The US attacking allied territory of the EU is basically the death of NATO, one way or another. WW3 is a hop and a skip from that.

I've not been following super closely for mental health reasons, but if it is just Denmark? We are looking at another Ukraine. Everyone is going to hem and haw and say "just give it to the pricks" to "avoid World War 3". Whereas, if we start seeing other EU/NATO nations deploying troops to protect Greenland... there is a chance that SOMETHING remains and we don't just have russia running over everyone else one by one.

No, the attacking of Greenland could cause a war not the act of defending it.

There is more to a war than the difference in military strength.

Considering NATO without USA has 5x the cold weather trained troops and 10x the cold weather equipment as USA. USA could certainly land but Denmark and its northern neighbors could pretty easily and I don't think even with great cost make it prohibitively difficult to stay. It would end up looking like Finland's Great Winter War IMO.

If you don't live and breathe cold weather fighting, it's very easy to lose in these conditions. Your equipment gets packed with snow, the lubricant in your vehicle turns to sludge, the optics on your gun fog over, your doors freeze shut, your personnel get too cold to fight, etc.

Even just Denmark, Finland, and Sweden could pull this off themselves, or likely just Denmark and one of those 2. The US has a long track record of losing guerrila wars and Denmark's neighbors like Finland know how to win them in conditions like what they have in Greenland.

This is the mentality they are banking on, it's the Russian mentality since time immemorial that's kept Europe in the cuck chair for so long. "Yes but if we respond, they might escalate things!"

Gotta tell you, as a Canadian I don't love the concept of the US having even more leverage over our already tenuous logistical connection to European allies. Keeping the Atlantic un-dominated is important for us.

There is no realistic way to defend Greenland with actual arms against America.

Spoken like someone who hasn't studied any US military history more recent than the 1940's.

Would you rather have 'peace in for our time'?

Edit: Fixed the quote.

In a direct confrontation, the US would walk over them as if they aren't there. That's why you don't do that, you apply guerilla tactics. That's why a bunch of basically goat herders in Afghanistan, of all places, managed to beat the Russians and the Americans.

Let there be no doubt, the US got its ass handed there, and Afghanistan is a good part of the reasons why the USSR folded.

I assume the Danish generals know this and likely have prepared something similar, but now with highly trained and well equipped soldiers.

I think an invasion of Greenland would finish the US, especially since the Danes have a lot of experience in how to fight winter conditions while the US not so much.

I think something similar applies as well in, for example, Mexico. There are boat loads of highly (US military) trained criminals over there with a lot of experience in sending messages. Once the hundredth soldier was found dangling from a bridge, or cut up in a salad, it might become hard to explain to Maga base why really is worth it.

The US is awesome at invading. It absolutely sucks at keeping anything

In your average conflict this might very much be true, but this is the artic, its a completely different scenario. Ive been hearing a few military experts talk about how much complicated are simple things like keeping ur vehicles moving because of the low temps and how hard would be the logistic to simply maintain control on the ground.

EU will never beat the US air superiority, but alas. Invading Greenland is the end of NATO and most likely will trigger WW3

The US has somewhat of a glass jaw. Their public is willing to support military operations but once consequences transpire they panic. It won’t take too many bodybags coming off the planes for the fever to break.