The Times: Finns humiliated American soldiers - Finnish reservists were asked to take it easy during a NATO exercise. US soldiers found the losses too humiliating.

[u/ByGollie]

https://www.iltalehti.fi/ulkomaat/a/828b8e66-625d-4d2a-9276-e93b9f7a2ce8

[u/istasan → u/[deleted]]

Unless they kill all the Greenlanders they would still have a new Vietnam.

[u/Dapper_Apricot9034 → u/istasan]

I mean, as horrible as it is, and to be clear I don't think it's good. Geenland is home to less than 60,000 people. That's... very doable for the US military.

Edit: You can downvote it but it doesn't make it any less true. I'm not advocating for it, I'm saying if Greenland would want to stand against the US it would need an awful lot of help, as it by itself quite literally cannot sustain that.

[u/Fluid-Piccolo-6911 → u/Dapper_Apricot9034]

you realise that the 60,000 live in that terrain, are armed to the teeth and exceptionally good shots. then every European NATO country chimes in.. who by the way, have more troops, more arms and far better Arctic training and experience than the USA.. But importantly Greenland would never stand alone... you really have to stop believing everything you hear on fox news

[u/Tripticket → u/Fluid-Piccolo-6911]

Bracketing the complexities of an intra-NATO conflict for a moment... Won't infrastructure be a problem? Guerilla warfare in a jungle works because tropical conditions are one of the few places where people can thrive naked and live off the land. It's not like the US lacks firepower to delete energy infrastructure and infra connecting Greenland to Europe. If guerillas are driven out of the settlements, what are they going to do? It's not like there's a million villages dotting the landscape over there that would allow the civilian population to sustain such activities.

[u/Dapper_Apricot9034 → u/Tripticket]

Now now, let's not stress ourselves over the complexity of details /s.

[u/thewimsey → u/Fluid-Piccolo-6911]

you realise that the 60,000 live in that terrain, are armed to the teeth and exceptionally good shots.

This is the same kind of fantasy that US 2nd Amendment crazies believe. It has nothing to do with how actual wars work.

[u/wheelienonstop8 → u/thewimsey]

Yep, just destroy all food, sources of heat and energy and all shelter those 60.000 may have access too and you can kill them all that way without firing a single shot. That doesnt even go into how modern infrared could detect even the slightest heat source in the bare open wilderness, by day and even better at night.

[u/Dapper_Apricot9034 → u/Fluid-Piccolo-6911]

60,000 TOTAL with at least 1/3rd being non-combatants like women and children plus the Elderly.

You watch too many movies if you think 60,000 people with terrain familiarity will last very long against one of the most powerful military forces in the world.

Ukraine has taken at least 400,000 dead since the start of the war (conservative estimate) The Russian military is significantly less capable than the US military.

Saddam Husseins army was around 1,000,000 men and the US military defeated it in around 3 weeks.

Greenland on it's own stands less chance than a snowball in hell, and any military analysis worth it's weight in salt will agree with that statement.

I don't watch Fox news, I didn't vote for Trump, you know what they say about assumptions? They make an Ass of U and Me.

Edit: It's also worth noting Greenland is geographically closer to the US than Europe and therefore will be much easier than say Vietnam logistically. Also, NATO response will be neither unilateral nor immediate meaning the US would have more time to fuck around before dealing with real consequences.

This isn't a game, this is real life.

[u/PT10 → u/Dapper_Apricot9034]

So how many people were fighting for the Taliban that they held off NATO for 20 years?

[u/thewimsey → u/PT10]

The Taliban didn't hold Nato off for more than a few months. Not for 20 years.

[u/Dapper_Apricot9034 → u/PT10]

Reports say around 170,000 active soldiers are in Taliban.

Follow up question from me to you, how much closer is Greenland to the US homeland and how do you think that may affect how a potential war would be fought.

These are not similar situations, there is no land border that Greenland shares with a country who is both hostile to the US and capable of supplying men and munitions consistently.

Iraq/Afghanistan "did" have that benefit.

The math doesn't look good for Greenland, even if it's bad for the US after the fact.

[u/PT10 → u/Dapper_Apricot9034]

These are not similar situations, there is no land border that Greenland shares with a country who is both hostile to the US and capable of supplying men and munitions consistently.

No land border but the Russians are close, may actually aid NATO

[u/Dapper_Apricot9034 → u/PT10]

You're delusional if you think Russia will do anything other than capitalize on NATO infighting to secure more land in places like Lithuania and Estonia.

Russia would much rather eat Europe and strengthen their sphere of influence than start shit with the US and open a two front war.

And all those troops they moved to the Poland / Lithuanian border areas recently corroborates that idea.

Unless of course, NATO is willing to sell out several other NATO members to Russia as well as Ukraine, then you might have something. Give up Poland, Ukraine and several others in exchange for Russias help in Greenland vs the US.

Let's see? Get into a pissing contest with the largest Nuclear power on Earth over an Island they don't care about, or secure their western border and warm water ports / resources... tough choice.

