美国强占格陵兰岛将是“世界上最短暂的战争”
2025-01-13 06:16阅读：
1951年，美国与丹麦签署协议，承诺保护格陵兰岛免受攻击。74年过去，如今的威胁却来自美国。日前，特朗普表示拒绝排除使用武力吞并格陵兰岛，此举震惊整个欧洲。格陵兰岛是丹麦自治领地，人口5.7万，特朗普长期觊觎这一具有战略地位、矿产石油储量丰富的岛屿。
如果真打起来，哪个国家会获胜没什么悬念，但如果丹麦求助于律师们，可能胜算还大一些。丹麦可以向律师们咨询：欧盟是否有义务保卫格陵兰岛；可否援引北约共同防御条款应对来自北约最大成员国的攻击；以及根据1951年的条约，华盛顿的义务是什么。
美国有世界上最大的国防预算，去年军费开支9480亿美元，武装部队共计130万人，其中还有一些人现在就驻扎在格陵兰岛。与此同时，丹麦去年军费99亿美元，只有1.7万名士兵，且大部分重型陆战装备已赠予乌克兰。
如果特朗普真去“兑现”以武力吞并格陵兰岛的威胁，“那将是世界上最短暂的战争，格陵兰岛没有防御能力。美国人掌管着那里”，丹麦国际问题研究所高级研究员乌尔里克·加德说。
加德说，虽然一些丹麦海岸警卫队船只常常到访格陵兰岛东南部，但据丹麦媒体报道，他们从未购买及安装射击目标所需软件。加德对特朗普的意图感到困惑，“这是虚张声势？这个威胁是盟国之间的外交？我们也不知道，但那将是未来四年的模式。”
丹麦外交大臣拉斯穆森以及即将卸任的美国国务卿布林肯等高级官员最初没把特朗普的表态当回事。但9日，丹麦首相弗雷泽里克森组织了与党内领导人的会议来讨论此事。拉斯穆森也扭转了最初漠不关心的态度：“我们非常认真地对待这件事，但我们无意与一位即将入主白宫的总统升级口水战。”
“丹麦非常清楚，它无法独自保护格陵兰岛免受任何人的侵害。”哥本哈根大学军事研究中心高级研究员克里斯蒂
安·瑟比·克里斯滕森说，如果特朗普试图用武力夺取这一地区，“那么问题来了：（美国人）将打谁？他们自己的军队吗？他们早驻扎在那里了。”
欧盟委员会一名发言人日前告诉媒体，在“完全假设”的前提下，如果美国真的侵略格陵兰岛，欧盟条约第42（7）条款就将适用。但是，布鲁塞尔管理学院安全外交和战略中心学者丹尼尔·菲奥特指出，这一条款“毫无意义，因为其背后并没有真正的军事力量支撑”。
北约创始成员国丹麦能否援引《北大西洋公约》第五条即集体防御条款来应对另一个创始成员国，美国也不清楚。欧洲对外关系委员会高级政策研究员阿加特·德马雷说：“实际上，这种情况是一个北约成员国强占另一个北约成员国的领土，这一领域还没被涉足过。”
Trump's invasion of Greenland would be 'the shortest war
in the world’
We took the president-elect literally not seriously and charted out
how the U.S. military would fare against Denmark — which recently
boosted the island’s security by financing two dog sled
patrols.
By Laura Kayali and Hanne Cokelaere
In 1951, the United States signed an agreement with Denmark
pledging to protect Greenland from attack. Fast-forward 74 years,
and the threat is now coming from America.
This week, incoming U.S. President Donald Trump sent shockwaves
across Europe when he refused to rule out using military force to
annex the world’s largest island, an autonomous territory of 57,000
people that is part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Trump, who also floated the idea of the U.S. taking over Canada and
the Panama Canal, has long had his eye on Greenland — a
strategically located island rich in minerals and oil.
While there is little question as to which country would win in a
fight, Denmark might have a better chance if it turned to the
lawyers. Copenhagen could ask them whether the EU is somehow
required to defend Greenland; whether it could invoke NATO’s common
defense provisions against an attack by the alliance’s own largest
member; and what Washington’s obligations are under the 1951
treaty.
The U.S. has — by far — the world’s largest defense budget,
spending $948 billion last year. Its armed forces have 1.3 million
personnel — some of them currently stationed in Greenland. Denmark,
for its part, last year spent $9.9 billion, has only 17,000
soldiers, and most of its heavy land-warfare equipment has been
donated to Ukraine.
If Trump did make good on his threat to annex Greenland by force,
“that would be the shortest war in the world, there is no defensive
capacity in Greenland. The Americans were in charge,” said Ulrik
Pram Gad, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for
International Studies.
Some Danish coastguard ships frequent southeastern Greenland, but
the Danish press has reported that the software needed to shoot at
targets was never bought and installed, he added.
