NATO
Themes Transatlantic Defense ETF
stock NASDAQ ETF

Greenland will either be purchased/grabbed in a deal or will not be invaded by the US. If NATO/EU doesn't fold at all Trump will. That's my take at least

NATO is america. U saying America fighting America?

They’re surrounded by NATO troops/warships/nukes/air force for thousands of miles in a few square mile base,
which way do you think is more likely to survive?
Don’t think too hard 😂

Attacking Greenland means the EU cannot trust the US ever again, it would mean NATO is dead. They would have to fully militarize to be able to defend themselves, that's what I meant by a full war economy. They would probably drop US bonds too, or at least stop buying them.

Your kids will die fighting NATO and you will be happy

You are DRUNK if you think they're willing to tank their own economy and biggest supplier/ally over Greenland, DRUNK. A full on permanent boycott of American companies/consumers is an immediate recession for both players and mass liquidation across multiple markets. Greenland is a very cheap occupation and all NATO needs to do is let them take it in some form of a deal and if not Trump will most definitely fold. In no scenario would either sides be willing to commit Economic Suicide over Greenland

Depends if you think Trump will attack Greenland, forcing NATO to respond.

Greenland doesn't have any major importance to the economy and therefore US equities, NATO needs the US and is the king of folding, I doubt NATO giving the US Greenland would lead to anything bad.

He's been trying to get the USA out of NATO since his first term. This is how he'll do it....

All NATO countries should place troops there, given the Axis threats against that peaceful place.
American wants to destroy the world, let’s fucking go. Loser of almost every war it’s fought. We can stop the Axis in Ukraine and Greenland, or Poland and Canada. Why wait.

That's what I don't get. American companies have always ben welcome to do business in greenland. But it's really never has been done due to the tough climate.
Same as the millitary interests, since the start of the Cold War, the US had a couple of bases in greenland, they even shut one down (if i remember correctly).
And with their big vote in NATO, if they wanted more precense in greenland, they could get it.
Now, neither Greenland nor Denmark would be likely to let the US expand their military presence or start mining the rare earth minerals.

Tweet Mirror:[FirstSquawk](https://twitter.com/FirstSquawk/status/2008620902481883443)
>DENMARK FOREIGN MINISTER SAYS DENMARK WELCOMES LEADERS’ SUPPORT ON GREENLAND, HAS REQUESTED A MEETING WITH MARCO RUBIO, AND DISMISSES CLAIMS OF HEAVY RUSSIAN AND CHINESE VESSEL PRESENCE AROUND GREENLAND
Tweet Mirror:[FirstSquawk](https://twitter.com/FirstSquawk/status/2008621022585778386)
>DENMARK FOREIGN MINISTER SAYS DENMARK FULLY TRUSTS ITS NATO MEMBERSHIP
Tweet Mirror:[DeItaone](https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/2008621184217182483)
>VANCE SAYS HE WAS BRIEFED AHEAD OF VENEZUELA OPERATION
>
>
>
>Vice President Vance said he was briefed on the Venezuela operation weeks in advance and initially had doubts it could succeed without U\.S\. casualties\. He called the mission “flawless” and said removing Maduro would help

https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/introduction-to-nato/collective-defence-and-article-5
If you read it. Simply put. That an attack on any one member is an attack on all.
So it certainly can and will apply in this case. If the US uses military force to attack Denmark. And take over Greenland. Then thats an attack on all of NATO.
What happens next, and what are the subsequent events it may next lead to.
Is really the question.

Yes, certainly. Russia and China have cultivated influence in Venezuela precisely so they could have the option later to use that influence or bargain it away for something more needed. Ditto for the US in the Post-Soviet states.
This same strategic calculus also underpins the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
An EU-friendly Ukraine inside of NATO is -- to Russia security planners -- something like if China and Mexico became extremely close. Your enemy having thousands of kilometers of territory on your border is threatening in a multitude of ways.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1q3wfoh/deposition\_of\_fiona\_hill\_2019\_russians\_at\_this/](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1q3wfoh/deposition_of_fiona_hill_2019_russians_at_this/)
If a serious worry for major powers is the enemy having nearby territory to strike from then such a Ukraine/Venezuela swap might seem rational.

