Which, indeed, could mean the end of NATO. If it becomes clear that the "alliance" is basically you following the provisions when it serves the US and nobody following them when it doesn't, what's the point of all this legalese?

France is in no condition for any war, they could at most crackdown on tiny New Caledonia but have no strenght to do anything to Sahel states. UK military is in complete shambles. So not only they are unwilling to stand to USA but unable to.

The UK and France combined would have a problem if there was a single carrier parked in the North Atlantic. They might have a chance if all the US Carriers and subs were 2000 miles away.

There is nothing anyone except the US can do about a US annexation of Greenland, short of Nuclear weapons.

Well, yes it is different.

Despite the ban, parenting competency tests are still being used by municipalities as evidence against Greenlandic parents at the National Social Appeals Board, Gjørret says. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Housing denies this, saying that “Since May 1, 2025, the National Social Appeals Board has not used standardised psychological tests for decisions on placement of a child from a Greenlandic family in care outside the home.”

Many countries around the world

Libya: The forgotten victims of NATO strikes - Amnesty International

for literally everyone except eurofash

The global south. NATO is the millitary alliance of the world's imperialist powers, a destruction of millitary unity among imperialists would severely weaken imperialism. NATO is "defensive" in the same way the Iron Dome is, it gives imperialist countries free reign to treat the world like something to be looted and plundered without fear of genuine blowback.

Everyone except the shits

Are there other places like these 4 oblasts that want to be a part of the Russian federation?

Only country that ever burned down the White House? We won’t forget you! ;)

The far right will continue to be a growing problem no matter what happens with EU-US relations. Fascism is capitalism in decay and capitalism will continue to decay until we get rid of it. That's most likely not going to happen any time soon, but it definitely wont happen within an EU bending over backwards to appease the tantrums of a senile manchild being puppeted by five billionaires.

A note: EU treaties also have a mutual defense clause.

So at that point, even if NATO stops existing, the EU would help Denmark fight the US.

Militarily, EU countries won't be able to defend Greenland. It would get occupied by air. But some could make occupation a misery (e.g. "unfortunately a Swedish submarine has again sunk an aircraft carrier").

If it became a military conflict, the EU would almost certainly ask China for an alliance (and ask to ensure Russian neutrality in return for alliance, which China could ensure since it contols Russia's chip supply), and to prevent the US from moving its Pacific fleet to the Atlantic.

Even without Chinese involvement, given their attitude to US adventures, South American countries might make it impossible for the US Pacific fleet to move through the Panama canal, which the US would have to open by force. But it might become blocked with scuttled cargo ships and impossible to pass anyway. At which point global trade routes would be badly distorted. The US would likely try using the Suez canal to move its Indian Ocean assets to the Atlantic. EU would likely try to negotiate its closure or force it closed with sabotage - some cargo ships accidentally sinking there to considerably delay the rate of arrival of US vessels to the Mediterranean, so that they could be sunk there (likely to succeed, back yard fight). The US might try sending reinforcements through the Arctic, which they're currently not well prepared for (Canada might or might not obstruct them). Meanwhile, global economic crisis would be hammering everyone, but Eurasia being a large contigous piece of land with the most people on it - damage would likely be reduced there.

With the US Pacific fleet sufficiently diluted, China would either negotiate the surrender of Taiwan or conquer it.

Overall, I think the US would get Greenland. In case military activity starts, it would get considerable losses at sea. An exchange of islands would happen. A vast island with 50 thousand people against a small island with 20 million people and globally vital industries.

In any case, everyone would get an exceptionally bad economic crisis. In the worst case, a world war with nuclear exchanges might start, and might escalate into civilization-ending war.

The current US administration should be somehow made aware of this. I wonder how to communicate to them a sentence like "the US seizing Greenland means a 100% chance of China seizing Taiwan and a 50% chance of world war (most likely the last of them)".

NATO simply could not back down from this

Remember when Putin started his war in Ukraine and the overwhelming consensus was sanctions that harm the average Russian were necessary despite them not really being responsible. Yeah turns out that logic doesn't apply to Americans because reasons