Greenland Vs NATO

[MNW67]

If only we could have another couple of world wars.

 

[Highway Man]

European army

Doubt it

The French would want to run it

Dare say there would be some type of alliance between certain countries but it’s nowt to do with the EU

Turkey are one of the original members of NATO and they are not and have never been in the EU
???

Canada are not in the EU ???

Last time the EU got involved in some type of military caper was in the Balkans and that was an F up

Couldn’t run a booze up in a brewery militarily hopeless mob

Turkey and Canada wouldn't be considered for a European army, they would become our allies

 

[Highway Man]

If only we could have another couple of world wars.

Looks like we heading down that path.

 

[transam]

Turkey and Canada wouldn't be considered for a European army, they would become our allies

So Norway are out than keeping the UK company

Plus the UK already has military alliances with certain countries that are in the EU

British troops in Latvia or Estonia afaik

Certain alliance with Finland

For get about the EU involvement in any army

It’s a trading block not military

 

[Highway Man]

So Norway are out than keeping the UK company

Plus the UK already has military alliances with certain countries that are in the EU

Its all very complicated, but the collapse of NATO could be a very rude awakening

 

[transam]

Turkey and Canada wouldn't be considered for a European army, they would become our allies

So if Turkey get attacked the EU army would pitch in ???

 

[fillyboy]

So if Turkey get attacked the EU army would pitch in ???

Probably hold a meeting of the coalition of the willing.

 

[transam]

Its all very complicated, but the collapse of NATO could be a very rude awakening

Absolutely so Certain European countries better pull the eads out of the arrisses

Any alliance would require at the very least uK involvemant along with the Germans / French / Poland etc

 

[MNW67]

Absolutely so Certain European countries better pull the eads out of the arrisses

Any alliance would require at the very least uK involvemant along with the Germans / French / Poland etc

France, Germany, UK, Poland, Scandis.

Can't trust Italy.

5% of GDP each on defence.

It will need time to bed in.

But that would provide a decent force.

 

[Highway Man]

France, Germany, UK, Poland, Scandis.

Can't trust Italy.

5% of GDP each on defence.

It will need time to bed in.

But that would provide a decent force.

5 years from now yes

 

[Old Salt]

America does not prop up Nato. The costs are borne according to the GDP of the members with USA and Germany picking up 16% of the bill and the UK 11%, other members pay according to their GDP. The costs of men, equipment etc are borne solely by the country concerned and this is where the USA picks up a bigger share of the tab but only because it covers all their worldwide commitments. Members of Nato have been lax in contributing the agreed 3.5% with some including the UK paying about 2%. Our recent contributions have risen to about 2.3% and Queer Stammer has committed to paying 3.5% by 2035.

Bit late in my opinion but don't run away with the idea that UK troops are not capable of putting up a strong fight. Leaving out the numbers they are more than a match for Putin, they have good kit, they are better trained and have better leadership. Yes the kit could be improved and it ain't all hunky dory but having fought alongside British troops I know where I would rather be if it came to a fight.

Trump needs to be told to do one. He can build as many US bases in Greenland as he wants, the agreement is already in place he doesn't need to own Greenland to do it. The Greenlanders would allow mineral extraction if it benefits the population and safeguards the island but Trumpington just wants everyone to see how big and strong he is. Unfortunately he is in great danger of losing his allies and the good ole US of A being left isolated.

The USA also owes the United Nations about $ 2.36 billion dollars in payments as of October 2025.

 

[Highway Man]

America does not prop up Nato. The costs are borne according to the GDP of the members with USA and Germany picking up 16% of the bill and the UK 11%, other members pay according to their GDP. The costs of men, equipment etc are borne solely by the country concerned and this is where the USA picks up a bigger share of the tab but only because it covers all their worldwide commitments. Members of Nato have been lax in contributing the agreed 3.5% with some including the UK paying about 2%. Our recent contributions have risen to about 2.3% and Queer Stammer has committed to paying 3.5% by 2035.

Bit late in my opinion but don't run away with the idea that UK troops are not capable of putting up a strong fight. Leaving out the numbers they are more than a match for Putin, they have good kit, they are better trained and have better leadership. Yes the kit could be improved and it ain't all hunky dory but having fought alongside British troops I know where I would rather be if it came to a fight.

Trump needs to be told to do one. He can build as many US bases in Greenland as he wants, the agreement is already in place he doesn't need to own Greenland to do it. The Greenlanders would allow mineral extraction if it benefits the population and safeguards the island but Trumpington just wants everyone to see how big and strong he is. Unfortunately he is in great danger of losing his allies and the good ole US of A being left isolated.

The USA also owes the United Nations about $ 2.36 billion dollars in payments as of October 2025.

The UK as it stands has very limited supplies, we have been running it down for years and supplying Ukraine has dwindled it further. We could not take on Russia by a long shot, they could sustain a war for years to come along with the men to throw into the meat grinder, we haven't got the men. Our regiments have been cut and our recruitment is appalling.

 

[ellal]

So simply put, who on here believes that the US should annex Greenland...

It's not a loaded question, just a simple yes or no is required...

Time to put up or shut up, with no caveats...

I say no.

 

[Highway Man]

How long Britain could really fight for if war broke out tomorrow

In the event of a war, one expert suggests the British Army could be incapable of fighting effectively on land within weeks, once committed - though 'much depends on the form of the conflict'.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[MNW67]

So simply put, who on here believes that the US should annex Greenland...

It's not a loaded question, just a simple yes or no is required...

Time to put up or shut up, with no caveats...

I say no.

It's a no from me.