Is Greenland next?

96,821 Views | 1298 Replies | Last: 4 days ago by aggiehawg
KentK93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GAC06 said:

Danes fought in Afghanistan after we invoked NATO's article five. I flew close air support for them there.



21st Century: Active Combat Deployments

Since the early 2000s, Denmark has adopted a more activist foreign policy and contributed combat forces to several U.S.- and NATO-led coalitions, often with significant casualties relative to its population size.
War in Afghanistan (20012021)
Denmark was a major contributor to the NATO-led ISAF and Resolute Support missions, deploying around 9,00010,000 personnel over the years (with peaks of 700800 troops). Danish forces operated in the dangerous Helmand Province alongside British troops, suffering 43 fatalities (the highest per capita among coalition nations). This was Denmark's most intense and prolonged combat engagement in the modern era.
Iraq War (20032011)
Denmark joined the U.S.-led coalition in the 2003 invasion and occupation, deploying troops (primarily in Basra Province with British forces) from 2003 to 2007/2008, with around 500 personnel at peak. Danish forces saw combat and training roles, withdrawing combat troops in 2007 but continuing some support later.
2011 Libyan Civil War
Danish F-16 fighter jets participated in the NATO-led intervention (enforcing the no-fly zone and conducting airstrikes), contributing significantly (Denmark hit about 17% of targets in some phases).
Other Recent Operations
Denmark has also contributed to:
The fight against ISIL (Operation Inherent Resolve, including airstrikes in Iraq/Syria and training missions).
Anti-piracy operations off Somalia (Operation Ocean Shield).
Ongoing missions in Mali, South Sudan, and NATO's enhanced forward presence in the Baltics (e.g., Latvia since 2022).

Interesting they didn't fight in Korea.

But they haven't been spending enough on defense for last 30 years. Their navy frigates are like our LCS ships crappy!

Denmark's defense spending (also called military expenditure) over the last 30 years (roughly 19962025) has shown a clear pattern: relatively stable and low in the post-Cold War period (often hovering around 1.31.5% of GDP), followed by a sharp increase starting around 20222023 due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, major aid donations to Ukraine, and commitments to meet/exceed NATO's 2% GDP target. Figures are most reliably sourced from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and NATO reports, reported in current US dollars (USD) unless noted otherwise. Note that there can be slight variations between national Danish definitions (often lower) and NATO/SIPRI definitions (which include aid to allies like Ukraine and are typically higher).
Key Trends and Recent Figures (in current USD billions)
From the mid-1990s to around 2021, annual spending was generally in the $35 billion range.
1995: $3.12 billion
1996: $3.09 billion
Late 1990s/early 2000s: Around $2.83.5 billion (e.g., 1998: $2.85 billion)
2010s: Typically $35 billion (e.g., 2019: $4.49 billion, 2020: $4.89 billion)
Sharp rise post-2022:
2021: $5.27 billion
2022: $5.48 billion
2023: $8.14 billion (a ~49% jump from 2022, largely due to Ukraine aid)
2024: $9.96 billion to $9.96 billion (some sources report ~$9.96 billion or $9.96 billion)
2025 projections/allocations point to continued growth, with plans pushing toward 3%+ of GDP temporarily (including Arctic investments and new systems), potentially exceeding $10 billion annually in the near term.
Cumulative Estimate Over 30 Years
Summing approximate annual figures (based on SIPRI/Macrotrends data trends):
19952021 (~27 years): Roughly $100130 billion total (averaging ~$4 billion/year, with gradual increases).
20222025 (~4 years): Roughly $3040 billion (with the recent surge).
Total rough estimate for ~19962025: Around $140180 billion USD (this is approximate, as exact year-by-year summation varies slightly by source and exchange rates; the post-2022 acceleration accounts for a disproportionate share).
In Danish Kroner (DKK) Context
National Danish figures (per the Ministry of Defence) are often lower than NATO/SIPRI ones:
2024: 36.2 billion DKK (national) vs. much higher under NATO inclusion of aid.
Recent plans: Significant multi-year allocations (e.g., DKK 75 billion for 2025 in some reports, with long-term packages up to DKK 190+ billion over 10 years).
Denmark historically prioritized "peace dividend" cuts after the Cold War but has become one of NATO's most proactive spenders relative to size since 2022, including massive Ukraine support (among the highest per capita). For the most precise year-by-year data, refer to SIPRI's downloadable database or NATO's annual defence expenditure reports.
shiftyandquick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who wants NATO broken up and ended, and even possibly at war with each other?

