns about security in the High North, citing reported US worries over Greenland’s vulnerability to Russian and Chinese activity. Doogan said he supported continued assistance to Ukraine and praised recent US maritime interdiction efforts, before asking what discussions had taken place with Joint Expeditionary Force partners about potential engagement in Greenland.
He told the House: “There are other challenges in the High North as we speak. Our allies in the United States are apparently very concerned about the vulnerability of Greenland to Russian and Chinese aggression.” He asked whether discussions had been held “about how the JEF may deploy to Greenland, to allay those US fears.”
Responding, Defence Secretary John Healey said he had been in contact with Denmark and rejected the premise that Greenland required additional security arrangements outside existing frameworks. He said: “The Prime Minister was very clear in the joint declaration that he signed yesterday in Paris that Greenland is part of Denmark.”
Healey added: “Its sovereignty is not at stake, and it is defended by being part of NATO. Its security is guaranteed by all 32 member states, and any future for Greenland is a matter for the Greenlanders and the citizens of Denmark.”
I sense a hidden meaning in the question, and the answer. JEF to defend Greenland from the US?
” Our allies in the United States are apparently very concerned about the vulnerability of Greenland to Russian and Chinese aggression.”
Total cobblers, the US wants it to milk it dry of its resources. Where are the Chinese and Russians coming from, considering there are already US installations located there.
“it is defended by being part of NATO.”
So? So is Finland, Sweden, Denmark, other Baltic states, exactly where the JEF is expected to deploy.
Exactly, ruzzia and China would have to go around Alaska/Canada to take Greenland, they would not get very far.
China will first take Taiwan, they don’t need to go very far. 😂
You don’t understand geography do you. Russia has direct access to Eastern greenland….but that is what NATO and JEF are all about.
Meanwhile, the orange mole has 3 years to dismantle NATO for his mate in Moscow.
Uk needs to stand with its European allies…not to provoke conflict with US but to make it clear bullying of this nature is unacceptable and won’t be tolerated.
The consequences if no line in sand is drawn is Canada may be next, Iceland..the Faroes…sorry. not the Faroes..forgot…they dont have minerals or oil and won’t make the USA look bigger on a map.
Thank you for the condescending reply. Clearly i made a mistake.
Agree with the rest of it though. The fat orange preverbial is resource grabbing and empire building.
The UK needs to find its balls, aswell as the rest of Europe. Theyre going to have to make tough choices on social spending in my opinion but if they did try to cut it Lablur backbenchers would revolt against it.
Defence has to be priority.
Indeed
Good post,totally agree.Trouble is the left wing backbenchers will never cut the welfare budget.The 3.4billion spent on lifting the 2 child benefit cap would have purchased 4 more type 26s for example
What a world we live in when vailed questions are ask that essentially at there core are are we going to help defend another NATO member against the US.. I never saw that one coming in the new year of 2025.
I think that currently the UN , G7 & NATO are the only transnational bodies that the US are currently members of. It’s very possible that by this time next year, it may not be members of those.
The British appear afraid to do anything to confront Trump.
The fantasy that somehow Chinese warships are sailing up and down the greenland coast…likr Europe and American warships are sailing off Chinas coast is laughable. Trum is ready ti invade Greenland
The UK is not going to get confrontational with the US ( Trump or no Trump). It’s not in the UK’s national interest.
It wasn’t in our interest to declare war on Germany in 1939 but we did. The British have form for acting on ‘principal’. Anyway we do have an interest, it’s called Canada. One of the realms of the crown.
I hope the US president has taken on board what was said by the Defence Secretary John Healey.
Unfortunately for Healey the US president believes in “the strong take what they can” principle rather than any NATO treaty or international law considerations.
I wonder what else is on Trumps list – history suggests guys like like this eventually have to be stopped.
“Beautifull Words”.
Yes put ‘very strongly’. 🤣
Nobody in government has the balls to stand up to trump. All it would take is a small unit deployed. It’s the gesture and signal it sends rather than the fighting power. But no, not from this limp pathetic country.
Its like everything which was expeditionary with our armed forces is being left to the next government. Meanwhile HMS Bulwark is being sold off before any kind of replacement is even finalised with design. This is the dodgiest Government I can remember. They want to diminish us everyway they can. It is pure hate and leftist rejection of the high standards Britain has had in defense. The Conservatives were little better but they did order substantial kit. Everything with Labour is on hold or review. I hold them accountable. Greenland deserves our support now. Send in a symbolic half company of Marines now. Dont panic!, but tomorrow may be too late.
