It's clear that you're projecting by not understanding the point presented.

You clearly don't know British understatement.

Firing on one British officer would be as bad a firing on 10000.

It's about lines.

This kind of stuff masked you feel good to say but the UK isn’t going to stop the US if it (somewhat foolishly in my opinion) decided that it was going to take Greenland. Neither is the EU.

You are mistaking the battle for the war: Denmark / EU would no doubt lose the BATTLE for Greenland. Within hours.

But the sun would rise the next day and the USA won't like the 'non-kinetic' consequences. Too many to enumerate.

Eventually the adults in USA would just return it.

No it would be a point of no return. But the "non-kinetic" consequences would go both ways.

It's not an exercise we should entertain, though the EU needs to step up in a very serious way and spend billions of Euros adding new equipment to Greenland to beef up detection and defense.

EU has more arctic warfare equipment than USA does, USA doesn't do much arctic warfare so the war would likely be much more expensive for USA than EU.

Most regular equipment doesn't work in -40C temperatures, to take Greenland USA would need to develop more arctic enabled weaponry just for that.

How will the EU get this arctic warfare equipment to Greenland? If the EU is so ready and willing to use this equipment, maybe they should deploy it to Ukraine instead.

The US literally has bases in Alaska and Greenland and deals with these temperatures regularly.

The EU doesn't have to fire a single bullet to get the US out of Greenland again. You are thinking in a very limited way.

Sure if the US decides it would like to leave Greenland? It's just depending on who wants what with what influence factors. But if both blocks just decided to put all of their might and resources and politics capital into this the US clearly can just take Greenland and there's nothing the EU can do about it.