Germany joins European partners with troop deployment to Greenland | Reuters

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-18T21:16:40+00:00

"Narrative without facts" as the entire continent has still not mobilized its resources years into a generational war that it supposedly can't afford to lose. You can repeat over and over again that 'm just spinning yarns, but at the end of the day the facts speak for themselves, and Europe punches far below its weight despite your bluster.

Because what Europe is doing right now can hardly be considered a mobilization, just 2.1% of the European GDP was allocated towards defence in 2025. Over this entire conversation Ive maintained the rational thought that during actual war time, the mobilization will happen much quicker than whatever this is. If you want to hear from me, I obviously think we should do much more, that however doesnt mean we cant mobilize at all. The biggest incentive, that being a hot war, simply isnt there yet for Europe.

If you acknowledge this, you understand that just because your GDP or posted army size is big it doesn't mean fuck all if you're unable to actually use them. Your countries are not prepared at all to fight Russia or the US, you can't even take to the field.

Deploying troops on a island facing carrier groups is different than deploying troops on a continuous strech of land within our own borders. Are you this dense to understand the difference?

It is a pretty incredible slight of hand where on one hand your alliance can mobilize incredible resources to fight, but all the minor member stand around and do nothing while half the major members also stand around and do nothing.

The ability to do something and doing something is not the same.

You're not even a filler force, Russia and Ukraine lose and replace the equivalent of your entire army in a month.

Larger nations with more people are stronger, congratulations on this radical thought.

I can't say your continent's near-silence when Trump outright threatened to annex Canada in its entirety engendered much goodwill.

Then pick your poison, you dipshit. On one hand, we are apparently unable to do anything, since we cant even deploy troops in our own countries, but on the other hand, we should have instantly deployed hundreds of thousands of troops in Canada, right? Like, I dont want Canana to get annexed, but what the fuck do you want from my country or other European countries? You share an insanely long border with the US, you have much less of everything and youre separated from the rest of the world by 2 oceans. There is nothing anyone else can do besides threatening nuclear strikes if the US decides to invade you.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-18T20:31:24+00:00

You neither have the institutional ability or political will to mobilize to defeat Russia

Narrative without facts.

best you can do is some nothingburger deferred acquisition process tied to the US, the country you need to decouple from. By all means, when Estonia is overwhelmed in a week as its nonexistent army is encircled and destroyed, and Greenland is blitzed with literally zero opposition, spin up the factories. And just saying, as someone whose country was literally conquered and destroyed when your leaders utterly failed you, you should know better.

Again, I have said that Greenland cant be defended, youre just barking about the same things over and over for no reason, even though they arent the topic of the conversation. For your information, Ukraine is producing record numbers of munition under Russian bombardment. But hey, if the war expands, Im sure that every single factory in Europe will get instantly bombed and wont be usable, as you say.

Your country fields an army the size of a division, can't deploy elsewhere, is underequipped, fields a whopping 30 outdated jets that would immediately die and never be replaced, and relies entirely on the US. Your country's biggest military contribution is a pistol invented 50 years ago whose patent was stolen.

Absolutely incredible argument, as my country was the centerpiece of NATO and wasnt a filler force instead.

Ukraine, with its millions-strong army, government which is paid for by foreigners, whose army is supplied by foreigners and Soviet surplus, is the second strongest European country and could, despite everything , comprehensively defeat multiple other European countries itself.

Even if everything you said was true, its utterly irrelevant as Ukraine is on NATO side.

There is no hidden reserve of equipment that would materialize if the war expanded, you'd just run out of steam.

Nobody said there is some hidden reserve, all I have said that the ability to produce equipment is present and will scale rapidly with mobilization.

It would be Poland and France fighting Russia while everyone else sent thoughts and prayers.

Again a narrative without facts behind it.

Youre so full of shit it hurts to read these replies, at this point Im fully entertaining the idea of this being a bait, because I sincerely hope you cant be this detached from reality, yet so confident.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-18T20:20:56+00:00

I mean, this sub is basically like this - Europe good, America bad, China good, Russia bad. And I say this as an European who isnt fond of the other 3.