Does anyone think this stops at Greenland? They want all of South America effectively colonised, they won’t want Thea’s part of the US mind for obvious reasons. They will try to surround Brazil with acolytes regimes because they truly fear its growing power and influence. Brazil will control South America if they don’t and they can only control Brazil by controlling South America. The Caribbean will eventually be a target but Cuba has always been an open wound to the US elite and criminals alike now having a President who is both ensures he will want it returned to US gangster rule, just imagine the return of Trump emblazoned casinos, hey they may even stay solvent for a change. And of course Canada that will be the jewel and I guess holding it in a pincer will help apply the pressure. Trouble is the US military and infrastructure has very little artic capability so this could be like Napoleon’s long march back from Moscow if they aren’t careful there’s only so much you can do from the air and how many enemies can they keep under their thumb.
I worry when the eyes turn to the Antarctic.. when trump realises the UK owns the only complete air brigade from the north to Antarctica and that we also own the best bits of Antarctica and have the best readymade infrastructure… the day the US says the UK cannot defend the Falklands, South Atlantic territories and Antarctica peninsula from “China” what will happen ?
I agree.Trump gets on well with Javier Milei and it wouldnt surprise me if they cooked up a deal on the Falklands.Say for example Argentina get the islands and they carve up British antarctic territory.Oh,and Trump gets a share of the oil!
Yeah because if they take Greenland Canada is the only foreign country in between the US and Greenland so of course Canada is next. Which then we would have to defend Canada cos we always have each other’s back. So the smart thing to do would be to put our foot down now. For what good it may do but acting like it’s no big deal is dangerous.
No sorry that is just not the case.. the UK cannot confront the US directly.. not for Greenland.. the US will do what the US will do in Greenland and we cannot stop them.. that is the reality of hard power.. but after they have done it the EU, Iceland, UK, Canada and Norway would walk away from the US and remove the right to its armed forces to be based in Europe and use or access our airspace.. that would essentially trash US power in our area as well as the Indian Ocean. It would essentially leave the US stuck with a hostile peer in the western Mediterranean and an EU and independent European nation that would have nothing to do with it.. Canada would no longer be a friend to the north, its reputation would be destroyed with its pacific allies who would never trust it and most nations would end up making an accommodation with China as the more stable of two evils.
Western hegemony would be destroyed and you would end with three power blocks China, US and Europe (EU) with China probably ending with the most geopolitical clout.. it would essentially herald a new unpleasant world order.
How’s Moscow today?
All this talk on Greenland is purely designed to get the Epstein files.
If trump sends military forces to Greenland (which he is allowed to do under 1951 treaty) then the best thing to do is ignore them.
Within a few weeks any “force” trump sends is likely to be freezing its ass off on the ice and costing a fortune. It’s no different to when he sent the marines to California.
Trump has no power to annex territory. It’s that simple.
*Epstein files out of the news
Indeed. There is currently no real threat to Greenland from China or Russia and the USAF would see off any such in short order.
I.doubt many US mining companies are queuing up to meet the vast costs of extracting minerals in the harsh Arctic climate, despite Trump’s lust for easy money.
I think Greenland is on his wish-list for a permanent place in the history books, the President who expanded American territory colosally, as just one more cog in his making America great again spiel.
It all seems to play quite well for his diminishing band of supporters, who like to see their President being decisive on the world stage, getting things done and bullying the rest of the world.
I think Europe and Canada should be doing serious early planning for life after a US-led NATO. They have a combined GDP almost matching that of the USA and a population half as much again
We can survive and thrive without the USA, which can look forward to a sharply diminishing level of defence equipment exports.
Completely agree.. we need to have some serious focus on what our geostrategic picture will look like and what our wider geopolitical goals are as a nation.. we may end up living in a world with the US, EU and china as essentially powers that are a geopolitical triad of adversaries, with a number of medium sized world and regional powers making up the balance of power ( UK, Russia, India, Japan, ) as well as larger regional powers, ( canada, Brazil, South Korea, a few Middle Eastern nations.). With most of the smaller nations of the world essentially fuel for the big three.
It’s unlikely to be very pretty and will probably get very violent, so as a nation we need to be ready to defend the UKs interests and sovereignty.
In terms of purchasing power parity, Europe (including the UK and EEA countries) already comfortably surpass the US for GDP. The US leads narrowly in raw (i.e. dollar) valued GDP.
Add Canada into the mix and the combo opens up quite a gap.
The US GDP numbers are boosted by 10% alone by a private health insurance system that is completely irrelevant to non UD countries. It’s part of their economy that we don’t have or need.
The GDP numbers , though, don’t tell the full story. More relevant is the control of capital and debt. And here Europe is pretty strong compared to the US. All in all we are collectively in the same ballpark and leading the US on many measures.
