https://www.reuters.com/world/poll-shows-85-greenlanders-do-... ("Greenlanders overwhelmingly oppose becoming part of the United States, poll shows" / "only 6% of Greenlanders are in favour of their island becoming part of the U.S.")
Here's a joint statement from yesterday by every major political party in Greenland speaking in unison, which you can't post on HN because it offends Americans and they flag these things on sight, though they desire to own the people who are speaking. ("The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice" (214 comments) is, of course, welcomed by HN). You're invited to translate it for yourself, as they have pointedly not released official statements in English, which is not and never has been their language.
https://siumut.gl/inuiattut-ataatsimoorpugut/ (Greenlandic)
https://dk.siumut.gl/vi-star-sammen-som-et-folk/ (Danish)
> "Ameerikkamiuunianngilagut, qallunaajunianngilagut, Kalaaliuniarpugut."
They may be loud, but the actual percentage of Americans who want to force Greenland to become a part of the US is similar to the percentage of Greenlanders who want Greenland to become part of the US.
It's curious to me though, that:
The majority of state governorships,
The majority of state congresses,
The majority of law enforcement,
The majority of military members,
The majority of the US house,
The majority of the US senate,
The majority of the US labor unions,
The majority of the US corporations,
The majority of the US media organizations; both legacy and new,
The majority of the US Supreme Court,
and of course the US Executive branch....
... all belong to the right-wing party we're supposed to believe, according to online rhetoric, is actually only backed by ~30% of Americans. You'd expect a more broad and public resistance if that were true?
Supposedly the centrists and left-wing party members are the silent majority while the right-wing party enacts their agenda with no resistance?
I think the reality is; what we see and hear in the real world is who the US truly is.
Some people are Republicans because of their opinions on abortion. Some because of their opinions on immigration or crypto regulation. Or their dislike of covid lockdown policies associated with Democrats. Or their preference for tariffs. And so on.
So if a given voter's most important issue is crypto regulation, even if this voter is pro-choice and supports traditional multi-lateral foreign policy, they very may well support Republican politicians, not because they are against abortion or want to invade Greenland, but because those issues are less important to them than their primary issue of crypto regulation.
Now I'm not saying this exonerates the character of the nation. One could argue that it is immoral for voters to prioritize crypto deregulation over multi-lateral foreign policy.
I'm just saying that it is very plausible that only a small minority of the US population supports an invasion of Greenland and, given the political system, there is nothing particularly mysterious about that fact.
I think for law enforcement and corporations, there is more money and power to be found in supporting the right, so it requires strong leadership to try to do what is best for the population instead of themselves. On the corporate side, this isn't helped by the view pushed into the legal system that corporations only social responsibility is to make the most money for their shareholders in the short term.
We seem to have a system of democracy that may be inferior to many other countries and the cracks are showing. On the not so positive other hand, countries that I would have said have a more robust system are also starting to show cracks, and I don't think it is only because of the influence of foreign big money.
Some of these are just wrong - unions generally lean democratic:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/17/key-facts...
I’m also skeptical of the media organization claim.
And it should surprise no one that purely profit driven corporations switch their professed values with different administrations - see the rapid adoption of DEI programs during the Biden administration, then subsequent abandonment in the Trump era.
(On a side note, I was quite surprised when during Trump’s inaugural speech on Jan 20 2025 he said America will expand its territory. I had no idea he really meant to attack other countries. How little did I know)
It’s not. Maduro’s removal is supported by roughly a third of Americans [1].
It’s vastly more popular than a military engagement over Greenland.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/only-33-americans-app...
If Trump quells all that and his invasion goes ahead, he'll trigger an international crisis too. Does NATO simply implode, or do the EU and other former-NATO countries form an anti-U.S. alliance? What kind of insurgency forms in Greenland? Does what's left of the old world order turn against the U.S. with economic sanctions? Does China take advantage of the moment to finally invade Taiwan? How loudly will Putin be laughing during all this?
We can only hope Trump is merely trying to distract people from the Epstein files with a bluff.
Alternatively, folks are not interested in /r/politics tier posting in _Hacker_ News.
The history of Greenland is interesting enough. A political statement from a political body is the kind of thing one can go see on CNN.
The realistic plan for Greenland involves it voting for independence from Denmark and then entering into a compact with the U.S. in the model of Palau.
No.
People are not their government.
> A poll from January shows that only 6% of Greenlanders are in favor of joining the U.S., with 85% against it.
Say what you want but presidential democracies where presidents are elected by popular vote are a disaster for stability and democracy.