Who is pulling on the strings here?

HoustonAggie11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So the Danes honored a treaty they willing agreed to(Afghan War), means we cannot acquire Greenland?

LOL
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If they don't want to sell it, we can't "acquire" it except by force. They don't want to sell it. So is it worth it to burn down any semblance of world leadership to take some land that we just as easily could have defended in cooperation with Denmark?
Hey Nav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Don't have enough time to expound on my "Don't be an idiot" comment , but here's what I got (a copy and paste from AI, but essentially accurate) :

While the United States suffered a vastly higher absolute number of military fatalities in Afghanistan compared to Denmark, Denmark sustained a higher rate of casualties per capita, often cited as one of the highest among all coalition partners.

Casualty Comparison (20012021)
  • United States: Roughly 2,461 - 2,465 military personnel died in Afghanistan.
  • Denmark: 43 military personnel died in Afghanistan.
Per Capita Comparison
Despite having a population of fewer than 6 million, Denmark's small, specialized force in high-risk areas like Helmand province resulted in a significant casualty rate relative to its size.
  • Denmark: ~7.38 to 8.6 deaths per million people.
  • United States: ~7.43 deaths per million people.
Note: Some analyses, such as those from the New Yorker (2010), placed Denmark's per capita loss as the highest in the coalition, often noted as 1 death per 177,000 citizens, compared to the US rate of 1 in 302,000.

Key Differences in Engagement
  • Total Force Contribution: The U.S. had a massive, fluctuating presence, while Denmark deployed over 18,000 soldiers total over the course of the 20-year conflict.
  • Role and Intensity: Danish forces were heavily engaged in combat operations in the dangerous Helmand province from 2006 to 2014, working closely with British and American counterparts.
  • Wounded: Denmark recorded 214 soldiers wounded in action in Afghanistan, in addition to their 43 fatalities. The U.S. recorded over 20,000 wounded.
In summary, while the US endured the largest total burden of death, Denmark sacrificed a higher percentage of its deployed personnel and population in support of the mission.

Therefore, don't be an idiot when commenting on the sacrifices of those that fought and died in the war, a war that was started with killing people in NYC - not in Denmark.
JustAGuy100
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NATO is going to break up just like some rich spoiled kids with no notable skills are going to go out on their own. I'm guessing you were predicting WWIII when we bombed Iran and arrested Maduro. This is what strategy backed by the strongest economy and military in the world looks like.
TommyBrady
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
shiftyandquick said:

Who wants NATO broken up and ended, and even possibly at war with each other?

Who is pulling on the strings here?





TexAgs91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
W said:

when was last time Danish troops were in combat?

the big one -- 85 years ago?


Everyone knows we could whoop Denmark's ass. No one is concerned about this so I don't know why people keep making this point.

Maybe it's about something else.
No, I don't care what CNN or Miss NOW said this time
Ad Lunam
HoustonAggie11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexAgs91 said:

W said:

when was last time Danish troops were in combat?

the big one -- 85 years ago?


Everyone knows we could whoop Denmark's ass. No one is concerned about this so I don't know why people keep making this point.

Maybe it's about something else.

some dude served with the Danes in Afghanistan so we cant legally acquire Greenland....terrible logic.
TexAgs91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HoustonAggie11 said:

TexAgs91 said:

W said:

when was last time Danish troops were in combat?

the big one -- 85 years ago?


Everyone knows we could whoop Denmark's ass. No one is concerned about this so I don't know why people keep making this point.

Maybe it's about something else.

some dude served with the Danes in Afghanistan so we cant legally acquire Greenland....terrible logic.


Strawman. That's why the logic is so bad.
No, I don't care what CNN or Miss NOW said this time
Ad Lunam
Hubert J. Farnsworth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hubert J. Farnsworth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
[You can make your point without being disrespectful to others -- Staff]
HoustonAggie11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

Malibu said:

flown-the-coop said:

Mark Warner (D(ouche)-VA) is playing the role of libtard on with Bret Baier regurgitating the reddit talking points about end of NATO, Thule amendment says we can do what we want anyways, and this is driving our allies into the arms of China and Russia.

