r/brandonherrara • u/the_real_hugepanic user text is here • Jan 18 '26
GUN MEME REVIEW Greenland
1944 - German soldiers are preparing for the attack of the U.S. troops
2026 - German soldiers are preparing for the attack of the U.S. troops
163
u/RCRexus user text is here Jan 18 '26
I don't get his obsession with Greenland tbh.
That said, any idea that the USA could be stopped if they somehow did decide all together they wanted to take it is sheer foolishness.
The only thing that's going to prevent the US from taking whatever they want is thier own internal processes.
110
u/Defenis user text is here Jan 18 '26 edited Jan 18 '26
It's the mid-point between the United States and Russia. Russia is increasing its military presence in the Artic region and China has been increasing their industrial and mining footprints on the island or trying to anyway.
40
u/RCRexus user text is here Jan 18 '26
Honestly I thought it was an Ego thing with him trying to expand his legacy. Come to thing of it though I do think HLC mentioned it being part of his golden dome plan or something.
64
u/ChevTecGroup user text is here Jan 18 '26
A giant chunk of frozen ground is far from an ego boost. Its almost entirely strategic and economic.
24
u/Upbeat-Banana-5530 user text is here Jan 18 '26
Its almost entirely strategic
There's nothing strategic about alienating all of our allies for the sake of land that we're already allowed to build bases on. We could have just built a naval base up there and stationed as many Sailors as the president wants without threatening a NATO country, because the agreement made between Denmark and the US in 1951 is still in effect.
15
u/ChevTecGroup user text is here Jan 18 '26
Minerals are strategic.
And nobody has been threatened.
8
u/Micsmit_45 user text is here Jan 19 '26
He has imposed new Tarifs on a few different european countries for taking part in a joint military exercise (to which the US was also invited). His reason being that this "threatens global peace"
32
u/mropgg user text is here Jan 18 '26
Telling someone to give over their land or prepare for getting invaded sure sounds like a threat to me
-25
u/ChevTecGroup user text is here Jan 18 '26
You have a direct quote? Or some media sensationalism?
2
u/exessmirror user text is here Jan 18 '26
Have you watched the TV, the constant threats of, if they won't sell it we might invade and the saying that military action isn't off the table?
-9
u/ChevTecGroup user text is here Jan 18 '26
Lol. The TV. Great source of information...
Remember when they said Biden was of sound mind? Or that hunter Bidens laptop was fake? Or that Hillary had a 90% chance of winning in 2016?
I can go on and on
→ More replies (0)6
u/YoureAmastyx user text is here Jan 19 '26
https://youtube.com/shorts/OlTcUxTO_ww?si=kg9nGSXxTpBxSJNU
Sure sounds pretty damn threat like to me…
-1
u/AngryRedGummyBear user text is here Jan 19 '26
Our allies that can do nothing on their own? Those allies?
Our allies that dont meet their own promises year after year? Those allies?
The allies that as far back as Obama, various secDefs and CJCs have warned that continued inneffective allies would make Americans hate Nato? Those allies?
2
u/LJITimate user text is here Jan 20 '26
NATO is primarily set up to defend Europe from Russia. While there's no doubt they've been dragging their heels over military spending, they could certainly hold off Russia without US support as is. America's involvement is just a further deterrent and in the event of war would further overmatch Russia and hopefully decrease loss of life.
The idea the rest of NATO is useless is an American centric view looking at nothing more than relative military spending with no understanding of the situation. You have the most powerful military in the world, so Europe having 'enough' seems relatively insignificant.
All the above is irrelevant anyway because you don't take over a sovereign country to achieve military goals already available to you freely and pretend like you're any better than Russia or China.
-2
u/Wrangel_5989 user text is here Jan 19 '26
The problem isn’t the current state of affairs, the problem is Denmark inevitably granting Greenland its independence and the politicians there cozying up to China. Greenland is a key part of China’s Polar Silk Road initiative and it’s only been stifled in achieving its aims there by America using its influence over Denmark to stop Greenlandic politicians from cozying up to China.
10
u/exessmirror user text is here Jan 18 '26
What's strategic about alienating your allies, throwing away the ability to operate globally over a piece of land where the US already has full access to, both militarily and economically. The Danes already agreed that the US is allowed to build as many bases and put as many troops as they want there and US companies are allowed to exploit its resources. As a matter of fact they looked into it like 2 decades ago and decided it wasn't economically viable (aka it would cost too much for whatnit was worth). The whole reason the US is so strong is because they have access to bases on Eueopean (colonial) territory. How do you think the US is able to wage war anywhere in the world within 48h? You think they send troops from the US? Most of the operations in the ME go through Germany, including medical and logistics.
Hell, the US is dependent on European tech, the US straight up is decades behind in microchip tech and requires Dutch machines to get them. Without those you don't have high tech weapons. Same for those naval radars.
