France is working with partners on a plan over how to respond should the United States act on its threat to take over Greenland, Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said on Wednesday.
France is working with partners on a plan over how to respond should the United States act on its threat to take over Greenland, Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said on Wednesday.
What is any of this based on? You believe that if the US went into any European country with military force they would not move support forces into the area beforehand? This is exactly what happened in Venezuela.
Look, I hope this doesn’t happen. I am not a fan of my country.
My question was what are your conclusions based on. So far that seems like nothing.
deleted by creator
So this started with me asking what you based your comment on. Please share the knowledge you are basing this on by linking to a source.
My comments are all said begrudgingly. I served in the military. I am anti what America is currently doing. My comments are based on numbers of weapons systems and years of strategy where the US purposely let the EU underspend on defense.
Given that you want to reduce this to personal attacks, I will exit now, and let trolls troll.
You are asking for sources, but you are also just giving your opinions, based on your experience. That’s not a source. What are we talking about here, anyway?
If the US takes Greenland, NATO breaks up and US troops are no longer welcome in Europe. Are you telling me the US are fighting in Greenland and try to conquer Europe at the same time? If Europe will be attacked by the US it will be considered a pariah state. They will have to turn diabolically evil and take over every western state. And if they don’t succeed taking Europe they will have lost their strategic bases.
I still hope that the US military has leaders with a spine, who will not follow those orders. But that hope is fading away quickly.
But what do I know. I have no experience in military strategy. Those are just thoughts that came to mind. I was triggered that this discussion wandered far from it’s original starting point.
What are we talking about about:
(Comment I responded to)
I was genuinely curious what this point was based on, as in my first hand experience being stationed at US Navy bases in Europe did not support that conclusion.
First hand experience is a source. For example, someone says “the sky is purple.” You are skeptical based on your personal experience. You ask for a source supporting that claim. You even go as far as to say, I have seen the sky before and it is not purple. In a normal rational dialogue the other party might respond, here is why I think the sky is purple
I am not promoting American exceptionalism. I observed the level of tech and financial investment the US Navy has in its European bases. I also observed those levels compared to local forces. I do not believe that local forces would take over bases and equipment. Destroy them, yes very possible. This is actually part of a strategy called tripwire troops. In the event of a conflict, US bases would be prepared to hold out until larger assets arrived to support them. Attacking these bases gives the US a reason escalate the level of engagement.
That’s all I was asking about. You can search for basic information about US defense expenditure related to European defense expenditure to find support for my observations. I searched for anything supporting the conclusion that if the US invaded Greenland local European military forces would seize local bases and equipment and found nothing.
deleted by creator
[example of a source](Source: European Council on Foreign Relations https://share.google/8lhLm73boOSh0Nf7c) supporting my opinion. It’s simple to search for more.
My personal experience while stationed in Europe was participating is training exercises regarding attacks on bases by local terrorist groups. This was in an exercise format. These exercises lasted several days and occurred on a regular basis. I was in the room the simulation occurred in. I was able to see first had the decision making process of the people involved.
In my opinion, having observed the declassified US response to an attack, the thought that these bases and equipment would simply be taken over by local forces is not likely. The bases will likely be destroyed and used a a pretext for a larger component of US forces to engage. That being the case, would local EU leaders risk attacking US bases? Legitimate question that gets to the heart of the issue raised by the original comment.
I am not sure why you are talking about fighting European armies. I have nodes idea who wins. I am talking about g about the specific comment that these bases would be taken over and equipment acquired by local forces.
In short, in that scenario the bases are not meant to survive. Their purpose is to get hit to justify hitting back harder.
Edit: better than simply saying that’s your opinion, explain your understanding of the US response following direct attacks on its military bases.
We are talking about a response to the US invading Greenland. So either the “remaining” NATO or rather the EU just let it happen or they defend themselves (which they clearly stated they have ordered the local military to do so in the event of an US attack). If they fight in Greenland the risk wouldn’t be to attack them but to not attack them. It would be absurd actually to leave them be while they are probably helping and organising the attack in Greenland.
deleted by creator
I agree that it is absurd to think that the US military would ever march into European capitals unless it was at the end of an extremely long engagement similar to what is being done to Ukraine.
Also, I sincerely hope none of this ever happens (or if it does that the left [economic NOT US political left] is victorious and I can use my fediverse comment history to be welcomed into the the post US post capitalist world)