Statement by Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands,Norway,Sweden,UK

Reaction to US Threats Against Greenland and NATO

• Many Europeans and Americans express shock, anger, and embarrassment that the US is openly threatening an ally’s sovereignty.
• Several Danes and other Nordics say the relationship with the US is “permanently harmed,” even among previously pro‑US politicians.
• Greenlanders’ own statements rejecting annexation are noted; people stress the core issue is sovereignty and consent, not just “strategic value.”

US Democracy, Voters, and Resistance

• Bitter arguments over blame: Midwestern “margins,” non‑voters, the whole electorate, or structural features like the Electoral College and gerrymandering.
• Some Americans describe “learned helplessness,” propaganda bubbles, and family‑level polarization; others push back that defeatism is self‑destructive and legal/political avenues still matter.
• Secession and the viability of the US union are debated, with worries about an entrenched authoritarian minority.

Guns, Force, and the Limits of the Second Amendment

• Repeated skepticism that private arms could deter a modern military; historical counterexamples (e.g. Vietnam) are argued over.
• Examples like Waco and Ruby Ridge are cited as proof that armed citizens don’t actually confront federal “tyranny” in practice.

EU, NATO, and Strategic/Economic Leverage

• Some mock the EU as only “good at statements”; others counter that the EU is already preparing trade responses, has tools like the Anti‑Coercion Instrument, and holds large amounts of US debt.
• Speculation about financial warfare (mass bond selloffs, Fed response, frozen reserves) coexists with warnings of mutually assured economic damage.
• NATO bases in Europe are discussed as potential flashpoints if US forces used them against Denmark/Greenland.

Motives and Consequences of a Greenland Grab

• Suggested motives range from personal ego (“psychological need for ownership”) to humiliating Europe or deliberately weakening NATO.
• Many dismiss “4D chess” theories (scaring EU into higher defense spending) and emphasize the reputational and alliance damage is all downside for the US.
• There is concern that US rhetoric (“we need this land for security”) normalizes the same justification used by Russia in Ukraine and potentially China over Taiwan.

US Institutions, Parties, and Authoritarian Drift

• Some argue both US parties have ratcheted up executive power over decades, enabling today’s crisis; others reject equivalence, calling current Republican behavior uniquely dangerous.
• Courts have sometimes checked the administration, but confidence in Congress and the Supreme Court is low. A new bipartisan bill to bar invasion of NATO states is cited as a small counterexample.

Propaganda, Platforms, and Tech

• Users debate the scale of foreign troll operations, the limits of user‑driven moderation, and whether engaging extremists online is useful or just fuels them.
• Tech wealth and companies are criticized for materially enabling the current administration while many rank‑and‑file in tech feel trapped or complicit.