Greenland ought to be concerned right now!

No need to go further into the thread title comment. I think we all know why. But there is something related that ought to be addressed.

Does NATO have provisions for the scenario of a member nation attacking another member nation?

If not...this might be a good time to pass one.
I can't see the our military following an order to attack Greenland, but if they did I'm sure NATO would come to Denmark's aid too?!!
I surprise the military went along with attacking Venezuela?!! I hope the Hague is looking at this unprovoked attack/invasion on Venezuela too?!!
 
No need to go further into the thread title comment. I think we all know why. But there is something related that ought to be addressed.

Does NATO have provisions for the scenario of a member nation attacking another member nation?

If not...this might be a good time to pass one.
What should Greenland be concerned about? Why?
 
I can't see the our military following an order to attack Greenland,
I can. However, who do you suppose is going to attack Greenland? Why?
but if they did I'm sure NATO would come to Denmark's aid too?!!
:rofl2:
I surprise the military went along with attacking Venezuela?!!
Who attacked Venezuela?
I hope the Hague is looking at this unprovoked attack/invasion on Venezuela too?!!
What attack/invasion on Venezuela??
WTF are you even talking about?
 
No need to go further into the thread title comment. I think we all know why. But there is something related that ought to be addressed.

Does NATO have provisions for the scenario of a member nation attacking another member nation?

If not...this might be a good time to pass one.
That Depends frankie.
 
1767798168770.png


This quote in the image is real and comes from Gunther Fehlinger, chairman of the Austria Committee for NATO Enlargement. He made this statement in a video posted online in early January 2026, responding to provocative U.S. rhetoric about potentially annexing Greenland.

Here’s the verified context:

🔥 What Fehlinger said​

  • He warned that if the U.S. tried to take Greenland, Europe would retaliate by confiscating all U.S. military bases in Europe, including Aviano (Italy), Ramstein (Germany), and others in Romania and beyond.
  • His exact words included:

    “If you take it, we take every single base of the Americans from Aviano to Ramstein, from Romania to all the other military bases… and you will lose it.”“You go extreme, we go extreme as well.”

🧭 Why he said it​

  • Fehlinger was reacting to a viral post by MAGA podcaster Katie Miller, who shared an image of Greenland covered in a U.S. flag with the caption “Soon.”
  • He viewed this as a serious threat and responded with a warning about European leverage, saying Europe could operate without U.S. troops or nuclear protection if necessary.

🧨 Is it official NATO policy?​

No — Fehlinger is not a NATO official in the formal sense. He chairs a pro-NATO advocacy group in Austria, but his statements do not represent NATO’s official position. They reflect his personal and political stance, meant to signal European resistance to unilateral U.S. actions.


www.the-express.com
NATO official threatens to seize all US bases in Europe if US invades ...
https://www.the-express.com/news/us-1news/195332/nato-official-slams-us-greenland?utm_source=copilot.com
 
View attachment 70120


This quote in the image is real and comes from Gunther Fehlinger, chairman of the Austria Committee for NATO Enlargement. He made this statement in a video posted online in early January 2026, responding to provocative U.S. rhetoric about potentially annexing Greenland.

Here’s the verified context:

🔥 What Fehlinger said​

  • He warned that if the U.S. tried to take Greenland, Europe would retaliate by confiscating all U.S. military bases in Europe, including Aviano (Italy), Ramstein (Germany), and others in Romania and beyond.
  • His exact words included:

🧭 Why he said it​

  • Fehlinger was reacting to a viral post by MAGA podcaster Katie Miller, who shared an image of Greenland covered in a U.S. flag with the caption “Soon.”
  • He viewed this as a serious threat and responded with a warning about European leverage, saying Europe could operate without U.S. troops or nuclear protection if necessary.

🧨 Is it official NATO policy?​

No — Fehlinger is not a NATO official in the formal sense. He chairs a pro-NATO advocacy group in Austria, but his statements do not represent NATO’s official position. They reflect his personal and political stance, meant to signal European resistance to unilateral U.S. actions.


www.the-express.com
NATO official threatens to seize all US bases in Europe if US invades ...
https://www.the-express.com/news/us-1news/195332/nato-official-slams-us-greenland?utm_source=copilot.com
Germany wants the money that those bases bring to its economy. There is zero chance they do that. Ferlinger is FOS

No — Fehlinger is not a NATO official in the formal sense. He chairs a pro-NATO advocacy group in Austria, but his statements do not represent NATO’s official position. They reflect his personal and political stance, meant to signal European resistance to unilateral U.S. actions.
 
