> As a source puts it, the French said: "Would you like more soldiers? You could have them. Would you like more naval support? You could have that. Would you like more air support? You could have that too."
I did, but it simply wouldn't have happened. Whatever about boots on the ground and ships deployed, they would not have fired a shot. There is zero appetite for war with the US.
Europe can wreck the US in 15 minutes and not a shot would be fired. That would have massive effect on the EU too and that's one of the things holding that back. But if the US would invade Canada or Denmark I'm fairly sure that they would not hesitate, especially not if half the USA would be on their side in the decision.
Europe is not a megalith, there is no central authority to make any kind of decision, and no Government in the bloc has a mandate to destroy it's citizens quality of life and economy by engaging in armed conflict with the US.
This includes Denmark, who would not have fought the US, as much as they tried to put on a show.
Which part of 'and not a shot would be fired' is so hard to understand. There are so many ways to tell another party that maybe they should tend their own house for a bit.
Are you talking about economic warfare? Too many EU nations are completely dependent on the US economically and it only takes one veto.
The reality would be lots of denunciations, some token measures, followed by Business As Usual. Ireland, Poland, Germany, Spain aren't sacrificing their entire economies for Greenland.
Speaking as an Irish citizen id be ok with messing up the US at the cost of our economy. I think that you underestimate the resolve of Europeans on this.
It's profoundly depressing, but such is the world we live in now.
You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but if you think it generalises, you're simply wrong. There is extremely strong and consistent polling across the EU in general, and Ireland in particular, showing that while the public supports Ukraine and moderate defence spending, it does not support direct military involvement or major escalation, and has zero tolerance for armed conflict, severe economic self-harm, or escalation against major powers.
In Ireland specifically, the cost of living is the key political issue at this time for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Neither has any mandate or capacity for military or economic conflict with the United States - our recent diplomatic efforts, in spite of the Greenland and Iranian crises, should highlight that.
Ireland is more dependent than ever before on the US. We would veto any EU efforts against them.
> Ireland is more dependent than ever before on the US. We would veto any EU efforts against them.
Unlikely. We'd most likely hum and haw for a while and then go along with it.
Like ultimately, we need both EU membership and US investment to maintain the economy we have at the moment. Losing one or the other would be really bad, but ultimately the only one we can really control is EU membership, and I'm relatively certain that the majority of Irish people, if forced to (and not one second before) would choose the EU.
> There is extremely strong and consistent polling across the EU in general, and Ireland in particular, showing that while the public supports Ukraine and moderate defence spending, it does not support direct military involvement or major escalation, and has zero tolerance for armed conflict, severe economic self-harm, or escalation against major powers.
Can you point to this polling please? I'm definitely not in favour of more wars, but the issue is that the choice may not be up to you or me, rather it will be driven by countries starting said wars (cough cough US threatening to invade Greenland).
> In Ireland specifically, the cost of living is the key political issue at this time for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Neither has any mandate or capacity for military or economic conflict with the United States - our recent diplomatic efforts, in spite of the Greenland and Iranian crises, should highlight that.
While I do agree with your core point around cost of living, honestly, the likelihood of any political party in Ireland (but particularly FFG) doing anything about the cost of living is ludicrously small, depressingly.
The two biggest drivers of inflation in Ireland (and the west more generally) are energy costs and land costs. If you ran on reducing land costs you'd become a pariah in Ireland (again, really unfortunately).
And our planning system makes it unlikely (again, depressingly) that any work will be done on grid modernisation or building energy infrastructure. I mean, I would love to see this happen (I'd even vote for FG or the Shinners to accomplish this), but I find it extremely unlikely.
As for the realpolitik within the EU, I'm close enough to the fire that I can see the slow changing trends and I have some hope that once Orban is dealt with we'll see some serious improvements in how the EU is conducting day-to-day business in times of crisis. We simply were unprepared for countries backsliding due to out-of-EU influence. But that cat is out of the bag and now we need to deal with it without alienating the rest of the Hungarian population.
I did and it is 100% consistent with my comment. Nice sounds and token troop movements, but absolutely no commitment to fight, which simply wouldn't have happened.
Okay, how do you know? Let's go through this step-by-step, in your opinion, what's the difference between a real commitment and a not-real commitment that you can point to before there's a meaningful-enough emergency to make you show your cards? What would be a non-token amount of troops?
There is no appetite for war in Europe, zero. The Danes know it, the French know it, the US knows it. Every analyst knows it.
The idea that France was going to engage in armed conflict with the US over Greenland is absurd. The US could probably take Saint Pierre and Miquelon or French Guiana without triggering a French armed response.
