A government spokesperson for Germany also confirmed to Reuters that soldiers would be sent to Greenland on Thursday. The country is expected to deploy over a dozen reconnaissance troops, according to the report.
:-/
This feels like the time Poland sent eight soldiers in with the US invasion of Iraq.
Hi. I have to step in about Polish soldiers :p I don’t know what you’re referring to but there were 2500 Polish soldiers deployed to Iraq, 150 wounded and 28 dead. That was during very hard economic times for Poland, still recovering from communism. Somehow they found money for this and sent them with really shitty equipment (cars “armoured” with bulletproof vests on the doors as protection for example)
:-/ Like saying they’re still recovering from a charlie horse after you put a shotgun to their kneecaps.
But yes, Poland limped into the Iraq War and managed to catch several hundred strays over the course of the conflict. In exchange, the Bush Administration kicked the country back $200M in relief (contingent on further privatization and financialization of their nascent market system).
Often called “tripwire forces” when they were NATO troops stationed in Eastern Europe. Their purpose is to force the adversary to kill some people before it can take any territory, ensuring that they can’t simply make it a fait accompli and hope there will be no further repercussions.
I wish I was still so naive I believed EU has some secret plan to defeat US. Especially Germany, country that was blind to the threat Russia posed for two decades. Yeah, I’m sure they will go to war over Greenland now…
It’s also funny that they are open about sending this tiny group of soldiers, something they could easily hide, but are hiding the plan to send a bigger force, something that will be impossible to hide. Kind of silly, really. Almost like thinking that Germany would commit any permanent force to Greenland without informing their own public.
I mean, we’ll see. But if the US really is serious about taking Greenland by force, you’ve got a US military base already on the island that’s been running these defense calculations for decades. It’s going to be an uphill climb just to reach parity with the Americans on securing the territory. I hope this isn’t perfunctory, and someone is asking the question “How do we deal with one or more US aircraft carriers?” seriously.
To add to this, the US is not that great in the Arctic. To occupy Greenland they need boots on the ground, and they are not equipped or manned to do Arctic land operations. EU + Canada surpass them in that. The US only has the one airborne division that are actually cold weather fighters. They also have far fewer ice breakers and the additional units that they were going to buy from Finland (who makes the best ones in the world) will surely be canceled.
To date, no US aircraft carrier has been lost in a military operation. You’re using “sunk” to describe military exercises that informed the US of all the strategies potentially deployed by these countries.
Those carriers are far from invincible.
If the Europeans want to put a US carrier at the bottom of the ocean, I’m not going to shed a tear. But you’re pointing to scrimmage runs and exhibition matches, while you’ve been letting Americans see your playbooks (hell, write your playbooks) for the last 60 years.
Typical Americunt, picking and choosing their propaganda points and completely ignoring anything else. Exactly like your orange pedo cunt of a president.
Americunts keep losing their wars against much much weaker militaries and you haven’t won a proper war in decades.
Americunts can’t win a war without your EU allies because the EU are the ones with successful strategies, like how to bypass the “most advanced navy” defenses and sink their expensive carriers.
Americunts are only good at drive bys and hit and run attacks, you don’t know how to fight a proper war. Fact.
So no, Americunts have terrible playbooks. Good luck.
while you’ve been letting Americans see your playbooks (hell, write your playbooks) for the last 60 years.
Do you believe that other countries have been training alongside Americans for decades and have never picked up any knowledge of their skills, methods, strategy, tactics, doctrine, weapons, etc? Never learned anything at all about how Americans fight? The Americans are the most visible military on the planet, and the most gregarious, they’re in every country and training with all of these countries, and somehow no one ever figured out how they do it?
Do you believe that other countries have been training alongside Americans for decades and have never picked up any knowledge of their skills, methods, strategy, tactics, doctrine, weapons, etc?
I think when you’ve got 100x players on the field to their 1x, the learning curve tilts in your favor. EU members in subordinate roles and supporting positions, without command and control access to the biggest pieces of hardware, aren’t going to have the accumulated experiences of US veterans. Nevermind the amount of time the US has spent in the field relative to their European peers.
The Americans are the most visible military on the planet, and the most gregarious, they’re in every country and training with all of these countries, and somehow no one ever figured out how they do it?
