3 ms·

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

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.

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.