• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

Should the US Invade Greenland (Denmark) & Panama

That’s a strange conclusion to draw, I tjust hink US Americans are drama queens.and useless as allies.

I’m not paying for that, get out of here.
I have heavily condemned my country on a number of occasions (not just trump being a bully toward greenland and Panama). The Iraq war for example had no justification whatsoever which I have consistently criticized. If you want to get in an argument with a "USA NUMBER ONE WE ARE PERFECT BLAH BLAH BLAH" look elsewhere. But as far as useless as allies? Let's look at what the USA has spent in terms of their GDP for the defense of Europe compared to what most other nato countries have spent. European countries generally have better social programs than America (healthcare, education infrastructure retirement etc). American taxpayers pay for not only our defense but also yours. Nobody has attacked you in the first place but that's because no one is stupid enough to, specifically because America has your back. There are plenty of valid criticism you can make of our foreign policy but saying being under our security umbrella is irrelevant is nonsense.Trump wanting to attack another nato member has me furious but he is the exception and not the norm to any other us president in that way. The examples you all have given are so weak. Ukraine? Ukraine was never a nato country to begin with, thus article five didn't apply. America has helped Ukriane to a limited extent because it wanted to, not because of a commitment or a promise. They'd have fallen to the kremlin long ago without our help. I expect the war to end with Russia holding onto some of the territory it conquered, but far from a collapse of the Ukranian government which was clearly Putin's objective. But I've met too many people on the internet who are seriously convinced helping the ukranians defend their homeland from a dictator is just as morally reprehensible as supporting Israel occupy Palestine, which proves some people hate what the USA does no matter what. These are the kind of people who see Scott Ritter and Noam Chomsky as heroes, rather than the traitors they are who should be behind bars for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
 
  • US: Roughly 3.4% of GDP spent on military.
  • Belgium: Around 1.1% of GDP spent on military.
We spend over 3 times as much as you on military. Because the us military force is so good they can be redeployed anywhere quickly. Putin among others knows it.
 
Yes but your military is spread over the entire globe, only a small fraction can reasonably be considered to be of use to me, Europe in general, or Belgium in particular.

In return you get a hugely profitable alliance.

Don't trust me, let's listen to the US department of State :

The Belgian-U.S. trade and investment relationship is one of the largest and most balanced in the world, with annual trade in goods and services of around $74 billion each year. The United States is Belgium’s largest foreign investor outside of the EU, with more than 900 U.S. businesses employing nearly 130,000 people in Belgium. Belgium is the fourteenth-largest source of foreign direct investment in the United States, with $71 billion in total stock. Over 500 Belgian companies employ about 70,000 American workers, and Belgium is the fourteenth-largest importer of U.S. goods in the world. Belgian-U.S. research partnerships are driving advancements in biotechnology, semiconductors, and other future forward sectors.
 
Last edited:
The US spends nothing on the defense of Europe in the sense that there is no excess US military capacity the US would like to cut – AND would like the Europeans to provide instead.

Regardless of what the rest of NATO ends up spending, the US will not spend less. And it absolutely will not end up relying on any Europeans to provide something for the US. The US will provide for itself.

It might like to not have to worry about Europe down the line, which is fair enough. But for the rest the whole canard of how the US is paying for Europe as it is, is just US entitlement speaking.
 
If the US left Nato, the question wouldn't be how US will find allies, but what happens to those who were in Nato but not in the new alliance the US will make...
Not that I think the US will disband Nato. It will just keep making it more obvious to even those few thinking otherwise, that in Nato there is no alliance of equals - for the simple reason that there is vast power disparity.
Maybe in the future the US will return Nato to its pre-eastern expansion form, or some variation, but there's no need to speculate, we will see.
 
IMG_20250118_203409_579.jpg
 
Oh come on, there's more than one city in Greenland.
 
Last thing US needs is to leave NATO. It would lose all his bases in Europe to begin with, making US military basically irrelevant in this side of the world, European countries would spend a lot more in military and that means a lot money and a lot of military power, probably building some European army, which would become competitor for US interests in the world, possibly allying with China in many cases against us interests. Basically everything the US got by winning WW2 would be lost and the big beneficiary would be above all China and possibly a stronger "de Gaullist" EU. Don't think the military and political strates in USA would allow Trump to commit such huge historical error, if he is as moron as he looks like, which I doubt.
 