I don’t think it’s a mystery at a high level. But that’s like saying “It’s no mystery how Tom Brady won all those football games”. When you get into the finer details, you discover why 13 years of Superbowls never produced a rival defense that could consistently shut down the Patriots’ Offense.
I suspect you have puddle-deep insight into global economic dependencies, the fragility of the US economy, the EU + Canada Arctic warfare capabilities, and the likely outcome of an invasion of a northern neighboring country that looks like you, sounds like you, and can hide in plain sight or hop over the indefensible border to bring violence to your homes. The US has no concept of a war that impacts their home country, and dropping some hardware and troops in a country on the other side of the planet, in a country with no economic connection to the US, is not the same thing. Even when the enemy has different skin and vastly different culture and language, they still end up leaving after decades of slaughter having accomplished nothing but huge debt for taxpayers, huge profits for oil companies and defense contractors, and piles of dead Americans.
So, to you I say - do it. Shit or get off the pot. Nothing will hasten the downfall of the shittiest form of America quicker than trying to go to war with the world. You are fighting for treasure, we are fighting for survival. And don’t be surprised if the strategy is to pretend to be humbled before Trump, who is incapable of seeing when he’s being manipulated, in order to slow play and draw out the inevitable internal and economic collapse.
I suspect you have puddle-deep insight into global economic dependencies, the fragility of the US economy, the EU + Canada Arctic warfare capabilities, and the likely outcome of an invasion of a northern neighboring country that looks like you, sounds like you, and can hide in plain sight or hop over the indefensible border to bring violence to your homes.
America lost a bunch in World War II. Since then they’ve been exceedingly careful not to risk losing them, always putting them up against foes that couldn’t hit back. Both because they’re expensive, of course, but also to cultivate the very myth that you’re falling for - that American naval power is “invincible.”
Europe depends more on the US than the US does on Europe. What would the EU do? Sanctions, send more troops, war?
The entire EU economy depends on American companies and would crumble in a few days, without even having to do any military action in Groenland.
Any US carrier strike group can probably sink the entire navy of most countries. This calls for a full NATO response because if it doesn’t then I don’t know what does
Yes, the Swedish diesel electric subs are really quiet and hard to detect in a war game scenario, but that is done with many artificial constraints to the defending CSG, which is tightly packed in a relatively small patch of ocean that the Swedish sub knew and could plan for.
In reality those subs are stealthy only while traveling at 6 knots and the CSG can travel at 30 over vast expanses of water, with an effective strike range of 2000 miles.
Also, in war they’re allowed to use high energy sonars that they can’t use in a war game because it kills marine animals, which will detect a turd floating 500 miles away (exaggerating here but you get the idea).
It did, and the US considered the outcome so concerning that they requested to lease the submarine (but not install a crew - Swedish sailors would operate it in the US navy). Since those were different times, with only mild insanity among US presidents, Sweden granted the request.
In 2004, the Swedish government received a request from the United States to lease HSwMS Gotland – Swedish-flagged, commanded and crewed, for one year for use in antisubmarine warfare exercises. The Swedish government granted this request in October 2004, with both navies signing a memorandum of understanding on 21 March 2005.[5][6] The lease was extended for another 12 months in 2006.[7][8][9] In July 2007, HSwMS Gotland departed San Diego for Sweden.[10]
It’s not about realistically fighting of the US if they decide to really go for it, but they will have to kill European soldiers if they decide to do so. This would effectively end NATO and the transantlantic partnership.
NATO isn’t a partnership between democratic member states, its a partnership between regional militaries.
The end state of the conflict over Greenland will be - if anything - a series of US-backed coups in European countries that preserve NATO by realigning the civilian leadership with the foreign policy of the US.
We’re already seeing this with the AfD in Germany, the Reform UK in England, and National Rally in France. These countries are functionally aligning with Trump as white-nationalist governments working towards the same end goals. And they’ve all heavily infiltrated their domestic militaries.
200, in the year of the invasion. It swelled to 2,500 over the next five years, then trickled away into a final withdrawal a month before the Republicans lost the White House in 2008.
