Invade Greenland, Really?

I have a friend who is a school teacher in England.  He was telling me a story of an event at school the other day, specifically:

“Yesterday in school, this is true, a pupil asked me if Trump invades Greenland what’s the difference between that and Putin and Ukraine? I really didn’t know what to say except the war or ‘special military operation’ would be over a lot quicker. I’m hoping that behind the scenes US intelligence and military pull him aside and tell him that a US president can’t do/say things like that, that he’s the leader of the democratic world.

His observation, is right on, the only difference between Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, and Trump’s musing that he wouldn’t rule out force taking over Greenland is if it were to happen it would be the same, but over a lot quicker…

I thought , why not ask AI the following question:

If the US invades and takes over Greenland, what is the difference between this and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
ChatGPT

The difference between a hypothetical U.S. invasion of Greenland and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine lies in several factors, including legality, historical context, geopolitical circumstances, and the motivations or justifications for such actions. Below is a breakdown:

1. Sovereignty and Consent

  • Greenland: Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. If the U.S. were to invade and take over Greenland, it would violate Denmark’s sovereignty and international law, as there is no indication Greenland or Denmark would consent to such an action.
  • Ukraine: Ukraine is a sovereign, independent nation recognized internationally. Russia’s invasion violated Ukraine’s sovereignty, international law, and the territorial integrity guaranteed under treaties like the Budapest Memorandum (1994).

In both cases, the lack of consent from the relevant sovereign authority makes the act a violation of international law.


2. Motivations

  • Greenland: A U.S. invasion would likely stem from strategic motives, such as controlling Greenland’s resources (e.g., rare earth minerals) or its strategic position in the Arctic.
  • Ukraine: Russia’s invasion was justified by claims of protecting Russian-speaking populations, “denazification,” and historical ties, though most analysts view it as a move to reassert control over Ukraine and prevent it from aligning with NATO and the EU.

While the motivations differ, in both cases, geopolitical ambitions drive the aggressive actions.


3. International Law and Global Response

  • Both scenarios would likely be deemed illegal under international law, particularly the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
  • Greenland: An invasion would likely result in widespread condemnation of the U.S. by the global community and severe diplomatic, economic, and possibly military consequences.
  • Ukraine: Russia’s invasion has been widely condemned, resulting in sanctions, military aid to Ukraine, and diplomatic isolation for Russia in many international forums.

4. Historical Context

  • Greenland: Greenland has no historical ties to the U.S. apart from being a Cold War strategic location. It has never been part of U.S. territory or under American influence.
  • Ukraine: Ukraine has a complex historical relationship with Russia, being part of the Soviet Union and earlier Russian empires. However, Ukraine has been an independent state since 1991 and has sought closer ties with the West.

The historical context doesn’t justify invasion in either case but influences the narratives used to rationalize aggression.


5. Involvement of Local Populations

  • Greenland: Any invasion would likely face opposition from Greenlandic and Danish populations, as they are not seeking U.S. governance.
  • Ukraine: Russia has faced significant resistance from Ukrainians, despite initial claims that some parts of Ukraine would welcome Russian intervention.

6. Scale and Precedents

  • The U.S., as a democratic nation and a member of NATO, invading Greenland would mark a stark departure from its usual adherence (or public alignment) with international norms, creating a precedent similar to Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
  • Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has already been criticized as destabilizing international norms against territorial aggression.

Conclusion

The primary difference lies in context, geography, and the specific nations involved. However, in both cases, an invasion would violate international law, disregard sovereignty, and have significant global repercussions. The hypothetical U.S. invasion of Greenland would likely receive similar condemnation to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, though the specifics of each situation would color the international response.

God help the free world over the next four years!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *