01/17/2026
The alliance is cracking. In a shocking move, President Trump has issued a February 1st DEADLINE to our closest European allies: “Sell Greenland or face a Trade War.”. This isn’t just rhetoric—documents confirm a 10% tariff hits Denmark, France, Germany, and the UK starting next month if demands aren’t met.
Is this the end of NATO? While the West panics, a total internet BLACKOUT has hit Iran as Trump calls for immediate regime change, labeling Khamenei a “sick man”. But is this all a massive distraction to abandon Ukraine? Former NATO Chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen warns that Putin is the real winner here.
Source: Greg Terry Experience
https://cdn.prod.dailykos.com/images/1514707/story_image/lk010726dAPR.jpg?1767738637
What the EU can do: invoke the Anti-Coercion Instrument (2023).Ironically, it was designed to counter economic sanctions from China, for example, targeting individual EU-member states. But now, Trump is doing the same: threatening individual states like Denmark with tariffs over Greenland.
https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/enforcement-and-protection/protecting-against-coercion_en
what will happen if it escalates? NATO will survive without USA
https://x.com/rospigge60559/status/2012080945419948409
The Moment America Touches Greenland
If the United States were to invade Greenland, we should be honest about what follows. This would not be a bargaining tactic, a property deal, or a limited show of force. It would be a geopolitical point of no return.
The moment American troops seize territory from Denmark—a fellow NATO member—the post-war Western order collapses. Not weakens. Ends.
NATO cannot survive an internal attack. Article 5 would be rendered meaningless the instant it is violated by the alliance’s most powerful member. Europe would not debate this for months; it would act. The alliance that anchored transatlantic security for 75 years would dissolve, and the United States would instantly transform from guarantor of European stability into its primary threat.
The military consequences would be immediate. U.S. forces would lose their political legitimacy on European soil. Bases across Germany, Italy, the UK, and beyond would face closure or expulsion. America’s ability to project power into Europe, Africa, and the Middle East would be crippled—not by enemy fire, but by loss of access. The U.S. would retreat behind oceans, not by choice, but by isolation.
The economic fallout would be even more severe. The European Union, the world’s largest single market, would respond decisively. Market access would vanish. Financial cooperation would freeze. Dollar reserves would be reduced, confidence shattered, and the U.S. economy—still dependent on global trust in the dollar—would absorb a shock unlike anything in modern history. Inflation, capital flight, and market collapse would follow.
American corporations would be collateral damage. Operations in Europe would be frozen, seized, or expelled. Trillions in valuation would disappear almost overnight. This would not be a recession; it would be forced de-globalization, cutting U.S. industry off from its wealthiest and most technologically advanced partners.
Airspace would close. U.S. airlines would be grounded across Europe. Boeing aircraft would be sidelined. Transatlantic movement—of people, goods, and supply chains—would fracture. The practical effects would hit ordinary Americans faster than any sanction regime ever has.
Diplomatically and culturally, the U.S. would become a pariah. Sporting bans, visa restrictions, and political isolation would follow—just as they have for other aggressor states. Americans abroad would lose protections they once took for granted. The passport that opened doors would instead trigger suspicion.
Most importantly, the trust would be gone permanently. You do not invade a democratic ally and reset the relationship later. Europe would not wait for the next election cycle. It would rebuild its defense, finance, and alliances explicitly without—and against—the United States.
The West would survive. But America would no longer lead it.
Invading Greenland would not demonstrate strength. It would announce the end of U.S. leadership, U.S. credibility, and U.S. centrality in the world order—traded away for a frozen territory and resources that offer no strategic return worth the cost.
It would not be conquest.
It would be national self-destruction.
—-
https://x.com/Doktor_Klein/status/1895523734272033148
Europe, together with the UK, is already a global power, but with Ukraine, it becomes a superpower. Our military capability is overwhelming against any threat. Source of data: IISS 2025 Report (At comments) Reality shows that there is a lot of misinformation.
https://www.iiss.org/publications/the-military-balance/
Europe is MUCH Stronger Without the U.S Than You Think, here’s why
just 28 Billion for nato and overseas bases
my comment:
from https://x.com/Doktor_Klein/status/1896216008005931073 It’s taking me a while to break down the U.S. defense budget. What’s truly astonishing is how they spend more than anyone else, yet remain so weak and constantly in panic mode. $842 billion, and for what?
and let’s face it USA just spends 28 billion on NATO and overseas bases , Europe spends a lot more https://www.csis.org/programs/defense-budget-analysis https://eda.europa.eu/news-and-events/news/2024/12/04/eu-defence-spending-hits-new-records-in-2023-2024 €326 billion. On strict nato costs usa 16%, europe 68%
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GlC3EwRWQAApAIw?format=png&name=small
Click to access 1e4328c0-81e2-470f-b665-f109137e6570-KPB_183_en.pdf
Defending Europe Without the US: First Estimates of What is Needed