7 ms·

Denmark sends military reinforcements to Greenland

127 points by mooreds 10mo ago

mooreds 10mo ago
https://www-dr-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/indland/groenland/efter-pres-fra-usa-danmark-er-nu-begyndt-sende-militaere-forstaerkninger-til-groenland?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp&_x_tr_hist=true https://www-dr-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/indland/groenland/e...
RankingMember 10mo ago
Ridiculous state of affairs we're in- literal threatening hostile takeover as just another in the endless stream of distraction to keep from being held accountable for anything.
- ReptileMan 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - robin_reala 10mo ago
    “Acquiring” in that sentence is doing a lot of work for “forcibly invading a NATO ally and triggering article 5”.
    - palata 10mo ago
      I don't think it will trigger article 5. Rather it will (or has?) destroy NATO.
      - aebtebeten 10mo ago
        Luckily there are other defensive alliances in place. The broad advantage of having a "felt of society" —mutually overlapping circles— as opposed to a "fabric of society", is that the latter is much easier to tear.
        fifilura 10mo ago
        European Union article 42(7) for example. But it has not been very well developed since there was little need with Nato around.
        aebtebeten 10mo ago
        Not well developed would be to our advantage if the casus foederis were in a grey area. (It's somewhat :lolsob: to note that Thucydides already distinguished between "stated reasons" and "real reasons" behind a conflict; remember "Remember the Maine!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli#:~:text=Proschema,causes%20for%20fear%29%2e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli#:~:text=Proschema,... ) EDIT: looks like there may not even be a need to be part of an existing mutual defence alliance; sending troops to take part in Operation Arctic Endurance might suffice for an Art 51 response to invasion? https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e241#:~:text=The%20most%20obvious,objects%20of%20an%20armed%20attack https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/97801992316... 3(a) and 3(d) refer to: https://iilj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/General-Assembly-Resolution-3314.pdf#page=2 https://iilj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/General-Assembly...
      - jrs235 10mo ago
        Exactly what Putin wants.
    - ReptileMan 10mo ago
      And what will we Europeans do if Denmark triggers article 5. A single US carrier group could stop all commercial traffic to Europe and a single USA submarine could keep the parody of navies we have in check.
      - aebtebeten 10mo ago
        (a) if DK triggered Art 5, could Ambassador Whitaker not implement a Denial of Service attack? (b) I'm more optimistic. Indeed, on the scale of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46510437 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46510437 I'm currently on "practise speaking Cantonese". Why? Because even if Oceania, Rasia, and Eastasia want to play 1984 sphere of influence games, we can probably position ourselves neutrally, to trade freely with all of them — and whenever one has designs on us, then the other two would naturally be forced to counter.
  - justin66 10mo ago
    > Greenland is important piece of land for US security - and the US has eyed it for a long time. The US have the ability to do everything up to and including basing troops and missiles there, today, under treaty so it's unclear what is meant by the US need for "security."
    - troyvit 10mo ago
      That's what I don't get. We had a solid relationship with our fellow NATO country and that relationship left all the room in the world for collaboration, including what you're describing. We're trashing that relationship not just with Denmark but with NATO. What gains do we see that can offset that? I guess this is not just a rhetorical question, but what is more secure than stable relationships with existing allies?
      - justin66 10mo ago
        All interesting questions that fall short unless you’re willing to assume the American president will act deliberately in the national interest. I feel we’ve clearly moved past that point.
      - jrs235 10mo ago
        Putin is winning. He's getting want he wants. The absolution of NATO.
  - ironyman 10mo ago
    The Danes would have allowed all those things without the annexation, think new sub pens for our Virginias, Space Force base expansions and so on. There is simply no need to piss off an ally with this nonsense.
    - palata 10mo ago
      > There is simply no need to piss off an ally with this nonsense. After you militarily threaten multiple allies, do they still count as allies? Or at least, are you still seen as an ally by them?
      - Incipient 10mo ago
        I think the best outcome would really be the US' current allies are just waiting until trump goes and he doesn't break too much and the new person goes back to a more stable posture. It's probably a more realistic outcome however is that no one really trusts the US any more and trump has just hastened the decline as the EU looks inward more, and other areas move more quickly to get support from china.
        troyvit 10mo ago
        I hope they are more long-sighted than that. They did the same thing with Bush II's "with us or against us" rhetoric and actions. Appease the POTUS while he's there and hope the next one is a little better. Obama was more conciliatory to our allies' needs, but the cycle has been like this since 2001. The US is getting less stable instead of more stable, so I don't know what Europe is hoping for.
        palata 10mo ago
        > They did the same thing with Bush II's "with us or against us" I don't think that Bush II threatened to invade Europe, and that Europe responded by preparing for an invasion, though.
        10mo ago
  - JohnFen 10mo ago
    The US can, and always has been able to, maintain its security interests in Greenland without trying to forcibly take it. The calls for doing so now are not about US security.
    - mamonster 10mo ago
      >The US can, and always has been able to, maintain its security interests in Greenland without trying to forcibly take it. I think someone has shown Trump the Project Iceworm documents and he decided that it would be a great addition to the Golden Dome repertoire.
    - mothballed 10mo ago
      Well of course, Greenland is a massive welfare drain, trying to forcibly take it when you already get to use it for defense is would be like marrying the $20 hooker for the 'free' services. You wouldn't buy the cow when you already get the milk cheaper than the farmer. The reason Trump wants Denmark is for vanity purposes. If Denmark actually can shitcan the place while making it look like a victory they would definitely do it. Although the only way I think they can pull that off is by convincing Greenland to become independent and then the US swooping in when Greenland realizes their free money hydrant has turned off and they need a new sugar daddy because all those minerals they're sitting on aren't actually worth a dime unless someone is dumb enough to try and use them in one of the most hostile inhabited environments on earth to mine them.
      - fifilura 10mo ago
        There are some truths in what you are saying. But I don't think Denmark wants to give up Greenland, I think they are ok with the money they pay (around $600 million per year). Denmark is a rich country so money is not a big deal.
  - mandeepj 10mo ago
    > This is more than Trump being Trump. Correction: This is more than Trump not being Presidential!