President Trump will no doubt make Greenland an offer that it cannot refuse. Why?
Geographically Greenland is part of North America. It’s closer to New York City by about 1,000 miles (1,609 km) than to Copenhagen.
…opposition MP Pele Broberg of the Naleraq Party…said people were scared of what Trump would do to Greenland because they were misinformed, largely because of media hysteria. “It’s true, we are not for sale – but we are open for business. Or we should be. Right now we are a colony. We are made to import our goods from Denmark: 4,000km away, rather than from the US which is much closer.”
…Briefly put: the shortest route for a Russian ballistic missile to reach continental US is via Greenland and the North Pole….Greenland could serve as a base for missile interceptors as part of the Trump administration’s proposed “Golden Dome” system: a plan to shield the US from all missile attacks.
The US has also reportedly discussed placing radars in waters connecting Greenland, Iceland and the UK – the so-called GIUK Gap. That’s a gateway for Chinese and Russian vessels that Washington wants to track.
…Russia and China have been expanding their military capabilities, and have beefed up their co-operation elsewhere in the region – with joint naval patrols and co-developing new shipping routes. Under pressure from western sanctions over Ukraine, Moscow is keen to ship more to Asia. Beijing is looking for shorter, more lucrative maritime routes to Europe.
The northern sea route is becoming easier to navigate due to melting ice, and Greenland opened its representation office in Beijing in 2023 in pursuit of deeper ties with China.’
BBC
That is the clue as to why this has kicked off: a Greenland office in Beijing.
The Greenlanders are not dumb. They stand to do extremely well out of any realignment. Good luck to them.
…as long as they are free to make any decisions at all of course. Be they native Inuit people or Scandinavian settlers (or mixed) I suspect they will still get from ICE officers on patrol the ‘are you an American citizen, I note you don’t have an un American accent’.
They don’t seem to get many “asylum seekers’ in Greenland despite the ‘fact’ that ‘the oceans are boiling’
Guam is much closer to Beijing than Washington. Is that how things work?
International affairsvwork according to power politics, always have done. If you have the might, you have the right.
‘Beijing used a military parade commemorating Japan’s defeat in the second world war to unveil a range of new military hardware – including a weapon dubbed the “Guam Killer” by Chinese media.’ Sept 2025
Neither Denmark or Britain has any might; impotent.
The Uk can functionally destroy any nation on earth. It still has might not as much as it once had, but it’s not a minnow by any stretch.. it can do what any Meduim power needs to.. be able to take any major power down with it if it faces destruction…. it would be a pyrrhic victory in the extreme for any nation have its 20 greatest cities utterly destroyed as it destroyed the UK.
The Uk has 2 carriers and can put 2 squadrons of 5th generation fighters 600miles from any nation. That’s more that 98% of all nations can do.
Nothing that you have mentioned constitutes the required forward deployed credible conventional deterrent on Continental Europe.
Why is a forward deployed credible conventional deterrent required on Continental Europe?
Lt Gen DeWitt Smith answered you about fifty years ago:
‘A stable nuclear balance makes imperative a stable conventional balance in Europe. Without that stability there can be no political or military counter to expanding (Russian) influence in the Near East, South Asia, Africa, or in the great ocean basins upon which an interdependent world relies. Not the least of these ocean areas are the North Atlantic and North Pacific-vital to North Americans.’
‘Modern strategy, it seems to me, deals with the use of military forces in peace as well as in war, and also in all those ambiguous conditions in between. It deals with the use of military forces to prevent conflict, to control conflict if prevention fails, and to terminate
conflict if it cannot be controlled.
Miilitary forces, including land forces, have two important effects on an adversary. One is the physical, the other is psychological. In actual conflict, both are operative. But if the “what” of modem strategy includes preventing the outbreak of conflict, the psychological effect of military force during periods of nonactive conflict becomes all-important.
In the last several years, we have witnessed an alarming buildup and modernization of (Russian) forces in Eastern Europe. The impact of this modern offensive land army on other Western European and Atlantic nations could become particularly severe with (Russian) achievement of strategic nuclear parity.
Strategic nuclear parity, coupled with conventional superiority in Europe, could lead to temptations that even the traditionally conservative Russian regime might find hard to resist (!).’
And so it has proved…
‘Of equal concern to the West is the political leverage and freedom of action this condition would provide the (Russians) in other areas of the world.
An Atlantic community paralyzed by its military inferiority in Europe could only wring its hands as (Russian) power and influence moved
unimpeded into the so-called Third World, portions of which provide the materials upon which the industrial, economic, and social health of the industrial West depend.