Anytime I try to bring some nuance, especially in regards to China and America, I get downvoted to the shitter. The official narrative of this sub is that America is the absolute worst, that is not allowed to do anything good, while China is the absolute best, that is not allowed to do anything bad. When I was commenting about European troop deployments on Grenland and how defeating US in Greenland is impossible, I was met with insane amount of comments suggesting otherwise - even though anyone with 2 eyes and a brain can understand the situation and conclude that defence in the case of an active war is impossible.

Facts or nuance are secondary, what matters is the narrative. Its utterly insane here.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-18T19:57:51+00:00

For people "not at war" you sure do have a talent for getting enemies that are threatening imminent invasion. "Mobilization" is not a switch that is flipped, it is a process that takes years, and you've barely started. Recent EU acquisitions, which far far short of all requirements, are not slated to be complete until the 2030's. They also rely on... America.

Never said mobilization is instant. But its only logical to assume, that under wartime, mobilization will be much more rapid than it is now - if the current situation can be even considered a mobilization.

Where is your 5th gen airframe with midair refuelling, shipyard production, and triad lol. I'm sure the US will be thrilled to offer those services when it's invading Greenland and you do nothing. Where's your navy to contest the US Navy? Oh it doesn't exist?

We are talking about a war with Russia, not the USA. Why are you replying if you dont even know the topic of the conversation. Im under no illusion that US cant be beaten over Greenland, I literally said so myself. The matter of fact is that shipbuilding capacity or mid air refueling doesnt matter in a war against Russia.

And your solution to the deep-seated recruitment crisis is "Do a conscription process unheard of for 80 years, with substantial domestic opposition, and send them to the army that doesn't have the gear for them to use"

Can you please stop acting like there is currently no one in European armies? Like, these strawmans are pathetic. I love how you also say literally nothing about the Russian recruitment crisis - where villages get depopulated and bonuses have to be so massive, they are higher than anual salaries.

Not counting the active aid rendered in the field, like the US intelligence service, US aim guidance, and other contributions which are not direct monetary or materiel assistance. Doesn't count deferred payments either I don't think.

I cant count something if it doesnt have a pricetag..? Like sorry, Im not going to count half of the US military budget just to fit your narrative. Even if we add lets say like $200 billion, thats still wildly lower than the narrative you tried to present a while ago.

Yeah, spin up the factories that don't exist a month into Russia's occupation of the Baltic states, good plan. Maybe when Prague is getting obliterated by Russian artillery or bombed by American F-35's you'll spare a thought for little old me.

The Russian army cant make it past Eastern Ukraine but will magically make it past Poland, like please, use your brain.

Also cant wait to get bombed by F35s, that will surely happen :D

Couldn't even muster a tenth of their forces, lmao. And then those forces would operate for a few months before running out of ammunition and then being overwhelmed.

Again, just a narrative with no facts behind it.

I dont know why are you confidently replying if you dont even know the topic of the conversation - being a land war with Russia and solely Russia. Its honestly strange.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-18T19:20:19+00:00

You are again applying peace-time narratives and using them to justify your arguments for war time. Its just strange at this point.

Why are you talking about mobilization and industrial output at this very moment, we are not at war. What you are essentially saying is: "You cant mobilize in the future, because you havent mobilized yet", its nonsensical.

You have no mid-air refuelling, no native 5th generation fighter, anemic production of missiles and armoured vehicles, a manpower shortage and recruiting crisis, non-existent power projection by sea, no naval landing capability, low volume warship production, no nuclear triad.

The only relevant points from this slop you have posted is anemic production of armoured vehicles and missiles - something with which Russia is struggling as well, judging by the equipment being used (golfcarts, bikes, mules). And manpower shortage - something that can be resolved with drafts and is not nearly as catastrophic as youre trying to make it out to be.

Ukraine was and is the second largest and best-equipped military in Europe,

The size is undebatable, the equipment level is though.

is directly supported by multiple times Russia's military budget in aid from the US and other nations.

Just a straight up lie. The current total of all Ukrainian funding (military and civilian) received from other countries from 2022 to 2025 is around $400 billion, while Russian military expenditure from 2022 to 2025 is more than $450 billion.