  - hakunin 10mo ago
    Somehow, "deep state" is always there as the god of Trump's failures. The concept of "deep state" should be excised from conversation now that we can clearly see the unilateral rule of this administration. At this point, I wish there was a deep state, but unfortunately there's just Trump. His personal idiosyncrasies explain things much better than any conspiracy theory ever could.
    - AnimalMuppet 10mo ago
      No, there is a deep state. It's people who are in the government, who hold to the constitution and the rule of law, rather than implementing whatever wild idea Trump currently proposes that is illegal and/or unconstitutional, and who therefore work internally to block a bunch of Trump's plans. Or at least they must feel like the deep state to Trump. It's just that, for those who like the rule of law, those people are the good guys.
  - fzeroracer 10mo ago
    It's stupider than any notion of the deep state. It's rich billionaire assholes like Ronald Lauder that pushed stuff like the annexation of Greenland because they have money-induced rotting brains and have never encountered pushback for anything in their lives. And if there's anything Trump loves more than gaudy fake gold, it's trying to be one of the big shots.
  - Jordan-117 10mo ago
    Nonsense. What "deep stater" would think taking de jure control of Greenland would be worth destroying NATO and transatlantic relations broadly, especially when the US already has access to it for military purposes?
- ndsipa_pomu 10mo ago
  As well as distracting from the Epstein Files, the takeover of Greenland would be something that could destroy NATO which is one of Putin's aims.
  - pan69 10mo ago
    I am starting to believe that this might actually be the objective. There is no other logical reason for the US to act this way (not that anything under Trump is logical anyway). They already have full access to Greenland for defence purposes (or pretty much any other purpose) under NATO. It's no secret that Trump is Russian aligned and that he has a intolerance (hatred?) for Europe.
    - tastyface 10mo ago
      There is no mystery here. Trump clearly explained his motivation in a recent interview: "Donald Trump Says He Wants 'Ownership' of Greenland Because It's 'Psychologically Important for Me'" He’a a rapist and does not take no for an answer. That’s it. That’s *really* it. It’s yet another score to be settled from his first term in office. Same with his Nobel Prize fixation. I think a lot of people are having a really hard time grappling with the fact that the leader of a superpower is a literal maniac.
- _DeadFred_ 10mo ago
  When does it become enough for the fence sitters? What does it take? Donald Trump asked NATO to help us invade and take Greenland. The Euros that met with him said 'it's time to take up drinking' after the meeting. What line is too far for you? This is our President doing this stuff, you act like it's some stupid kid off on the sidelines. Before you argue some BS, the USA has WAY LESS soldiers stationed in Greenland than we did during the cold war. It isn't a serious concern, and if it was, we could...staff to the levels we previously did and that were welcome to be in Greenland.
energy123 10mo ago
Tripwire force intended to signal commitment and achieve deterrence by creating uncertainty about the costs involved.
- lm28469 10mo ago
  > creating uncertainty about the costs involved. Is anyone uncertain about the cost of invading a military ally to acquire more "vital" space?
  - actionfromafar 10mo ago
    I mean, normally, no, but nowadays, yes. The only language Trump and Putin speak is blunt power. (Except Trump also responds well to flattery. I doubt you'd get very far with Putin speaking that language.)
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - rsynnott 10mo ago
    I don't think Trump cares about the diplomatic cost. However, even for Trump, significant human losses might be difficult to spin.
- mothballed 10mo ago
  There is certainty, however, in cost in sending troops to Denmark. So it allows US to sap the resources of the adversary, making it even more expensive to hold Denmark. And that is ultimately the goal, because the more pain in the ass and expensive it is for Denmark to hold Greenland, the quicker there will be for pressure for Greenland to become independent. And independence is only a hop, skip, and jump away from foreign influence; given that Greenland is indefensible without alliance and economically heavily subsidized.
  - lm28469 10mo ago
    > given that Greenland is indefensible without alliance and economically heavily subsidized. That's valid for like 99% of countries on the planet so I'm not sure what signals it sends. They could use the same logic to invade Germany tomorrow if they wanted, who's going to stop them anyways ?
1over137 10mo ago
Well if someone threatens to invade you, and you don't send military reinforcements, what would that say?
- exitb 10mo ago
  It’s still important to point out when the „reasonable right” take on it is that it’s just Trump being Trump.
  - ndsipa_pomu 10mo ago
    However, one of Putin's aims is to destroy NATO and the U.S. attacking Greenland would likely lead to that. Also, Trump seems keen to flex military might (despite his FIFA Peace award), so it's not wise to ignore threats that he's made more than once. It often makes more sense to view Trump's behaviour as him being a Putin plant to destroy the USA and weaken Europe. I'd guess that Putin has a lot of incriminating evidence of Trump being involved in dubious sexual acts.
  - UncleMeat 10mo ago
    "It is just Trump being Trump" maybe made sense as an argument in March of 2017. Trump has done so much incredibly crazy shit that "well he is just saying that and isn't serious" is the most unbelievable political statement possible.
- goldforever 10mo ago
  [dead]
comrade1234 10mo ago
They should also be arming the population to make an occupation impossible. This is assuming they have mandatory military training in Denmark and people know how to use automatic weapons, grenades, etc.
- mothballed 10mo ago
  You can buy a rifle like a hammer in Greenland. It has probably the loosest gun control for bolt action arms of any relatively well off country, including looser than the US as there is no background check (nor licensing) for commercial sales.
- fulafel 10mo ago
  At 0.026 people per square kilometer, you could argue it's indeed proven difficult to occupy.
- actionfromafar 10mo ago
  If the would-be invaders were "normal", they'd not go near populated areas. They'd just set up base wherever they wanted to extract resources or whatever. But the US already had excellent relations with Denmark and could probably have gotten mining rights or whatever they wanted without this weird display of power. The huge downside to that would be it would quickly demonstrate how incredibly expensive, slow and uncertain such mining operations would be. I must conclude the annexation of Greenland is mostly a play for the US domestic audience. Very similar to Russia - Ukraine. Maybe a way to put pressure on Canada too.
  - JohnFen 10mo ago
    > Maybe a way to put pressure on Canada too. A number of my Canadian friends are of the opinion that if the US takes Greenland, Canada will be the next acquisition target. I really, really wish I could argue against that notion.
- kcplate 10mo ago
