6 ms·

Exactly my thoughts. I think US ownership (not necessarily of land) is inevitable, but it is going to take a couple of decades of these kind of polarising piec

Exactly my thoughts. I think US ownership (not necessarily of land) is inevitable, but it is going to take a couple of decades of these kind of polarising pieces.

tokai 1y ago
Why is that inevitable?
- tomrod 1y ago
  Sounds like Danish former colonies aren't the only thing three letter agencies are bumbling around in.
- danielscrubs 1y ago
  Scandinavians are known for being quite naïve and Americans are quite good at psyops (historically). You might expect them to have christian values, but it would be a mistake…
impossiblefork 1y ago
>I think US ownership (not necessarily of land) What would that even mean? Especially the use the word 'ownership'? I think there's zero chance of US long-term influence on Greenland. They simply have no reason to prefer foreign domination, when they can simply be sovereign. I would place independence + EU membership as more probably than any association with the US, and I think them staying within Denmark is much more likely than them becoming independent.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  > They simply have no reason to prefer foreign domination The reason is they require subsidy to live there. The economy appears to run at a net deficit. The same reason the Vikings gave up on it.
  - impossiblefork 1y ago
    I don't think the subsidy is required. The net deficit is small. Some Swedish regions also have a net deficit relative to other Swedish regions, but that doesn't mean that they don't work out economically. After all, not all economic activity in region is taxed there. A firm in Örnsköldsvik pays their taxes to the Swedish government, and then the Swedish government distributes part back to the region. It's around 600 million USD per year, on 56836 people. Around $1000 per head. But GDP per capita is $58,498.
    - Paradigm2020 1y ago
      10k.
      - impossiblefork 1y ago
        Ah, you're right. So an order of magnitude higher. Miscalculated.
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      > I don't think the subsidy is required. The net deficit is small. Continuing to lose money leads to bankruptcy.
      - impossiblefork 1y ago
        They would presumably just cut their government budget if it weren't for the subsidy. It would probably be fine. Furthermore, I don't think Denmark plans on dropping it. They want reasonably strong government services also in this sparsely populated arctic region.
- TMWNN 1y ago
  >They simply have no reason to prefer foreign domination, when they can simply be sovereign. No, they can't. The likes of Palau are (barely) viable as sovereign countries, because at least the geographic size is as small as their populations. It is absolutely, positively, completely impossible for 50K Greenlanders to by themselves maintain a the world's largest island, even aside from the completely frozen-over aspect. The $600M annual subsidy by Denmark does not include the funds Copenhagen spends on also running Greenland's foreign relations and defense. But in reality, Denmark spends a relative pittance on those things (like "six dog sleds" pittance); the vast majority of the cost of defending Greenland is borne by the US, as has been the case since 1940. Why should the US shoulder the burden without commensurate political power?
  - danielscrubs 1y ago
    You don’t get to decide the price after the fact. The petroldollar has been amazing for every citizen of US… somethings just give and take. US can choose to jump out of Nato whenever it wishes. The real danger here is that we might all be chatting against llm bots…
sorokod 1y ago
inevitable... because of Manifest Destiny? Like so (source Wikipedia) "... there were three basic tenets behind the concept: The assumption of the unique moral virtue of the United States. The assertion of its mission to redeem the world by the spread of republican government and more generally the "American way of life". The faith in the nation's divinely ordained destiny to succeed in this mission." ?
jacquesm 1y ago
I don't think that's any more inevitable than US ownership of Scotland or Finland.
threemux 1y ago
I think it even makes sense if it were pursued in a different way. Greenland is looking for full independence but can't really hack it financially without aid. I think the COFA (Compact of Free Association) model that we have with Palau and Marshall Islands would work well. We get expanded military rights and potentially some mineral/drilling rights, while Greenland gets protection, lots of money, access to USPS domestic rates, and probably increased tourism in addition to the independence they desire. Their citizens could also live and work in the US indefinitely.
- Hzwtdqwz1 1y ago
  I think the Danish intelligence services should apply this model to Hawaii and Guam. It would make a lot of sense. Hawaii and Guam could get better health care on average while being semi independent. The EU could protect both with nuclear weapons. Native Hawaiians would escape the continued mistreatment: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/hawaii-not-multicultural-paradise-some-say-it-is https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/hawaii-no... I think Radio Free Denmark should launch a soft power campaign.
  - threemux 1y ago
    Lol I realize this is tongue in cheek but Denmark has no ability to administer or protect anything that far away. Nor are those places seeking independence. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and the Danes will successfully integrate a large group of people that don't share their values. They've already done that, right?
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      > I realize this is tongue in cheek That's your mistake.
    - LarsKrimi 1y ago
      > Lol I realize this is tongue in cheek but Denmark has no ability to administer or protect anything that far away Does the US? They don't seem to have a great track record of that I mean do you even remember Pearl Harbor? /S :^)
epolanski 1y ago
What do you mean inevitable? The people there want nothing to do being somebody's colony.
pcrh 1y ago
US ownership would be pointless. The US already has relatively free access to its ally Greenland for military purposes. See for example the US base in Pituffik (formerly Thule). Proposing to annex your allies is a bit rude, to say the least... If a country other than Denmark was to claim Greenland, either Iceland or Canada would make more sense.
- gpm 1y ago
  As a Canadian I really can't imagine why we would be a better country for Greenland to be part of then Denmark. Unlike Denmark (and the other nordic countries) we don't have any historical connection to it... nor is it part of our landmass, or really anything else other than vaguely near by. We're also really not interested in annexing random things.
  - pcrh 1y ago
    I meant that geopolitically Canada or Iceland would make more sense, assuming Denmark was out of the picture. And also glad to hear that random annexations by Canada are currently off the menu. Though who knows if Canada might become "interested" in some bits of Oregon or Maine in the future ;-) These might might not be "really" American.... When American Idiocracy (AI) fatally weakens their southern neighbor would be the time for Canada to conquer their rightful claims. The Burning of Washington will rise again. (just kidding, to be sure) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aroostook_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aroostook_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_boundary_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_boundary_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
    - BobbyTables2 1y ago
      So “Canadian Bacon” really was prescient both ways!
pjc50 1y ago
It's going to get forgotten instantly when Trump leaves office, either democratically or feet first.