There were smaller deployments - Iceland sent 2 soldiers, for instance. But it all paled behind the the US at 150k and UK at 46k. Which goes back to the whole problem with a NATO internal conflict. The US is the backbone of European defense. Again, what do any of these countries plan to do against an aircraft carrier group? Nobody seems to have a serious answer.
Serious question: how will a carrier group fare in arctic ice during winter? Will it be what is needed to hold an Arctic island after showing up all bristly in the summer months?
While the USA’s relatively slim arctic-ready forces are deployed on the Atlantic side of the ice, what will be happening on the pacific side?
An answer: they can take it, but when winter comes, holding it will be difficult. The northern NATO members have notable infantry that can use the ice to advantage, and there are only five or six harbours of interest in Greenland.
Another perspective is that the US has military bases all around Europe. They don’t need to fight in Greenland if they can pressure opposing governments directly on their home turf
Serious question: how will a carrier group fare in arctic ice during winter?
Climate change has made this a receding problem, which is one reason why Greenland is suddenly hot property. In another ten years, you may be able to sail the perimeter of Greenland fully unobstructed all year round.
An answer: they can take it, but when winter comes, holding it will be difficult.
Holding it from whom? Nobody in NATO actually has the stomach for the kind of losses they’d take.
Honest reaction to a serious question. The American military complex isn’t about specific fighting doctrine. It’s by far the world’s largest logistics organization. The airlift capacity of the military likely means that a carrier group wouldn’t have to stick around.
I have mental images of carpet bombing paths through sea ice. Ice is tough, but 500lb dumb bombs do pack quite a punch, and there is a big fleet of bombers that would operate with relative impunity once air dominance is achieved with the aforementioned carrier group.
:-/
This feels like the time Poland sent eight soldiers in with the US invasion of Iraq.
It’s 13. Germany is sending 13 soldiers. Literally the minimum to be able to say “over a dozen”.
Hi. I have to step in about Polish soldiers :p I don’t know what you’re referring to but there were 2500 Polish soldiers deployed to Iraq, 150 wounded and 28 dead. That was during very hard economic times for Poland, still recovering from communism. Somehow they found money for this and sent them with really shitty equipment (cars “armoured” with bulletproof vests on the doors as protection for example)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_involvement_in_the_Iraq_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balcerowicz_Plan#Effects
:-/ Like saying they’re still recovering from a charlie horse after you put a shotgun to their kneecaps.
But yes, Poland limped into the Iraq War and managed to catch several hundred strays over the course of the conflict. In exchange, the Bush Administration kicked the country back $200M in relief (contingent on further privatization and financialization of their nascent market system).
Blood money spends well, at least.
It’s more than they sent to Ukraine!
These are advance troops that will figure out logistics, where it makes sense to deploy a bigger force. What they need, and infrastructure.
They are also a deterrent, if german soldiers are killed shit will hit the fan.
Often called “tripwire forces” when they were NATO troops stationed in Eastern Europe. Their purpose is to force the adversary to kill some people before it can take any territory, ensuring that they can’t simply make it a fait accompli and hope there will be no further repercussions.
It just says that they will be participating in some exercises. Nothing about permanent force.
Yo Mr. Mertz brief this guy on the real plan and what orders you gave those soldiers!
Should this article also state what they will be having for breakfast?
I wish I was still so naive I believed EU has some secret plan to defeat US. Especially Germany, country that was blind to the threat Russia posed for two decades. Yeah, I’m sure they will go to war over Greenland now…
It’s also funny that they are open about sending this tiny group of soldiers, something they could easily hide, but are hiding the plan to send a bigger force, something that will be impossible to hide. Kind of silly, really. Almost like thinking that Germany would commit any permanent force to Greenland without informing their own public.
It’s all a show yes, they try to show tough now, but will fold once Trump makes any real move for Greenland.
I mean, we’ll see. But if the US really is serious about taking Greenland by force, you’ve got a US military base already on the island that’s been running these defense calculations for decades. It’s going to be an uphill climb just to reach parity with the Americans on securing the territory. I hope this isn’t perfunctory, and someone is asking the question “How do we deal with one or more US aircraft carriers?” seriously.
You mean like that time when a Swedish diesel sub bypassed all the defenses and “sunk” the US carrier?
