4 ms·

Trump says US will 'go as far as we have to' to get control of Greenland

34 points by croes 2y ago

aurareturn 2y ago
If the US takes Greenland, expect countries worldwide to start a land grab race. If the so called world police (USA) is annexing a country, why shouldn't others do it?
- OgsyedIE 2y ago
  There aren't that many frozen land grab disputes to begin with AFAICT. Tiny parts of the US/Canada border, Venezuela/Guyana, Kosovo, Cyprus, Armenia, Angola, India/Pakistan, Taiwan, Timor. Even if all of them went, wouldn't the sum of these be relatively contained?
  - aurareturn 2y ago
    It’s the sentiment. It changes everything. The world generally stopped annexing countries after WW2 because the US set the rules. Now that the US is annexing countries again, then other countries will consider as well. Obviously, China will take Taiwan in this case. But what’s really stopping China from annexing Vietnam? Japan next? SK? They can claim the same “security need” that the US is claiming for Greenland. If the US does this, the next 100 years will be similar to the 1800s in terms of expansion by super powers.
    - OgsyedIE 2y ago
      In the case of Vietnam the PLA had a deeply-unsuccessful attempt in 1979 and they had a strategic deterrent the last time, too, so it's unclear if anything has changed for them.
      - aurareturn 2y ago
        1979 China is different in capabilities from 2025 China.
  - addicted 2y ago
    USA/Greenland was never a land dispute. In fact, people thought it was a joke all the times he mentioned it. So if it does become a real thing, it sets the stage for new “disputes” to be created, which aren’t actually disputes but larger countries deciding to take over other countries’ land simply because they can.
  - lawn 2y ago
    Russia will press on to claim the entire eastern Europe. China will grab Taiwan. And of course, countries will simply invent new disputes. Trump is already ahead by bringing up Panama and Canada, but more will follow. These events could very likely lead to WW3 and you want to call that "contained"? Give me a break.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    There's no historic dispute involved over Greenland.
  - tim333 2y ago
    Russia seems to have designs of the rest of the planet, pretty much.
- diggan 2y ago
  > start a land grab race Or rather a Arctics-grab race if anything. A lot of resources there, that haven't been exploited yet, connects a lot of countries and will only get more valuable as more of the ice disappears and more resources become available, as long as you control the territory. In my mind, this is why Trump is so focused on Greenland/Canada, as it gives them a border directly to the Arctics, which is the ultimate goal.
maremmano 2y ago
Nice lesson for the, so called, EU.
- addicted 2y ago
  What is the lesson here?
  - maremmano 2y ago
    The lesson is clear. You cannot delegate your defense to others if they are in competition with you. I don't understand why my comment got so many downvotes. I would have appreciated a discussion on the topic instead.
    - tim333 2y ago
      Re Greenland, we were in cooperation with the US for decades and the US has had its largest overseas base in Greenland in a friendly way for the free world to protect against the Russian and similar dictators. I'm not quite sure of the lesson there. Do not cooperate with friends of many decades because they may turn on you one day?
    - fifilura 2y ago
      The real estate sales guy is also trying to sell the idea that Europe has no own defense, which is simply untrue. Europe (excluding Russia) has the second most powerful military in the world on most accounts, with proper technological replacements for everything sold by the Nato ally on the other side of the Atlantic. (Much thanks to Charles De Gaulle who knew the Americans could not be trusted). But a war with the Moscow State going on in Europe is a big thing. Which of course makes Europe weak in the west, and can be taken advantage of. I think the lesson learned here is that Europe (and Canada) needs to close ranks and unite. Which may not be a preferable outcome for USA. And before T with a functioning Nato command, there were simply no reason to do that.
tibbydudeza 2y ago
[flagged]
jfengel 2y ago
Just why? We don't need Greenland for security or anything else. That's some mid-20th-century notion of warfare. That's not how things work. The obvious answer is that this is just more flooding-the-zone -- talking about something he doesn't really intend to do so that we overlook the things he's actually doing. But I wonder if it's more than that. Perhaps it's the ego trip of having been told that this was a stupid idea, and therefore must prove it. And that's almost as scary -- that gets people killed. (Only "almost", because I find the complete dismantling of democracy even scarier, and that's what's going on.)
- n4r9 2y ago
  Other potential reasons: * Making a strong show against China and Russia * Creating a legacy of the largest US territorial acquisition since the Louisiana purchase * Feeling humiliated by the outright rejection in 2019 * Exploiting avenues for mineral resource extraction soon to be created by climate change
Trojanking 2y ago
[dead]

34 points by croes 2y ago

If the US takes Greenland, expect countries worldwide to start a land grab race. If the so called world police (USA) is annexing a country, why shouldn't others do it?