Pram Gad said he was perplexed by Trump’s intentions. “Is that
bravado? Is that threat diplomacy between allies? We don’t really
know, but that’s going to be the mode for the next four years.”
Top officials, including Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke
Rasmussen and his outgoing U.S. counterpart Antony Blinken,
initially dismissed Trump’s comments.
However, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen organized a
meeting with party leaders on Thursday to discuss the issue, while
Rasmussen backpedaled on his initial nonchalant reaction. “We are
taking this very seriously, but we don’t have any ambition to
escalate a war of words with a president that is on the way into
the White House,” he said.
Unfit to fight an invasion
Under the 1951 pact, the U.S. accepted the legal obligation to
defend against any attack on the massive Arctic island, given the
inability of the Danish armed forces to fight off a potential
aggressor without help.
“Denmark has been very aware it cannot defend Greenland against
anybody on its own,” said Kristian Søby Kristensen, a senior
researcher at the University of Copenhagen’s Center for Military
Studies. If Trump did try to seize the territory by force, “the
question is: Who would [the Americans] be fighting? Their own
military? They’re already there,” he added.
The U.S. significantly reduced its military presence on the island
after the Cold War ended, but an early warning radar station
remains at the Pituffik space base in the northwest of Greenland.
It’s a key asset that can spot spacecraft and ballistic missiles,
including potential nuclear warheads launched by Moscow.
Meanwhile, Denmark’s armed forces are neither equipped nor trained
to resist a U.S. invasion. They “have been taking care of more
mundane peace-time military activity,” explained Søby Kristensen,
and regularly deploy maritime patrol aircraft and ships in
Greenlandic waters.
In December last year, Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen
announced a new defense-spending package worth a “double digit
billion amount” in krone to buy two long-range drones, two dog sled
patrols, and two inspection ships. The money was also to fund the
hiring of more people for Denmark’s Arctic Command in the capital,
Nuuk, and an upgrade to Kangerlussuaq Airport to make it fit for
F-35 fighter jets.
That push was prompted by U.S. demands, including from Trump during
his first term, according to Marc Jacobsen, an associate professor
at the Royal Danish Defence College.
When Trump first floated the idea of buying Greenland in 2019,
“that was part of a U.S. strategy to get Denmark to spend more of
[its] military budget on surveillance of Greenland,” he said.
Pen vs. the sword
Although Denmark’s armed forces are much smaller than those of the
U.S., Copenhagen is nonetheless among those European capitals that
have taken the need for a defense ramp-up very seriously since the
war in Ukraine began.
Denmark spent 2.37 percent of its GDP on its military last year —
above NATO’s 2-percent target — and is planning further increases.
The Danish air force is replacing its F-16 fleet with modern
U.S.-made F-35 fighter jets, and is currently looking to procure
air-defense systems.
However, Denmark has also significantly depleted its own arms
stocks by giving artillery systems and tanks to Kyiv, arguing that
unlike the Ukrainians, the Danes don’t face a direct threat from a
hostile imperialist power.
Regardless, the donated military equipment would be of little use
in defending Greenland against a U.S. invasion. “The only
way to act there is in air or by sea. Land warfare makes very
little sense in Greenland,” Søby Kristensen said.
If Copenhagen were to resist by relying on rules and laws, it could
ask the EU for help.
On Wednesday, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said the
European Union wouldn’t let a land grab happen — but it’s unclear
whether Copenhagen would actually be able to lean on the EU for
military assistance.
In case of an “extremely theoretical” U.S. invasion of Greenland,
the EU’s mutual-assistance clause in Article 42 (7) of the Treaty
would apply, a European Commission spokesperson told reporters this
week.
However, the clause “is meaningless in its current form as there is
no genuine military force behind it,” wrote Daniel Fiott, with the
Centre for Security, Diplomacy and Strategy at the Brussels School
of Governance.
It’s also unclear whether Denmark, a founding member of NATO
alongside the U.S., could invoke Article 5 — the Alliance’s
mutual-assistance clause — against another ally.
“You would essentially have a NATO member annexing the territory of
another NATO member. So it would be pretty uncharted territory,”
said Agathe Demarais, senior policy fellow at the European Council
on Foreign Relations. “When you think about it, it doesn’t make any
sense.”
Trump could take Greenland in 24 HOURS in 'world's
shortest war' against tiny force of 17,000 troops, experts
reveal
By Patrick Harrington,
DONALD Trump could storm Greenland and claim it within 24 hours in
the “world’s shortest war”, analysts have revealed.
The incoming US leader has refused to rule out taking Greenland by
force after doubling down on his intention to buy the territory
from Denmark .
Far from being a useless block of ice, Greenland is a vital
strategic asset bursting with natural resources and sits bang in
the middle of the main Arctic trade routes.
It’s become the epicentre of a struggle between superpowers – with
Russia and China both ramping up efforts to take control of the
region.
And Danish PM Mette Frederiksen has demanded crunch talks with
Trump after his latest remarks, insisting: “Greenland belongs to
the Greenlanders.”
