By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Denmark’s Defence Committee Chairperson, Rasmus Jarlov, has stated that Denmark would defend itself against a potential US military attack on Greenland, despite acknowledging that Denmark’s forces couldn’t stop the US. Jarlov emphasized that such an attack would be unacceptable, leading to a disastrous conflict between two NATO allies. He also noted that Greenland is not for sale and that there is no justification for a military attack, considering existing defense agreements and the US already having access. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that a US military attack could lead to the end of NATO.
Read the original article here
**”We Will Defend Greenland”: Denmark Warns US Of ‘Devastating’ NATO War**
The scenario has become disturbingly clear: Denmark is essentially warning the United States about the potential for a “devastating” war within NATO, centered around the defense of Greenland. This isn’t just a geopolitical thought experiment; it’s a chilling possibility. The core of the issue revolves around the hypothetical actions of a US administration that would, in the view of many, be behaving in a reckless and self-destructive manner. The focus on Greenland as the flashpoint highlights the absurdity and the potential for severe consequences.
The fundamental fear revolves around the idea that the US could initiate an action – potentially a military move – that Denmark would see as a violation of its sovereignty. The implications are enormous. Greenland, being a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, is covered by NATO’s Article 5. If Greenland were to come under attack, Article 5 mandates that all member states, including the United States, come to its defense. Thus, if the US were to initiate action against Greenland, it could find itself legally and militarily bound to defend the island against its own forces – an act of war against itself, as it were.
The potential for a naval standoff in the Arctic is a particularly terrifying aspect of this imagined conflict. The vast, unforgiving expanse of the Arctic Ocean is no place for military engagements. Naval warfare is inherently brutal, with a high casualty rate. There’s no escaping a sinking ship in the frigid waters. This highlights the practical, as well as the political, dangers inherent in the situation.
This whole scenario is made all the more alarming when considering what motivated it. The suggestion is that this sort of action could be driven by domestic political considerations, or to score points with a specific base, rather than sound strategic thinking. This would not be a war with a clear objective. It would not be about winning. Instead, it would be an act of self-harm with far-reaching consequences.
The implications extend far beyond the immediate military theater. The U.S. and European economies are deeply interconnected, and a conventional conflict would cause an instant financial crisis. Moreover, such an action would shatter existing alliances, and would isolate the United States on the global stage, crippling its influence.
The reaction, should such a scenario come to pass, is predictable and likely to be extreme. There’s the potential for a massive internal crisis within the U.S. as individuals are called on to decide if they will obey such an order. An attack on Greenland would be a red line that most U.S. military personnel would not cross. There is a sense of outrage that such a thing could even be considered. The view is that an administration that would even contemplate such an action is fundamentally out of touch with reality, and the values upon which the nation was founded.
The situation has created a feeling of deep unease and disillusionment in many parts of the world. The shift in America’s international standing, from a position of leadership to one of potential aggression, is seen as a rapid and disturbing development. The idea that the US could simply “win” a war against NATO is dismissed as completely unrealistic. The US would be utterly isolated and likely face a full economic and financial crisis.
The implications of such actions are so significant, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Russia would benefit from the chaos. Putin would no doubt be watching such events unfold with satisfaction, seeing the alliance he sees as his enemy crumbling from within. In essence, many believe that if this were to happen, Russia is the true winner.
The fact that these scenarios are even being discussed is a disturbing reflection of current events. The world is watching, and many are horrified by the direction the U.S. seems to be taking. The defense of Greenland, therefore, represents much more than just the protection of an Arctic territory; it stands as a symbolic line in the sand, a last stand against what many perceive as an impending catastrophe.