OgsyedIE 2y ago
There aren't that many frozen land grab disputes to begin with AFAICT. Tiny parts of the US/Canada border, Venezuela/Guyana, Kosovo, Cyprus, Armenia, Angola, India/Pakistan, Taiwan, Timor. Even if all of them went, wouldn't the sum of these be relatively contained?
- aurareturn 2y ago
  It’s the sentiment. It changes everything. The world generally stopped annexing countries after WW2 because the US set the rules. Now that the US is annexing countries again, then other countries will consider as well. Obviously, China will take Taiwan in this case. But what’s really stopping China from annexing Vietnam? Japan next? SK? They can claim the same “security need” that the US is claiming for Greenland. If the US does this, the next 100 years will be similar to the 1800s in terms of expansion by super powers.
  - OgsyedIE 2y ago
    In the case of Vietnam the PLA had a deeply-unsuccessful attempt in 1979 and they had a strategic deterrent the last time, too, so it's unclear if anything has changed for them.
    - aurareturn 2y ago
      1979 China is different in capabilities from 2025 China.
- addicted 2y ago
  USA/Greenland was never a land dispute. In fact, people thought it was a joke all the times he mentioned it. So if it does become a real thing, it sets the stage for new “disputes” to be created, which aren’t actually disputes but larger countries deciding to take over other countries’ land simply because they can.
- lawn 2y ago
  Russia will press on to claim the entire eastern Europe. China will grab Taiwan. And of course, countries will simply invent new disputes. Trump is already ahead by bringing up Panama and Canada, but more will follow. These events could very likely lead to WW3 and you want to call that "contained"? Give me a break.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  There's no historic dispute involved over Greenland.
- tim333 2y ago
  Russia seems to have designs of the rest of the planet, pretty much.
diggan 2y ago
> start a land grab race Or rather a Arctics-grab race if anything. A lot of resources there, that haven't been exploited yet, connects a lot of countries and will only get more valuable as more of the ice disappears and more resources become available, as long as you control the territory. In my mind, this is why Trump is so focused on Greenland/Canada, as it gives them a border directly to the Arctics, which is the ultimate goal.

maremmano 2y ago

Nice lesson for the, so called, EU.

addicted 2y ago
What is the lesson here?
- maremmano 2y ago
  The lesson is clear. You cannot delegate your defense to others if they are in competition with you. I don't understand why my comment got so many downvotes. I would have appreciated a discussion on the topic instead.
  - tim333 2y ago
    Re Greenland, we were in cooperation with the US for decades and the US has had its largest overseas base in Greenland in a friendly way for the free world to protect against the Russian and similar dictators. I'm not quite sure of the lesson there. Do not cooperate with friends of many decades because they may turn on you one day?
  - fifilura 2y ago
    The real estate sales guy is also trying to sell the idea that Europe has no own defense, which is simply untrue. Europe (excluding Russia) has the second most powerful military in the world on most accounts, with proper technological replacements for everything sold by the Nato ally on the other side of the Atlantic. (Much thanks to Charles De Gaulle who knew the Americans could not be trusted). But a war with the Moscow State going on in Europe is a big thing. Which of course makes Europe weak in the west, and can be taken advantage of. I think the lesson learned here is that Europe (and Canada) needs to close ranks and unite. Which may not be a preferable outcome for USA. And before T with a functioning Nato command, there were simply no reason to do that.

tibbydudeza 2y ago

[flagged]

jfengel 2y ago

Just why? We don't need Greenland for security or anything else. That's some mid-20th-century notion of warfare. That's not how things work. The obvious answer is that this is just more flooding-the-zone -- talking about something he doesn't really intend to do so that we overlook the things he's actually doing. But I wonder if it's more than that. Perhaps it's the ego trip of having been told that this was a stupid idea, and therefore must prove it. And that's almost as scary -- that gets people killed. (Only "almost", because I find the complete dismantling of democracy even scarier, and that's what's going on.)

n4r9 2y ago
Other potential reasons: * Making a strong show against China and Russia * Creating a legacy of the largest US territorial acquisition since the Louisiana purchase * Feeling humiliated by the outright rejection in 2019 * Exploiting avenues for mineral resource extraction soon to be created by climate change

Trojanking 2y ago

[dead]