Let's talk about Trump's claim that we need Greenland to counter Russia.... - Belle of the Ranch

[TexasTowelie]

Well, howdy there Internet people. It's Belle again. So, today we're going to talk about Trump's claim that we need Greenland to counter Russia.

Trump has pushed the idea that the US needs to control Greenland to counter Russia and now this idea is showing up in messages in the comment section. First, as a periodic reminder, the US has military access to Greenland. We don't have to own the territory to use it. But let's skip over that for a second. Just forget the glaring issue.

Let's just do a quick comparison of some numbers. Stick with me on this one. When comparing two countries, Russia loses on the number of active duty troops, reserves, tanks, armor, helicopters, fighters, bombers, carriers, paramilitary forces, ships, IFVs. This list goes on and on without end. Russia does have more military satellites, though.

So, here's the twist. I'm not comparing Russia and the US. That's ridiculous. Russia can't even manage Ukraine. I'm comparing Russia versus the Soviet Union. Russia is not the Soviet Union militarily. Stop pretending like it is. They're a competitor, but they're not a peer. Besides that, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union had the entire Warsaw Pact with them and now many of those countries are part of NATO. Please explain to me how Trump is so weak he can't counter opposition that is drastically weaker than one the US and NATO has already successfully countered.

Look, I'm sorry your post-apocalyptic dreams of playing in the woods and screaming wolverines didn't happen. I'm sure you thought it looked cool in the movies, but Russia isn't the opposition the Soviets were and even they weren't up to it. As long as the US is with NATO, there's not a risk. Now, if the US were to surrender their superpower status by separating from NATO, that would change things because we would be weaker alone and more ripe for the plucking.

And to give an example of some of the excellent strategic thinking by those who support this idea, I give you this, “The US cannot challenge Russia without Greenland. Russia has nukes aimed at us. Thousands of missiles ready to attack the US over Alaska, Canada, and Greenland. If Europe doesn't support the US getting Greenland, then breaking up NATO and redirecting those nukes to Europe is the only option.”

Cool story, bro. Um, why would breaking NATO redirect the nukes to Europe? Seriously, what strategically changed for Russia to make them adjust their aim? Nothing. It just made their target, the US, incapable of responding via ground forces quickly because without NATO, we lose our bases in Europe.

Let's forget about the 70 or so years of mutually assured destruction running the show and say we're in this fictional world where Russia really is that strong and has some super weapon that negates decades of stability. If we can't respond to their missiles and we can't respond conventionally on the ground, why wouldn't they just launch? They have nothing to lose. They can mop up Europe once we're out of the game. There is no world where anybody who understands foreign policy or military strategy believes the US is stronger without NATO. The US and NATO have already met and defeated a stronger challenge than the one you're talking about. If you don't understand, our forces in Europe are an unacknowledged part of our nuclear deterrent or why the US maintains its triad and how that balance works, maybe this isn't a fence to take down just yet.

Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.