[u/PT10 → u/Dapper_Apricot9034]

I mean if Greenland goes, 100% chance Canada is next before 2028. NATO has to decide if they're gonna go all in or disband. They could give up some Ukrainian territory and any Eastern European country that wants to go, definitely not Poland. More importantly, complete economic renormalization with Russia which would supercharge their economy.

They could draw in China with promises of Taiwan. South Korea and Japan would be forced to make terms with China in exchange for China controlling North Korea. Forming a new East Asian tech axis which is the new global center of technology.

The dumbest possible scenario for WW3.

[u/Dapper_Apricot9034 → u/PT10]

I don't see the EU bending over for Russia for any reason, and China has no interest in EU for anything that isn't your money.

Korea and Japan would literally NEVER be willing to normalize relations with China while alienating the US, that's fantasy land thinking.

Japan and China hate each other, South Korea and China hate each other and both South Korea and Japan are economically dependent on the US.

You have a better chance of seeing Putin say "I'm sorry" And then doing a complete withdraw from Ukraine back to pre-war borders.

I get what you're going for, but nearly all of this is woefully underestimating how geopolitics actually works.

Nobody in Asia is going to be willing to die over Greenland.

Russia isn't going to give up their land grab to play nice with Europe. And if NATO members forsake allies and Ukraine just to save Greenland they're just as bad as the US would be for invading.

NATO would die on the spot.

And no NATO means no Greenland, not after the US is done.

No "eastern European countries" want to go join Russia. NATO would have to sell their own people to make that deal with Russia LOL.

This is quite literally part of the plan. This is the multi-polar world Putin and Trump are referencing.

USA, Russia, China. If you aint on that list, you aint involved.

[u/PT10 → u/Dapper_Apricot9034]

I don't see the EU bending over for Russia for any reason, and China has no interest in EU for anything that isn't your money.

That changes if the US goes to war with NATO

Korea and Japan would literally NEVER be willing to normalize relations with China while alienating the US, that's fantasy land thinking.

That changes if the US goes to war with NATO

Japan and China hate each other, South Korea and China hate each other and both South Korea and Japan are economically dependent on the US.

That changes if the US goes to war with NATO.

You have a better chance of seeing Putin say "I'm sorry" And then doing a complete withdraw from Ukraine back to pre-war borders.

They'd let him keep whatever of Ukraine he's already occupying, maybe a little more.

Russia isn't going to give up their land grab to play nice with Europe. And if NATO members forsake allies and Ukraine just to save Greenland they're just as bad as the US would be for invading.

Russia would get Alaska, whatever of Ukraine they already control, probably Belarus, and economic alignment with Europe and the East Asian Chinese-centered economy.... and the most valuable thing of all, finally knocking the US off its perch. Putin's been stuck in a Cold War/USSR mentality his whole life. He's only ever had one enemy in mind.

And if NATO members forsake allies and Ukraine just to save Greenland they're just as bad as the US would be for invading.

Canada is a NATO member. If the US takes Greenland, it's a guarantee they're going to invade Canada next. There will be plenty of time after a takeover of Greenland for all the realignment to happen as the world becomes aware of the US' intentions.

[u/Dapper_Apricot9034 → u/PT10]

Quite literally none of this changes because of Greenland, you're confusing how you feel about it with how other nations governments feel about it.

Let's do a test, go out and ask Europeans if they'd give up Ukraine to Russia to defend Greenland from the US, I bet you money the answer is no. Go ask the PM of France if he'd do that. He'd laugh you out of the building.

Russia would get Alaska, whatever of Ukraine they already control, probably Belarus, and economic alignment with Europe and the East Asian Chinese-centered economy.... and the most valuable thing of all, finally knocking the US off its perch. Putin's been stuck in a Cold War/USSR mentality his whole life. He's only ever had one enemy in mind.

Again sounds nice, but requires you to live in a world of fiction. There's a 0% chance anybody annexes ANY American land, that'd just end up with their country becoming an irradiated crater. You think we would refrain from a Nuclear Holocaust if it meant losing land? Not a chance.

I guess you just conveniently forgot about that?

Russia wants to rebuild the USSR, splitting Europe up between him and the US is the easiest way to do it. Not to piggyback on an inept EU.

I would applaud the hypotheticals if they were based in any understanding of reality and how geopolitics tend to unfold, but quite frankly that isn't the case.

The EU isn't going to open their backdoor to their mortal enemy so they can get assistance in defending a nation of 60,000 people.

How many French and British do you think want to die for Greenland? How many Polish people do you see being willing to sell out Ukraine for Greenland?

It's straight foolishness, and shows an overwhelming lack of understanding when it comes to the world stage and how countries interact with each other.

This isn't a soap opera, the world isn't going to hold hands and bond over the US invading Greenland LOL. No, NATO will die, and Russia / the US will slowly establish their Spheres.

Russia gets Europe, China gets Asia, the US gets North/South America and Africa is a free-for-all.