In essence, we would have a situation in which the West, in tactical terms, is “pinned down” in Europe, while growing (Russian) naval power or Russian surrogates slowly but not imperceptibly isolate its Atlantic adversaries.
So even if one believes that an attack on Western Europe is not a very likely scenario, he still cannot view the growing strength of the (Russian) Army in Eastern Europe without a certain uneasiness. For that Army not only serves the (Russians) legitimate security interests, but it also exercises an influence on the Atlantic Community that could be in the long run as fatal as naked aggression
I have mentioned earlier…(the Russian) achievement of strategic nuclear parity. This latter achievement puts in serious question the credibility of both strategic and theatre nuclear weapons as an appropriate and useful response to Soviet aggression. It places an increasing burden on the conventional forces deployed in Germany.
As a bare minimum, it is the role of the Atlantic army to replace the strategic nuclear deterrent as the instrument with which the attack option is foreclosed to (Russia).
But that is a bare minimum.
In a modern strategy the Atlantic army must provide for the West a sense of security to a degree that will encourage it to act and react
in respect to global events with confidence. That forecloses to (Russia) the options of intimidation, blackmail, and political leverage.
The political requirement is that the military situation in Central Europe be in balance-that it be stabilized so that global freedom of action is not impaired.’
President Trump understands that, so must secure Greenland as a key site for the U.S. and NATO’s credible deterrent
We/Denmark cannot help him. We cannot secure Greenland and we certainly cannot deter a million strong battle hardened Russian army with a massed drone arsenal. That has got to change if Britain is to survive as a (fairly, these days (!)) sovereign nation.
We know what to do. We’ve done it before. It works: ‘The Long Peace’ 1945-2014
The fact is that was about the Soviet Union a body politic that had the convenient military power to bury every European nation even when joined together.. because at that time it was a vast empire and Europe was a destroyed pile of rubble. Russia is not the Soviet union and the present European nations are not the shattered ghosts of the 50s, 60s and even 70s. it does not have the means to generate that level of threat.. all it can do is threaten second world nations and very small western nations.. if it tried to have a war with even a single strong European nation like Germany it would not succeed, if it tried to have a conventional conflict with E NATO the only thing that would prevent its destruction would be the nuclear threat.. that is the reality, ENATO if it stayed politically homogeneous would not be at risk of losing a conventional war with Russia Russia would be as Ukraine is now. the risk is actually political warfare the lack of deterrent at present is political disunity.. it does not matter the size of any ENATO army if NATO is not unified.. and any British army involvement is about showing political unity.. what Britain needs to bring is the ability to contain Russian forces in the maritime domain.. because the land power that losses the maritime domain will loss.. the truth is Germany and Poland can if they wish manage the land aspect..with backstop forces from France and Italy and the UK showing up with a strong division… what the UK needs to be able to do is kill the northern fleet shatter the Russian northern bastion and close its access to the sea in the northern oceans.. then backstopped by France and Italy take apart Russia in the wider world and start generating threat from the pacific… Europe has 10 times the power, wealth and potential of Russia it could crush Russia like a bug if it was roused to it and had a homogeneous will.. why do you think Russia has invested so much in political warfare again NATO and the EU..
Whatever the reality of Russian military incompetence, the point is:
‘Strategic nuclear parity, coupled with conventional superiority in Europe, could lead to temptations that even the traditionally conservative Russian regime might find hard to resist.’
And that is precisely what has happened…
and it will not stop happening until NATO once more has a verifiably credible conventional deterrent in place in Central Europe. Britain is signed up to providing a two division Corps which must be armoured. It cannot even transport or sustain a single armoured brigade at the moment.
Consequently:
‘An Atlantic community paralyzed by its military inferiority in Europe could only wring its hands as (Russian) power and influence moved
unimpeded into the so-called Third World, portions of which provide the materials upon which the industrial, economic, and social health of the industrial West depend.’…
including, potentially, Russia and China establishing themselves in Greenland, Greenlanders having already set up a trade office in Beijing in 2023.
So:
‘The Atlantic army must provide for the West a sense of security to a degree that will encourage it to act and react in respect to global events with confidence. That forecloses to (Russia) the options of intimidation, blackmail, and political leverage.
The political requirement is that the military situation in Central Europe be in balance-that it be stabilized so that global freedom of action is not impaired.’
Of course we need aircraft carriers. Of course we need more close air support, particularly drone/counter drone.