For those speaking the same takes, you are perfectly aligned with Mark Warner. That is embarrassing.

Watching how Canada and the EU are actually in the real world responding to this is now reddit talking points, instead, well, reality.

We're in real time watching the collapse of American soft power, watching our allies hedge to China, and blowing up a system of trust built over the last 85 years that has made us the most prosperous nation on Earth, because dear leader didn't get a medal.


God, you and all the rest of these TDS riddled clowns are insufferable. Every single one of you would take Europe's side on anything against Trump.

They would actively root for Bin Laden if he was alive today.
Hubert J. Farnsworth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'll say it. I love Trump throwing our weight around against all of these weak countries that have been screwing us over for decades. It's too bad we have a bunch of liberals that care more about the wellbeing of European countries than the US.
Ramdiesel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hullabaloonatic said:

If we're concerned about China and Russia, why are we pissing off our allies and risking the breaking up of NATO? (Something China and Russia want).


NATO breaking up or maybe reforming with less countries is just a matter of time, Trump's just accellerating that by a decade or 2...We can't trust some of our European allies anymore, they've shown us this over and over.

It's honestly going to be fortress USA/ western hemisphere soon and we can't stop it. We can't stop China, we can't stop Muslim/ Islamic immigration to Europe. We can't even control our own borders consistently..We can't control who other countries make trade deals with..We can't police the world, and we can't pay off our debts. We can't stop Russia either and we will never have world peace.

All we can control is try to make the dollar stronger and try to keep it strong and setup massive defenses for our country/ hemisphere and hope the rest of the world leaves us alone and try to stay out of their conflicts.

The DEMs will definitely not agree with that take, but their's no evidence we can make things better if we just keep doing what we have been doing in the past. The debt will just keep growing and the dollar will keep getting weaker.
AgFrogfan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
this entire quagmire is based solely upon naval and material strength. the historical truth to be learned is why adolf hitler dedicated so many of nazi germany's resources toward arctic fortifactions and presence.

Wasn't it Norway he built an entire fortification system along their coastline similar to a maginot line approach? Was he defending himself or the third reich from Greenland/Iceland/England-Canada/U.S.A.?

adolf was never an adolphus and that resentment created a sub-par soldier that dedicated himself to grandeur based upon blame for a society that he never experienced because he was an amateur artist at best. willing and using exterminational measures by any means necessary.

he was not the devil because the lived is smarter.




nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Giorgia Meloni sets the record straight:
Donald Trump was ready to calmly discuss Greenland.

It's Europe that messed it all up.
Hostile stance.
Anti-American rhetoric.
No diplomacy, just ideology.

Simple message:
The United States aren't the enemy.
The problem is those who sabotage dialogue out of arrogance.

Finally, someone speaking with real common sense.



Bessemer just flatly said 'no' when asked if there was any cause for concern as to what Europe might do. I think we are moving past the foot-stomping/holding breath stage and getting to serious discussions now.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

LOLOL.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tillis tells Danish media he is going to reign in Trump over Greenland:
Quote:

COPENHAGEN, Denmark In his 348 days left in office yes, he's counting Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) could end up becoming the biggest headache for Senate GOP leaders and the White House.
The North Carolina Republican is the deciding vote on all four of his committees, having exercised that leverage a few times already since announcing last year that he won't seek reelection, including most recently with Federal Reserve nominees.
During an hour-long interview over Danish smrrebrd, Tillis said President Donald Trump's push to grab control of Greenland and use tariffs to punish allies who oppose the effort is likely to be his next target.
"It's about to come out on a grand scale," said Tillis, who's in Davos this week. "The straws are dropping on the proverbial camel's back."
While Tillis hasn't yet decided what he'll target or how, he's teasing a much more expansive effort. In addition to blocking certain nominees in committee, Tillis noted he could also derail packages of nominees on the floor by demanding individual roll-call votes.
Tillis said he could also withhold his votes on the floor and, if a few others join him, grind the chamber to a halt.
We sat down with Tillis shortly after he and other lawmakers participated in a wreath-laying ceremony at a memorial for Danish troops, who died in battle, including on the United States' behalf in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tillis got especially emotional and told us that Trump's threats amount to the "betrayal of a friend."
For these lawmakers, the trip was a reminder of how Congress has ceded so much of its authority to the executive branch that it's become difficult to actually reassure U.S. allies of lawmakers' ability to rein in the president.
"Even though you've given certain authorities away, that doesn't mean that with the right cooperation, the Article I branch still can't be as assertive," said Tillis. "It just requires people to come out of the shadows."


