Here is the TLDR: A total of 3 major things would happen
- The US military would take Greenland without a fight. The only military assets in Greenland are US assets at US bases, and Denmark doesn’t have much of a military.
- EDIT: Yes, Europe has deployed forces. In total, a grand total of 40….. men. No units, not platoons. Just 40 guys.
- NATO would likely dissolve within a few days, as such an attack would be considered a breach of the alliance’s founding principles, involving a conflict between two founding NATO members. It wouldn’t trigger Article 5 just because nobody wants a major war, but it would trigger Article 1.
- Article 1 states: The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations
- The US Military would be gutted, and China would become the dominant power. The US has lots of stuff in NATO nations. Stuff we won’t get back.
Greenland is a territory of Denmark, which is a NATO ally; we all know this. If the leader of NATO attacks a much smaller NATO member (or any NATO member), then the alliance dissolves.
This would be a disaster for the US.
Here is the thing- do you ever wonder how the US can have ships operating near Yemen and in the Mediterranean, and Asia, and the Caribbean, and deploy troops ANYWHERE within a day? The answer: NATO.
NATO members host US bases with US troops. It also hosts US bases with equipment and no troops. Say a war with Russia broke out. Well, it is difficult to transport 1,000 tanks to Europe in a few days. So the US, over the years, has stationed an entire Armored Division in Europe without the men. So if war broke out, we would just fly in the men, and they would hop in the tanks. There are lots of examples of this.
- A huge “medical center” for US forces, thanks to NATO, is in Germany, where many injured US soldiers are sent to recover
- There are air bases and missile defense systems in Turkey
- There are Naval ports in Italy, Turkey, and Spain that allow the US to house and supply ships in the region
- There are hardened bases in Spain and the UK that can load up missiles in vertical launch systems on ships
- Food, medicine, weapons, ammunition, Bradleys, Abrams, Artillery Guns, and more are stationed in ports ALL OVER THE GLOBE, which allows the US to fly in a Battalion and field a heavy combat unit within a day or less.
Now, would any sane nation allow the US to house F-35s and troops in their nation when it is attacking other NATO allies? NO- NEVER.
Understand the magnitude of this. The US has 8,000 to 10,000 aircraft, 6,000 tanks, and thousands of other weapons systems. THESE ARE NOT INSIDE THE USA. Some are, but the US is protected by Oceans and a massive Navy, so the US has deployed the VAST MAJORITY of its military hardware to NATO nations- at bases and depots. That way if we need to fight Russia, Syria, Iran, China, and whoever, we don’t have gear nearby. So if NATO nations become hostile, afraid, they will “take” this hardware because they will be afraid of a US attack (and rightfully so).
Most nations will HAPPILY accept 45 billion dollars worth of 6th-gen aircraft, Abrams Tanks, and state-of-the-art military hardware and give the US the finger. The US can be as mad as it wants, but it just lost 2/3rds of its hardware- it cannot do much but further threaten and alienate allies.
Here is what is even more mind-numbing.
The reason Greenland is important comes down to 3 factors
- Access to trading routes in the North as icecaps melt
- Putting more bases on the Island to control the North
- Mineral and oil extraction
The big thing is control over the North and those trade routes.
The US currently has control through the UK and Iceland, THANKS TO NATO. They would leave NATO over this, meaning the defensive position in the North would weaken significantly. Seriously look at this “region” with NATO nations in blue. Tell me who has “control.”
Also factor in that the US has military bases in Greenland already, THANKS TO NATO. Imagine if it was just Greenland?
DO YOU SEE WHY SMART PEOPLE VALUE NATO?????
Right now, Trump is making a direct military threat against a NATO member. This has other NATO members racing to build their own armed forces to perhaps face the US. Also we all know war with China is likely. Winning that war comes down to the floating aircraft carrier called Japan and the strong regional military of South Korea. Without them the US has a limited footing and these nations may even side with China (though will more likely remain neutral).
ADDITION
- Europe did deploy forces, but they sent 40 men, total. France sent 15, Germany sent 13, and then a few other nations sent a unit. These 40 men won’t hold back the US and the UK and France (nuclear powers) don’t want war with another nuclear power, which is the most significant economic partner by a mile.
- Understand the response won’t be “war right now over Denmark’s territory, it stole from native peoples”- instead, it will be days of meetings, mobilization, threats, and then the breakdown of NATO.
- These men are a “deterrent” force. This is what the USA should have done in early 2022. If a US Ranger Regiment were “training” in Ukraine, Putin could not invade and risk harming US forces. France, Germany, the UK, Sweden, and so on are hoping the same.
- Reports vary, but it is widely “rumored” that Trump’s most loyal Generals ENTIRELY oppose this because they know what it means. Additionally, it looks like it is opposed by everyone except Hegseth.
- I wrote this answer rather quickly based on a few reports from ex-Generals and other people with
Last thing. US doctrine for the Cold War (and still) is to pre-deploy forces because the USA is a long way from Europe. Imagine moving all those tanks, helicopters, APCs, ammunition, and endless other items to ports. It took the US 6 months to deploy a mere portion of its forces from the US to the Kuwait border before Desert Storm.
The gear is an issue, but we will build more. Also, our ex-allies in Eastern Europe will need the extensive hardware we leave behind. The issue is that we will lose
- All of our intel network which are based on cooperation and span the globe. No more British, French, German, Polish, Turkish, Korean, or Japanese intel.
- We lose our bases, which means our “air cover” goes from global to just the USA
- We lose all leverage and control over everything. The US dollar will no longer be the reserve currency anywhere, and nations will seek new trading partners as the US plummets into a depression and then extreme isolationism.
- NATO nations WANT US bases because that means US protection, training, and assistance in weapons production (or just the sale of weapons). This gives the US leverage to sell US products (produced goods like phones or raw resources) in these foreign markets. This will be over, and the US GDP will nose-dive.