  The numbers work against your idea in a huge way. - There are only 57k people Greenland. A portion (6%) of which are already friendly to the idea of joining the US, the undecideds are 9%. - How many converts to the deal would you get if you actually dangled a $100k per person lump sum (Literally this is a tenth of what the federal government claims it has saved closing USAID)? I assume a few. Maybe quite a few. Add to that an Alaska style ongoing PFD that paid out annually. That’s a tasty carrot. No takers to the deal? Wild, ok though…so we fight instead of fattening the bank accounts. How many will be willing to pull a trigger and risk certain death if they do? Let’s be generous and call it a third of the population (basically half of the hardliners). But…realize that only 65% of the population are between 13 and 65. So you are talking about maybe 12k people who might be willing and could effectively take up arms. Bear in mind due to disperse population centers…the largest single concentration of resistance would be about 5k people. Let’s go ahead and add in the entire Danish active duty military (17k people). 29k people with 40% of them being civilians with minimal training…against the might of the US military. That seems like terrible odds. But what about NATO? NATO is pragmatic. It’s highly likely that every other NATO member would decide to just stay out of the conflict because they would rather have a NATO with the US and without Denmark than the other way around.
mandeepj 10mo ago
Both sides are meeting again today. Not sure what are they going to discuss when it’s a complete deadlock situation. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/denmark-greenland-face-vance-high-stakes-meeting-2026-01-14/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/denmark-greenland-face-...
- mytailorisrich 10mo ago
  Not sure why the Danish and Greenlandic governments go to the WH to discuss with Vance. This is appearing weak.
  - aebtebeten 10mo ago
    Civilised people might consider it to be "appearing reasonable"?
  - fifilura 10mo ago
    They requested a meeting with Rubio. Only later on Vance said he would crash the party.
    - mytailorisrich 10mo ago
      Sure but why should they request a meeting? The Americans should go to Copenhagen if they want to discuss something. You go to the King, the King does not go to you. The party that travels is the weaker one. Maybe that's childish but it is the standard power play even in daily life and business.
  - lisdexan 10mo ago
    Trump is not long for this world, MAGA might crumble or more probably fall under the control of one of the possible successors in the WH. Establishing diplomatic ties with his wranglers pre heart attack is smart. As for how this is seen internally for Danes, at least in my part of the world the US admin has already achieved crackhead with a knife status. I suspect that trying the dog whisperer shtick (like Mamdani) will not be seen negatively.
treetalker 10mo ago
The US would erupt in protest if the American military laid a finger on any <checks notes> Danish or other NATO-allied troops. Indeed, there would likely be a great deal of backlash in the military itself. This is not what Americans want. It cannot even be said that those who voted for Our National Embarrassment want this, because He Who Shall Not Be Named ran on an isolationist, xenophobic platform that pledged "no new wars" and that he would be the "president of peace".
- aebtebeten 10mo ago
  https://apnews.com/article/poll-trump-venezuela-foreign-policy-approval-ce8d92a1461abb354f8c799e6b487e49 https://apnews.com/article/poll-trump-venezuela-foreign-poli...
  - gsf_emergency_6 10mo ago
    https://angryflower.com/1581.html https://angryflower.com/1581.html
    - aebtebeten 10mo ago
      that's exactly why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way was so powerful; it's a bit difficult to spin the sorts of things which can be observed from orbit?
      - aebtebeten 10mo ago
        Hmm... or maybe not, looks like there have been plenty of "$REGION Ways" since, which I've never heard of
- palata 10mo ago
  The American military has already threatened to invade multiple "allies" (POTUS being the chief of the military, right?). Did the US erupt in protest?
fzeroracer 10mo ago
I cannot imagine how things would play out if Trump went through with the invasion. Things are getting increasingly grim here in the states locally and a combination of martial law + a clearly illegal invasion I think would lead to the immediate collapse of the US as well as NATO. It's clear that Stephen Miller in all of his fascist eggheaded brain thinks that he can just do a real quick annexation and is one of the key people pushing for this. But I don't think any of them are prepared for the fallout.
- actionfromafar 10mo ago
  Unless The Ballroom Bunker is part of the prep!
  - potsandpans 10mo ago
    At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if folks in the pentagon were running "controlled nuclear war" scenarios.
    - actionfromafar 10mo ago
      Or civil war over Washington. What's "nice" with a nuclear bunker is that you can clear the area you are in with nukes.
  - ndsipa_pomu 10mo ago
    That's definitely my favourite conspiracy theory as otherwise the Ballroom expansion seems a bit random although that fits in with his general behaviour. The existing bunker getting expanded and redeveloped seems like the kind of self-serving behaviour that would fit in with the plans to isolate USA and start wars, including civil.
cjs_ac 10mo ago
It seems weird for Denmark to be defending Greenland from US threats while also leasing land on Greenland to the US for Pituffik Space Force Base. European states seem to be doing everything by half measures in the hope that Trump loses interest in Greenland.
- RankingMember 10mo ago
  I see it as one of those inertial things initiated many administrations ago, e.g. Guantanamo Bay's lease from Cuba.
- icegreentea2 10mo ago
  If they rescinded that lease, then Trump's so called reasoning actually becomes valid. The US does actually have a geopolitical/strategic/military interest in being able to operate from and around Greenland. The reason this entire activity is a farce is because the US can already do that. It's clear that Trump acts alone in foreign policy - formal channels and structures can barely check him. However, informal resistance still appears to exist. Trump apparently still takes into account the vibes of the people he surrounds himself with into account. In a haphazard way yes, but it's clear that Trump can be swayed to some degree by those around him. The Trump administration is not a unified bloc, and there are likely many elements that see annexing Greenland as ridiculous. However, if they lost access, then they would be forced to concede that there was something actually valuable to gain.
  - cjs_ac 10mo ago
    This is a good point - thanks!
- palata 10mo ago
  Can you explain to me how it is weird? Months ago, the US was an ally of Denmark and Greenland. Greenland allowed an ally to have their military stationed there, because it served both (through NATO). From one day to the other, the US behave like an enemy. And the US behave erratically. So NATO still exists on the paper because the US haven't invaded anyone yet, but the US are behaving like enemies and threaten to invade. Seems more than rational, from the point of view of the rest of NATO, to prepare for an invasion, but at the same time hope that NATO still exists and that the US are not actually an enemy (probably not an ally anymore, but "partner" is better than "enemy"). Or am I missing something?
java-man 10mo ago
Agent Krasnov is busy destroying the United States, NATO, and the post-war world order. Things will get much, much worse, very quickly.
akagusu 10mo ago