HINT: Look at a map of the Earth from a "top-down" view (where the North Pole is in the center).

World-from-above.jpeg
 
No need to go further into the thread title comment. I think we all know why. But there is something related that ought to be addressed.

Does NATO have provisions for the scenario of a member nation attacking another member nation?

If not...this might be a good time to pass one.
Oh, Corn Pop, bless your vacant little mind, yet another shining beacon of leftist obliviousness. Spare us the deep concern for Greenland; the undoubtedly irresistible offer we're extending will have its people voting yes in droves, eagerly trading Danish neglect and exploitation for the privileges of American statehood. After all, they've long grown weary of Copenhagen's indifferent oversight and santamonious bullshit.

We've maintained a foothold in Greenland since World War II, constructing vital infrastructure, including key airfields and the strategic Pituffik Space Base, that Denmark could never have managed alone. Our current vulnerabilities stem solely from spineless politicians who sidelined America's priorities for decades slowly diminishing our foothold and presence while watching our enemies move in. Now, with China and Russia aggressively encircling the Americas from pole to pole, we finally have a president alert, audacious, and one with an actual set of balls on him big enough to expose their schemes and crush them outright.

Only someone with fewer than a handful of functioning brain cells could miss Greenland's paramount role in national security, safeguarding Western civilization from its adversaries, including shielding a weak little country like Denmark that would crumple instantly if China opted for outright seizure. The minerals alone are more than enough reason for an outright attack and occupy play by China or Russia. Because of the hurting Trump has put on both of our biggest adversaries along with Iran, this is the perfect time to make the move blocking the inevitable takeover by China before it happens. It's not only necessary, it's brilliant when coupled with the Venezuela operation Trump just launched.

Of course, I suspect dimwits like Corn Pop and the cadre of radicalized drones would secretly cheer for Beijing to claim the island, just to spite us.

So, Corn Pop, watch closely: we're delivering Greenland the opportunity of a millennium, and they'll seize it with thunderous approval. You and your hysterical left-wing echo chamber will, of course, wail, flail, and tantrum the entire way. It's even possible some very high profile Democrats could have their invitations to several cocktail parties and events revoked, so there's that to worry about too.
 
Tobytone is wrong, as usual. Stop the name calling. And use sources and logic.

Europe is quite capable of dealing with us on their own ground.

1. Host nations already have full sovereign authority

Every U.S. base in Europe sits on land that belongs to the host country.If a European government wanted the U.S. gone, they wouldn’t need to “conquer” anything. They would:

  • Terminate the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Revoke basing rights
  • Order U.S. forces to leave
And the U.S. would have to comply. That’s how international basing works.

2. Using force would be unnecessary and self‑destructive

Any attempt to seize a base by force would:

  • Trigger NATO’s internal crisis mechanisms
  • Risk massive political and economic fallout
  • Be seen as an attack on an ally, not a military objective
European governments have no incentive to do this, and it would violate their own treaty obligations.

3. U.S. bases are designed to defend against external threats, not host nations

U.S. forces in Europe are structured around cooperation, not deterrence against the countries they’re stationed in.If a host nation ever wanted them gone, the U.S. would withdraw rather than fight an ally.

4. Casualties would be high if force were used

Even though host nations have sovereignty, any forcible seizure of a U.S. base would be extremely dangerous:

  • U.S. bases are fortified
  • They contain armed personnel
  • They have rapid‑reaction protocols
  • Miscommunication could escalate quickly
So “low casualties” is not a realistic expectation in any forced‑entry scenario.

✔️ Bottom line

Europe doesn’t need to “conquer” U.S. bases — they can legally evict them at any time.

But if they tried to take them by force, casualties would be unavoidable, and the political consequences would be catastrophic for all sides.
 
Back
Top