4 ms·

> That sounds like a rhetoric for better negotiating power against Trump. In the Canadian example at least the deal is signed. It's not just words. > Chinese

by afavour 9mo ago

> That sounds like a rhetoric for better negotiating power against Trump. In the Canadian example at least the deal is signed. It's not just words. > Chinese are our adversaries Increasingly the US is a European adversary. They are literally threatening to invade the territory of a European country! China isn't doing that. Very easy to dismiss it as the rantings of a madman but no-one is holding him back. People didn't take the tariff bluster seriously and then it became very real.

foobarian 9mo ago
I really don't get the Greenland thing. Is there some 4D chess reason for it? The US already has military bases there and could probably have as many more as they wanted if they just asked nicely. So the whole security thing is a pretext
- afavour 9mo ago
  IMO the reason is that he is a senile old man lashing out at the world. I really don't think there's a lot to it beyond that. Everyone else goes along with it because they know the administration's entire legitimacy comes from Trump and if/when he's gone the whole house of cards will collapse. That or they have their own focuses (e.g. Stephen Miller) and are happy for Greenland to be a distraction while they get on with their own stuff.
- nemomarx 9mo ago
  No one's really put out a strong case for it like that. You could argue it's a lot of land that's underpopulated and might be valuable in twenty years with global warming or something? But the simpler answer is that Trump seems to personally like the idea of adding a big landmass to the US for ego reasons. He talked about it last term too with the same excuses mostly.
  - Supermancho 9mo ago
    Probably to indelibly put his name on a piece of the US. How did we get Greenland? Trump.
  - senderista 9mo ago
    It's the Mercator projection's fault
- jfengel 9mo ago
  There have been mumblings about mineral wealth, and about strategic bases. None of them really make a lick of sense. It does not look as if it's serious. But this is a deeply unserious administration, so it's hard to guess.
  - coffeebeqn 9mo ago
    If they want mineral rights those will be arranged easily with basic diplomacy and investment. They had 17 military bases there during the Cold War and that contract stands. Greenland is under NATO article 5 protection. There is no rational net-positive reason for this no matter what dimension you look in
  - graemep 9mo ago
    Possibly to deter Greenland from becoming independent, wt least without guarantees it will stay in NATO and economically within the western sphere.
    - deleted 9mo ago
      [deleted]
- jpadkins 9mo ago
  if there were more valuable reasons, talking publicly about it would only drive up the price.
xienze 9mo ago
> Very easy to dismiss it as the rantings of a madman but no-one is holding him back. Does anyone really need to? We're not getting Greenland and everyone knows it, ESPECIALLY the people screeching the most about it. Trump's whole thing is giving the media lots of fresh meat to go wild over so they're distracted. I'm sure it's some sort of Sun Tzu thing he read about and has latched on to. However, this one in particular is really baffling in that he can't let it go and it just makes everything worse. > People didn't take the tariff bluster seriously and then it became very real. I mean, not really? There's been some tariffs here and there but nowhere near what was originally claimed, things have been walked back and forth multiple times, etc. That's really what's caused the most damage, the uncertainty moreso than the actual tariffs. And this is also something he's particular fixated on and I wish he'd drop since it's obvious it's not going to have the intended outcome.
- notahacker 9mo ago
  > Does anyone really need to? It feels like the rest of the post answers your own question. Yes, Vance and basically everyone below him know full well that the US acquiring Greenland would be utterly pointless and utterly disastrous. But he won't let it go, and in the mean time he's doing lots of stuff with real world consequences like tariffs and incinerating alliances to try to get people to agree with his stupid idea. Can't even use it as a "negotiation chip" when its the fruits of actual completed negotiations being threatened and the US could put any military installations in Greenland they wanted if they said "please" instead of "we are going to take you over".

by afavour 9mo ago

foobarian 9mo ago

I really don't get the Greenland thing. Is there some 4D chess reason for it? The US already has military bases there and could probably have as many more as they wanted if they just asked nicely. So the whole security thing is a pretext

afavour 9mo ago
IMO the reason is that he is a senile old man lashing out at the world. I really don't think there's a lot to it beyond that. Everyone else goes along with it because they know the administration's entire legitimacy comes from Trump and if/when he's gone the whole house of cards will collapse. That or they have their own focuses (e.g. Stephen Miller) and are happy for Greenland to be a distraction while they get on with their own stuff.
nemomarx 9mo ago
No one's really put out a strong case for it like that. You could argue it's a lot of land that's underpopulated and might be valuable in twenty years with global warming or something? But the simpler answer is that Trump seems to personally like the idea of adding a big landmass to the US for ego reasons. He talked about it last term too with the same excuses mostly.
- Supermancho 9mo ago
  Probably to indelibly put his name on a piece of the US. How did we get Greenland? Trump.
- senderista 9mo ago
  It's the Mercator projection's fault
jfengel 9mo ago
There have been mumblings about mineral wealth, and about strategic bases. None of them really make a lick of sense. It does not look as if it's serious. But this is a deeply unserious administration, so it's hard to guess.
- coffeebeqn 9mo ago
  If they want mineral rights those will be arranged easily with basic diplomacy and investment. They had 17 military bases there during the Cold War and that contract stands. Greenland is under NATO article 5 protection. There is no rational net-positive reason for this no matter what dimension you look in
- graemep 9mo ago
  Possibly to deter Greenland from becoming independent, wt least without guarantees it will stay in NATO and economically within the western sphere.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
jpadkins 9mo ago
if there were more valuable reasons, talking publicly about it would only drive up the price.

xienze 9mo ago

> Very easy to dismiss it as the rantings of a madman but no-one is holding him back. Does anyone really need to? We're not getting Greenland and everyone knows it, ESPECIALLY the people screeching the most about it. Trump's whole thing is giving the media lots of fresh meat to go wild over so they're distracted. I'm sure it's some sort of Sun Tzu thing he read about and has latched on to. However, this one in particular is really baffling in that he can't let it go and it just makes everything worse. > People didn't take the tariff bluster seriously and then it became very real. I mean, not really? There's been some tariffs here and there but nowhere near what was originally claimed, things have been walked back and forth multiple times, etc. That's really what's caused the most damage, the uncertainty moreso than the actual tariffs. And this is also something he's particular fixated on and I wish he'd drop since it's obvious it's not going to have the intended outcome.

notahacker 9mo ago
> Does anyone really need to? It feels like the rest of the post answers your own question. Yes, Vance and basically everyone below him know full well that the US acquiring Greenland would be utterly pointless and utterly disastrous. But he won't let it go, and in the mean time he's doing lots of stuff with real world consequences like tariffs and incinerating alliances to try to get people to agree with his stupid idea. Can't even use it as a "negotiation chip" when its the fruits of actual completed negotiations being threatened and the US could put any military installations in Greenland they wanted if they said "please" instead of "we are going to take you over".