Denmark was reportedly preparing for full-scale war with the US over Greenland

Context: Danish Preparations over Greenland

• Danish public broadcaster reports Denmark, France, and Germany took US threats to seize Greenland seriously and prepared for possible US attack.
• Measures reportedly included moving troops, explosives to destroy runways, blood supplies, and readying F‑35s; goal seen as delaying or raising the cost of any US move, not “winning.”
• Some see this as standard military prudence (“always prepare for the unthinkable”), others say these specific steps exceed normal wargaming.

Feasibility and Consequences of a US Move

• Many agree the US could easily overwhelm Greenland militarily; resistance would be symbolic or insurgent at best.
• Others argue the real constraint is political: attacking Greenland = attacking Denmark, NATO, and EU, with potential nuclear and alliance escalation.
• Skeptics call a US invasion “utterly ludicrous”; critics reply that similarly “unthinkable” US actions (Iraq, current Iran war, Venezuela) did happen, so preparation is rational.

US Soft Power, Reputation, and Alliances

• Large subthread on US loss of soft power and trust, especially in Europe and Canada.
• Claims that:
  • US has squandered 80+ years of goodwill via unilateral wars, threats to allies, and current Iran conflict.
  • Allies are questioning US security guarantees and NATO reliability.
  • Some companies and governments are actively reducing dependence on US tech/cloud due to legal and political risk.
• Counterpoints:
  • US still dominant militarily and economically; damage may be reversible with future leadership.
  • Some downplay “soft power” loss or see it as cyclical (similar hostility during Iraq war).

Europe, NATO, and Strategic Autonomy

• Debate whether EU is a true military alliance or only NATO is; multiple EU mutual defense clauses and pacts cited.
• Strong current in favor of European rearmament and autonomy: praise for French Gaullist sovereignty, nuclear deterrent, and independent defense industry.
• Argument that NATO-minus-US would still be the world’s second most powerful military if Europe organized itself; others stress current dependence on US hardware and logistics.
• Several foresee more EU coordination, higher defense budgets, and less reliance on US protection.

China, Russia, and the Post‑American Order

• Some frame the world as increasingly multipolar (US, China, previously Russia); others say only US and China really count, Russia is “regional.”
• China seen as capitalizing on US decline via infrastructure, ports, manufacturing dominance, and cultural exports (e.g., games), especially in Africa and Asia.
• Disagreement over whether Chinese rise is “much better” or just a different form of authoritarian hegemony.

Technology, Economy, and Decoupling

• Discussion of moving from US cloud (AWS, Azure) to EU providers for sovereignty, predictability, and GDPR reasons; critics say this hurts competitiveness and ignores US-designed hardware and IP in devices.
• Fears that loss of reserve-currency dominance and mounting debt will weaken US power; others note pros/cons and suggest “becoming like the EU” isn’t catastrophic.

US Domestic Politics and Legitimacy

• Extensive, polarized debate over US leadership (especially Trump), legality of current wars, presidential war powers, and Supreme Court immunity rulings.
• Many outside the US argue that failure to hold past administrations accountable (Nixon, Iraq, Jan 6) normalized impunity and undermined global trust.
• Some call for “Nuremberg-style” proceedings and systemic reform; others warn that prosecuting outgoing regimes on corruption/war-crimes grounds can look like tin‑pot authoritarianism.