[rpiguy]

The US would likely not have to fire a single shot. NATO would likely do nothing substantive. No economic repercussions.

If anything this is a wake up call for Europe to come to grips with how ineffectual they have become.

Any kind of financial maneuver any country would try against the US would mostly hurt them more.

France and Spain are probably the most independent of the US economically but the other member states not so much.

Any economic reaction would by symbolic or very short lived.

Governments protect themselves not the people. All those government employees need tax revenue.

All the rich people who run the world behind the scenes don’t want their assets to deflate.

The EU could fracture over any kind of major retaliation.

Estonia, Latvia, and Poland will want the US to stay in NATO at all costs with Putin next door.

Germany is dependent on exports. Their entire economy could collapse without US trade.

Don’t you feel the pantomime of it all? The leaders in Europe are saying what they absolutely have to say. Having the meetings they have to have.

There will probably be some kind of deal reached eventually so the leaders of the Europe can appear to have done something slightly better than giving Greenland away.

[ben_w]

> NATO would likely do nothing substantive. No economic repercussions.

At best, you still lose all your allies.

At worst, why are you willing to make this gamble? You go immediately go from two nuclear armed nations who "threaten" US interests in Greenland, to four.

> Any kind of financial maneuver any country would try against the US would mostly hurt them more.

The former allies could cost you in the order of $1.3 trillion fairly directly.

Worth it, to defend their sovereignty. Especially as the other half of that trade is things they're already saying they want to move away from.

> All the rich people who run the world behind the scenes don’t want their assets to deflate.

And you think the US doesn't have this exact category of rich people, who will pull the US back from this seppuku?

There's a reason "TACO" was coined WRT Trump.

> The EU could fracture over any kind of major retaliation.

1. And you think the US is unified right now?

2. And you think the EU wouldn't be concerned about fracture over failing to retaliate?

> Don’t you feel the pantomime of it all?

No.

I am reorganising my assets on the assumption of a total, 100%, trade blockade. All potential backdoors in hardware and software being activated. All goods, all services, being subject to escalating tariffs to split the economies apart as fast as possible in order to show preparation and readiness for a hot war. With nukes being an open question by both sides, and MAD being relevant again, but preparing for that is beyond me.

How would the US respond to Russia trying this BS to get Alaska back?

[rpiguy]

Yes the US has the same rich people in charge but the President is willing to defy them. He defied them on tariffs and secure arctic access and mineral rights probably align with their interests.

The US is unified with one military, one economy, one budget, one State Department, etc. Europe is not. Internal division here is not the same as internal division in Europe.

UK, Germany, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, etc. will not substantively move away from the US even if they are hopping mad about Greenland.

Russia wouldn’t try because we are too strong. If the EU were strong we wouldn’t be trying to take Greenland.

That’s the whole point - if there is a race for control of the arctic with China and Russia the EU couldn’t do anything. You’d depend on the US to police the arctic for you and to enforce whatever treaties are signed with China and Russia. Better deal for us to do it ourselves.

[Chance-Device]

That’s delusional. The EU won’t even deploy economic countermeasures against the US, let alone military resistance. The US could take Greenland by force tomorrow and the EU response would be a poetry recital.