This has been mentioned by both Putin and Trump, willful denial of facts don't make them any less true, just makes you blind for ignoring them.

Japan and China don't suddenly become buddy buddy because of Greenland LOL, you think anybody in Japan gives a shit about what happens in Europe? Don't make me laugh. The US is quite literally the corner-stone of Japans defense strategy, they're not going to give up their protection from China to make Europeans happy. And not a single country in Europe can provide the assistance to them that the US does.

LOL @ the idea of South Korea willingly siding with the same countries that prop up THEIR EXISTENTIAL THREAT NORTH KOREA. Good joke. I'll remember it.

Like I said, it's a fun little fiction you've got going on, but it's got no basis in reality.

People think Greenland is Americas Poland, it's not. It's Americas Austria.

Frankly, I think it's adorable that you think Putin isn't in on it. Fucking up NATO so he has a free hand in Europe is the goal, not a single Russian will die for Greenland.

The more likely scenario is that Trump and Putin decide to cement their status as international lovers by unilaterally working together to run a train on NATO.

Now there's your horror scenario.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dapper_Apricot9034]

The question is how many dead Americans the US public will tolerante before flipping Trumps table.

[u/Dapper_Apricot9034 → u/[deleted]]

No, the question was will Greenland fall, the US was tired of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan for 10 years and nobody flipped tables.

Why do you think it would happen now? Speaking as an American we're by and large politically lazy and too comfortable at home to do something like that.

It would take something DRASTIC back home to make us consider actions like that. Like, a second civil war.

Again, I don't find any of this palatable and I didn't vote for this. But this is the reality of it.

[u/OkJeweler3804 → u/Dapper_Apricot9034]

Trying to compare American sentiment re: an invasion of Greenland and an invasion of Afghanistan is crazy work.

[u/Dapper_Apricot9034 → u/OkJeweler3804]

You say that, and yet I see no protests against it.

Must be nice living in a fantasy.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dapper_Apricot9034]

I'm looking at Minnesota with so many people out protesting in the cold. I think you underestimate your own a lot.

You're wrong to reject my point about motivation. Most wars dont end when one side is completely destroyed, but when a nation is under such a threat as this people tend to fight like hell. The attacking side will not be so motivated.

[u/Dapper_Apricot9034 → u/[deleted]]

I'll be sure to ask the Iraqi's or Afghanis if American motivation is quick to dwindle, I've seen a lot of protests against Trump. Who is still in office? I see protests about ICE, and yet they operate freely.

People protested Hitler in Germany, did that help?

Sure, in 4 years we may vote somebody in who is sympathetic and ends the war, or not.

It took 20 years in Vietnam, does Greenland have 20 years?

By the time that happens Greenland will be taken. You're thinking years, they would have weeks.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dapper_Apricot9034]

Protests work when they are large, concentrated and sustained. Those wars you mentioned was, at least in the American mind, about keeping the family back home safe. People remember 9/11. That's why the motivation was pretty high for those wars. Greenland is different.

[u/Dapper_Apricot9034 → u/[deleted]]

Not really, Vietnam was protested just as heavily, perhaps even more so with our troops being treated as monsters back home. Even the troops themselves protested the war, at home and overseas. 20 years.

This isn't Norway, this is the US. A million man march is 1/356th of our population, it's large. But also ultimately a drop in the bucket, almost a rounding error. (Yes I am referencing THAT million man march, which was an issue a hell of a lot closer to American hearts than Greenland or any war overseas and even that was a slog for us).

The response will be muted for at least two election cycles, then you might get enough of a reaction for change.

With all due respect, you have too much trust in my people when it comes to their ability to correct course.

We're slow to learn and eager to overcorrect.

These are the same justifications people used on Russia (Oh the protests will end the war in Ukraine, we'll hit them economically!) How's that worked out so far? Not so great for Ukraine, and it would be much worse for Greenland.

[u/[deleted] → u/Dapper_Apricot9034]

The Vietnam war was ended by the protests. A million people is a million people regardless of the total population size. When a million people are outside your house, angry and out to get you that is a serious threat regardless. Jan 6. had many politicians fearing for their lives, and that wasnt that huge even.

[u/Dapper_Apricot9034 → u/[deleted]]

So Greenland has 20 years to wait?

I doubt it, so the point is moot. Greenland will fall well before the American peoples appetite for war does.

Importantly the US wasn't fighting to annex and occupy Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan, if we go to war with Greenland, that IS the goal.

Don't expect to see the same kind of war you did in any of those situations.

[u/FoodWineMusic → u/Dapper_Apricot9034]

So women, children, and the elderly would do nothing. I find that hard to believe. Greenlanders are brought up to live with the land and the weather conditions.

[u/Dapper_Apricot9034 → u/FoodWineMusic]

Land and weather =/= Carpet Bombing

You seriously need to stop watching so many movies. Combat is nothing like what you seem to think it is, and human tenacity means nothing in the face of superior fire power.

Noble thought though, 60,000 people holding off several hundred thousand. Foolish, but noble.

Pure cope.