Why this was flagged? Censorship in HN came to a point that can't be ignored anymore. It is ok to post an article saying Trump will send troops to Greenland, but a post saying Denmark will send troops defend Greenland is flagged? It's ridiculous.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- docdeek 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - sph 10mo ago
    Yet somehow other political posts that aren't as overtly critical of the US government aren't being flagged. Weird, huh? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46616745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46616745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46614963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46614963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46600194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46600194 I maintain my conspiracy theory that a lot of the politically-motivated flagging on this platform is from the moderators, not the users. Y Combinator the company has shown to be openly pro-Trump.
    - leosanchez 10mo ago
      > Y Combinator the company has shown to be openly pro-Trump. Paul Graham is pretty anti-trump if you follow is twitter account.
      - sph 10mo ago
        PG isn't the boss any more. Last I heard, the current YC CEO was applauding Larry Ellison's plan for pervasive monitoring of American citizens, for example.
    - akramachamarei 10mo ago
      2/3 of those articles are tech related, the other not obviously so, and the current not at all. Of course, the HN guidelines don't state "only tech news." They say submit stories which "gratify one's intellectual curiosity" and to avoid most political stories; I think this one fails on both counts. Scoring this charitably 3 to 1 nonetheless yields no significant insight. Personally, I followed HN for news about hacking. I'd prefer all offtopic submissions flagged, or at least demoted. What's the point in a _hacker_ news Front Page RSS feed if I get dupes of major global stories?
pickleglitch 10mo ago
The fact that we're even talking about this shows how far the US has gone off the rails. Trump has said and done a bigly amount of insane things, but the idea of invading Greenland has to be in the top 5.
OutOfHere 10mo ago
[flagged]
- aebtebeten 10mo ago
  https://theonion.com/u-s-to-give-every-iraqi-3-544-91-let-free-market-cap-1819567206/ https://theonion.com/u-s-to-give-every-iraqi-3-544-91-let-fr...
  - gsf_emergency_6 10mo ago
    Best news (propaganda?) all week: https://archive.ph/tJRXY https://archive.ph/tJRXY Now Iran is only slightly more concerning than Greenland.. (Has The Man rescinded (threats of) secondary sanctions yet? [Insert modern geopo chengyu]) Hope the CH pundits, if any, are more level-headed than EU ones? Btw.. One way for reasonable people to justify the existence/organization (albeit-- not methods/training!!) of the US counterpart(s) of Basij, if the following is any accurate: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/kidnapping/ https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/kidnapping/ (E: I see some of the usual suspects, eg PH, are actually missing)
    - aebtebeten 10mo ago
      I'd guess some of those countries rank highly because they're counting parents disappearing with non-sole-custody children as kidnappings? I'll also note that while former Yugoslavs seemed to have no trouble playing "one less sentient one less vote" in their home countr{y,ies}, they also seem to have no trouble getting along with each other here. Set and Setting?
      - gsf_emergency_6 10mo ago
        a Francophone proclivity (legal+statisticians+perps) I'm not aware of? Indeed eyeballing the list I second Greece as the most exciting destination for a budding anthropo-criminologist :)
        10mo ago
jgghbbncx 10mo ago
[flagged]
bryanlarsen 10mo ago
This Greenland saga is particularly stupid because the US can achieve essentially the same aims by doing the right thing, occupying the moral high ground. The majority of Greenlanders want independence. That percentage would possibly increase if they knew that they had solid support for statehood with good security agreements and trade agreements from the US. Strong pressure on Denmark from the US would likely get Greenland their independence. If Greenlanders want it, then many Danes would feel obligated to give it to them. US pressure would help turn that into reality. Once Greenland is independent, then those trade & security agreements mentioned would provide the US with the minerals or whatever it's truly after.
- fulafel 10mo ago
  Denmark's parliament has been favourably diposed to Greenland independence so far so there's not much to pressure.
- general1465 10mo ago
  This approach would expect for Trump to have some patience and also to acknowledge that it would not happen within end of his presidency.
- rsynnott 10mo ago
  > The majority of Greenlanders want independence. In the abstract, yes. In the specifics, maybe not so much: > A poll in 2016 showed that there was a clear majority (64%) for full independence among the Greenlandic people,[25] but a poll in 2017 showed that there was a clear opposition (78%) if it meant a fall in living standards. Greenland gets about 700m/year subvention, so about 15k per capita. Without that it would be very serious trouble, making actual independence (vs self-rule, which it largely already has) difficult. Realistically it's difficult for such a small country to be truly independent.
OutOfHere 10mo ago
US could just threaten to withdraw from NATO if it can't get Greenland. What then will remain of NATO that can defend itself from Russia and China? Besides the US, only the UK and France have nukes.
- fifilura 10mo ago
  Most of Europe and Canada.
- aebtebeten 10mo ago
  How is that a threat, considering that the US also effectively withdraws from NATO if it can get Greenland?
  - OutOfHere 10mo ago
    It is a veiled threat because once the US voluntarily withdraws from NATO, it is no longer bound to any obligation to not seize Greenland by force.
    - ndsipa_pomu 10mo ago
      Seems a bit subtle when Trump could just send invading troops and see how it pans out (assuming that the military remains loyal to him). That could then lead to NATO kicking out USA, so what would threatening to do it achieve?
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- LeChuck 10mo ago
  Congress can, Trump cannot.
- mna_ 10mo ago
  At this point, I don't think anyone in NATO thinks the US will aid them if anything were to happen so the US is kinda out of NATO anyway (at least until Trump/MAGA is gone).
DivingForGold 10mo ago
Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg have invested in the mineral exploration company KoBold Metals in 2019, and the company began drilling in Greenland in August 2022. Peter Thiel backed Praxis, a startup that envisions building a semi-autonomous, low-regulation "network city" in Greenland. The vision is led by Praxis co-founder Dryden Brown, who sees Greenland as an ideal testing ground for a future Mars colony. Praxis has raised hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, however, the proposal faces significant opposition from unexpectedly Greenlandic and Danish politicians. And then there's this: Ibtimes reports that MAGA Supporters Urge Barron Trump to Marry Princess of Denmark and Claim Greenland as Dowry MAGA wants Barron Trump to marry Princess Isabella of Denmark to claim Greenland
tsoukase 10mo ago
Trump's behavior is (once more) ridiculous. There are many arguments against it (military/diplomatic inside NATO and economic). I believe the reasons behind a hostile takeover are a push from billionaires who control the government and want to get into extraction business and the urge to throw out the ongoing presence of China and Russia.
disqard 10mo ago
Why the fuck is this flagged?

