this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
500 points (99.0% liked)

World News

51984 readers
2293 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 38 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (7 children)

A government spokesperson for Germany also confirmed to Reuters that soldiers would be sent to Greenland on Thursday. The country is expected to deploy over a dozen reconnaissance troops, according to the report.

:-/

This feels like the time Poland sent eight soldiers in with the US invasion of Iraq.

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works 58 points 2 days ago (6 children)

These are advance troops that will figure out logistics, where it makes sense to deploy a bigger force. What they need, and infrastructure.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 53 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They are also a deterrent, if german soldiers are killed shit will hit the fan.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 25 points 2 days ago

Often called "tripwire forces" when they were NATO troops stationed in Eastern Europe. Their purpose is to force the adversary to kill some people before it can take any territory, ensuring that they can't simply make it a fait accompli and hope there will be no further repercussions.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I mean, we'll see. But if the US really is serious about taking Greenland by force, you've got a US military base already on the island that's been running these defense calculations for decades. It's going to be an uphill climb just to reach parity with the Americans on securing the territory. I hope this isn't perfunctory, and someone is asking the question "How do we deal with one or more US aircraft carriers?" seriously.

Just interesting math... A singular fully staffed US aircraft carrier anchoring off the coast of Greenland would increase the overall population of Greenland by around 10%.

[–] GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world 28 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (21 children)

You mean like that time when a Swedish diesel sub bypassed all the defenses and "sunk" the US carrier?

Or that time when Netherlands sub "sunk" one?

Or that time when Australia "sunk" one?

Or that time when Canada "sunk" one?

Those carriers are far from invincible.

The USA is historically bad at wars - Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea - all lost despite their massive military spending.

The only wars they won in modern times are the ones where they received help from their EU NATO allies.

They're only good at "strike and run away" operations, like the one in Venezuela.

If they can't take Greenland overnight, it will cost them very dearly to go to war with NATO, with no certainty of winning.

[–] RaskolnikovsAxe@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago

To add to this, the US is not that great in the Arctic. To occupy Greenland they need boots on the ground, and they are not equipped or manned to do Arctic land operations. EU + Canada surpass them in that. The US only has the one airborne division that are actually cold weather fighters. They also have far fewer ice breakers and the additional units that they were going to buy from Finland (who makes the best ones in the world) will surely be canceled.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] prex@aussie.zone 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Are they going to kill German & French troops to do that? If there are UK troops there then goodbye to hundreds of billions in AUKUS $ too.

[–] Orygin@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Europe depends more on the US than the US does on Europe. What would the EU do? Sanctions, send more troops, war?
The entire EU economy depends on American companies and would crumble in a few days, without even having to do any military action in Groenland.

[–] prex@aussie.zone 0 points 1 day ago

Would you say - 3 days?
Theres a lot of confident comments in this thread.

[–] Zer0_F0x@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Any US carrier strike group can probably sink the entire navy of most countries. This calls for a full NATO response because if it doesn't then I don't know what does

[–] Nighed@feddit.uk 12 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Wasn't it one of the Nordics that 'sunk' an American carried in drills a while back?

[–] Zer0_F0x@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Yes, the Swedish diesel electric subs are really quiet and hard to detect in a war game scenario, but that is done with many artificial constraints to the defending CSG, which is tightly packed in a relatively small patch of ocean that the Swedish sub knew and could plan for.

In reality those subs are stealthy only while traveling at 6 knots and the CSG can travel at 30 over vast expanses of water, with an effective strike range of 2000 miles.

Also, in war they're allowed to use high energy sonars that they can't use in a war game because it kills marine animals, which will detect a turd floating 500 miles away (exaggerating here but you get the idea).

[–] perestroika@slrpnk.net 15 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

It did, and the US considered the outcome so concerning that they requested to lease the submarine (but not install a crew - Swedish sailors would operate it in the US navy). Since those were different times, with only mild insanity among US presidents, Sweden granted the request.

Wikipedia tells us:

Secondment to United States Navy

In 2004, the Swedish government received a request from the United States to lease HSwMS Gotland – Swedish-flagged, commanded and crewed, for one year for use in antisubmarine warfare exercises. The Swedish government granted this request in October 2004, with both navies signing a memorandum of understanding on 21 March 2005.[5][6] The lease was extended for another 12 months in 2006.[7][8][9] In July 2007, HSwMS Gotland departed San Diego for Sweden.[10]

[–] Palerider@feddit.uk 9 points 2 days ago

One of? I thought it was several...

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] saimen@feddit.org 7 points 1 day ago

It's 13. Germany is sending 13 soldiers. Literally the minimum to be able to say "over a dozen".

[–] BuneZT@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hi. I have to step in about Polish soldiers :p I don't know what you're referring to but there were 2500 Polish soldiers deployed to Iraq, 150 wounded and 28 dead. That was during very hard economic times for Poland, still recovering from communism. Somehow they found money for this and sent them with really shitty equipment (cars “armoured” with bulletproof vests on the doors as protection for example)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_involvement_in_the_Iraq_War

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

That was during very hard economic times for Poland, still recovering from communism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balcerowicz_Plan#Effects

:-/ Like saying they're still recovering from a charlie horse after you put a shotgun to their kneecaps.

But yes, Poland limped into the Iraq War and managed to catch several hundred strays over the course of the conflict. In exchange, the Bush Administration kicked the country back $200M in relief (contingent on further privatization and financialization of their nascent market system).

Blood money spends well, at least.

[–] treno_rosso@feddit.org 11 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It's not about realistically fighting of the US if they decide to really go for it, but they will have to kill European soldiers if they decide to do so. This would effectively end NATO and the transantlantic partnership.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TimeNaan@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (7 children)

What? That didn't happen. Poland sent thousands of troops to support the war.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] matthewm05@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 day ago

It's more than they sent to Ukraine!

load more comments (1 replies)