Denmark sends military reinforcements to Greenland

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Deterrence and troop deployments

  • Many see Denmark’s reinforcements (and expected NATO contingents) as a classic “tripwire” force: small, but enough to make any US move costly and politically explosive.
  • Others argue the extra cost is negligible in Denmark’s budget and there is wide public support for defending Greenland, so “sapping” Denmark’s resources is unrealistic as a US strategy.
  • Stationing allied troops is also seen as a signal that other NATO members no longer assume the US is a reliable defender, and are preparing for the possibility of US aggression while still hoping to preserve NATO on paper.

US motives and Trump’s role

  • Commenters are divided between two main explanations:
    • Personal: Trump wants “ownership” of Greenland for ego and symbolism, settling old scores from his first term.
    • Geopolitical/oligarchic: pressure from billionaire and resource interests, plus a desire to push out China/Russia and secure rare earths and Arctic positions.
  • Some see the whole saga as primarily a domestic political spectacle, not a genuine strategic necessity given existing US basing rights.

Greenland’s status, subsidies, and independence

  • Denmark heavily subsidizes Greenland (figures like ~15k EUR per resident per year are cited), which makes full independence financially difficult.
  • Polls are referenced where abstract support for independence collapses if living standards fall.
  • Several argue the US could get what it wants by backing Greenlandic independence and then offering security and trade deals, rather than threatening force.

Invasion, occupation, and NATO response

  • One line of argument: Greenland’s tiny, coastal, sparsely spread population and Denmark’s small military would stand no real chance against a US invasion, and most NATO members would pragmatically stay out to preserve US participation and funding.
  • Counter-arguments cite US difficulties in past asymmetric conflicts and the risks of occupying hostile terrain with an armed population.
  • Some believe a US attack on Danish/NATO forces would trigger massive protests and internal resistance in the US military; others are cynical and expect only limited public pushback.

Alliance credibility and diplomacy

  • There is concern that even threatening a NATO ally makes the US effectively an enemy, undermining the alliance more than any Russian action could.
  • Debate over whether the US could/should threaten to leave NATO to gain leverage; some note that only Congress can actually withdraw, and many allies already act as if US security guarantees are unreliable.
  • Views diverge on Danish/Greenlandic leaders travelling to Washington: seen either as weak “going to the king” or as prudent, civilized engagement to manage an erratic but still powerful partner.

Meta and context

  • Multiple comments express disbelief that an invasion of Greenland by the US is being discussed at all, as evidence of how far US politics has deteriorated.
  • There are references to tech/VC and “network city” projects already eyeing Greenland, and to fringe MAGA fantasies, as part of a broader pattern of outside actors coveting the territory.