Per TOS I am not going to share my thoughts on this here.
MaxPower
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You can have any opinion you want but Trump is definitely pushing the envelope on what the executive branch can do. His tariffs will likely get knocked down (quite telling considering how conservative SCOTUS is) but the reality is that the legislative branch exists for a reason and to rubber stamp whatever the executive wants is not it (whether controlled by his own party or not). Many on this thread have completely dismissed the idea that Trump will use a military option but the reality is that may be his only option (and it's a bad one). If he can't legally levy tariffs and he needs Congress to approve the money for a buyout to Denmark then what other option is there? He'd have to claim there's a threat requiring military force.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sorry, I am not willing to share my thoughts on Thom's words in Davos there. I apologize, just not worth it to me. Agree to disagree with your analyses, respectfully.

Hungary blocked a joint EU statement on Greenland, saying it is a Danish-American matter, not EU.

I agree.
ArbAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hullabaloonatic said:

If we're concerned about China and Russia, why are we pissing off our allies and risking the breaking up of NATO? (Something China and Russia want).


Actually, I'm optimistic, we get Greenland and its rare earth elements and break up NATO in the process. It's well past the time that the eurotrash should take over their own defense and start defending against Putin.
TexAgs91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I wonder if the next marxicrat that takes office would give Greenland back to Denmark if Trump is able to get it.
No, I don't care what CNN or Miss NOW said this time
Ad Lunam
K2-HMFIC
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Nigel Farage on Greenland.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
HoustonAggie11 said:

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

Malibu said:

flown-the-coop said:

Mark Warner (D(ouche)-VA) is playing the role of libtard on with Bret Baier regurgitating the reddit talking points about end of NATO, Thule amendment says we can do what we want anyways, and this is driving our allies into the arms of China and Russia.

For those speaking the same takes, you are perfectly aligned with Mark Warner. That is embarrassing.

Watching how Canada and the EU are actually in the real world responding to this is now reddit talking points, instead, well, reality.

We're in real time watching the collapse of American soft power, watching our allies hedge to China, and blowing up a system of trust built over the last 85 years that has made us the most prosperous nation on Earth, because dear leader didn't get a medal.


God, you and all the rest of these TDS riddled clowns are insufferable. Every single one of you would take Europe's side on anything against Trump.

They would actively root for Bin Laden if he was alive today.

They would certainly insist he be brought here for due process, afforded the best lawyers, then be considered for asylum because rival gangs in his homeland are mad at him.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
K2-HMFIC said:



Nigel Farage on Greenland.

Nigel is trending to the middle as he sees weakness in Keirs extreme position and picking the middle is good as he fancies himself to be the next PM. People way over read public comments particularly by Farage (who I I like, who is doing what I would if I were in his position with his goals).
Logos Stick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't disagree, but having a sitting R Senator actively working against him like that is pathetic.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MaxPower said:

You can have any opinion you want but Trump is definitely pushing the envelope on what the executive branch can do. His tariffs will likely get knocked down (quite telling considering how conservative SCOTUS is) but the reality is that the legislative branch exists for a reason and to rubber stamp whatever the executive wants is not it (whether controlled by his own party or not). Many on this thread have completely dismissed the idea that Trump will use a military option but the reality is that may be his only option (and it's a bad one). If he can't legally levy tariffs and he needs Congress to approve the money for a buyout to Denmark then what other option is there? He'd have to claim there's a threat requiring military force.

He's not invading Greenland. But unless one has been in a coma the last 30 years, Trump always starts the negotiation with all chips, weapons and Danishes in play. So it is easy to dismiss the idea when it's the remotest of possibilities. But let's say China grows something bigger than little pangolin berries and decides to work a deal with Denmark, we are then woefully behind the 8-ball and have to invest 4 times as much to try and achieve the same result.

