4 ms·

So while it's kinda hard to see at first blush perhaps, Greenland plays an actual critical role in North American security and economic interests - far more tha

So while it's kinda hard to see at first blush perhaps, Greenland plays an actual critical role in North American security and economic interests - far more than it might seem at first glance. Yeah, Trump's interest aside (which definitely brought some unnecessary circus to the topic), Greenland’s value lies in a few key areas: - Strategic Arctic positioning. It's central to Arctic geopolitics. While the Arctic ice melts, new shipping lanes are opening up, and countries are vying for control over these routes and untapped resources. The US already maintains a military presence at Thule Air Base, but integrating Greenland more formally would secure this position and reduce the risk of competing interests (think Russia and China making moves in the region - which they are very, very much doing). - Resource potential. Greenland's rich in rare earth minerals and many others that are critical to modern tech and defense industries. These materials are currently dominated by Chinese markets. Greenland’s dev could diversify supply chains and reduce Western reliance on Chinese exports. This is SO insanely critical right now. - You might not like this one, but: think geopolitical stability... Denmark’s grip on Greenland isn’t absolute. There’s been growing interest within Greenland towards greater autonomy, and while full independence is really complicated and economically (ultra) risky, stronger ties to North America would absolutely offer an appealing middle ground and protect the people of Greenland itself. Ultimately if we ignore Greenland it feels like we're leaving a crucial puzzle piece out.

krapp 2y ago
These all seem like post-hoc rationales to me, because as far as I know (and I may be wrong) no one was talking about Greenland in this context until Trump brought it up. If Greenland is that important, we already have all of the money if we wanted to buy it, and all of the tanks and planes and nuclear submarines if we didn't want to take no for an answer.
- chrisntb 2y ago
  The US has attempted buying Greenland a few times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_the_United_States_to_purchase_Greenland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_the_United_State...
  - krapp 2y ago
    Huh. I guess I stand corrected.
    - valunord 2y ago
      Honestly, Greenland’s probably tired of feeling like a geopolitical football at this point. But as long as the Arctic’s up for grabs, expect it to stay on the radar.
  - bombcar 2y ago
    > In August 2019, the Washington Post estimated the purchase price of Greenland would fall between $200 million and $1.7 trillion Now THERE’S a price range!
    - valunord 2y ago
      LOL, right? Somewhere between ‘affordable defense budget project’ and ‘sell your national debt to make it happen.’ Either way, the geopolitical value is worth more than the sticker price, and that’s the part people underestimate.
  - valunord 2y ago
    Yep, and it’s not as far-fetched as people think. The US tried it under Truman too. This isn't just a Trump brainwave. It’s been on the table before, and it’ll probably come up again as Arctic competition ramps up. The question isn’t 'if' the US stays involved in Greenland but how. Whether through diplomacy, economic partnerships, or something more official, Greenland’s future is tied to who secures influence there first.
- bombcar 2y ago
  Greenland has the population of a small US city. For the cost of only $14 per American per year, we could pay everyone in Greenland $85k/yr for life. It’s $4.5/bln a year. Greenland has already obtained some independence from Denmark and is looking for more. It’s unlikely they sell themselves to the USA directly but something that is effectively the same with a fig leaf on it could certainly happen. And if actual world-scale conflict broke out, it would de facto be a US protectorate at best, and just another territorial acquisition at worst.
  - valunord 2y ago
    That $14 per American sounds like a deal, honestly. But the tricky part is less about the money and more about convincing the people of Greenland that closer ties to the US are better than sticking with Denmark. Economic incentives only go so far—there’s a cultural and political dynamic at play. If Greenland leans towards more autonomy, stronger US ties as a protectorate might happen naturally without needing to 'buy' anything outright. If they drift away from Denmark, North America becomes the obvious landing zone.
- valunord 2y ago
  I get why it feels like that, but Greenland’s strategic importance didn’t suddenly appear because Trump made headlines. The Arctic’s been heating up (literally and politically) for a while now. Russia’s been militarizing its Arctic coastline, and China’s trying to gain influence in the region through ‘research stations’ and resource deals. The US presence at Thule wasn’t just for fun... it’s part of a broader strategy that predates Trump by decades. Trump just made it louder (and weirder), but the underlying value of Greenland has been quietly escalating for years.

krapp 2y ago

These all seem like post-hoc rationales to me, because as far as I know (and I may be wrong) no one was talking about Greenland in this context until Trump brought it up. If Greenland is that important, we already have all of the money if we wanted to buy it, and all of the tanks and planes and nuclear submarines if we didn't want to take no for an answer.

chrisntb 2y ago
The US has attempted buying Greenland a few times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_the_United_States_to_purchase_Greenland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_the_United_State...
- krapp 2y ago
  Huh. I guess I stand corrected.
  - valunord 2y ago
    Honestly, Greenland’s probably tired of feeling like a geopolitical football at this point. But as long as the Arctic’s up for grabs, expect it to stay on the radar.
- bombcar 2y ago
  > In August 2019, the Washington Post estimated the purchase price of Greenland would fall between $200 million and $1.7 trillion Now THERE’S a price range!
  - valunord 2y ago
    LOL, right? Somewhere between ‘affordable defense budget project’ and ‘sell your national debt to make it happen.’ Either way, the geopolitical value is worth more than the sticker price, and that’s the part people underestimate.
- valunord 2y ago
  Yep, and it’s not as far-fetched as people think. The US tried it under Truman too. This isn't just a Trump brainwave. It’s been on the table before, and it’ll probably come up again as Arctic competition ramps up. The question isn’t 'if' the US stays involved in Greenland but how. Whether through diplomacy, economic partnerships, or something more official, Greenland’s future is tied to who secures influence there first.
bombcar 2y ago
Greenland has the population of a small US city. For the cost of only $14 per American per year, we could pay everyone in Greenland $85k/yr for life. It’s $4.5/bln a year. Greenland has already obtained some independence from Denmark and is looking for more. It’s unlikely they sell themselves to the USA directly but something that is effectively the same with a fig leaf on it could certainly happen. And if actual world-scale conflict broke out, it would de facto be a US protectorate at best, and just another territorial acquisition at worst.
- valunord 2y ago
  That $14 per American sounds like a deal, honestly. But the tricky part is less about the money and more about convincing the people of Greenland that closer ties to the US are better than sticking with Denmark. Economic incentives only go so far—there’s a cultural and political dynamic at play. If Greenland leans towards more autonomy, stronger US ties as a protectorate might happen naturally without needing to 'buy' anything outright. If they drift away from Denmark, North America becomes the obvious landing zone.
valunord 2y ago
I get why it feels like that, but Greenland’s strategic importance didn’t suddenly appear because Trump made headlines. The Arctic’s been heating up (literally and politically) for a while now. Russia’s been militarizing its Arctic coastline, and China’s trying to gain influence in the region through ‘research stations’ and resource deals. The US presence at Thule wasn’t just for fun... it’s part of a broader strategy that predates Trump by decades. Trump just made it louder (and weirder), but the underlying value of Greenland has been quietly escalating for years.