127 points by mooreds 10mo ago

https://www-dr-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/indland/groenland/efter-pres-fra-usa-danmark-er-nu-begyndt-sende-militaere-forstaerkninger-til-groenland?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp&_x_tr_hist=true https://www-dr-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/indland/groenland/e...

RankingMember 10mo ago

Ridiculous state of affairs we're in- literal threatening hostile takeover as just another in the endless stream of distraction to keep from being held accountable for anything.

ReptileMan 10mo ago
[flagged]
- robin_reala 10mo ago
  “Acquiring” in that sentence is doing a lot of work for “forcibly invading a NATO ally and triggering article 5”.
  - palata 10mo ago
    I don't think it will trigger article 5. Rather it will (or has?) destroy NATO.
    - aebtebeten 10mo ago
      Luckily there are other defensive alliances in place. The broad advantage of having a "felt of society" —mutually overlapping circles— as opposed to a "fabric of society", is that the latter is much easier to tear.
      - fifilura 10mo ago
        European Union article 42(7) for example. But it has not been very well developed since there was little need with Nato around.
        aebtebeten 10mo ago
        Not well developed would be to our advantage if the casus foederis were in a grey area. (It's somewhat :lolsob: to note that Thucydides already distinguished between "stated reasons" and "real reasons" behind a conflict; remember "Remember the Maine!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli#:~:text=Proschema,causes%20for%20fear%29%2e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli#:~:text=Proschema,... ) EDIT: looks like there may not even be a need to be part of an existing mutual defence alliance; sending troops to take part in Operation Arctic Endurance might suffice for an Art 51 response to invasion? https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e241#:~:text=The%20most%20obvious,objects%20of%20an%20armed%20attack https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/97801992316... 3(a) and 3(d) refer to: https://iilj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/General-Assembly-Resolution-3314.pdf#page=2 https://iilj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/General-Assembly...
    - jrs235 10mo ago
      Exactly what Putin wants.
  - ReptileMan 10mo ago
    And what will we Europeans do if Denmark triggers article 5. A single US carrier group could stop all commercial traffic to Europe and a single USA submarine could keep the parody of navies we have in check.
    - aebtebeten 10mo ago
      (a) if DK triggered Art 5, could Ambassador Whitaker not implement a Denial of Service attack? (b) I'm more optimistic. Indeed, on the scale of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46510437 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46510437 I'm currently on "practise speaking Cantonese". Why? Because even if Oceania, Rasia, and Eastasia want to play 1984 sphere of influence games, we can probably position ourselves neutrally, to trade freely with all of them — and whenever one has designs on us, then the other two would naturally be forced to counter.
- justin66 10mo ago
  > Greenland is important piece of land for US security - and the US has eyed it for a long time. The US have the ability to do everything up to and including basing troops and missiles there, today, under treaty so it's unclear what is meant by the US need for "security."
  - troyvit 10mo ago
    That's what I don't get. We had a solid relationship with our fellow NATO country and that relationship left all the room in the world for collaboration, including what you're describing. We're trashing that relationship not just with Denmark but with NATO. What gains do we see that can offset that? I guess this is not just a rhetorical question, but what is more secure than stable relationships with existing allies?
    - justin66 10mo ago
      All interesting questions that fall short unless you’re willing to assume the American president will act deliberately in the national interest. I feel we’ve clearly moved past that point.
    - jrs235 10mo ago
      Putin is winning. He's getting want he wants. The absolution of NATO.
- ironyman 10mo ago
  The Danes would have allowed all those things without the annexation, think new sub pens for our Virginias, Space Force base expansions and so on. There is simply no need to piss off an ally with this nonsense.
  - palata 10mo ago
    > There is simply no need to piss off an ally with this nonsense. After you militarily threaten multiple allies, do they still count as allies? Or at least, are you still seen as an ally by them?
    - Incipient 10mo ago
      I think the best outcome would really be the US' current allies are just waiting until trump goes and he doesn't break too much and the new person goes back to a more stable posture. It's probably a more realistic outcome however is that no one really trusts the US any more and trump has just hastened the decline as the EU looks inward more, and other areas move more quickly to get support from china.
      - troyvit 10mo ago
        I hope they are more long-sighted than that. They did the same thing with Bush II's "with us or against us" rhetoric and actions. Appease the POTUS while he's there and hope the next one is a little better. Obama was more conciliatory to our allies' needs, but the cycle has been like this since 2001. The US is getting less stable instead of more stable, so I don't know what Europe is hoping for.
        palata 10mo ago
        > They did the same thing with Bush II's "with us or against us" I don't think that Bush II threatened to invade Europe, and that Europe responded by preparing for an invasion, though.
        10mo ago
- JohnFen 10mo ago
  The US can, and always has been able to, maintain its security interests in Greenland without trying to forcibly take it. The calls for doing so now are not about US security.
  - mamonster 10mo ago
    >The US can, and always has been able to, maintain its security interests in Greenland without trying to forcibly take it. I think someone has shown Trump the Project Iceworm documents and he decided that it would be a great addition to the Golden Dome repertoire.
  - mothballed 10mo ago
    Well of course, Greenland is a massive welfare drain, trying to forcibly take it when you already get to use it for defense is would be like marrying the $20 hooker for the 'free' services. You wouldn't buy the cow when you already get the milk cheaper than the farmer. The reason Trump wants Denmark is for vanity purposes. If Denmark actually can shitcan the place while making it look like a victory they would definitely do it. Although the only way I think they can pull that off is by convincing Greenland to become independent and then the US swooping in when Greenland realizes their free money hydrant has turned off and they need a new sugar daddy because all those minerals they're sitting on aren't actually worth a dime unless someone is dumb enough to try and use them in one of the most hostile inhabited environments on earth to mine them.
    - fifilura 10mo ago
      There are some truths in what you are saying. But I don't think Denmark wants to give up Greenland, I think they are ok with the money they pay (around $600 million per year). Denmark is a rich country so money is not a big deal.
- mandeepj 10mo ago
  > This is more than Trump being Trump. Correction: This is more than Trump not being Presidential!
- hakunin 10mo ago
  Somehow, "deep state" is always there as the god of Trump's failures. The concept of "deep state" should be excised from conversation now that we can clearly see the unilateral rule of this administration. At this point, I wish there was a deep state, but unfortunately there's just Trump. His personal idiosyncrasies explain things much better than any conspiracy theory ever could.
  - AnimalMuppet 10mo ago
    No, there is a deep state. It's people who are in the government, who hold to the constitution and the rule of law, rather than implementing whatever wild idea Trump currently proposes that is illegal and/or unconstitutional, and who therefore work internally to block a bunch of Trump's plans. Or at least they must feel like the deep state to Trump. It's just that, for those who like the rule of law, those people are the good guys.
- fzeroracer 10mo ago
  It's stupider than any notion of the deep state. It's rich billionaire assholes like Ronald Lauder that pushed stuff like the annexation of Greenland because they have money-induced rotting brains and have never encountered pushback for anything in their lives. And if there's anything Trump loves more than gaudy fake gold, it's trying to be one of the big shots.
- Jordan-117 10mo ago
  Nonsense. What "deep stater" would think taking de jure control of Greenland would be worth destroying NATO and transatlantic relations broadly, especially when the US already has access to it for military purposes?
ndsipa_pomu 10mo ago
As well as distracting from the Epstein Files, the takeover of Greenland would be something that could destroy NATO which is one of Putin's aims.
- pan69 10mo ago
  I am starting to believe that this might actually be the objective. There is no other logical reason for the US to act this way (not that anything under Trump is logical anyway). They already have full access to Greenland for defence purposes (or pretty much any other purpose) under NATO. It's no secret that Trump is Russian aligned and that he has a intolerance (hatred?) for Europe.
  - tastyface 10mo ago
    There is no mystery here. Trump clearly explained his motivation in a recent interview: "Donald Trump Says He Wants 'Ownership' of Greenland Because It's 'Psychologically Important for Me'" He’a a rapist and does not take no for an answer. That’s it. That’s *really* it. It’s yet another score to be settled from his first term in office. Same with his Nobel Prize fixation. I think a lot of people are having a really hard time grappling with the fact that the leader of a superpower is a literal maniac.
_DeadFred_ 10mo ago
When does it become enough for the fence sitters? What does it take? Donald Trump asked NATO to help us invade and take Greenland. The Euros that met with him said 'it's time to take up drinking' after the meeting. What line is too far for you? This is our President doing this stuff, you act like it's some stupid kid off on the sidelines. Before you argue some BS, the USA has WAY LESS soldiers stationed in Greenland than we did during the cold war. It isn't a serious concern, and if it was, we could...staff to the levels we previously did and that were welcome to be in Greenland.