Last edited:
Thankfully you represent a minority in Europe. And the biggest obstacle for an European army has always been USA and NATO because unlike many europeans they know what is better for them. About poor sci-fi, USA leaving NATO is the only poor sci-fi here. If that happens (which won't) everything else would be practically unavoidable.
 
Last edited:
It's poor scifi to think that something which isn't a country, will have a common army. And no one should hold their breath for a federal Eu.

NATO already does that with a multinational integrated command, with the notable difference that it's all lead by the US. Now other NATO members behave differently among the alliance. Some indeed behave like willing vassals, taking that as an opportunity to only maintain a minimal national army by themselves, others want to develop their own military capacity, notably Turkey, Poland and Baltic countries.

The problem is that the entire outer fringe of Europe turned into an area of tensions and instability, all the way from Murmansk to Western Sahara. It's in that context that European and American interests are increasingly diverging. And Europeans feel totally unprepared to take on such a challenge. Basically we have a Germany that believe it can solve any strategic problem with trade deals, a Britain that will never go against US foreign politics, even if that is to invade Greenland, and a France that hasn't the capacity to implement the autonomous strategy it likes to talk about, having failed in Sahel and being replaced by Russia.
 
Last edited:
NATO already does that with a multinational integrated command
Nato has never been to war with any side that could even put one of the Nato countries at risk. The army of a country, on the other hand, will obviously try to defend its own country. France has tried - nominally or not - to push for a pan-Eu army, but since the Eu is in no way a federation, the idea would be doomed in practice if not (as is currently) in principle. Of course only in fantasy land, with the austerity crisis only a few years ago, would anyone think a pan-EUro army will be defending them - yet with great worries comes great imagination.
Then again, likely even a pan-Eu army is less of a fantasy (though very fantastical) than thinking the Eu will antagonize the US, when the US now controls the energy flow to the EU. I think some here haven't quite realized that.
 
Last edited:
Nato has never been to war with any side that could even put one of the Nato countries at risk. The army of a country, on the other hand, will obviously try to defend its own country. France has tried - nominally or not - to push for an pan-Eu army, but since the Eu is in no way a federation, the idea would be doomed in practice if not (as is currently) in principle. Of course only in fantasy land, with the austerity crisis only a few years ago, would anyone think a pan-EUro army will be defending them - yet with great worries comes great imagination.
Then again, likely even a pan-Eu army is less of a fantasy (though very fantastical) than thinking the Eu will antagonize the US, when the US now controls the energy flow to the EU. I think some here haven't quite realized that.

France has never pushed for a "pan-EU army", it pushed for European strategic autonomy, which is an entirely different thing. It's only people who disagreed with it who called it an "EU army" to better discard it. The question is as follows: is NATO and its heavy dependence on the US enough for Europe to efficiently defend its geostrategical interests or is it not?

Yet the first challenge for a European strategic autonomy is to define European strategic interests to begin with, and they hardly feel unified at this stage. France and Germany interests seem to be more diverging than converging currently, particularly on the question of energy (notably about natural gas and nuclear power, but not only). As for Britain, it's not because it's out of the EU that it doesn't remain a key strategic partner. Yet when I hear Starmer saying about the Greenland invasion idea that Britain will never oppose the US because they consider having a special relationship with it, I'm not sure that's the best starting point.
 
What is there to say on that last bit - I am sure you are aware of what happened in the Suez crisis. Of course Britain has a special relation with the US, ever since it stopped being the hegemonic power itself.
Regarding Greenland, perhaps the worry for most - not for Denmark or Greenland - is that the US wishing to outright annex parts of it, if anything, signifies how little trust they have in most of the european continent being defensible in the long run. After all, Greenland would then become another border zone. Then there's also the prospect of the Arctic, obviously in a future, as another viable shipping route. Lastly there are the possible minerals.
The vertigo would be understandable - we have in Europe quite a few clowns claiming all sorts of things about ethics etc, and here you have the US saying they will simply take over stuff - but there isn't even time for that by now. Vassals never pick and choose, and often they are cannibalized before left to fend for themselves.
 
Regarding Greenland, perhaps the worry for most - not for Denmark or Greenland - is that the US wishing to outright annex parts of it, if anything, signifies how little trust they have in most of the european continent being defensible in the long run.
Yes, but this seems to presuppose that Donald Trump is capable of such reasoning instead of just being a moron and a bully who won't back down because he feels safe.

After all, another caudillo here once said ‘Power is impunity’.
 
Top Bottom