Or that time when Netherlands sub “sunk” one?
Or that time when Australia “sunk” one?
Or that time when Canada “sunk” one?
Those carriers are far from invincible.
The USA is historically bad at wars - Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea - all lost despite their massive military spending.
The only wars they won in modern times are the ones where they received help from their EU NATO allies.
They’re only good at “strike and run away” operations, like the one in Venezuela.
If they can’t take Greenland overnight, it will cost them very dearly to go to war with NATO, with no certainty of winning.
To add to this, the US is not that great in the Arctic. To occupy Greenland they need boots on the ground, and they are not equipped or manned to do Arctic land operations. EU + Canada surpass them in that. The US only has the one airborne division that are actually cold weather fighters. They also have far fewer ice breakers and the additional units that they were going to buy from Finland (who makes the best ones in the world) will surely be canceled.
To date, no US aircraft carrier has been lost in a military operation. You’re using “sunk” to describe military exercises that informed the US of all the strategies potentially deployed by these countries.
If the Europeans want to put a US carrier at the bottom of the ocean, I’m not going to shed a tear. But you’re pointing to scrimmage runs and exhibition matches, while you’ve been letting Americans see your playbooks (hell, write your playbooks) for the last 60 years.
Put up or shut up.
Typical Americunt, picking and choosing their propaganda points and completely ignoring anything else. Exactly like your orange pedo cunt of a president.
Americunts keep losing their wars against much much weaker militaries and you haven’t won a proper war in decades.
Americunts can’t win a war without your EU allies because the EU are the ones with successful strategies, like how to bypass the “most advanced navy” defenses and sink their expensive carriers.
Americunts are only good at drive bys and hit and run attacks, you don’t know how to fight a proper war. Fact.
So no, Americunts have terrible playbooks. Good luck.
This part is particularly silly:
Do you believe that other countries have been training alongside Americans for decades and have never picked up any knowledge of their skills, methods, strategy, tactics, doctrine, weapons, etc? Never learned anything at all about how Americans fight? The Americans are the most visible military on the planet, and the most gregarious, they’re in every country and training with all of these countries, and somehow no one ever figured out how they do it?
I think when you’ve got 100x players on the field to their 1x, the learning curve tilts in your favor. EU members in subordinate roles and supporting positions, without command and control access to the biggest pieces of hardware, aren’t going to have the accumulated experiences of US veterans. Nevermind the amount of time the US has spent in the field relative to their European peers.
I don’t think it’s a mystery at a high level. But that’s like saying “It’s no mystery how Tom Brady won all those football games”. When you get into the finer details, you discover why 13 years of Superbowls never produced a rival defense that could consistently shut down the Patriots’ Offense.
I suspect you have puddle-deep insight into global economic dependencies, the fragility of the US economy, the EU + Canada Arctic warfare capabilities, and the likely outcome of an invasion of a northern neighboring country that looks like you, sounds like you, and can hide in plain sight or hop over the indefensible border to bring violence to your homes. The US has no concept of a war that impacts their home country, and dropping some hardware and troops in a country on the other side of the planet, in a country with no economic connection to the US, is not the same thing. Even when the enemy has different skin and vastly different culture and language, they still end up leaving after decades of slaughter having accomplished nothing but huge debt for taxpayers, huge profits for oil companies and defense contractors, and piles of dead Americans.
So, to you I say - do it. Shit or get off the pot. Nothing will hasten the downfall of the shittiest form of America quicker than trying to go to war with the world. You are fighting for treasure, we are fighting for survival. And don’t be surprised if the strategy is to pretend to be humbled before Trump, who is incapable of seeing when he’s being manipulated, in order to slow play and draw out the inevitable internal and economic collapse.
Now say it in German.
Oh man, this dinner is going to be so good when I have 100 chefs making it.
America lost a bunch in World War II. Since then they’ve been exceedingly careful not to risk losing them, always putting them up against foes that couldn’t hit back. Both because they’re expensive, of course, but also to cultivate the very myth that you’re falling for - that American naval power is “invincible.”
It’s not.
Are they going to kill German & French troops to do that? If there are UK troops there then goodbye to hundreds of billions in AUKUS $ too.