What's happening with this doing and undoing in the US (or Russia, Belarus, Hungary and countless other presidential republics) fully displays why this is a terrible political system:
1. Winner takes all. You may have been voted by 50% + 1 (even less) citizens but the other half is totally not represented like in a parliament.
2. No parliament/party that you need to have backing of. In a parliamentary democracy the prime minister won't just lose opposition's votes, but has to govern in a way that its own party won't boot you.
3. Single person can claim popular mandate. Often in opposition to the parliament/senate whatever. So you end up in situations like the disaster in Poland where government and president are from different parties and the government gets vetoed everything.
4. Extremely hard to remove. A prime minister is a vote of no confidence away from losing its seat. The president can ask them to resign in extreme situations. A president? Removing them is beyond difficult.
Honestly this is such an obvious disaster to have people vote for a president rather than a parliamentary prime minister.
The last parliamentary democracy to turn authoritarian has been Sri Lanka 50+ years ago. It's very hard to get so bad so fast in parliamentary republics.
Honestly I can't comprehend Americans thinking their constitution is some holy grail. It's old and has been written centuries ago without all the experience we have in modern democracies. Eastern Europe too has made very bad choices with similar setups and democratically elected presidents.
Say what you want but Germany or Italy have built in way more resilience to these absurdities by having the parliament elect the president which forces them to elect mostly neutral unbiased figures that will support and oversee whoever ends up being in government.
There exists a concept of "American exceptionalism" [1], which describes this popular belief that the US are superior. It also probably goes with the fact that it is a very big country sharing one culture, and it is easy to not spend too much time looking at what other countries are doing.
> presidential democracies where presidents are elected by popular vote are a disaster
I would like to add France to the examples supporting your case: in the first round, Macron got less than 20% of the votes, and a non-negligible part of those was already trying to be "efficient". As in, the people would have voted for someone else, but they voted for Macron because it seemed more likely that he could win against Le Pen, the far-right candidate.
This means that less than 20% of the people (those who voted of course) wanted Macron. On his first day, more than 80% didn't want him. Still he behaves like if the French people wanted him.
> by having the parliament elect the president
An example I like is Switzerland: they don't have a president at all. They elect their parliament, and the parliament elects the Federal Council made of 7 people from the main parties.
What this means is that the executive power is a consensus by construction, and most of the people is represented (because the Federal Council is made of the major parties, which represent the majority of the people and go from left to right).
Feeling represented is very important: when the people does not feel represented, they take out to the street and protest. I don't think it happens as much in the countries you described (Germany, Italy) or Switzerland.
Some Americans, even here on HN, genuinely believe that different states have different cultures in the same way different countries in Europe have different cultures cultures.
Well he's the closest to that benchmark no?
You can hardly regulate how emboldened a person feels, especially after having obtained such a big result.
He is the most liked person in France , as if you just take into consideration the raw number of people who like him and ignore those who dislike , his number would be higher than the everybody else.
It's always like that with elections, once the polls are closed and the votes counted someone will have a mandate and a mandate is determined by number of preferences expressed. Those who stayed home or the raw number of "dislikes" doesn't count.
A thing that would somewhat diminish the power of the elected person is an election where just 15-20% of the population who has the right to vote decided to cast their vote
My point was that instead of having one person trying to "represent" the people, you can split that role.
That’s not true. “I want someone else more than X” isn’t the same as “I don’t want X”. That’s the advantage of Approval voting and Ranked Choice voting—you can make those things clear.
If you look at the situation in France, I think it's pretty damn obvious that the people don't feel represented by their government.
My point was not to nitpick on the numbers, but rather to say that having a president elected by the people and having as much executive power as the president has in France doesn't seem to work really well. As opposed to countries that enforce a consensus.
I agree with your argument in general, but couldn't this still happen with a parliament? If a party controls 50% + 1 of the parliament, then they're in control. Still, it's better than that control being given to a single person of course.
Typically the parliament is fractured in multiple parties, because in parliamentarism there is not automatic incentive to vote for one of the big parties otherwise you are wasting your vote. If the party you vote for has 5% of the representation in the parliament, it can still be part of a coalition to form the government and influence decisions.
However, the big parties often consist of sub-factions.
However, it seems there are mechanisms that turn parties into dictatorships with one person ruling everything in the entire party, as well as people get carried away with negative emotions and vote against, polarizing the politics into just 2 parties alternating in power.
( Labor Vs. Liberal+Nationals OR (cartoonishly) "Masses" Vs Urban-Capital+Rural-LandOwners (comically grotesque oversimplification) )
There are, however, many smaller parties that a great many people vote on first in proportional run-offs.
