Item — HN Reader

I point out that any European attempt at economic warfare against the US would inevitably affect both sides, and that the US is much less dependent on foreign trade than Europe ... and yet you again speak as if any impact would be solely on the US. "Panic", "Politically devastating", etc., as if only the US has upsettable investors and distressed electorate.

>Now imagine full-blown sanctions.

This would surely result in formal American withdrawal from NATO.

"The US invading Greenland would destroy NATO!", you say. I don't believe that the US would invade Greenland militarily; it will likely buy it, or obtain some sort of ironclad investment rights not dependent on whether Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark or independent. But let's say that the US does, and NATO dissolves.

It comes down to net benefits. Would owning Greenland be more valuable for American national security, than the current NATO status quo of the US being willing to to accept its own cities being nuked if Russia invades Western Europe?

The calculus made more sense (if it ever did) during the Cold War, when NATO ended at Germany's eastern border. Does it make sense now, when Montenegro is a NATO member? I strongly suspect that the answer is not one that the rest of NATO would want to hear, regardless of the Ukraine War.

1 comments

No, I didn't say that US invading Greenland would destroy NATO. It would cause a crisis, yes, but it's complex - members can only withdraw, no members can be expelled from NATO. And for withdrawals, it takes one year from notification to official withdrawal.

To complicate things further, there have been put up safeguards in the US to "Trump-proof" a withdrawal. Would Trump ignore these? Likely. But it would be challenged in court.

What likely would happen, is that NATO just lies dormant. And if the US successfully withdraws, it would set in motion things that are not resolved overnight. The US have bases, servicemen, caches of equipment, etc. spread across allied countries. And while most of these are covered by deals made with the host-countries, there's a pretty good likelihood those deals would have to be re-negotiated in the even US becomes hostile to allies. US pulling out of NATO because they don't see the value is one thing, US pulling out of NATO because they've become enemies of another NATO-ally is a completely different mater, as far as future deals go.

But then again, US taking Greenland by force is the absolute worst outcome - as far as the Greenland scenario goes. I truly do not think Trump will try that, anytime soon.

It's extremely, profoundly unprofessional to threaten a country with force. But that's how Trump operates. He makes big no-so veiled threats ("Would be a shame if...", "We have options...") to force the other party to negotiation, and then tries to low-ball. He's treating international relations the same way he treats business/real-estate deals. That's how he's always done business.

And as a bonus for him, it is taking up the news headlines.

My guess is that US and Denmark will meet, US will push on with offering to buy Greenland, Denmark will say no, but maybe they will buy some extra US equipment (they're already buying P-8 Poseidon surveillance aircraft to patrol the maritime area surround Greenland) or similar. Trump will announce this deal, and we won't hear anything about Greenland in another 6-12 months.