Europe depends more on the US than the US does on Europe. What would the EU do? Sanctions, send more troops, war?
The entire EU economy depends on American companies and would crumble in a few days, without even having to do any military action in Groenland.
Would you say - 3 days?
Theres a lot of confident comments in this thread.
Any US carrier strike group can probably sink the entire navy of most countries. This calls for a full NATO response because if it doesn’t then I don’t know what does
Wasn’t it one of the Nordics that ‘sunk’ an American carried in drills a while back?
Yes, the Swedish diesel electric subs are really quiet and hard to detect in a war game scenario, but that is done with many artificial constraints to the defending CSG, which is tightly packed in a relatively small patch of ocean that the Swedish sub knew and could plan for.
In reality those subs are stealthy only while traveling at 6 knots and the CSG can travel at 30 over vast expanses of water, with an effective strike range of 2000 miles.
Also, in war they’re allowed to use high energy sonars that they can’t use in a war game because it kills marine animals, which will detect a turd floating 500 miles away (exaggerating here but you get the idea).
It did, and the US considered the outcome so concerning that they requested to lease the submarine (but not install a crew - Swedish sailors would operate it in the US navy). Since those were different times, with only mild insanity among US presidents, Sweden granted the request.
Wikipedia tells us:
One of? I thought it was several…
It’s not about realistically fighting of the US if they decide to really go for it, but they will have to kill European soldiers if they decide to do so. This would effectively end NATO and the transantlantic partnership.
NATO isn’t a partnership between democratic member states, its a partnership between regional militaries.
The end state of the conflict over Greenland will be - if anything - a series of US-backed coups in European countries that preserve NATO by realigning the civilian leadership with the foreign policy of the US.
We’re already seeing this with the AfD in Germany, the Reform UK in England, and National Rally in France. These countries are functionally aligning with Trump as white-nationalist governments working towards the same end goals. And they’ve all heavily infiltrated their domestic militaries.
For those downvoting, it’s real and was leaked previously:
A purported leak from a document labelled as part of America’s National Security Strategy has sparked intense debate across Europe. The document allegedly suggests that the United States aims to weaken or remove the current ruling parties in France, the United Kingdom, and Germany
What? That didn’t happen. Poland sent thousands of troops to support the war.
200, in the year of the invasion. It swelled to 2,500 over the next five years, then trickled away into a final withdrawal a month before the Republicans lost the White House in 2008.
There were smaller deployments - Iceland sent 2 soldiers, for instance. But it all paled behind the the US at 150k and UK at 46k. Which goes back to the whole problem with a NATO internal conflict. The US is the backbone of European defense. Again, what do any of these countries plan to do against an aircraft carrier group? Nobody seems to have a serious answer.
Serious question: how will a carrier group fare in arctic ice during winter? Will it be what is needed to hold an Arctic island after showing up all bristly in the summer months?
While the USA’s relatively slim arctic-ready forces are deployed on the Atlantic side of the ice, what will be happening on the pacific side?
An answer: they can take it, but when winter comes, holding it will be difficult. The northern NATO members have notable infantry that can use the ice to advantage, and there are only five or six harbours of interest in Greenland.
Another perspective is that the US has military bases all around Europe. They don’t need to fight in Greenland if they can pressure opposing governments directly on their home turf
Climate change has made this a receding problem, which is one reason why Greenland is suddenly hot property. In another ten years, you may be able to sail the perimeter of Greenland fully unobstructed all year round.
Holding it from whom? Nobody in NATO actually has the stomach for the kind of losses they’d take.
Honest reaction to a serious question. The American military complex isn’t about specific fighting doctrine. It’s by far the world’s largest logistics organization. The airlift capacity of the military likely means that a carrier group wouldn’t have to stick around.
I have mental images of carpet bombing paths through sea ice. Ice is tough, but 500lb dumb bombs do pack quite a punch, and there is a big fleet of bombers that would operate with relative impunity once air dominance is achieved with the aforementioned carrier group.
Distract it from Putin. Who do you think is running this clown show?
Peter Thiel, Steven Miller, and David Navaro, by the look of things.
Still better than the orange juice America got from Israel for its wars.