energy123 10mo ago

Tripwire force intended to signal commitment and achieve deterrence by creating uncertainty about the costs involved.

lm28469 10mo ago
> creating uncertainty about the costs involved. Is anyone uncertain about the cost of invading a military ally to acquire more "vital" space?
- actionfromafar 10mo ago
  I mean, normally, no, but nowadays, yes. The only language Trump and Putin speak is blunt power. (Except Trump also responds well to flattery. I doubt you'd get very far with Putin speaking that language.)
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- rsynnott 10mo ago
  I don't think Trump cares about the diplomatic cost. However, even for Trump, significant human losses might be difficult to spin.
mothballed 10mo ago
There is certainty, however, in cost in sending troops to Denmark. So it allows US to sap the resources of the adversary, making it even more expensive to hold Denmark. And that is ultimately the goal, because the more pain in the ass and expensive it is for Denmark to hold Greenland, the quicker there will be for pressure for Greenland to become independent. And independence is only a hop, skip, and jump away from foreign influence; given that Greenland is indefensible without alliance and economically heavily subsidized.
- lm28469 10mo ago
  > given that Greenland is indefensible without alliance and economically heavily subsidized. That's valid for like 99% of countries on the planet so I'm not sure what signals it sends. They could use the same logic to invade Germany tomorrow if they wanted, who's going to stop them anyways ?

1over137 10mo ago

Well if someone threatens to invade you, and you don't send military reinforcements, what would that say?

exitb 10mo ago
It’s still important to point out when the „reasonable right” take on it is that it’s just Trump being Trump.
- ndsipa_pomu 10mo ago
  However, one of Putin's aims is to destroy NATO and the U.S. attacking Greenland would likely lead to that. Also, Trump seems keen to flex military might (despite his FIFA Peace award), so it's not wise to ignore threats that he's made more than once. It often makes more sense to view Trump's behaviour as him being a Putin plant to destroy the USA and weaken Europe. I'd guess that Putin has a lot of incriminating evidence of Trump being involved in dubious sexual acts.
- UncleMeat 10mo ago
  "It is just Trump being Trump" maybe made sense as an argument in March of 2017. Trump has done so much incredibly crazy shit that "well he is just saying that and isn't serious" is the most unbelievable political statement possible.
goldforever 10mo ago
[dead]

comrade1234 10mo ago

They should also be arming the population to make an occupation impossible. This is assuming they have mandatory military training in Denmark and people know how to use automatic weapons, grenades, etc.

mothballed 10mo ago
You can buy a rifle like a hammer in Greenland. It has probably the loosest gun control for bolt action arms of any relatively well off country, including looser than the US as there is no background check (nor licensing) for commercial sales.
fulafel 10mo ago
At 0.026 people per square kilometer, you could argue it's indeed proven difficult to occupy.
actionfromafar 10mo ago
If the would-be invaders were "normal", they'd not go near populated areas. They'd just set up base wherever they wanted to extract resources or whatever. But the US already had excellent relations with Denmark and could probably have gotten mining rights or whatever they wanted without this weird display of power. The huge downside to that would be it would quickly demonstrate how incredibly expensive, slow and uncertain such mining operations would be. I must conclude the annexation of Greenland is mostly a play for the US domestic audience. Very similar to Russia - Ukraine. Maybe a way to put pressure on Canada too.
- JohnFen 10mo ago
  > Maybe a way to put pressure on Canada too. A number of my Canadian friends are of the opinion that if the US takes Greenland, Canada will be the next acquisition target. I really, really wish I could argue against that notion.
kcplate 10mo ago
The numbers work against your idea in a huge way. - There are only 57k people Greenland. A portion (6%) of which are already friendly to the idea of joining the US, the undecideds are 9%. - How many converts to the deal would you get if you actually dangled a $100k per person lump sum (Literally this is a tenth of what the federal government claims it has saved closing USAID)? I assume a few. Maybe quite a few. Add to that an Alaska style ongoing PFD that paid out annually. That’s a tasty carrot. No takers to the deal? Wild, ok though…so we fight instead of fattening the bank accounts. How many will be willing to pull a trigger and risk certain death if they do? Let’s be generous and call it a third of the population (basically half of the hardliners). But…realize that only 65% of the population are between 13 and 65. So you are talking about maybe 12k people who might be willing and could effectively take up arms. Bear in mind due to disperse population centers…the largest single concentration of resistance would be about 5k people. Let’s go ahead and add in the entire Danish active duty military (17k people). 29k people with 40% of them being civilians with minimal training…against the might of the US military. That seems like terrible odds. But what about NATO? NATO is pragmatic. It’s highly likely that every other NATO member would decide to just stay out of the conflict because they would rather have a NATO with the US and without Denmark than the other way around.