Australians are well aware that the smaller parties often don't get a seat but they're also well aware that the voltes are tallied to reveal the issues championed by smaller parties and how the secondary preferences "run off" to the majors.
eg: (say) Labor only squeaked in ahead of the Liberals because people that care about issue {X} first then preferenced Labor second .. expecting Labor to address that issue.
Fail to address an issue and the margin votes switch secondary preferences.
( That said, a number of small parties do hold independant seats )
Much of this small party preference voting kicked off from The Australian Democrats, a centrist political party founded in 1977 with the slogan
Keep the Bastards Honest.
Those smaller parties end up having an important role, because typically the Major parties cannot form a government otherwise. So the major parties end up having to make some concessions to get a coalition going.
It is a stabilizing force.
This sounds like the system failing as designed.
I don't think it's the Constitution in of itself that's a holy grail. Just look at how hotly debated the 2nd Amendment is, especially among Americans.
I think the true holy grail is the process to amend it, because that requires a relatively clear majority of Americans to agree to change it; well beyond 50% if I remember American civics correctly. It's a living document, changed as needed. It just hasn't as of late because the process is arduous on purpose to prevent heated decisions from being rushed through.
The Westminster system "solves" this problem by having an actual king but giving them zero powers. The German system I think you're right is superior. Ireland also seems to have a nice system.
Americans are very enamoured with their constitution, and it has some good words in it. Too bad they don't seem like they want to actually defend it with the real source of power .. which is not words, or "well-armed militias" [almost always the wrong kind], but feet in the street.
And that's not even getting into the complete and total dysfunction of their two party structure.
It's strange how much reverence Americans place in the presidential role as if it were actually a king.
The blurring of the executive and the military, the adoration of troops and war, etc. All very strange(?) for a country whose military has only ever been really involved in outside interference and war and not defense of homeland.
"Thank you for your service" is an odd phrase to hear to non-Americans -- service for what? The US is at no risk of invasion.
Hegseth is a low-IQ fascist fool, but renaming to Department of War is at least acknowledging reality.
The Trump government just mostly says the formerly quiet part out loud.
Well they are serving the US military, which is generally used for the benefit of the US people. Does not mean it's defending their territory.
Now to be fair, when the US people thanks their soldiers for their service, I don't think they are necessarily thankful for the US threatening to invade what used to be considered as allies (like Canada or Europe).
But I do agree that it is an odd phrase to hear to non-Americans.
So usually it’s said even if the nation isn’t at war because it’s not an easy job. You’ll hear Americans say it to first responders, nurses, fire fighters, police officers, &c.
Idk why it’s being characterized as weird though instead of what it is which is just an aspect of our culture to say thanks to others who are doing jobs you perceive to be dangerous or difficult.
As a veteran of the US armed forces I hate it because I never know what to say…”thanks for your service’ …uh you’re welcome? But it comes from a good place. Though I try to remind folks that saying thanks isn’t enough, spend time and money helping others, vote, keep your community clean, have high standards for yourself and others, because otherwise your fellow citizens are doing all this for nothing.
But the "service" is more likely to be "invading another country" than "defending the US territory from an invasion", so when you are not a US citizen, it may feel odd.
Again, the US have threatened to invade quite a few democracies in the last year. Not sure how happy the people living there are about that "service"...
This might be off-topic for the main discussion, but worth to point out: Greenland is not a part of EU.
Once you are in power and you have things arranged the way you want, you claim that violence is not the answer.
Otherwise, practically speaking might makes right.
So for Greenlanders and those opposed to the US imperialism, it makes sense to say that the rule of existing law must prevail, regardless of the fact that there is no traditional military willing and able to back this up.
However, if you are American and you stand to benefit, what you want to happen is backed up by the most powerful military the world has ever seen.
And I bet a good chunk of people in Greenland know that with no roads and no infrastructure, they can go toe to toe with the US military inland, that is until they stop getting shipments of grain. But can even the vaunted US military blockade this continent sized island, especially with zero allies in tow?
So morally speaking, both parties are in the right. But you can predict what the outcome would eventually be, it is very much David vs Goliath, barring Greenlandic alignment with another foreign power in a proxy war.
Ethically speaking, the chronic under development and under investment in the global North is not beneficial to humanity. Viewed from afar, it does seem that Denmark has not been handling this colonial remnant particularly well.
That would be just $50B - a pretty cheap way to increase the size of the USA by 20%.
Trying to be diplomatic? I've seen a lot of really insane shit in comment sections -- and even more insane shit from public officials -- over the last year since these "topics" came up.
Belief in or unconscious absorbance of the concept of "manifest destiny" and American exceptionalism seems to run deep in a portion of the American psyche.