Exactly my thoughts. I think US ownership (not necessarily of land) is inevitable, but it is going to take a couple of decades of these kind of polarising pieces.

tokai 1y ago

Why is that inevitable?

tomrod 1y ago
Sounds like Danish former colonies aren't the only thing three letter agencies are bumbling around in.
danielscrubs 1y ago
Scandinavians are known for being quite naïve and Americans are quite good at psyops (historically). You might expect them to have christian values, but it would be a mistake…

impossiblefork 1y ago

>I think US ownership (not necessarily of land) What would that even mean? Especially the use the word 'ownership'? I think there's zero chance of US long-term influence on Greenland. They simply have no reason to prefer foreign domination, when they can simply be sovereign. I would place independence + EU membership as more probably than any association with the US, and I think them staying within Denmark is much more likely than them becoming independent.

WalterBright 1y ago
> They simply have no reason to prefer foreign domination The reason is they require subsidy to live there. The economy appears to run at a net deficit. The same reason the Vikings gave up on it.
- impossiblefork 1y ago
  I don't think the subsidy is required. The net deficit is small. Some Swedish regions also have a net deficit relative to other Swedish regions, but that doesn't mean that they don't work out economically. After all, not all economic activity in region is taxed there. A firm in Örnsköldsvik pays their taxes to the Swedish government, and then the Swedish government distributes part back to the region. It's around 600 million USD per year, on 56836 people. Around $1000 per head. But GDP per capita is $58,498.
  - Paradigm2020 1y ago
    10k.
    - impossiblefork 1y ago
      Ah, you're right. So an order of magnitude higher. Miscalculated.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    > I don't think the subsidy is required. The net deficit is small. Continuing to lose money leads to bankruptcy.
    - impossiblefork 1y ago
      They would presumably just cut their government budget if it weren't for the subsidy. It would probably be fine. Furthermore, I don't think Denmark plans on dropping it. They want reasonably strong government services also in this sparsely populated arctic region.
TMWNN 1y ago
>They simply have no reason to prefer foreign domination, when they can simply be sovereign. No, they can't. The likes of Palau are (barely) viable as sovereign countries, because at least the geographic size is as small as their populations. It is absolutely, positively, completely impossible for 50K Greenlanders to by themselves maintain a the world's largest island, even aside from the completely frozen-over aspect. The $600M annual subsidy by Denmark does not include the funds Copenhagen spends on also running Greenland's foreign relations and defense. But in reality, Denmark spends a relative pittance on those things (like "six dog sleds" pittance); the vast majority of the cost of defending Greenland is borne by the US, as has been the case since 1940. Why should the US shoulder the burden without commensurate political power?
- danielscrubs 1y ago
  You don’t get to decide the price after the fact. The petroldollar has been amazing for every citizen of US… somethings just give and take. US can choose to jump out of Nato whenever it wishes. The real danger here is that we might all be chatting against llm bots…