But if Trump did invade, America’s military might means a war would
be over in just 24 hours, politics professor Anthony Glees told The
Sun.
Speaking to The Sun, Glees said Trump will be surrounded by “people
who think he is great” – and it means he will be able to go ahead
with any wild ideas he has.
Glees said: “In other words, we have to take him seriously.
“And if Trump wanted to take Greenland by force, he could do it in
24 hours.”
As an autonomous territory of Denmark , Greenland has its own
ruling body – but people from the island have Danish
citizenship.
But Trump said US ownership of Greenland is an “absolute necessity”
to protect global “national security and freedom”.
Greenland – the largest non-continent island in the world – has a
population of just 57,000, and virtually no defensive capabilities
of its own.
As owner of the island, Denmark is responsible for Greenland’s
protection and their army would be the army to mobilise against the
Americans.
Its defence budget is around £6billion – 100 times smaller than the
eye watering almost £750billion America splashes on defence.
As such, the Royal Danish Army would be dwarfed by the United
States Armed Forces.
There are only 17,000 active Danish troops, and most of the
country’s heavy military equipment has been donated to Ukraine – so
their defences are even thinner than usual.
Some Danish coastguards man south-eastern Greenland, but the Danish
press has reported that software needed to shoot at targets was
never bought – rendering the patrols toothless.
The Danish Ministry of Defence states that the tasks of the forces
around Greenland are “primarily surveillance of the territorial
waters”.
Denmark’s best hope of defending against the Americans would be to
prove that the EU or Nato had a legal requirement to step in and
protect Greenland.
Ulrik Pram Gad, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for
International Studies, told Politico that “there is no defensive
capacity in Greenland”.
And it means it would be “the shortest war in the world”.
The conflict would present an “unchartered” situation after the US
entered a pact with Denmark in 1951 to defend Greenland against any
attack.
The US has a nuclear base on the island that is constantly manned
by troops.
Kristian Søby Kristensen, a military researcher at the University
of Copenhagen, said: “Who would the Americans be fighting? Their
own military?”
Glees said it was likely that, in the event of a US invasion,
“there would be no military response to it, because it is
unthinkable that any Nato member would attack the US”.
But he also warned that Denmark would not simply roll over, and the
UK would be bound to support our Scandinavian ally by the terms of
Nato.
He said: “There would have to be a response of sorts, and Article 5
of Nato would bind the rest of us to support Denmark in whatever
non-military measures it took to try to get the Americans
out.”
This could take the form of “economic sanctions”, but “Trump would
shrug them off,” Glees said.
On the same day that Trump threatened to seize Greenland, his son,
Donald Trump Jr., arrived on a huge Trump-branded plane.
On Truth Social, Trump Sr. said: “I am hearing that the people of
Greenland are ‘MAGA’.”
Glees believes that Trump primarily wants Greenland’s “rare
minerals, to help America make things that otherwise only China
could”.
But, by unleashing this public threat of military force, Trump
risks sparking instability.
Glees warned that it could play into the hands of Putin – who would
like nothing more than to see the Nato alliance shattered.
Trump’s threats could have “profound consequences” for Europe as he
is “picking a fight with a staunch Nato ally, Denmark,” he
said.
Glees said it’s an attempt to “weaken” European nations that Trump
“does not believe are on his side”.
The threat of military action against Denmark, a founding member of
Nato, shows he is “not particularly interested in that
alliance”.
Glees also warned that Trump’s actions could be a win for Putin and
undermine the Nato alliance.
He said: “In taking on Denmark, the immediate winner is Vladimir
Putin .”
It comes as the president-elect announced he is arranging to meet
with Putin.
Trump said the Russian president “wants to meet, and we are setting
it up”.
Glees said: “My opinion is, he is making a disastrous
miscalculation there. No country, however powerful it is, can walk
alone in the world.
“The idea of a fortress America, it sounds good – but it has never
worked in the past.
“An isolated America is a vulnerable America, and vulnerable to
extreme opinions.”
Trump has ruffled the feathers of America’s oldest allies with his
bizarre Greenland plot.
French foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot suggested moves on the
territory would be an attack on the European Union.
He said: “There is no question of the EU letting other nations in
the world, whoever they may be, attack its sovereign borders,
whoever they are.
“We are a strong continent.”
Despite his warning, the minister added that he did not believe the
US would invade the Danish territory.
He said: “If you’re asking me whether I think the United States
will invade Greenland, my answer is no.
“But have we entered into a period of time when it is survival of
the fittest ? Then my answer is yes.”
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz also hit back and said: “The
principle of the inviolability of borders applies to every country,
no matter whether it’s a very small one or a very powerful
one.”
And Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former prime minister of Denmark,
said: “We are taking this very seriously.
“But we don’t have any ambition to escalate a war of words with a
president that is on the way into the White House.”