mandeepj 10mo ago

Both sides are meeting again today. Not sure what are they going to discuss when it’s a complete deadlock situation. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/denmark-greenland-face-vance-high-stakes-meeting-2026-01-14/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/denmark-greenland-face-...

mytailorisrich 10mo ago
Not sure why the Danish and Greenlandic governments go to the WH to discuss with Vance. This is appearing weak.
- aebtebeten 10mo ago
  Civilised people might consider it to be "appearing reasonable"?
- fifilura 10mo ago
  They requested a meeting with Rubio. Only later on Vance said he would crash the party.
  - mytailorisrich 10mo ago
    Sure but why should they request a meeting? The Americans should go to Copenhagen if they want to discuss something. You go to the King, the King does not go to you. The party that travels is the weaker one. Maybe that's childish but it is the standard power play even in daily life and business.
- lisdexan 10mo ago
  Trump is not long for this world, MAGA might crumble or more probably fall under the control of one of the possible successors in the WH. Establishing diplomatic ties with his wranglers pre heart attack is smart. As for how this is seen internally for Danes, at least in my part of the world the US admin has already achieved crackhead with a knife status. I suspect that trying the dog whisperer shtick (like Mamdani) will not be seen negatively.

treetalker 10mo ago

The US would erupt in protest if the American military laid a finger on any <checks notes> Danish or other NATO-allied troops. Indeed, there would likely be a great deal of backlash in the military itself. This is not what Americans want. It cannot even be said that those who voted for Our National Embarrassment want this, because He Who Shall Not Be Named ran on an isolationist, xenophobic platform that pledged "no new wars" and that he would be the "president of peace".

aebtebeten 10mo ago
https://apnews.com/article/poll-trump-venezuela-foreign-policy-approval-ce8d92a1461abb354f8c799e6b487e49 https://apnews.com/article/poll-trump-venezuela-foreign-poli...
- gsf_emergency_6 10mo ago
  https://angryflower.com/1581.html https://angryflower.com/1581.html
  - aebtebeten 10mo ago
    that's exactly why https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Way was so powerful; it's a bit difficult to spin the sorts of things which can be observed from orbit?
    - aebtebeten 10mo ago
      Hmm... or maybe not, looks like there have been plenty of "$REGION Ways" since, which I've never heard of
palata 10mo ago
The American military has already threatened to invade multiple "allies" (POTUS being the chief of the military, right?). Did the US erupt in protest?

fzeroracer 10mo ago

I cannot imagine how things would play out if Trump went through with the invasion. Things are getting increasingly grim here in the states locally and a combination of martial law + a clearly illegal invasion I think would lead to the immediate collapse of the US as well as NATO. It's clear that Stephen Miller in all of his fascist eggheaded brain thinks that he can just do a real quick annexation and is one of the key people pushing for this. But I don't think any of them are prepared for the fallout.

actionfromafar 10mo ago
Unless The Ballroom Bunker is part of the prep!
- potsandpans 10mo ago
  At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if folks in the pentagon were running "controlled nuclear war" scenarios.
  - actionfromafar 10mo ago
    Or civil war over Washington. What's "nice" with a nuclear bunker is that you can clear the area you are in with nukes.
- ndsipa_pomu 10mo ago
  That's definitely my favourite conspiracy theory as otherwise the Ballroom expansion seems a bit random although that fits in with his general behaviour. The existing bunker getting expanded and redeveloped seems like the kind of self-serving behaviour that would fit in with the plans to isolate USA and start wars, including civil.

cjs_ac 10mo ago

It seems weird for Denmark to be defending Greenland from US threats while also leasing land on Greenland to the US for Pituffik Space Force Base. European states seem to be doing everything by half measures in the hope that Trump loses interest in Greenland.

RankingMember 10mo ago
I see it as one of those inertial things initiated many administrations ago, e.g. Guantanamo Bay's lease from Cuba.
icegreentea2 10mo ago
If they rescinded that lease, then Trump's so called reasoning actually becomes valid. The US does actually have a geopolitical/strategic/military interest in being able to operate from and around Greenland. The reason this entire activity is a farce is because the US can already do that. It's clear that Trump acts alone in foreign policy - formal channels and structures can barely check him. However, informal resistance still appears to exist. Trump apparently still takes into account the vibes of the people he surrounds himself with into account. In a haphazard way yes, but it's clear that Trump can be swayed to some degree by those around him. The Trump administration is not a unified bloc, and there are likely many elements that see annexing Greenland as ridiculous. However, if they lost access, then they would be forced to concede that there was something actually valuable to gain.
- cjs_ac 10mo ago
  This is a good point - thanks!
palata 10mo ago
Can you explain to me how it is weird? Months ago, the US was an ally of Denmark and Greenland. Greenland allowed an ally to have their military stationed there, because it served both (through NATO). From one day to the other, the US behave like an enemy. And the US behave erratically. So NATO still exists on the paper because the US haven't invaded anyone yet, but the US are behaving like enemies and threaten to invade. Seems more than rational, from the point of view of the rest of NATO, to prepare for an invasion, but at the same time hope that NATO still exists and that the US are not actually an enemy (probably not an ally anymore, but "partner" is better than "enemy"). Or am I missing something?

java-man 10mo ago

Agent Krasnov is busy destroying the United States, NATO, and the post-war world order. Things will get much, much worse, very quickly.