There are also EUAD, NATO, and WDEF for European defense, lower volume but they seem to be gaining traction. Been watching them all for a while too.

Last year, according to NATO sources cited by Reuters, Ukrainian attacks reduced the capacity of Russian refineries by 15 percent, forcing the government to impose a ban on gasoline exports in March 2024 to “protect the domestic market.”
According to experts interviewed by RFE/RL, this meant that the amount of gasoline produced was only sufficient for domestic consumption –- in 2023, 13 percent of Russian gasoline was exported and the rest was used inside the country. **A 14 percent reduction in production capacity made it impossible to sell fuel abroad, and the United States asked Ukraine to stop hitting Russian refineries to avoid a rise in global oil prices.*^
Due to the latest attacks, experts say, Russian authorities have extended the fuel export ban until at least the end of summer 2025.
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-strikes-russia-economy-oil/33361997.html

Defense spending is going up and staying up. The geopolitical situation isn't getting better anytime soon, and Trump pushing allies to hit their NATO commitments means real budget increases that stick around.
I just wouldn't overdo the allocation, there's a lot of growth to be had in other areas of the market. But yeah, defense looks strong for the next few years.

Do things look more chaotic?
Here is what I see happening...
This, what we've seen in Venezuela, is US strategic pacing to match the buildup of forces in the South China Sea. China is quickly approaching a demographic cliff, and their window to take control of Taiwan is rapidly closing. If they are going to make a move, the time is sooner rather than later. China can no longer afford to put of this invasion. And, we've seen this sentiment echoed in Chinese military operations, and the pace at which they are conducting these operations, is quickening.
Now, the *world* needs to position its self against this conflict in the South China Sea, the *world.* How has it done that? NATO has, for the first time in decades, met spending goals. In 2014 only 3 of 32 member states met the military spending requirement. As of 2014, all but 3 countries have been the requirement, and in June, voted to increase spending from 2% to 5% by 2027.
In 2017 and 2025, the two biggest arms sales in history took place, from the US to Saudi Arabia. Israel has been spending similarly for years. Additionally, in 2025, the largest ever arms package from the US to Taiwan was issued amidst heightened regional tensions. And, Japan is rearming rapidly, on pace to become one of the biggest military spenders in the world.
NATO/EU holds down Russia in Europe (ever wonder why this war is still going on? That is by design.) Saudi Arabia and Israel hold down Iran. US, Japan, Australia, India, and the First Island Chain take the Pacific theatre. Battle lines are being drawn for this conflict.
What does Venezuela have to do with all of this? What we are seeing now, is the US secure central and south American shipping lanes and oil production. China is oil poor, importing almost all of their oil. With Iran, Russia, and now Venezuela locked down, the Western alliance supporting Taiwan can starve China of oil.
In March of 2025 BlackRock acquired major Panama Canal port operations from Hong Kong. China no longer controls the Canal. America now controls this shipping lane, the only other source of oil for China outside of Russia and Iran. Additionally, taking Venezuela puts American enemies out of range of American oil refiners. Chinese (and Russian) weapons in Venezuela would be within range of 90% of American oil processing facilities, which are almost all located in the Gulf.
Now, this move might look like it takes us closer to a global conflict. That may be true, but that conflict was coming no matter what. The US controlling the entirety of Western hemisphere shipping lanes, and the largest known oil reserve in the world, greatly strengthens the Western position against an aggressive China. It doesn't take us closer to a global conflict centered around Taiwan, but it does better strategically prepare the *world* for that conflict.
This is good. If I were the markets, I'd pump too.

As I said somewhere else NATO fights the US China joins on the side of NATO and we have a world war. We lose because half this country will riot and China will be the new world super power.
We might have the best military but I don't think we can fight the rest of NATO and China and also deal with the problems we would have from within the United States.

One is in a wartime economy, NATO (and I include the USA in here) have basically tried to do the minimum of military production. If these countries are pulled in, you will then see who can produce what.