But the only conventional force that will deter Russia, a land power, is a powerful and modern Combined Arms Army in Central Europe. Both Poland and Germany understand that…and we are currently in breach of our obligation to participate in that
Maybe losing Moscow, London and Washington Isn’t such a bad Idea 🤔😉
And Stoke Poges…
Those stealth fighters also have no stand off weapons meaning they have to get so close to the target most radars can detect them
They can have stand of weapons.. the JSOW has a range of 130km and the C version has the same BROACH warhead as a storm shadow.. it’s also terminal homing so can kill moving targets like ships.. personally I don’t know why they don’t buy 1000 of them for the F35Bs a carrier with 3 squadrons of Bs armed with JSOW C can smash anything in the world HMG decided needed smashing.
Greenland already hosts a BMD radar, I’m sure if you asked the Greenlanders nicely they would let you put some silos there.
I’m sure that they will be made an offer they can’t refuse.
As the man said, above:
‘It’s true, we are not for sale – but we are open for business. Or we should be.’
Epic US arse kissing from a tRumptard, well done. When your little experiment in Imperialism fails miserably in the long run I wonder if you’ll admit it.
Actually, no I don’t. You’ll never admit to anything, despite all the evidence, because tRumptards live in a delusional fantasy world 🤡
Did it really take seven of you to come up with that?
But well done anyway.
Well then we should give up Falklands if that is the argument. Clown course we aren’t going to give or sell away the Falkland islanders.
We did give up the Falklands in 1982, by force of arms.
Britain announced the withdrawal of maritime assets from.the area and Argentina invaded.
The Falklands war, the failure of conventional deterrence, cost Britain many brave young lives, including the inspirational Colonel H Jones VC.
And we learnt pretty much nothing…..war once more on Continental Europe as a direct consequence of the failure of conventional deterrence.
Munro appears to be another one of the fake American trolls straight from the st Petersburg troll factory. .
St Petersburg on this site. Thatcham on another.
Sorry, mate, but geography isn’t your strong point here. The northern most tip of New York state is almost the same distance to the closest part of Greenland as Copenhagen is. But only if you ignore the couple of thousand kilometres of Canada that lies slap bang in between.
Norway and the UK are substantially closer to Greenland than even the closest part of the US over Canada as the crow flies. New York city is way more distant still.
As somebody who used to work in NYC and up state NY, travelling regularly across the the Atlantic in that part of the world, I can tell you that Greenland is real close to Canada,not too far from the UK and Norway but miles further away from any major airport in the US (e.g. Boston). It’s a helluva long way from Greenland to the US. Not too different to the US to the Azores (where my son lives, close to the US base at Lajes) in Portugal. And that’s a five hour flight from the States. Just like the 5 hours from Copenhagen to Nuuk.
Incidentally, Greenland is only sort of part of north America geologically. The Baffin sea that separates Canada and Greenland is long and bottoms out at 2km deep in the central trench. It’s on the same tectonic plate but not exactly on the same continental shelf. On the shelf itself ocean depth is typically pretty shallow and is measured in high hundreds rather than thousands of metres.
I wonder what the Greenlanders themselves say?
Oh!
‘…opposition MP Pele Broberg of the Naleraq Party…said people were scared of what Trump would do to Greenland because they were misinformed, largely because of media hysteria. “It’s true, we are not for sale – but we are open for business. Or we should be. Right now we are a colony. We are made to import our goods from Denmark: 4,000km away, rather than from the US which is much closer.”
The key point is this:
‘Moscow is keen to ship more to Asia. Beijing is looking for shorter, more lucrative maritime routes to Europe.Military equipment reviews
The northern sea route is becoming easier to navigate due to melting ice,
and Greenland opened its representation office in Beijing in 2023 in pursuit of deeper ties with China.’
“We Need Greenland”
N.A.T.O. = Not Another Trump Order.
Let’s be honest Healy isn’t going to answer that in any way that expresses direct reference to the US or protecting Greenland, but somewhat less semblance to total delusional language might have been better than talking as if Trump hadn’t repeatedly, as recently as yesterday said the US will take Greenland ‘one way or another’. Appearing to bury your head in the ground expressing a reality that doesn’t actually exist surely isn’t the best and most professional response. I still don’t think we fully comprehend the dangers building. If you are worried about security you don’t reduce your military on Greenland from once 10,000 to around 500 now and close all but one base. This is all about distraction from the millions of Epstein files that even Congress is now going to Court to force to be released but that just references the bigger picture of Trump developing the means to ensure either he or a crown prince retains tyranical power. External wars are always employed to hide internal weakness and while he builds ICE as his personal Black Shirt personal militia full of everything from Proud Boys through Jan 6th insurrectionists to Halo Gamers and Incels he is using it to generate the very internal anger and resistance to eventually allow him to bring in martial law and sideline Congress and the Courts entirely to impose that tyranny that will he hopes keep him and his family out of prison. Second time lucky he hopes. Just hope those relying on the US Constitution to protect them have a plan B and aren’t as naive as those words from Healy sound. Indeed I hope the UK Govt don’t remotely buy into them either, but everyone is scared to express anything meaningful pertaining to the real risks we all face. Not building up our forces while still talking as if the US is still a firm friend however hardly gives one confidence there is comprehension beneath this unsustainable facade.
