how many?

It's a symbolic gesture, and it comes with a commitment to land, sea, and air support.

If Trump invades Greenland, it won't be NATO military that stops him, it will be the 25th Amendment,

Enough is enough.

So it is true? LOL

Is it true that European countries are sending 1 or 3 or 13 soldiers to defend Greenland from Trump?

Number of soldiers doesnt matter. Attack on a single soldier would mean USA is effectively at war with rest of nato. And while I doubt that would ever result in some greater war, it would almost definitely mean dissolve of nato as it is, or to be more precise, kicking USA from nato, which would actually benefit nato because it seems biggest issues for nato usually come from USA anyway. then trump can form alliance with his buddies, Putin and Kim, and they can proceed to conquer and divide the rest of the world which doesnt have nukes.

However, if trump keeps attacking nato members, then nato will be basically forced to yield, and trump knows this. Nato members arent stupid enough to destroy themselves in war. Only few nato members actually have strength to resist USA. But trump will likely invade weaker ones. He realized Greenland is big territory, with basically no population to defend it. Its not about China or Russia. Its about Greenland being easiest possible target among nato members.

If America goes to war with NATO countries. Russia and China will take this opportunity to help the NATO countries against America and tilt the balance of power permanently.

Russia will side with US.

China may well side with Europe.

NATO already buys more Russian petroleum than the aid they send to Ukraine, by far.

With allies like those, who needs enemies?

If NATO support was truly existential, NATO’s incentives would be aligned.

Since they aren’t, stop pretending it is.

Global institutions routinely tell us what they believe is “existential,” yet their actual behavior supplies a more reliable metric than their language. When NATO continues commercial arrangements that materially benefit the adversary of the USA while simultaneously claiming the conflict is existential, the contradiction isn’t rhetorical; it’s grounded in empirical data. Incentives are not peripheral details; they are THE constraints that shape action. When those incentives remain misaligned, it says that the cost of true alignment very well may exceed the cost of the threat itself. That assessment may be morally uncomfortable, but it is objectively informative. Genuine existential threats produce coordination by necessity, not by rhetorical declaration. The absence of that real coordination answers the question more clearly than any press release ever could. I am not saying NATO is evil or that Ukraine doesn’t matter. I claim coordination by necessity just hasn’t occurred, and that absence itself answers the question. That alone forces critics to either dispute the incentive logic or to admit they’re arguing from symbolism and vibes.

Easy to say such shit when US's geography and international politics led it to geopootically led to rely more on Middle East and soon, Venezuela, for oil whike Europe relied more on Russia.

The sanctions and embargos brutally hurt Europe. Idk the exemptions you mean.

US has been closer (in terms of shared enemies) to Russia than a lot of NATO nations, for a long time.

Continuing....and if your position is that USA has the responsibility to "Fix NATO" and realign their incentives. Just how would USA do that? Military force? Sanctions? Tariffs?

That is actually happening in real time, my friend.

If NATO incentives are misaligned, they can only realign when real costs are imposed. That’s not ideology, it’s how coalitions really work. Complaining about the how... tariffs, sanctions, or military pressure, while also demanding NATO alignment, is just wanting the desired effect without the necessary cause.

Also, you are woefully misinformed about USA's involvement with foreign oil. They don't really need the oil; what they absolutely need is the petrodollars, which comprises the current backbone of all USD.

We see a pattern with Trump. He is after NATO countries. First it was Canada now it’s Greenland.

I said Europe.needed the oil and was closer to.Russia geographically. Calling.them enemies for that is absurd.

But revenue from the sale of oil is what allows Russia to continue the war in Ukraine.

Sadolite is correct. The action of some Euro countries/NATO members sending a token handful of military wish-balloons is an absurd gesture.

Pedants. Spoiled. Brats. This will be settled by negotiation by the adults in the room.

You stated with friends like European nations trading oil with Russia one may as well consider them enemies.

I brought up geography and oikitics to explain why they were far more dpeendent on Russian oil than the North Amerian nations.

You missed this over and over and thought I was accusing US. I was defending against your anti-Europe propaganda.