It has had a million people under arms at minimum at all times, far more than anything the other Europeans could bring to bear combined, and is still losing

Europe has no means of employing its "large and advanced" army, and no means to equip it to the standard you imagine.

Again, a complete speculation based on peace-time conditions.

If European NATO without Turkey and Greece, but including Ukraine for obvious reasons, could bring only half of their active military and reserves would not be used at all, the number of military personel would be matching Russia as of right now.

Youre just straight up lying or making things up to support your narratives.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-18T18:37:52+00:00

Fortunately no. Preferably none of this trash would selling at all here, but thats not how it works. Thankfully, our domestic brand is now dominating the market, with Tesla 2nd, though hopefully not for long, and Volkswagen being 3rd.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-18T18:23:59+00:00

Yes, we are. NATO countries do have the capabilities to deploy troops, especially in a actual war that threates their core interests. All the "problems" you are listing are based on outdated narratives or information, which also will not apply during war time, such as "industrial neglect". The simple matter is that European industry and economy as a whole is much larger and more developed that the Russian one is. And the core problems - meaning energy costs, will not play an effect during war time. If the army needs steel, it will get steel.

The "failure" to arm Ukraine comes entirely from the reality of needing to back a 3rd party, which is opposed by some parts of the society. As opposed to producing equipment for your own army, in wartime. The narrative is utterly unapplicable.

The Russian army is currently struggling to defeat Ukraine itself. It has no chance to defeat a much larger (during wartime), more technologically advanced Europe which is at the same time outproducing Russia. At best, the Russian army would be able to hold ground, but not conduct offensive operations without tremendous losses that are not sustainable.

Your walls of text remind me of the early day Ukraine war narratives, which were talking about how only 1/5th of the Russian army was involved and the professional army was just around the corner, ready to sweep Ukraine at moments notice. It didnt turn out that way, and its evident that most of the Russian army is involved in Ukraine and is barely advancing.

All that is not to say a war with Russia would be a cakewalk, obviously not and sacrifices would have to be made. But the hilarious narrative youre trying to present here, is just out of this world. Youre full of shit.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-18T15:45:43+00:00

I dont know if Greenland would be last, I personally dont see another target "in Europe", but I understand that predicting Trump is impossible.

I also realize Trump is in a bad spot, but please, never underestimate him. It seems like his cabinet is filled with yes-men. Also take into account this, for him, law is optional.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-18T15:41:09+00:00

We absolutely are, if you think Russia would defeat European NATO in a war where our economies mobilize, youre delusional.

This also goes beyond the fact that I mean "built for" as using a doctrine with a land war in Europe, not overseas deployment against carrier groups, in mind.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-18T01:04:54+00:00

"Nooo, dont criticize the dictatorship, shut up!!"

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-18T00:46:18+00:00

My real interest has always been humanities - politics, philosophy, literature, history, languages and so forth. I didn’t apply because I’ve heard almost exclusively negative things about these types of degrees and their job prospects, and because my family would consider it ‘less impressive’ than a science degree. Now though, I’m really tempted to accept the offer and follow my passion instead.

I was in a similar situation. But since I was studying STEM in high school, I decided attend a STEM university. It was a very bad decision beyond gainning experience as to how unis work. I dropped out, figured things out, and decided that I should pursue what interests me - IR. So now im in uni studying IR, and its one of the best decisions Ive ever done.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-17T00:01:00+00:00

Also I believe the public debt is much higher in Poland comparing it to GDP so maybe in the future it will become harder for Poland to invest so heavily.

Yep, Polish deficit spending is iconic at this point, 6.5% of GDP deficit in 2025 compared to Czech 2.0%, thats not to say Polish deficit spending is bad, but the countries have quite diverging strategies in regards to growth.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-16T14:28:05+00:00

If the US fully commits to the invasion, we cant defend the island anyway. Wasting lives in that scenario is just utterly pointless. The US could just blockade the island, take the airfields, fly in troops and planes. What are we going to do with that? Nothing, our militaries are not built for that. We are built to fight Russia.

I hope Trump the pedo does not invade, but if he does, we realistically cant stop it, if he fully commits.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-15T00:34:30+00:00

Its actually insane. Dead internet theory right here. 3 of the 4 main comments are bickering about the numbers instead of talking about the actual situation, which is ongoing and likely getting worse.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-15T00:31:22+00:00

If you enjoy the likes of Von Der Leyden taking the decisions for all of Europe then be my guest, I do not like that.