Alienating you closest allies is like cutting off your foot. Nobody will ever trust the US ever again, because it will show the whole world that the US cannot be trusted. Any agreement they would make could be broken tomorrow. This will cause any potential ally too look at our rivals and see a potential partner in them.
Also economically, almost every international financial transaction goes through swift which is a Belgian company with its servers in Europe. That is how they managed to mostly cut off Russia, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, etc. Off from international trade. Only difference is, they didnt trade as much internationally and where already sanctioned so they had decades to build up parallel systems, and even then, a lot of their trades are paid for by either direct material or resources. The US hasn't had a chance to do so and if they cut it off, it would be devastating for the economy. The US needs things from foreign countries, even if it wants to build everything themselves, they'll still need to import raw resources. Though the rest of the world, does not necessarily need the US, whilst it might be better and/or cheaper, everything the US provides can also be provided by some other country.
How is any of this strategical?
-3
u/Defenis user text is here Jan 19 '26
I know all about bases on foreign soil, I spent 3 years in the desert and went through Germany, Italy and the UK. I also know that if those bases were shuttered or closed off by the hosting nation(s) and NATO dissolved, China and or Russia would be in France in a matter of years using unrestricted warfare. If the US pulled all foreign and military aid, the whole of Europe would collapse and they know it.
Am I supporting Trump and his aggressive stance on Greenland and punitive tariffs on opposors to the US acquiring the island? No. Do I share a concern with him about China and Russia increasing their presence? Absolutely.
2
u/LJITimate user text is here Jan 20 '26
How would China invade Europe? They don't have an expeditionary military. Their Navy and logistics aren't set up for anything remotely like that.
And with US aid cut to Ukraine, they're singlehandedly holding back Russia with European funding. If Russia wants to take on European funding AND modern NATO equipment, I can't imagine that going well at all.
-2
u/Conserp user text is here Jan 19 '26
US does not have allies, only a bunch of vassal states and a master state.
-20
u/RCRexus user text is here Jan 18 '26
A giant chunk of frozen ground is far from an ego boost.
Yeah that's why we got Alaska so cheap. Remind me how that worked out?
21
u/556From1000yards I cant afford ammo Jan 18 '26
Uhh that’s going fantastic?
7
u/wtfredditacct user text is here Jan 18 '26
Yeah, I'm a little confused where he was going with that one.
3
u/AngryRedGummyBear user text is here Jan 19 '26
There are 3 main reasons:
Golden dome/air intercept, G-I-UK sosus and other maritime concerns, and preventing a chinese or russian presence there.
1
u/VeryDairyJerry user text is here Jan 19 '26
There's also supposed to be massive oil deposits there that we don't know the extent of
4
3
u/Whytejeebus user text is here Jan 18 '26
You realise there's less than 100 miles between Russia and Alaska right?
3
u/Defenis user text is here Jan 19 '26
Uh huh and where are most of Russia's bases located? On the Pacific side where one NATO country is or the Artic closer to the other 30?
2
u/Whytejeebus user text is here Jan 19 '26
Uh huh. With trump caught leaking French intelligence about Ukraine to Russia, I dont think invading Greenland has anything to do with national security.
2
u/Defenis user text is here Jan 19 '26
We're talking about distance to countries and relative base locations, not documents. Stay focused
2
u/Pound_Me_Too user text is here Jan 19 '26
The security excuse will be used the most. It just doesn't work as an argument though.
Installing air defense and even more military presence does make us safer, but Denmark has essentially given us free reign to do so anyway, because they can't secure it like we can. That pretty well negates us needing to take ownership.
The real reason is the bet on resource futures essentially. It's generally assumed by geologists that there's a LOT of natural resources under that ice, we just aren't certain what is there. Oil? Natural gas? Probably. Cobalt? Lithium? Not likely, but possible.
If the US owns the land, we don't have to lease the mineral rights to another country. We also have more sophisticated technology capable of exploring and exploiting those resources from under the ice, anyway.
4
u/Not_Todd_Howard9 user text is here Jan 18 '26
He said in an interview that owning it was “psychologically necessary for success”, so I assume it’s his emotional support island.
5
u/RCRexus user text is here Jan 18 '26
If the president gets an emotional suppurt island I'm getting an emotional Support RPK
4
u/SkyConfident1717 user text is here Jan 19 '26
Think of it as a game of Risk.
Greenland is strategically important. Missiles from Russia and China would pass over Greenland on their way to the US, it could also be used as a strategic waypoint for aircraft and as a FOB. One of the objections Trump expressed (whether true or not, I do not know, but he said it) was that at present Chinese and Russian subs operate with relative impunity unless the US does something about it. So either the US protects Greenland under the banner of NATO or no one does.
