Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Theoretically yes. This is an issue that has been considered before, though admittedly not with regards to fucking Greenland. Turkiye and Greece have long been enemies as well as members of NATO, and it's been considered that the invocation of Article 5 by the aggressed-upon party against the aggressing party in case of a serious war would, theoretically, be binding on the other members of NATO.
In practice, NATO is a gentleman's agreement with no means of enforcement. Everything comes down to political will - NATO is just an organizational structure to facilitate a response. It cannot replace the will (or lack thereof) of national governments.
Additionally, it's helpful to know the specific language used in Article 5:
Article 5 doesn't actually oblige NATO members to defend anything by force, it obliges NATO members to decide what actions are "deemed necessary" and then to undertake those actions. If a NATO member gets invaded, everyone could -- in theory -- write a sternly worded letter and call it a day (though I doubt that would be the actual response). As you/others have more or less said, the actual action chosen would largely be the result of political will.
I do not share your interpretation (although I know that it has been the popular one recently).
I read it like this:
The obligation is out of any question: they "will" assist.
The goal of all measures is defined: "restore [...] peace and security".
The choice of measures isn't totally free. It must fit to that goal.
So, yes they can decide whether or not no use force, but they cannot follow random political agendas there.
And not fold paper airplanes instead of real ones :)
Presumably the member states can decide to interpret it however they'd like, but for whatever it's worth I'm just paraphrasing what political scientist William Spaniel (..who I thought would have had a Wikipedia page by now) has said on the topic of Article 5 (though the context wasn't the US invading Greenland lol)
Ah, but it doesn't say anything about an unarmed attack!
Please don't give the US any ideas ;_;
I just think a giant swarm of rednecks spilling over the border trying to punch anything they can is a funny mental image.
Even during the recent occupation of Ukraine and the threat upon neighboring countries that are in NATO there was discussion about what-ifs, and how much gray area there is in such events. The core idea of NATO was about deterrence, much like the MAD of nuclear weapon buildup. If someone crosses that line, something has to happen otherwise the whole agreement is called out as meaningless. Article 5 leaves what actions need to happen open ended though, so assistance can be something as simple as persuading the attacker to leave via strong words. Which will absolutely be the first thing tried, as no one wants to escalate to the next level. Well, except the idiots who are attacking.
To your point, I think the political will to defend Greenland will definitely be there from the overwhelming majority of other NATO states.
Will the political will to start an actual shooting war with the US be there?
I don't think there's a practical ability. The European powers can't project power outside their boarders without the US helping. Especially with an overseas nation like Greenland.
England and France have a few carriers, but that's about it. Landing troops would be highly vulnerable to US air superiority. US carriers are larger and more numerous than anything Europe can put up. Based on the local geography, those carriers can stay safe from drone range (a benefit Russia does not have on the Black Sea).
But that also assumes the US military is unified to follow orders into an illegal war, and that may not be the case.
It's depressing that it's almost come to that small hope, that our military isn't as stupid as those giving the orders to them.
I'm not versed in modern military strategy, but I've heard others say that the U.S. carrier fleet has been a dominant force because the U.S. has only taken on adversaries that didn't have submarines, and anti-torpedo systems aren't foolproof. Also, it seems to me that they're for force projection, and not so great for defensive action, to since there are only 11 of them. That is, the U.S. has a lot of assets that enemies could strike while the carrier groups are elsewhere.
I guess I'm not convinced that the carriers would be decisive in a conflict with a modern military, instead of the usual U.S. MO of picking on the weak.
How weak is weak? Prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world. That was as much of a curbstomp as you'll ever see in military history.
There's some theories out there about just how vulnerable modern carriers are to modern subs. One thing detractors bring up is a Chinese sub popping up in US Navy maneuvers completely undetected in 2007. However, active sonar methods are usually turned off outside of wartime, so it's not as simple as that.
One theory is that subs are at an inherent disadvantage in a technological arms race. Let's say a nation produces a sonar that can pick up any sub currently built. Likely, they'll be able to fit that sonar onto all their existing ships. Conversely, if you wanted to protect your own subs against that new sonar method, you will likely have to rebuild all your subs. Now, even nuclear subs are cheaper to produce than supercarriers, but this still isn't a favorable technological position in the long run.
Drones and hypersonic missiles are a bigger threat, IMO. More so drones. Hypersonic missiles have some disadvantages of maneuverability that make them a poor choice for a moving target. Drones are limited in range, though, so the US Navy could just keep the carriers away from shore.
Curious about why it would be an illegal war. Unjust, immoral, unprovoked, and unnecessary are not actually what makes a war illegal.
The invasion of Iraq was entirely based on false pretenses and the military was perfectly unified. Compared to that, an open war of conquest is pretty reasonable.
It's illegal by international law--UN charter and the ICC both have sections against invading other country's territory. International law is only as good as anyone is willing to enforce it, which in the case of Iraq, wasn't very much.
Why would Greenland be different? Iraq was supported by a paper thin excuse of WMDs, and the history of antagonism. The Trump Administration hasn't done the legwork to even setup a paper thin excuse beyond "they have resources we want", and there's no particular history of Greenland invading its own neighbors or even threatening them. In fact, it's been an important strategic location for the US Navy's control of the North Atlantic since WWII. Trump hasn't bothered with even the slightest attempt at this because he's an idiot.
