Even though the United States seems to be hurtling toward a political cartoon of itself, one American soldier has decided to break ranks, at least rhetorically, to call out the madness.
The soldier, known by his TikTok handle @sjnochill, is tired of what he sees as reckless leadership. @sjnochill expressed utter disappointment in the Trump administration’s apparent willingness to entertain the idea of seizing Greenland by force. “Let me tell you something, Europe,” the soldier said. “None of the U.S. military leaders are going to do that. Dumbass. I’m sorry.” He went on to explain that while it’s not unusual for governments to draw up war plans — even for allies — it doesn’t mean anyone is actually considering them. “We’re not going to consider taking that kind of action against an allied NATO member,” he said.
U.S. soldiers are expected to follow lawful orders from their superiors, but there are clear exceptions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). A lawful order must be consistent with U.S. law, the Constitution, and the rules of engagement. For example, a direct order to commit war crimes or violate international treaties (like the Geneva Conventions) would not be lawful. Soldiers can also refuse orders they reasonably believe to be illegal.
Therefore, it was a rare moment of candor from someone inside the military, and the TikTok video struck a chord. The clip quickly went viral, with commenters praising the soldier’s honesty and “logical thinking.” As one user commented: “So happy to see the Military have logical thinking and I hope you stand with your people and not a Dictator.”
Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory under Denmark, has long been coveted for its strategic location in the Arctic and its untapped natural resources. The idea of the U.S. acquiring Greenland hit peak absurdity when Donald Trump floated the idea of buying it. Trump has declared that owning the territory was a matter of “national security.” Meanwhile, conservative legislators have introduced a bill proposing to rename Greenland as “Red, White, and Blueland” if the U.S. somehow acquires it.
Unsurprisingly, the rest of the world is not amused. Invading Greenland would effectively mean attacking Denmark, which would trigger NATO’s collective defense clause (Article 5). In other words, it would be a catastrophic decision, isolating the U.S. from its allies and potentially starting a conflict with Europe. Let’s not forget that NATO is built on the principle of mutual defense. If one member is attacked, all members are obligated to respond. So the idea of the U.S. military storming into Greenland is suicidal. The soldier’s reassurance that “nobody’s doing that at all” is both a reality check and a subtle dig at the administration’s lack of geopolitical foresight.
NATO countries have reportedly held secret talks about how to respond if Trump’s threats to seize Greenland actually materialize. Germany, for example, has been considering sending NATO troops to Greenland. According to a NATO diplomat:
“Berlin doesn’t want to send troops to Ukraine because the situation is ‘too ambiguous’ but is openly flying kites about sending NATO troops to Greenland. It’s a moral compass without a needle.”
Greenland itself, meanwhile, has made it abundantly clear that it wants no part of this madness. Prime Minister Múte B. Egede flatly rejected Trump’s overtures, stating, “We don’t want to be Americans. We want to be Greenlanders.” But the political chaos has had unintended consequences: Greenland’s ruling Siumut party is now holding a vote on independence, with a general election scheduled for March 11, 2025.
Denmark has also ramped up its Arctic defense budget, signaling its commitment to protecting Greenland from any external threats. General Robert Brieger, a top EU military official, even suggested stationing EU troops in Greenland to “send a strong signal” and maintain stability in the region.
Meanwhile, if Greenland were to gain independence, it could complicate the geopolitical dynamics further, potentially leaving the U.S. and Europe scrambling for influence in the Arctic. Worse, if NATO is forced to divert resources to Greenland, it could weaken the alliance’s ability to respond to more pressing threats, like Russia’s aggression in Ukraine or China’s expanding influence in the Pacific.
Published: Feb 16, 2025 02:10 pm