this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
328 points (99.4% liked)

World News

51924 readers
2395 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] matthewm05@ttrpg.network 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Still no troops for Ukraine.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (3 children)

Yeah, pisses me off. The entire defence of Europe falls upon Ukraine's shoulders.

[–] saimen@feddit.org 8 points 1 hour ago

To be fair Greenland belongs to the EU, Ukraine not.

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 36 minutes ago)

If North Korea can have nukes, Ukraine can have nukes. Every nation in europe should be able to have nukes so long as russia, china, israel, north korea, and america has nukes. Ukraine shoulda kept their nukes, but thats just hindsight. Nato should be giving ukraine nukes, not bodies. Once israel, north korea, russia, america, and china de-nuke (in that order), then we can discuss any further kind of nuclear disarmament. Until that seemingly impossible scenario arises, nuke up, europe.

[–] HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 hour ago

Maybe back off the propaganda for a minute?

[–] Kkk2237pl@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Anyway we are fucked up as Europe. We are digital colony of USA… everything relies on us companies…

[–] UnspecificGravity@piefed.social 17 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

Europe finally figuring out that they are about to be fighting a two front war against a fascist invasion.

[–] saimen@feddit.org 0 points 1 hour ago

Oh how the turn tables.

[–] ulterno@programming.dev 2 points 5 hours ago

It's 3.
One inside.

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Their enemies will be the unlikliest of allies.

[–] saimen@feddit.org 1 points 1 hour ago

Sounds familiar

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 21 points 12 hours ago

Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Canada are sending troops to Greenland

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 89 points 16 hours ago (9 children)

Putin couldn't be happier by this chaos and distraction from Ukraine. Investment paying off.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Churchill once said of the Old World being endangered and hoping for the New World to step into the rescue.

But now, makes me wonder if the Old World could possibly do the same, but feels like a long shot.

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 1 points 55 minutes ago

It’s funny, most of the time when you hear it, it’s this quote

We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

Then it stops.

But the next bit is what you’re referring to

And even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old.

I always thought it was odd because it showed the bond we have.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 33 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours 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.

[–] saimen@feddit.org 1 points 1 hour ago

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

[–] matthewm05@ttrpg.network 1 points 3 hours ago

It's more than they sent to Ukraine!

[–] BuneZT@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago

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

[–] Samskara@sh.itjust.works 48 points 16 hours ago (14 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 41 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 13 points 14 hours 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.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

It just says that they will be participating in some exercises. Nothing about permanent force.

[–] amateurcrastinator@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Yo Mr. Mertz brief this guy on the real plan and what orders you gave those soldiers!

Should this article also state what they will be having for breakfast?

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 6 hours ago

I wish I was still so naive I believed EU has some secret plan to defeat US. Especially Germany, country that was blind to the threat Russia posed for two decades. Yeah, I'm sure they will go to war over Greenland now...

It's also funny that they are open about sending this tiny group of soldiers, something they could easily hide, but are hiding the plan to send a bigger force, something that will be impossible to hide. Kind of silly, really. Almost like thinking that Germany would commit any permanent force to Greenland without informing their own public.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] treno_rosso@feddit.org 7 points 14 hours ago (1 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 (1 replies)
[–] TimeNaan@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

200, in the year of the invasion. It swelled to 2,500 over the next five years, then trickled away into a final withdrawal a month before the Republicans lost the White House in 2008.

There were smaller deployments - Iceland sent 2 soldiers, for instance. But it all paled behind the the US at 150k and UK at 46k. Which goes back to the whole problem with a NATO internal conflict. The US is the backbone of European defense. Again, what do any of these countries plan to do against an aircraft carrier group? Nobody seems to have a serious answer.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Serious question: how will a carrier group fare in arctic ice during winter? Will it be what is needed to hold an Arctic island after showing up all bristly in the summer months?

While the USA’s relatively slim arctic-ready forces are deployed on the Atlantic side of the ice, what will be happening on the pacific side?

An answer: they can take it, but when winter comes, holding it will be difficult. The northern NATO members have notable infantry that can use the ice to advantage, and there are only five or six harbours of interest in Greenland.

[–] TehWorld@lemmy.world 1 points 44 minutes ago

Honest reaction to a serious question. The American military complex isn’t about specific fighting doctrine. It’s by far the world’s largest logistics organization. The airlift capacity of the military likely means that a carrier group wouldn’t have to stick around.

I have mental images of carpet bombing paths through sea ice. Ice is tough, but 500lb dumb bombs do pack quite a punch, and there is a big fleet of bombers that would operate with relative impunity once air dominance is achieved with the aforementioned carrier group.

[–] prex@aussie.zone 3 points 14 hours ago

Distract it from Putin. Who do you think is running this clown show?

[–] DaMummy@hilariouschaos.com 2 points 16 hours ago

Still better than the orange juice America got from Israel for its wars.

[–] mrmaplebar@fedia.io 9 points 14 hours ago

While it's sad that things have even come to this at all, it's good to hear someone is at least doing the bare minimum to stand up to Trump.

[–] Restaldt@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

Patrolling the Greenland wastes almost makes you wish for a Mojave winter

load more comments
view more: next ›