Take your French flag off. Traitor scum!

West Europe and Scandinavia > all!

🖕🇮🇪🇬🇧🇫🇷🇩🇪🇩🇰🇵🇹🇪🇸🇮🇹🇧🇪🇳🇱🇸🇪🇦🇹🇳🇴 🇮🇸🇱🇺🇱🇮(And some more)

Be ready!

🇻🇦

This will be the showdown of a lifetime!

Deus vult!

I don't support the US laying a finger on Greenland. Neither do the vast majority of Americans. Not even Republicans.

But do you know what could change that in a relatively short time (re: a few months or years)? The collective experience of being spoken to by Europeans like this.

Good.

Keep the gaslighting threats going.

"You are really angry that our arrogant leader, elected 2 times by us is aggressively bullying nations he has no place threatening or getting involved in, especially Canada and Greenland. We do NOT support him yet in all ways we simp him and refuse to condemn him and empathise with your pain and rage. All the tariffs, overt threats and racist ideology he is spreading to divide Europeans (even their Right Wing) internally are clearly no reason to be hostile at all.

You European residents and/or citizens need to quietly take provocation after provocation verbal, economic, political and now militaristic until you break. If you snap at us then we will hate you and justify it by how you reacted."

Fuck off USA. Stay mad.

And for the record, the Canadians are currently modeling their prospects of fending off a US invasion, and what they're saying is that it'd take the US perhaps as little as two days to overrun the country. The Canadian national defense strategy centers around Mujahideen-style guerrilla tactics because they know anything else would be futile. If that's true of Canada then Greenland is a washout.

And what would Europe do to respond? France needed US logistical support for Operation Serval (re: deploying some 5,000 men against jihadists in Mali riding around in old pickups), and they're among the more competent armies in Europe. They simply don't have the means to wage expeditionary warfare on a scale large enough to defeat the US across the ocean.

Again, I don't want any of this to happen. And it probably won't happen. Trump talked a big game about Iran but then ultimately lacked the resolve to invade and overthrow Khamenei's regime, which is to say nothing of Europe (sure enough, today he dialed down the rhetoric at Davos, ruling out the use of force to acquire Greenland). But what's clear is that Europe is in no position to thump its chest and credibly threaten America. The only tool in your toolbelt to pull that off is nukes, and we have those too.

USA flaunts its military power frequently. It happily slaughters thousands even millions and many of.those dead bodies are its own, for oil, power etc.

European nations learned their lesson, theyre are more cautious after ww2. In Cold War US utilised and funded jihadist groups to do a lot of the dirty work and 1 of them ended up doing 9/11. Go figure.

Another of them runs Afghanistan as a bottom of the barrel Sharia shithole rivalling Somalia and Sudan. Guess where the refugees of that regime are now running?

Of course. Europe. The best continent on Earth.

You confuse humility and generosity with weakness. You confuse active, chosen meekness with involuntary passivity.

If you want ww3, it can come in many forms.

The only reason US is so dangerous vs Europe is that your leaders truly are more willing to let many thousands of their own die and to massacre others, than modern post ww2 Europe nations typically are.

Your edge is raw aggression and bloodlust.

You see how you flip the script fast.

You went from saying Europe behaving bad to you poor wittle amewicans is why this is happening in Greenland. It is happening because of your pigheaded American greed, narcissism and bloodlust.

There's no use trying to talk to you when you're sperging out like this. Another time, I guess.

This won't end pretty.

Degrading me for being autistic is ridiculous coming from an autist himself.

Address what is said or run away. Don't make excuses.

The problem with Deus vult is that it is an individual approach and interpretation of God's will, which then allows variation among us to try to understand what God's will happens to be from his perspective, and not ours. The problem with that is that seldom does anyone declaring that anthem actually kneels before God to ask him what his will is; they just make the assumption they know, and the result is something that generally results in going to war against their assumed opponent to their will. Therefore, a circular argument, and such do not hold water, or, frankly, anything else.

USA and Europe going to war with each other?

That is after Trump received the Nobel Peace Prize from Maria Corina Machado Venezuela.