Does that mean the military will refuse the order? I really have no idea. It's not something anybody should count on. More likely, you'll have different units making different decisions. Some outright refusing, others slow walking their orders while appearing to obey, and others eager to do it. However, it's possible that the military will refuse en masse.
I think the burgeoning protest movements in the US should also be prepared to take direct action against the military. Things like linking hands to block the gates to weapons factories. And to the naysayers of "what are these protests even accomplishing?", it's to prepare a mass movement that is capable of doing this sort of thing.
I have zero belief that any units will ignore or slow walk any orders. There's just no history of that happening in recent US military existence to expect it to happen now. Vietnam saw a handful of cases where people likely killed their commanders, but it very plainly didn't impact the course of the war.
The UN will never determine that the US is engaged in an illegal war. The security council needs to vote on that, and the US gets to veto. The ICC doesn't apply to the US because we never ratified the agreement. It's just someone elses laws.
Direct action against the military is more likely to have an effect, but linking arms is not going to be effective. Impeding military production is just going to get you beaten and arrested, at best.
Specifically interfering with military operations is particularly illegal and carries penalties way worse than the usual you get for messing with other businesses.
If you're going that far, at least do something effective rather than slowing down a truck for a few hours.
Look to the WW1 protests, and what was effective there and what happened.
The paper thin excuse is "national security" that Europe may get uppity in next few years and US needs full control of Greenland territory in order to bomb them back to Iraq level.
Iraq is filled with "scary looking" brown people with a different religion. And they have the excuse of 9/11.
Greenland tho? Yea good luck convincing people to fight the war.
I lack your confidence in the racism of the US military. I think it just changes what terms they use to dehuminize anyone they shoot.
It's not like the US has never invaded anyplace with white people.
France alone could roll up a nuclear submarine wherever, though. It would be a weird war but I don't actually know how unequal it would be.
The US has more supercarriers than France has nuclear attack submarines. That's not even counting US "amphibious assault ships", which would be carriers in anybody else's navy. It's pretty unequal.
Yes, but what would they go and do with them? I'm not super sure they could use much of that stuff up in Greenland when things are iced over, and then there's the question of how survivable they would be vs. technologically sophisticated Europe. What does holding Greenland even mean to them? What kind of losses are they willing to take elsewhere? What about MAD?
I mentioned the submarine thing because you made it sound like they'd be stuck on their own continent, and that's an obvious counterexample. There's like a million things at play.
Carriers would provide air superiority to prevent any reinforcements from landing. That's all. Trump is willing to push a war of attrition on this one, because again, he's an idiot.
If a nuclear sub did manage to sink a US supercarrier, Trump would likely try to galvanize support in a "Remember the Maine!" fashion. I doubt it would shift actual support much at all. Quite the opposite; without doing the legwork for a paper thin excuse ahead of time and building a media frenzy the way the Bush II admin did, it only highlights how dumb and pointless the whole thing is, and that he's putting American service members at risk for no gain whatsoever.
Oh, and that nuclear sub would be hunted down and sunk in response. The EU doesn't have the forces to win a war of attrition.
The only way I see this working out for the EU is if there's a major purge of the US military beforehand. That would ensure loyalty to Trump, but it would toss competence into a woodchipper. Edit: see the Finish Winter War for how well purges work out. And the Finns technically still lost that one.
If it goes long enough for new production to matter, the EU is actually better equipped for a war of attrition, being bigger and having some kind of unity. Would it actually be a drawn-out war of attrition, or something else? Hard to say, because like you've pointed out the whole thing is so dumb.
Again, carriers aren't the only variable in play, even if they are very good at creating a zone of air superiority. Greenland isn't the only theater here, it's not a single point you can sit on top of, and it's not even mostly inhabited. I'll try not to repeat myself about the other factors I've mentioned.
Even in a scenario where the EU massively increases production of tanks and guns and drones, they still have to get those things into the theater of operations. One thing the US military is really, really good at is logistics. The EU up until now has little modern experience at it, because the US did it all for them.
That's true, although I'm skeptical they couldn't overcome it. There's no shortage of educational overlap, or of big European institutions.
Thinking about this a bit, if the US rolls some kind of icebreaker convoy up there to occupy Nuuk, they could respond by seizing all the US bases in Europe and taking anyone they catch as a prisoner. That seems like an exchange in the EU's favour; Greenland's just not a very major place. There's arguments for everything from non-military retaliation only to nuking New York, though.
It's Greenland. Just principle isn't going to move anybody. Maybe not even Denmark. There's other treaties, though.
And since it's basically the US and everyone else in equal share, NATO is just dead and irrelevant if they're the ones breaking it.
The EU, on the other hand, would probably be in like a dirty shirt, having a defence agreement aspect. Maybe Canada too, just because we'd know we're next.
Yeah. The invocation of Article 5 for Afghanistan showed a mixed response from the various NATO nations in what support they would provide.
In practice, it would be the end of NATO.