akagusu 10mo ago

Why this was flagged? Censorship in HN came to a point that can't be ignored anymore. It is ok to post an article saying Trump will send troops to Greenland, but a post saying Denmark will send troops defend Greenland is flagged? It's ridiculous.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
docdeek 10mo ago
[flagged]
- sph 10mo ago
  Yet somehow other political posts that aren't as overtly critical of the US government aren't being flagged. Weird, huh? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46616745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46616745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46614963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46614963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46600194 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46600194 I maintain my conspiracy theory that a lot of the politically-motivated flagging on this platform is from the moderators, not the users. Y Combinator the company has shown to be openly pro-Trump.
  - leosanchez 10mo ago
    > Y Combinator the company has shown to be openly pro-Trump. Paul Graham is pretty anti-trump if you follow is twitter account.
    - sph 10mo ago
      PG isn't the boss any more. Last I heard, the current YC CEO was applauding Larry Ellison's plan for pervasive monitoring of American citizens, for example.
  - akramachamarei 10mo ago
    2/3 of those articles are tech related, the other not obviously so, and the current not at all. Of course, the HN guidelines don't state "only tech news." They say submit stories which "gratify one's intellectual curiosity" and to avoid most political stories; I think this one fails on both counts. Scoring this charitably 3 to 1 nonetheless yields no significant insight. Personally, I followed HN for news about hacking. I'd prefer all offtopic submissions flagged, or at least demoted. What's the point in a _hacker_ news Front Page RSS feed if I get dupes of major global stories?

pickleglitch 10mo ago

The fact that we're even talking about this shows how far the US has gone off the rails. Trump has said and done a bigly amount of insane things, but the idea of invading Greenland has to be in the top 5.

OutOfHere 10mo ago

[flagged]

aebtebeten 10mo ago
https://theonion.com/u-s-to-give-every-iraqi-3-544-91-let-free-market-cap-1819567206/ https://theonion.com/u-s-to-give-every-iraqi-3-544-91-let-fr...
- gsf_emergency_6 10mo ago
  Best news (propaganda?) all week: https://archive.ph/tJRXY https://archive.ph/tJRXY Now Iran is only slightly more concerning than Greenland.. (Has The Man rescinded (threats of) secondary sanctions yet? [Insert modern geopo chengyu]) Hope the CH pundits, if any, are more level-headed than EU ones? Btw.. One way for reasonable people to justify the existence/organization (albeit-- not methods/training!!) of the US counterpart(s) of Basij, if the following is any accurate: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/kidnapping/ https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/kidnapping/ (E: I see some of the usual suspects, eg PH, are actually missing)
  - aebtebeten 10mo ago
    I'd guess some of those countries rank highly because they're counting parents disappearing with non-sole-custody children as kidnappings? I'll also note that while former Yugoslavs seemed to have no trouble playing "one less sentient one less vote" in their home countr{y,ies}, they also seem to have no trouble getting along with each other here. Set and Setting?
    - gsf_emergency_6 10mo ago
      a Francophone proclivity (legal+statisticians+perps) I'm not aware of? Indeed eyeballing the list I second Greece as the most exciting destination for a budding anthropo-criminologist :)
      - 10mo ago

jgghbbncx 10mo ago

[flagged]

bryanlarsen 10mo ago

This Greenland saga is particularly stupid because the US can achieve essentially the same aims by doing the right thing, occupying the moral high ground. The majority of Greenlanders want independence. That percentage would possibly increase if they knew that they had solid support for statehood with good security agreements and trade agreements from the US. Strong pressure on Denmark from the US would likely get Greenland their independence. If Greenlanders want it, then many Danes would feel obligated to give it to them. US pressure would help turn that into reality. Once Greenland is independent, then those trade & security agreements mentioned would provide the US with the minerals or whatever it's truly after.

fulafel 10mo ago
Denmark's parliament has been favourably diposed to Greenland independence so far so there's not much to pressure.
general1465 10mo ago
This approach would expect for Trump to have some patience and also to acknowledge that it would not happen within end of his presidency.
rsynnott 10mo ago
> The majority of Greenlanders want independence. In the abstract, yes. In the specifics, maybe not so much: > A poll in 2016 showed that there was a clear majority (64%) for full independence among the Greenlandic people,[25] but a poll in 2017 showed that there was a clear opposition (78%) if it meant a fall in living standards. Greenland gets about 700m/year subvention, so about 15k per capita. Without that it would be very serious trouble, making actual independence (vs self-rule, which it largely already has) difficult. Realistically it's difficult for such a small country to be truly independent.

OutOfHere 10mo ago

US could just threaten to withdraw from NATO if it can't get Greenland. What then will remain of NATO that can defend itself from Russia and China? Besides the US, only the UK and France have nukes.

fifilura 10mo ago
Most of Europe and Canada.
aebtebeten 10mo ago
How is that a threat, considering that the US also effectively withdraws from NATO if it can get Greenland?
- OutOfHere 10mo ago
  It is a veiled threat because once the US voluntarily withdraws from NATO, it is no longer bound to any obligation to not seize Greenland by force.
  - ndsipa_pomu 10mo ago
    Seems a bit subtle when Trump could just send invading troops and see how it pans out (assuming that the military remains loyal to him). That could then lead to NATO kicking out USA, so what would threatening to do it achieve?
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
LeChuck 10mo ago
Congress can, Trump cannot.
mna_ 10mo ago
At this point, I don't think anyone in NATO thinks the US will aid them if anything were to happen so the US is kinda out of NATO anyway (at least until Trump/MAGA is gone).

DivingForGold 10mo ago

Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg have invested in the mineral exploration company KoBold Metals in 2019, and the company began drilling in Greenland in August 2022. Peter Thiel backed Praxis, a startup that envisions building a semi-autonomous, low-regulation "network city" in Greenland. The vision is led by Praxis co-founder Dryden Brown, who sees Greenland as an ideal testing ground for a future Mars colony. Praxis has raised hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, however, the proposal faces significant opposition from unexpectedly Greenlandic and Danish politicians. And then there's this: Ibtimes reports that MAGA Supporters Urge Barron Trump to Marry Princess of Denmark and Claim Greenland as Dowry MAGA wants Barron Trump to marry Princess Isabella of Denmark to claim Greenland

tsoukase 10mo ago

Trump's behavior is (once more) ridiculous. There are many arguments against it (military/diplomatic inside NATO and economic). I believe the reasons behind a hostile takeover are a push from billionaires who control the government and want to get into extraction business and the urge to throw out the ongoing presence of China and Russia.

disqard 10mo ago

Why the fuck is this flagged?