I’m far more worried about Trump grabbing the USA than I am about Greenland.
…or Vance as well.
“Incells”
I keep seing people using this word !
Involuntary Celibates
A strand of misogyny popular to a certain extent with teenage boys, which essentially blames feminism and sex education for women’s unwillingness to form long-term relationships.
In other words, socially awkward young men blaming girls for not having sex with them.
Ahh, thanks, we just used to call them “losers” (or Sad Wankers) but I guess the times have changed !
They are still called that, but they have created a whole justification and society.. what is worrying is that its a huge chunk of young men that believe this defeatist crap…I’m taking to 20 year olds from middle class families, who have been given everything, have great A levels are, great at team sports are getting into good universities etc etc.. the real top of the bunch and these guys consider themselves in the same done down group… essentially young white males no matter how privileged and talented are bombarded with this hate of everyone else doing them down.. it’s sad and the truth is a lot of the women of that generation now actually cannot stand them because who would date someone that thinks your steeling the right they have to be the top of tree it’s because of that attitude they are single .. I do try and understand, but for a lad who’s parents came from council estates and who was clothed in second hand jumble sale cloths, left school with no qualifications and climbed hard to success it pisses me off.. I was the classic poor white male.. but I did not hate everyone and think everyone was taking things from me.. and I respected my fellows that got be everything in life.
Basically it stands for “young males arseholes” who blame women for not wanting to date them because they are misogynistic arseholes… instead of doing what our generation did and learnt at a young age that if your a woman hating prat you don’t get a girl.. they have doubled down on the woman hating and now essentially think women should be their sex and domestic slaves because they are men…which means unless they overthrow democracy and we put women into slavery they are never getting sex… as a father of two daughters I as you can tell don’t have much time for the sad little boys.
For me just how far the US has fallen was shown by the reaction to that poor young mother being shoot in the head multiple times by a rage filled ICE agent who from his recent background and the awfulness that had happened to him was so PTSDs to the eyeballs he should have been on rest and mental health support..
Instead of admitting the tragedy the administration turn a mother of 3 into a terrorist even when all the evidence shows it was utterly tragic and an unnecessary death… a government that can gaslight its own nation and especially a federated set of states where the federal government gaslights the state government is heading for a very very big problem..
Even if it keeps it together with threats come the next presidential election no matter who wins I think violence will be triggered on a very big scale.. civil war scale is unlikely, but massive civil strife that changes and scars the US maybe.
Totally agree. The usage of force was totally illigetimate and the trump sphere reaction to this was plain fascism in rising. Can’t recommend enough Emilio lussu’s book about mussolini.
Absolutely. I completely agree on all points you have mentioned.
Trump wants is own Empire for the USA ? It’s not looking good he seems quite certain he wants it , but would the Danes fight even if there no it’s impossible to win . Despise Trumps ways never really had an issue with Trump but can’t go with him on this one .🇩🇰
To back to WW2. There is an issue. Britain’s actions in Greenland manipulating (by using the Dominion of Canada and Monroe doctrine) USA into making Greenland a semi protectorate, along with Britain invading Iceland and installing USA to administer it. The biggest example of this area’s strategic relevance was the Battle of Denmark Strait. Britain could not have Germany on those lands. Speaking to RN officers over twelve years ago, this was a worry, so it is not new. It it is just exploiting resources or making USA bigger, that is totally unacceptable. Denmark has been on that island before anyone else, since Norse times. But missiles need to be fired from, not missiles observed from. USA cannot hope to compete in shipbuilding with China and Russia and USA ‘s ships are so expensive (why they did not swallow their pride and build warships (Type31’s) in a cheaper country like The UK is beyond me). So a permanent warship is needed there. But annexing, taking it over, stars and stripes, manifest destiny bs arrogance is not on, it is not for USA and any self entitlement. Also sometimes, words have unintentional consequences and I am sure Trump never intended Carney to become PM, unless this was done on purpose to destabilise a friend for USA ‘s gain. CANZUK is a destiny but that is another issue. I think this is all being blown out of proportion and reading the art of the deal explains much.
“To” was typed “Go” . Predictive spelling is so unpredictable.
Im sorry why should the USA order T31 from our single shipyard taking what 8 years to deliver some very basic ships.
