Europe could 'weaponize' $10T of US assets over Greenland

Feasibility of “Weaponizing” US Assets

• Several commenters argue large‑scale selling or seizure of US assets would hurt Europe as much or more than the US, since foreign holders would crystallize huge losses if they dumped Treasuries and crashed prices.
• Others counter that this is precisely the point: inflict systemic damage on the US government and dollar, even at high cost to Europe.
• There’s skepticism that such a sell‑off could “crash” the US bond market long‑term; deeper‑pocketed actors would likely buy the dip, and the US remains one of the few places able to absorb that capital.
• Some note that if open war ever occurred, assets would be frozen anyway, so gradual divestment now could be a rational hedge, even if initial moves (like a Danish pension fund’s shift) are mostly symbolic.

EU Constraints and Dollar Dependence

• A detailed thread claims European banks and trade are heavily dependent on USD funding, eurodollar deposits, and Federal Reserve swap lines; the euro is framed as weak as a global reserve.
• On this view, cutting financial ties with the US would create a “USD debt trap” for European banks and complicate paying for critical imports like energy and commodities.
• Switching to China/BRICS is seen as politically and practically fraught; some dispute how realistic RMB‑based alternatives are given its still‑limited global reserve role.
• Multiple commenters doubt EU political will: 27 member vetoes, private ownership of many assets, and a history of slow or diluted responses (e.g., Russia sanctions, Mercosur talks).

US Politics: Why Isn’t Trump Being Stopped?

• A large subthread focuses on US institutional failure: Congress and courts dominated by one party, erosion of “checks and balances,” and prior impeachments having no effect.
• Commenters describe a de facto “imperial presidency” backed by a party that fears its own base; thus legal mechanisms (impeachment, 25th Amendment) are seen as politically unavailable.
• Some argue only a stock market crash, major military casualties, or severe economic pain from pariah status would generate enough domestic pressure.

Public Apathy, Media, and Protest

• Several posts say most Americans care far more about inflation and local issues than foreign policy. The US’s relatively low export dependence reinforces this insularity.
• Others emphasize “narrative capture” by partisan media and social networks, which normalize aggressive policies and minimize concern over allies like Greenland or Europe.
• There’s sharp debate over mass protest and general strikes: some insist they’ve toppled regimes elsewhere and are necessary; others say the US lacks the labor power, organization, or motivation.
• A recurring theme is shared global human nature: people everywhere rarely mobilize against their own governments until directly and personally affected.

Attitudes Toward US Power and Conflict Risk

• Some commenters explicitly welcome anything that would weaken US power, seeing it as net positive for the world.
• Others dismiss war talk as online hyperventilation: no real prospect of US–EU war, and thus limited appetite in Europe to incur huge costs by weaponizing assets.
• A few express fear that Trump’s trajectory resembles 1930s Europe or modern Russia, with growing authoritarianism and security forces loyal to the leader rather than institutions.