No, it's not "their" continent to take. Might doesn't make right. And it certainly doesn't make for superiority in anything but brawn and bravado.
I'll also add this: the (imho encouraging) trend in the north and with the indigenous populations there has been in the opposite direction from what the Trump regime is proposing: sovereignty and autonomy for the Inuit to run their own lands. Canada carved out new Inuit administered territories, trying in some respect (and inconsistently) to rectify over a century of mis(mal?)governance and exploitation and mistreatment.
From the polls I see the Inuit in Greenland want more self governance, not a new external boss.
We had a similar scenario during the Scottish independence referendum with the international media going to London to talk about the matter.
As for the Manifest Destiny thing, maybe I'm wrong here, but I'm thinking more Monroe Doctrine. Manifest Destiny was heading westward, and grabbing Greenland, or even Venezuela, seems more aimed at those who would influence them from outside the Americas.
But we were invaded (twice) here in Canada (or what became Canada) by the US. The only people to have ever invaded us. And when they did so, their leaders at the time were definitely flying the Manifest Destiny rhetoric. So much so they could not even imagine why the Quebecois and others didn't just welcome them with open arms.
So, no, I think it definitely applies northward too, not just westward. Or at least some of the ideological underpinnings of it.
Yes, I'm aware of the US attempts on Canada. I think US pop culture, and TV has done a better job of Americanising Canada than the military... Same with Europe.
This isn't really because of TV or cultural export but because of real population origins and movements. We say "pop" and have "Canadian raising" in our speech, and so do people from Minnesota or Wisconsin and that doesn't come from TV or radio or movies. It comes from being neighbours and descended from the same population groups. The border also used to be a lot more porous. My mother's mother were (German descendant) North Dakotans who just basically popped across the border and started farming and lived in Sask and Alberta... without a lot of legal hassle at all.
Overtop of that, yes, there is a whole set of other cultural/legal/economic overlays, and media is a big part of that.
But this is still a regional story-- there's I think more in common culturally between e.g. regular families in Ontario and Wisconsin than there is between Wisconsin and Florida.
From that perspective, I have rarely fallen back to Canadian nationalism. I would in fact have been more in favour of a stronger union between some US states and the US economy and Canada -- in the past. But events of the last year have made clear what many our Loyalist ancestors already tried to warn us about 200 years ago: there is a dark and frankly kind of insane undercurrent in American political culture, and the foundations of the Canadian state are anything but artificial, they are based on an entirely different perspective on governance and culture because there's something kinda messed up in the kernel of the American conception of governance.
Which I think the people of Minnesota are seeing right now.
And you can say what you want about safety nets for poor people, but that doesn’t affect most Americans. My parents are on Medicare and they head down to the ER every time have a stomach ache and get a CAT scan. Meanwhile my family is convinced that Canadian healthcare nearly killed my aunt when she had a kidney issue because they didn’t immediately schedule her for a million tests and surgery. (I suspect that isn’t true and the Canadian system reasonably triaged the care.)
And to be clear, I like Canada (and I love Denmark). I’d rather have a more orderly society with an efficient and expansive government that’s focused on comprehensive outcomes across the population, in contrast to our system where you have McMansions but randomly you can fall through a giant crack. But Americans temperamentally are biased towards upside potential and they devalue downside risk. This is a cultural trait that seems very quickly absorbed even by immigrants. My immigrant family isn’t meaningfully American in many respects—they don’t have Anglo sensibilities about things like civic institutions and personal freedoms—but they’re indistinguishable from other americans in their materialistic optimism
Yes, but that does not go against the parent comment. When you grow up in it, you have it in you, and it's difficult to question it. If you ask Americans who live abroad, they often have a more nuanced perspective.
Apart from American finding it better in the US than everywhere else in the world (your "noticing"), there is this tendency from Americans to genuinely believe that the rest of the world agrees with that. "Everybody wants to live in the US because it is the best country in the world".
And this is very, very far from true. It's not just about money. The US have a lot of fossil energy, which is good for their economy, which is good for their military. The US is a big and rich country, which makes it powerful. But that is bad for the countries and people who are threatened by the US (and recently the US have been militarily threatening countries who until then were seeing the US as an ally or at least a friend), and it is bad for our survival (through the climate and biodiversity issues).
Tons of people outside of the US wouldn't want to live in the US, even if it meant earning more money. And on top of that, tons of people outside of the US feel threatened by the US, for good reasons.
Your parents are part of the problem. The ER isn't supposed to be used that way.
COUNTRY: AVERAGE HOUSE SIZE IN SQUARE FEET 2025
#1 Australia: 2,303
#2 United States: 2,299
#3 New Zealand: 2,174
#4 Canada: 1,948
#5 ...