The UK did not manipulate the US into taking control of Greenland.. the UK at the time was blockading any axis shipping from accessing Greenland and the US objected.. Greenland had at this point moved to independence ( a clause in their constitution allowing this if Denmark fell). In their independence they worked with the danish ambassador to the US, who essentially knew his government was in thrall to the Nazis and bravery decided to go against his own government. He then got an agreement between the US and now independent Greenland administration for the US as a neutral power to take control of Greenland. If the UK had wanted it could have used Canada to take control of greeenland but it knew that it would have pissed off the US…
So there was no manipulation by the UK the UK simply stepped back and did not challenge the USAs right to work with the government of Greenland.
Thank you for saving me the time here to set the record straight! Good summary.
Also, Canada was busy taking over defence responsibility for the Dominion of Newfoundland and Labrador in WW2 as well as building its defence forces (the RCN being the priority).
Canada could not effectively seize Greenland in the beginning of the war.
If Trump seizes Greenland then the best course of action for Denmark would be to do nothing and wait for a future administration to reverse the decision. An alternative would be to wait and pick the correct side in the Second American Civil War.
Good comments 👍👍👌
Scarily I actually think a civil war in the US is in some small way possible after their next presidential election cycle.
Some would say the same of the UK.
Lee I have read a number of the Academic and reasoned reviews of the likelihood of civil war in the UK and there are trends around legitimacy of government and also political warfare from external states and insurgencies that are a worry, but it’s a longer way off in the UK. We probably have about just under a decade ( 2 election cycles ) to sort our shite our before we would see serious civil strife and to be honest that will likely not so much be civil war as a nasty pogrom that scars our society. In the end we still have an understanding of what our nation is in the UK, even as we understand we have lost our way and are disagreeing. we are just arguing about what to do in regards to the failure of multiculturism.. and how we deal with it. The US has already turned against itself, it has delegitimised its own electoral process and some of the foundations of its federal construction.. one half of it’s population think the other half are essentially traitors it’s not got a decade to sort out its shite repair its ruptures, it’s got until the next presidential election.
As I said in another post, Starmer will be in a bind if Denmark calls his bluff and formally asks for the JEF to be deployed to Greenland. It was set up precisely counter aggressive threats in the Nordic region and enhance regional deterrence against invasion. I wouldn’t bet against us waking in a few days time to discover that overnight a few thousand US troops have taken over the island, and every Greenlander was now considered an American citizen and would be given a $100,000 welcome gift. Unfortunately Starmer can’t complain about the Greenlanders right of self-determination after his appalling treatment of the Chagos Islanders, forcing them at just a few months notice to leave their homes and move to Pakistan, UK and even Romania so that their islands could be handed over basically empty to the Mauritius (and very likely then on to China). I hope a TV documentary is being made covering this awful, unnecessary and nationally humiliating saga.
RN there are no islanders on the chagos islands they were moved out a generation ago at the behest of the US so they could secure their base.
The headline to this article is already out of date. Sunday newspapers are reporting that plans are being developed to dispatch British soldiers, warships and planes to Greenland. Realistically that would seem likely to be a Commando Group (centred on 40 or 45 CDO) with supporting CHF helos (4 Merlin and 2 Wildcat), a LTR-25 radar, and a flight of 3-4 Typhoons. 1000-1500 personnel? The RN/RFA contribution will presumably be primarily transportation, but with the threat of an Astute SSN to take out invading USN amphibs and supporting high value units. The last sentence I never expected to write!
I think it’s a bit of media hype.. unless the US agrees I don’t think Europe will place forces in Greenland.. it would be tantamount to Europe and the US saying they are now geostrategic rivals.. I don’t believe Europe is ready yet to do that.
Its just been reported that Trump (egged on by Stephen Miller) has ordered his Special Forces commanders to draw up a plan to invade Greenland, although senior military leaders are pushing back
Wrong. You are right in that c.4000 Chagos Islanders were evicted in 1964. But by 2024 – 60 years later – the local population had quietly crept back up to over 1200 people. Whilst this was largely due to illegal immigration from the Indian sub-continent, many had been born on the islands. These have now also been evicted from the islands, albeit with some financial compensation from the UK. But there is a total media blackout so we don’t really know what happened and how forceful the expulsions were. And all caused by Starmer, who claims to be a human rights lawyer.
No they are not native chagos islanders just because your parents tried to get into the UK by getting a boat to the BIOT and you were born on the BIOT does not give you any rights to claim to be a chagos islands, you are a citizen of whichever country your parents came from.
Anyone born in the BIOT is a British overseas citizen.
Nope they are not.. the born there and be a citizen was withdrawn in may 2002. After May 2002 You are only a citizen if one of your parents was a citizen at the point of your birth or if they and you are successful in applying later.. there is no right of birth citizenship in the UK or any overseas territory.