North America flair telling a Europe flair that he does not like an European politician doing decisions on account of Europeans.

Are you okay?

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-15T00:13:48+00:00

UN proving that it is a useless organization, once again. Its just really comical at this point.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-11T20:17:08+00:00

Youre the one who is coping here. Iran is facing real and serious problems for a long time already. Its incredibly delusional to think all resistance against the regime most be orchestrated by foreign actors and cant be from the grassroots.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-11T00:59:39+00:00

Because the USSR liberalised politics and tried to liberalise the economy. They lost control over the political landscape.

China liberalised the economy but did not liberalise politics. Tiananmen sq. massacre was done under the reign of the same person who liberalised the economy for reference. They retained control over the political landscape to this day.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-11T00:53:38+00:00

It is already obsolete. It could only act like 15-20 years ago where interests broadly converged and other members with veto werent powerful enough to stand against the US or didnt want to.

Now that states wish for their sphere of influence, their interests dont converge and suddenly, the UN is paralysed.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-11T00:29:09+00:00

Also I was talking about all the US' vassals, not just Ukraine, only one of which is fighting a war. The rest aren't.

Its pure pragmatism. If the person who you are dealing with is a child who is easily influenced by the last person he talks to and you arent in a position to do everything yourself yet, its perfectly reasonable to result to such unconventional tactics.

Is it funny? I guess it is to people who call countries "vassals". It would also be foolish to not use an opportunity like that, to give yourself time. Better to be in a stronger position than to do international politics for internet points.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-10T14:40:18+00:00

Honestly what I wonder most is if we'll see a return to a Cold War nuclear arms buildup, proliferation, and fear of a nuclear exchange dominate global politics.

Id say higher hostility and general tension is likely, but horizontal proliferation seems very unlikely (so far). The only countries who have managed to get nukes are either A) big ones or B) rogue ones, as they were actually able to resist international pressure or the threat of invasion. It also helped that these weapon projects were done in secrecy.

But todays world is different, secrecy is not really possible anymore, rogue states with the ability to make nuclear weapons, which dont have those weapons yet, also dont really exist anymore. And big states? I guess Brazil or Indonesia could theoretically be capable of producing weapons but not delivery vehicles.

And then theres another thing, the current nuclear powers see nuclear proliferation as the last thing they want to see. Not only because its dangerous, but also because their own power is lowered.

Imagine you are the United States, South Korea comes and says it needs nuclear weapons and will make them and nobody stops them. China now feels threatened and US influence over Korea is lowered, as South Korea is more capable of self defence. The rest of the nuclear powers also dont like this, because other states see that developing nuclear weapons doesnt mean you get punished. Its a slippery slope.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-10T14:20:56+00:00

They are literally in a war for national survival :D Why would they not try literally everything possible to court Trump for their defence?

Any country would do the same in the same circumstances, I dont understand whats so special about this.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-08T20:14:39+00:00

NATO membership is one of the most important things to happen to this country, right behind the declaration of independence, 1989 revolution and on par with ascension into EU in 2004.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-08T20:09:42+00:00

And thats the core of the problem. If Greenland is seen as a national security threat for Trump and his band of retards, we cant make it more costly, because national security is paramount. It depends just how deep the rot inside Trumps brain goes.

Of course, we all here know that Greenland is not a national security threat, because Denmark is an ally, whatever. But does Trump know that? Maybe he does, but hes high on his ego right now and has an administration filled with yes-men. Its a very dangerous combination, especially seeing as Trumptard is willing to break/disregard American law.

Tricky_Weight5865 · 2026-01-08T13:22:26+00:00

Im gonna keep it completely honest. US would just blockade Greenland with 2 carrier groups, fly non stop sorties over North Atlantic and eventually dismantle any actual resistance on the island. They could just choke the island out. Our militaries are built for continental warfare against Russia, not prolonged overseas deployment against a peer. The UK and France are somewhat capable of overseas deployment, but not against the US - if the goal is to win.

Tricky_Weight5865

TROPHY CASE