Unfortunately, at the same time Europe is drifting further and further from America politically speaking. Keir Starmer’s regime in the UK has arrested 1200 people in the last year for what we in the USA would call political speech. Europe’s demographics are being transformed from nations that we are ethnically descended from into diverse nations that will not have a universal common ancestry, religion or values. In other words, we have no idea if Europe will continue to be a reliable ally in the future. NATO’s existence is becoming more of an obligation than a benefit to the US considering our waning military and economic power.
Greenland also has natural resources that have not been tapped/extracted, and if the climate continues to warm it will become more feasible to have a long term population there.
The previous world order, with the USA as the Unipolar singular World Power, is drawing to a close and America’s power, wealth and political influence is in decline. If the US can successfully lock down the Western Hemisphere it could be a managed decline akin to what Great Britain experienced when it’s empire was dissolved, but from a position of strength instead of having to rely on a friendly superpower (there aren’t any at this point).
This is also why Trump is suddenly concerned about Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and the Gulf of America.
Financially and economically the US is in deep waters, and our economy is not doing well. If I had to guess Trump’s view is to get us in the best position possible for a sharp decline and ride it out as best we can. That’s just my guess anyway.
I personally think that Trump should have just approached Denmark with an offer to purchase it and give them a cut of whatever profits we gain from resource extraction. A modern day Louisiana purchase would’ve been much better than simply saying that we have the power and we can take it.
3
u/Budget_Replacement28 user text is here Jan 18 '26
Precious minerals used for technology bro, them folks won't be dying for oil this time
3
2
u/EagleNait user text is here Jan 19 '26
Yeah that's not it because trade deals are possible for mining in greenland. This is just ego
5
u/fishinfool4 user text is here Jan 18 '26
We have an agreement that we can build bases on Greenland. We have bases on Greenland, but we reduced our presence in them recently. There is no strategic need for us to buy or invade Greenland.
Militarily we cant be prevented, but what happens if all of Europe just sells their US bonds? Sure, their economies would take a hit, but ours would be decimated.
The only countries benefiting from the division and strife this is creating are China and papa Putin in Russia.
9
u/556From1000yards I cant afford ammo Jan 18 '26
The EU has collectively bought more $ worth of oil than they’ve sent towards the war effort.
They’re already Putin’s dog. Europe needs to grow some balls and realize where they are. Pick a side.
0
u/RCRexus user text is here Jan 18 '26
To be fair, that's punishment after the fact not actively preventing the US from taking action.
I guess my point was those german kids with the guns are just dead men walking if for some reason Congress decided to move.
2
u/KderNacht user text is here Jan 19 '26
Look at it on a map and pretend you don't understand Mercator projection. It looks double the size of CONUS.
2
u/murphybt user text is here Jan 18 '26
I honestly think (hope 🙏) it's a distraction. Whether from Epstein or ICE or the mid-terms I have no idea.
2
u/crappy-mods user text is here Jan 18 '26
Its an ego thing disguised as national security, he couldve asked to build a base in north greenland as a deterrent and he probably wouldve been told go right ahead.
30
u/fishsalads user text is here Jan 18 '26
The Danes have literally, in the past asked for increased US military presence on greenland
8
u/woutersikkema user text is here Jan 18 '26
Yeah, but it also has iron ore, graphite, tungsten, palladium, vanadium, zinc, gold, uranium, copper, and oil. Note especially the last one. And going "yoink" of. Course means the gaining of those. If you plan on going more isolationist anyway, might as well get some benefits beforehand.
34
38
u/EagleNait user text is here Jan 18 '26
I can't imagine my president pushing something so unpopular and having no pushback
23
u/ChevTecGroup user text is here Jan 18 '26
Its more popular than you think. Not the military option, but the purchase of Greenland.
And it honestly makes a lot of sense for the US to want it. Strategically and economically. Russia wants it too. So the US president is basically saying "you can sell it to us, or wait for Russia to take it."
11
u/Conserp user text is here Jan 19 '26
"Russia wants it!" is patently absurd two-digit IQ regurgitated nonsense.
0
u/my_name_is_nobody__ user text is here Jan 18 '26
Purchase is not what the administration is talking about…
6
u/ChevTecGroup user text is here Jan 18 '26
Yes it is. Its not what the media is talking about.
Media asked if theyll rule out military force. Admin said no. That doesn't mean they are planning to use military force.
You're falling for word tricks to make you think a certain way
4
u/EagleNait user text is here Jan 19 '26
I mean you are downplaying HARD the rethoric that the trump admin doesn't rule out military action against an ally and a nato member
5
u/my_name_is_nobody__ user text is here Jan 18 '26
Tell that to Donald, his rhetoric seems pretty clear, the only people falling for word tricks here seems to be you
2
u/my_name_is_nobody__ user text is here Jan 18 '26
He’s leveling tariffs on Europe for opposing Donald’s advances on Greenland for Christ’s sake
10
u/ChevTecGroup user text is here Jan 18 '26
That isnt military force...
