526
'It Would Be The Dumbest War In History': Danish MP Hits Back At Trump's Greenland Threats
(www.huffingtonpost.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2026
526 points (99.4% liked)
politics
27211 readers
2663 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
An attack on Greenland would trigger Article 5. An attack on one is an attack on all. It would start a world war.
Trump said that electing Kamala would lead to world war 3. Every accusation is an admission.
I think the EU would capitulate. They know they can't fight the US. But it would likely be the end of NATO.
There are options. Dumping US bonds would collapse the US, and the only thing that makes it hard is the US economy collapsing would be a bad thing for the EU right now.
Also, protracted resistance. Greenland is harsh territory, and Nordic weekend soldiers regularly beat US marines in exercises in cold weather warfare.
The USSR lost half a million in Afghanistan, 50k to fighting, 450k to the environment. And they didn't need to resupply via the Atlantic.
Also, the Nordics probs have the world's best submarine interdiction fleet, and most of the Cold War era US anti-sub stuff is actually reliant on Greenland, Iceland and the UK cooperating.
Nordic subs regularly score hits on US carriers in exercises.
Thanks, it is, in fact.
I haven't really read into this because the whole thing is so insane that if it happens all bets are off.
The thing that is a huge wildcard is how Denmark and the rest of the EU react.
In the sense that the EU is an obligatory military alliance closer than even NATO, so in essence if Denmark considers itself at war, so is France and her nuclear submarine fleet.
I mean Denmark already gave soldiers on the ground the order to shoot back. So they will "automatically" be at war. And if I recall correctly the EU has a similar paragraph to support each other than the NATO's.
EU is closer than NATO.
NATO says that if someone gets attacked, everyone else responds in a way they think is appropriate.
EU says that if someone gets attacked, everyone goes all out without consideration.
It would be the end of NATO as it stands, there's no reason the remaining countries couldn't continue the alliance or start a new one.
Would technically have to be a new one, NATO wasn't designed to handle this sort of scenario. Of course New NATO would be an America-free roughly equivalent, with some different governance to prevent things like a single county impeding something everyone else wants.
NATO already is mostly EU + US and then only Canada, UK, Turkey and some smaller ones which all are (politically) very close to the EU (much closer than to the US at least).
Article 1 very much says so.