Best we can do is ignore this. He cannot annex territory without congressional approval . US already has authority to deploy its military there. Just ignore them if they send an ‘invasion’ force, they’ll soon get bored, cold and expensive to maintain.
Beware those amongst us who think we can square up to Russia and the US simultaneously whilst Europe has our back. Firstly, they don’t, not really. They are just as self interested as Russia or Trump, as shown in the wake of Brexit. Secondly, even if they did it wouldn’t be sufficient. We in Europe have left ourselves perilously weak.
JEF should hold a training exercise on iceland with France taking the role of aggressor. Meanwhile. Logistics teams should be sent to Greenland. Trump is a megalomaniac who only respects strength. If necessary the exercise moves West.
This is an account of the diplomacy being done, which to me seems to be a good approach – with the French doing the “bad cop” role – from Alex Wickham (who is firmly of the right – formerly Guido Fawkes, and now GB News). No link, as that will get the comment siloed:
—————
This is either excellent diplomacy keeping the Western world away from the brink, or pitiful naïveté. Or a bit of both. Whichever, I wish them well.
NEW: The UK is quietly taking a leading role on Greenland, trying to persuade Trump he doesn’t need to take it over by demonstrating Europe is serious about Arctic security
In last 48 hours Starmer has spoken to Trump twice about the High North, as well as Frederiksen, Rutte, Macron, Merz
The UK this week deployed 1,500 Royal Marines commandos to northern Norway. It led discussion on the topic at NATO’s North Atlantic Council. Healey sent message to Danish counterpart. All suggests a larger British role than publicly advertised
Starmer has been telling Trump that Europe will do more in the Arctic and urging European counterparts to step up their security presence and cooperation with the US there
That’s in Europe’s interests amid rising concerns about suspected Russian sabotage activity on undersea cables around Finland
But the British aim is also to persuade Trump that Europe can help with shared interests on Greenland too, rather than let it divide NATO
One diplomat described it as an effort to take the heat out of the situation, with hopes that the calmer Rubio viewpoint prevails
It’s the same UK strategy as on Ukraine negotiations and with aiding the US seizure of the tanker in the North Atlantic: demonstrating European diplomatic, military and security utility to the US
It notably contrasts with the French approach, which publicly warned this week that Europe is facing threats of US coercion
“Its sovereignty is not at stake…”
.
.
Look at the news you idiot!
.
.
Besides, it should be noted the UK has divested itself of a once notable amphibious warfare capability centred on 2x LPDs and 1x LPH (anyone mentioning using a CVF as an amphib is an idiot) without replacement or increase in capability. Ukraine probably has better capabilities than the UK!
.
.
Pity the UK cannot think for itself / have a set and will not disagree with dump (sic).
Now is a great time to stop MRSS and get 3 LHD. For the same price estimates you can get 3 Juan Carlos, 1 FSS and have a billion spare as the 6 MRSS
This entire “Greenland is undefended and lacks 24/7 awareness” is horseshit. On one side, you have Theale Space Base and further from that, Canadian and joint forces bases there. Then, the other side, the “vulnerable” side with Russia has the US Navy P-8s in Iceland capable of “surveillance” on the East shores of Greenland. The Northern shores, they can be overflown and frankly, you’d rather be on a sled going up there than a Helicopter or ship.
“Sled” ? Bugger me It’s father Christmas 😁
‘It’s true, we are not for sale – but we are open for business…’
‘Greenland opened its representation office in Beijing in 2023 in pursuit of deeper ties with China.’
Main problem for Europe (i.e. UK too) with what is happening, other than Trump’s actions, is how quickly they are being implemented. We are not ready to adapt, we try to address a problem and another one surfaces, which points to those actions being well planned ahead. Trump might be impulsive, prone to changes, etc, but it is all going in the same direction, consistently, in line with thinking from Project 2025 and others.
The UK, France and others are forced to decide between interlinked priorities, there is no win-win anymore, it is a win for the US while we try to limit losses.
So now Greenland. Clearly the UK, France and others are forced to defend Ukraine, which means not much left for Greenland, so we leave it to NATO, which however is mostly the US, and Trump decides, and he will say he will protect Ukraine only if we give him Greenland or the US will pull out of NATO.
If we give up Greenland it is a betrayal of Denmark and another neil on the coffin of European unity, more humiliation, more divide and rule, and he knows it.
If we pretend to protect Greenland, we won’t be able to, he’ll pull out of NATO or increase trade barriers, Europeans will start fighting for favourable relationship with the US, and so…another neil on the coffin of European unity, more humiliation, more divide and rule, and he knows it.