sorokod 1y ago

inevitable... because of Manifest Destiny? Like so (source Wikipedia) "... there were three basic tenets behind the concept: The assumption of the unique moral virtue of the United States. The assertion of its mission to redeem the world by the spread of republican government and more generally the "American way of life". The faith in the nation's divinely ordained destiny to succeed in this mission." ?

jacquesm 1y ago

I don't think that's any more inevitable than US ownership of Scotland or Finland.

threemux 1y ago

I think it even makes sense if it were pursued in a different way. Greenland is looking for full independence but can't really hack it financially without aid. I think the COFA (Compact of Free Association) model that we have with Palau and Marshall Islands would work well. We get expanded military rights and potentially some mineral/drilling rights, while Greenland gets protection, lots of money, access to USPS domestic rates, and probably increased tourism in addition to the independence they desire. Their citizens could also live and work in the US indefinitely.

Hzwtdqwz1 1y ago
I think the Danish intelligence services should apply this model to Hawaii and Guam. It would make a lot of sense. Hawaii and Guam could get better health care on average while being semi independent. The EU could protect both with nuclear weapons. Native Hawaiians would escape the continued mistreatment: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/hawaii-not-multicultural-paradise-some-say-it-is https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/hawaii-no... I think Radio Free Denmark should launch a soft power campaign.
- threemux 1y ago
  Lol I realize this is tongue in cheek but Denmark has no ability to administer or protect anything that far away. Nor are those places seeking independence. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and the Danes will successfully integrate a large group of people that don't share their values. They've already done that, right?
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    > I realize this is tongue in cheek That's your mistake.
  - LarsKrimi 1y ago
    > Lol I realize this is tongue in cheek but Denmark has no ability to administer or protect anything that far away Does the US? They don't seem to have a great track record of that I mean do you even remember Pearl Harbor? /S :^)

epolanski 1y ago

What do you mean inevitable? The people there want nothing to do being somebody's colony.

pcrh 1y ago

US ownership would be pointless. The US already has relatively free access to its ally Greenland for military purposes. See for example the US base in Pituffik (formerly Thule). Proposing to annex your allies is a bit rude, to say the least... If a country other than Denmark was to claim Greenland, either Iceland or Canada would make more sense.

gpm 1y ago
As a Canadian I really can't imagine why we would be a better country for Greenland to be part of then Denmark. Unlike Denmark (and the other nordic countries) we don't have any historical connection to it... nor is it part of our landmass, or really anything else other than vaguely near by. We're also really not interested in annexing random things.
- pcrh 1y ago
  I meant that geopolitically Canada or Iceland would make more sense, assuming Denmark was out of the picture. And also glad to hear that random annexations by Canada are currently off the menu. Though who knows if Canada might become "interested" in some bits of Oregon or Maine in the future ;-) These might might not be "really" American.... When American Idiocracy (AI) fatally weakens their southern neighbor would be the time for Canada to conquer their rightful claims. The Burning of Washington will rise again. (just kidding, to be sure) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aroostook_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aroostook_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_boundary_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_boundary_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
  - BobbyTables2 1y ago
    So “Canadian Bacon” really was prescient both ways!

pjc50 1y ago

It's going to get forgotten instantly when Trump leaves office, either democratically or feet first.