- Additionally, many NATO nations hold US debt that they WILL call in.
- I would expect sanctions too against the US over such actions, which again, will KILL the US economy. This, in combination with tariffs, will force trading partners to seek out new markets and abandon the US.
- This is no coming back from this. Attacking an ally is the ultimate betrayal- it is complete proof that your nation cannot be trusted under ANY circumstances. Historically, when nations turn on their allies, their global standing is eliminated, and every single nation seeks to distance itself from EVERYTHING to do with that nation.
Bad, bad decision.
Let’s image this truly happens.
Let’s bring some democracy to the penguins
Trump gives the order. First problem: the congress would never agree so, he has to overcome their decision. This will already enrage a lot of American citizens and Democrats. May I remember you what happened the last time a president did something like this?
A medium sized fleet leaves from, let’s say, the Maine and begins the operation. They have an aircraft carrier, submarines, 30.000 Marines and special forces troops, a lot of cargo ships – vulnerable to air raids in the 3.500 km they must cover to reach Greenland – and few heavy vehicles such as main battle tanks and APC: it’s pretty hard and expensive to transport a big number of those things from a territory to another, for this reason military landings are very risky and expensive operations; is the very reason China never invaded Taiwan in the first place, according to many military experts. Oh, they also must carry a lot of supplies: when the war will start, it will be very hard to send fuel, food, water and bullets to the army. And in Greenland there are not many cities you can ransack if your army falls short on them, you know.
In a modern world like this, with satellites and trackers every where, is impossibile to make this quick and slick; it would not be a surprise operation.
Putin was able to enter in Ukraine unopposed because he lied his ass off about the invasion. Mister Trump here just warned the whole world he wants to occupy Greenland. Nice strategic decision, president.
Europe will be ready to act. France and the UK already threatened to intervene if this ever happens, so, they will be the first countries amongst Denmark to act. They have the same problem, they must cover a big distance with a military fleet. However, Great Britain has an advantage: they already did this in the Falkland War with terrifying effectiveness so, they will probably have a plan ready to move faster than the USA.
Personally, I doubt USA, UK and France will use nuclear weapons. Too risky, plus, Trump has no interest in nuking a country he wants to colonize. So, this will be a conventional war.
The US marines would land in Greenland but English, French and Danish special forces are there to welcome them. It’s’ the first time in centuries US and English troops fight each other. The diplomatic consequences on medium and long term are horrifying.
NATO instantly ceases to exist – and now Putin has free hands in the Baltic States if he wants to invade them – the whole UE instantly starts with heavy sanctions on the USA and China is more than happy to exploit the situation to sign a new commercial agreement with the UE. Trump was the one who started putting sanctions on Xi Jinping’s country so, China can only benefit from this. The USA is more isolated than ever.
Now, Putin has a new card to play: the war in Ukraine can be legitimate. If the USA goes around invading sovereign nations, why the hell he can’t do the same? The next ONU meeting would not be very pleasant for the USA, even if they can’t give a shit about it.
How things play out on the field?
Well, assuming USA actually fields its best special troops – a waste since I think those can be more useful elsewhere in the world right now – the US invasion force might be able to meet some success. But as an attacking army, they can not exploit the advantage of fighting in their homeland; remember what happened in countries like Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq? And those were second class armies at best, now, you are fighting against a coalition of European armies that know very well the tactics of the US army, are better equipped and trained and motivated to defend a piece of Europe from a person seen as a dictator and an arrogant politician. Aside from your average idiot Joe who supports Trump even if he is European, the whole continent popular opinion will see Trump as an invader and support the military reaction.
Maybe the US expedition is able to reach its strategical objectives. I’m sure, for the reason stated before, that the losses will be heavy. Try to justify this at the next election, Republican Party. When the first 1.000 – 2.000 coffins with US flags on them start coming back in America, there will be a lot of revolts and protests, a kind that will make the Black Live Matters or the Anti ICE movement look like a walk on a sunny Curacao’s beach in august.
Then, even if Trump actually occupies Greenland – at an heavy cost in material, men and money, this must be clear – he has to spend even more money to start extracting all the minerals and materials he can gain from this freshly annexed nation. He must find thousands of people who want to leave their comfortable house in Missouri or New Jersey to work in an inhospitable and far country. He must keep a permanent garrison in Greenland to prevent an European counter attack. Money, money and money wasted for a whim.
In short, invading Greenland would:
- Isolate the USA even more.
- De-stabilize the country EVEN MORE in an already critic moment for the nation. Remember, Vietnam War ended when people started to ask the government: “Why should I go to die in another country for a senseless war?”; this will be the same scenario.
- Possibly, strengthen China and Russia and probably make the EU closer to China in an economic perspective.
- Be a total waste of public taxes with no foreseeable benefits since this “investment” will only pay in a long term run.
- Destroy the NATO with all that this brings.
- Make the self-appointed role of “World Policeman” the USA like to interpret unjustifiable.
- Kill, wound or incapacitate a lot of American well trained and badly needed troops, making a lot of those people parents hate the war and Trump and the Republican Party itself even more than before.
Also, I took the best case scenario for Trump in which only three countries interviene. Image his invasion force against a combined Danish, French, English, German, Italian, Finnish, Spanish ecc. coalition. Image if Canada interferes seeing this as a threat to its borders (Greenland is near to its coasts). Image if some American troops or generals actively refuse to obey his orders, like it happened in Ukraine when Russian officers refused to follow the orders and revolted.
A war against a third world country is a thing. A war against a competent enemy – and with all its huge limits Europe surely is one – is bad for business. Ask Hitler who fought against three superpowers. I really can’t see how politicians fail to realize this, in 2026.