Many on this thread have completely dismissed the idea the Denmark and the EU are simply going to do as we say and when we say it.

Heck, their resistance to Trump right now proves his point.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Let's put this in real word context. About 50 years ago Jimmy Carter decided we could just trust Panama and let them have control over the Canal Zone. No worries, we will have an agreement for US warships, maintain quasi-control over the locks, continue to profit from the ports on each end, and have strategic control of one of if not the most important shipping lane in the world.

And Trump had to also take it back after the Chinese setup shop to control shipping on both ends.


Good analogy. Many just refuse to believe the new state of the world. China has flat out said in recent weeks that they are not going to stop infiltrating the Western Hemisphere regardless of what Trump does and that's because they know he won't be here 3 years from now. They are an old, strategic culture and will simply wait him out.

I realize many on here think Trump is a shoot from the hip dude who has no strategy but reality is far different from that. He certainly bloviates a lot and says some stupid **** at times - this letter about his award is prime example - but it doesn't change the strategic necessity of securing Greenland now before Russia/China start taking swipes at it. And they will when we get a weak POTUS back in office barring some more ironclad agreements now.

When we get another Marxist DSA in office (and we will), then we can count on open borders and a return to ignoring our back yard in favor of Europe. This is partly why Trump is trying to get this done now, because there won't be another opportunity.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's easy for the masses to say Trump is an immature narcissist with not strategy as you point out. Yet here he is as POTUS again disrupting the global status quo of China first, terrorist appeasement and worldwide socialism.

Quite literally someone tried to make the case that Bush deposing Saddam led to instability in the ME by removing the Iraq check on Iranian power… and in turn that led them to develop nukes and wage war via proxy and directly with Israel.

Evidently the days of gassing the Kurds en masse has been soon forgotten and memories of the two going at it was like a friendly cricket match. Completely asinine.
infinity ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MaxPower said:

You can have any opinion you want but Trump is definitely pushing the envelope on what the executive branch can do. His tariffs will likely get knocked down (quite telling considering how conservative SCOTUS is) but the reality is that the legislative branch exists for a reason and to rubber stamp whatever the executive wants is not it (whether controlled by his own party or not). Many on this thread have completely dismissed the idea that Trump will use a military option but the reality is that may be his only option (and it's a bad one). If he can't legally levy tariffs and he needs Congress to approve the money for a buyout to Denmark then what other option is there? He'd have to claim there's a threat requiring military force.


I don't think tariffs will get knocked down. That has nothing to do with the constitution.
txwxman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexAgs91 said:

I wonder if the next marxicrat that takes office would give Greenland back to Denmark if Trump is able to get it.

It would take a single stroke of a pen to undue it. And it will be undone.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
txwxman said:

TexAgs91 said:

I wonder if the next marxicrat that takes office would give Greenland back to Denmark if Trump is able to get it.

It would take a single stroke of a pen to undue it. And it will be undone.

And dems would certainly be stupid enough to do it for no other good reason to spite Trump.

I suspect the will release Maduro, send pallets of cash to Iran, denounce Israel, recognize Palestine, award medals to Hamas, then invite back in all the deportees given them immediate citizenship.

We will then pay trillions in reparations to all aggrieved subjects of the US as long as they are not tax paying white male christians… cause someone has to pay for it all.

A reminder to never ever ever vote for a D candidate. Thanks for pointing out the consequences of such.
Maroon Dawn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GAC06 said:

If they don't want to sell it, we can't "acquire" it except by force. They don't want to sell it. So is it worth it to burn down any semblance of world leadership to take some land that we just as easily could have defended in cooperation with Denmark?


That's intentionally ignoring the other path:

Greenland has a right to leave the kingdom and become their own country

We are offering them a compact of mutual association where they get to be their own country with their own laws but we provide the military defense and send them financial aid.

Denmark is now saying "ooooh hey, so we didn't really mean it when we said you could stop being our colonial possession and we're gonna have to veto it"

The Euros will not let us install the offensive and defensive missile systems we want to in Greenland because that makes America less vulnerable to China and Russia and they're worried that if we are more protected then we'll stop funding their defense and they'll have to give up socialism and defend themselves.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
They Danes loved the idea of Greenland self-determination they sterilized 12yo girls to keep the natives in check. Great Danes!
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.