Trump was back on his posting spree again early Tuesday morning, and this he was specifically pissing everyone off, again, about invading Greenland. Now, I usually avoid Youtube creators who chase this kind of content, but that very morning, one of them dropped a video about Trump’s midnight rambling — and here we are, once again, living in a timeline where a former president casually floats territorial invasions between 1 and 3 a.m.
It's like every waking moment is a nightmare with this guy and even every sleeping moment. It's in cases like this that we're guaranteed to wake up to a thing he's been working on all night, for us to be pissed off about.
Some people are now pointing to the Chagos Island deal as proof that the international community is “stronger than ever” against territorial grabs. Supposedly, this means Trump couldn’t actually go after Greenland now. But that argument doesn’t hold up even under basic scrutiny.
"What The Chagos Island Deal Actually Means"
The Chagos Archipelago sovereignty deal — where the UK agreed to transfer the islands back to Mauritius — is being framed as a major win for decolonization and international law. The message is supposed to be clear: powerful countries can’t just take territory anymore, and colonial‑style land grabs (like Trump’s Greenland fantasy) are illegitimate.
That’s the theory.
In practice, the situation is messier.
The Diego Garcia military base — one of the most strategically important U.S. installations in the world — remains under long‑term lease. The UK and U.S. aren’t giving that up. They’re just shifting the legal wrapping around it.
The deal strengthens the rules‑based international order. It also reinforces the idea that sovereignty matters, and because of the deal, European allies are more unified on territorial integrity than they were a decade ago.
But consider the fact that Trump has spent his entire life pushing boundaries. Why would this be the thing that stops him from invading Greenland?
The Chagos deal doesn’t magically restrain someone who doesn’t care about norms, precedent, or international law. It strengthens the environment around him — but it doesn’t change him.
"Denmark’s Default Response to a Greenland Invasion"
Tom Hoyem says that an attack on Greenland by a NATO ally would cause the organization to implode.
There are a lot of steps in what Denmark would do with NATO support to de-escalate this aggressor, including removing the US from NATO, which I'm sure Trump wouldn't mind doing. He's clearly been hostile to NATO since his first term.
If Trump ever tried to act on his Greenland obsession, Denmark’s response is already baked into the system. Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Denmark is a NATO member. That means:
- Any attack on Greenland = attack on Denmark
- Denmark immediately invokes Article 4
- NATO convenes emergency consultations
- If the attack continues, Article 5 becomes an option
- The U.S. becomes the aggressor against its own alliance
This is where people say, “See? Trump would be isolated politically.”
Yes — but that assumes he cares about isolation.
The more important point is: He wouldn’t be able to use the U.S. military to do it.
A Greenland invasion would require:
- U.S. forces stationed in Europe
- U.S. access to NATO airspace
- U.S. use of bases under EU jurisdiction
- U.S. cooperation with allied logistics networks
All of which would be shut down instantly.
The EU and NATO would deny access to bases. European airspace would close.
The U.S. military — which is legally bound to reject unlawful orders — could also refuse to participate.
And yes, that includes Diego Garcia. He’d have to run the U.S. military out of a base that exists only because of a multinational legal agreement. Good luck with that, dipshit!
This is the part that actually gives me some peace. Not because Trump wouldn’t try something reckless — but because the system is designed to shut him down before he gets anywhere near Greenland.
"So, To Clear Up the Confusion, Here's the Conclusion"
What is the Chagos Island deal?
It’s a sovereignty agreement where the UK transfers the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius, aligning with international rulings and reinforcing modern decolonization norms.
Does the Chagos deal prevent a Greenland invasion?
Not really. It strengthens global norms against territorial grabs, but norms don’t restrain someone who ignores them. NATO’s legal mechanisms are the real barrier.
Could the U.S. legally invade Greenland?
No. Greenland is again, a part of Denmark, a NATO member. Any attack would trigger Article 4 consultations and potentially Article 5 collective defense.
How would NATO respond if a member acted as an aggressor?
NATO isolates the aggressor politically, restricts military access, and supports the victim state. The alliance has clear crisis‑response structures for this scenario.
Why is Greenland tied to Denmark in the first place?
Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, which means Denmark handles its defense and foreign policy — including NATO obligations.