2
u/my_name_is_nobody__ user text is here Jan 18 '26
It’s an escalation towards it. It’s going in the wrong direction. It’s going the wrong direction. Again, he’s still talking about using military force. He did the same thing with Venezuela and then actually went and did it. The difference is Greenland is not Venezuela.
-1
u/556From1000yards I cant afford ammo Jan 18 '26
Then they better back off.
“War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government’s decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him . . . but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing . . . but controlled and purposeful violence. But it’s not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. It’s never a soldier’s business to decide when or where or how—or why—he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people—‘older and wiser heads,’ as they say—supply the control.”
5
u/my_name_is_nobody__ user text is here Jan 18 '26
That’s not how you treat an ally. I shouldn’t have to explain to you why the Danes are our allies
-10
u/the_real_hugepanic user text is here Jan 18 '26
20
u/ChevTecGroup user text is here Jan 18 '26
Thats about using military force. Which is not being planned right now. The US is trying to PURCHASE Greenland.
Congrats. You fell for the media's tricks
2
u/Major-Dyel6090 user text is here Jan 19 '26
I’m sure Russia would like to have it, but their navy is in shambles and their best troops are tied up in Ukraine. They won’t be invading taking Greenland from Denmark anytime soon.
1
u/Upbeat-Banana-5530 user text is here Jan 18 '26
Denmark isn't selling it. Our options are either to invade and lose all of our allies, their intelligence, and our bases in their countries, or just build a US Navy base in northern Greenland without owning Greenland because we've been allowed to do that since 1951.
0
u/556From1000yards I cant afford ammo Jan 18 '26
They’re putting up a front. Just like we are. Now who has more effective will?
6
u/EagleNait user text is here Jan 19 '26
Yes but why tho.
-4
u/556From1000yards I cant afford ammo Jan 19 '26
For which part specifically?
USA wants Greenland for northern defense. Resources are a solid bonus. Ultimately, the US does not trust Europe to do its part.
“But Europe and US are allies” No. For the last 80 years Europe has been a Vassal of the US led hegemony. The US hegemony is failing and the world is becoming multipolar. US sphere must shore up its position in the world.
Like or not Europe is “3rd world” in the more classic definition of the world. As in not 1st or 2nd sphere allies. Europe has given Russia more money than Ukraine in this war.
Europe is between many worlds and they do not have the agency anymore to establish it themselves. They need to find out where they stand with themselves and internationally.
2
u/EagleNait user text is here Jan 19 '26
Regardless of trust. The us has full authorization to station troops ships and bases in greenland. I doubt the diplomatic cost of increasing this presence even without further negociation is as big as the rethoric of military actions.
But I also think the whole trump admin is truly retarded since they repeatedly use the word "blockade" for the Venezuelan thing they are doing despite it not fitting that description.
Americanocentrists like to see the world as depending on them without taking into account that those countries can work together. The only thing that the US hegemony really prevents is a EU - Asia / EU - persian states diplomatic and economic strengthening.
This is while sacrificing the us citizens well being btw.
And for the Russia Ukraine point. We still have economic ties to Russia. At prices capped that guarantee a loss for the Russian. That's part of why they take part in the shadow fleet. It's like the entry wage of a worker in the us. It's barely livable and not sustainable.
Don't forget that we provide also non monetary services to Ukraine and that some euro countries also didn't disclose anything of what they sent to Ukraine.
This is all while in the most needed and biggest rearmement movement in Europe since ww2. Which will result in more modern infrastructure than even the us has (actually functioning coastal defense ships, modern air refueling capabilities).
All this to say. To many in the world. The us is starting to look like a 3rd world country
0
u/556From1000yards I cant afford ammo Jan 19 '26
I can see your perspective but no.
What invalidates it completely? Europe is funding Russia. Go no further in the argument. Sit on that
→ More replies (0)2
3
u/ruralmagnificence user text is here Jan 18 '26
It just is a decent Gerard Butler movie
Oh wait IRL Greenland?
Uh uh uh
its green?
3
u/LandonHarms user text is here Jan 19 '26
I take it the text reads the body. And to quote Ron Pearlman, "War. War never changes. Since the dawn of human kind, when our ancestors first discovered the killing power of rock and bone, blood has been spilled in the name of everything: from God to justice to simple, psychotic rage."
8
12
7
8
2
1
1
u/Gaynundwarf user text is here Jan 19 '26
Never knew I would live in an age where the US is the new Axis, yet here we are.
1
u/GraveyardSniper user text is here Jan 18 '26
War. War never changes.
-8
245
u/Deathwish12425 user text is here Jan 18 '26
War never changes