The US does have a higher rate of wealth inequality than Oz and here in Canuckistan tho.
What are your Mom's thoughts on the US's poor life expectancy compared to Australia, Canada, etc?
To Rayiner more stuff, bigger stuff = happier and more fullfilling life. An incredible lack of depth.
That is also the reason why Americans when they go abroad are astonished and always come back saying "people are amazing" somewhere else, well no wonder considering the state of domestic affairs and domestic relationships between people.
Please offer my apologies to your mom , as it's true that our vehicles are dangerously underdimensioned , maybe next time something in the order of 10-15 short tons could be adequate to transport her to the nearest McMansion (or McDonald's rather).
A more diplomatic way to say it would be that it is a different culture. And I would agree that Americans struggle to see that other countries have different cultures and different priorities.
If you believe that the goal in life is to live like an American, then obviously the best at doing that are... the Americans. The mistake is to not recognise that other people may have different beliefs.
Please read my whole post! I’m a Europoor at heart. I live in a 3BR house with three kids and no yard despite being able to afford a bigger one. I drive an EV, and it’s not a Tesla. I’m just trying to convey my impression of American culture though the lens of my mom, who embodies this aspect of American culture quite strongly.
That's about as diplomatic as I can summon up as a reply to your comment, whose substance mostly proves my point about the bizarre exceptionalist world Americans seem to occupy in their heads. It really isn't "noticing"... what you're talking about. It's ideology.
Also GDP per capita is the kind of garbage metric I would expect someone frequent on this forum, and hopefully literate in statistics, to understand the ridiculousness of deploying in conversation.
Also, there's rarely anybody more invested in seeing the superiority of their new (chosen) place other than immigrants, so I don't think that's the argumentative flex you think it is.
Also, my cousin grew up in Windsor and having been there plenty of times, it’s shit too.
But many would find them wasteful, and a terrible place to live, compared to a decently sized apartment (one 10m² - 100 sq ft - bedroom per person/couple and maybe an extra office) in a walkable town.
Just as we find american SUVs totally inadequate compared to our cars.
And it's not matter of cost, we're perfectly “happy” paying borrowing millions of euro for such apartments, and paying far more for our cars.
Same experience with safety nets too. America has tons of welfare. Not sure why people have issues with it honestly.
Absolute eye-roll territory here.
What was arrogant about my post? My point was that Canadians (like you) often exhibit this baffling, unfounded sense of superiority, one completely at odds with cold, hard migration data, as well as the habits of successful Canadians. It's especially baffling in light of Canada's "lost decade" of flat real GDP growth. Canada now has a per capita GDP that's lower than all but one or two U.S. states, and its economic "growth" is just people selling overpriced houses back and forth to each other. Yet the arrogance and condescending attitude towards their southern neighbor remains.
Just a profound sense of your lack of it.
> I think most Americans are much more mobile and not used to the idea that someone could be strongly attached to an area as their home.
You think the people in the falklands are "native" to the falkland islands?
As to whether they are native, that is a whole other can of worms, but they are more rooted to there than people who live in continental South America. Geographically they can't claim to be British but by sympathy they are. Things were shifting in Argentina's favour until the invasion.
By the way, this does apply to a certain percentage of Greenlanders. There are a few European Greenlanders, or people of recent mixed heritage so we could make similar arguments about them.
Even replacing independence with becoming part of the US - any one time payment couldn't ensure the continuation of the welfare state. That is, free healthcare, free higher education, access to social support, etc.
Yes if the one time payment is then invested in a big fund like Norway has, or considering the outcome that is at play here...more like California has with its CalPers
Of course it means that the actual money would be invested in US companies , hence subject to expropriation of the stock
And even the actual money if in dollars they can be taken away at any time
Maybe they should try this one.
[1] Just learned that US Virgin islands are ex Danish colony US bought from Denmark about a century ago. In that agreement United States recognized Denmark's control over Greenland. Funny that.
Furthermore, what you are suggesting is literally a mafia practice - sell us your business/property for an unfair price or we'll take it by force anyway.
They don't have a choice, they can't split away from Denmark right now, they are like in jail.
If someone tells you that Greenland can declare independence tomorrow without consequences from Denmark this is not true. They would first need to do great PR "we want freedom" and spread in the news that Denmark is evil and forgot about them, etc.
In 1979, Greenland achieved Home Rule, which included the formation of the Greenlandic Parliament, and it gained self-rule in 2009 through the passage of a law that included a ‘blueprint’ for seeking independence. The 2009 law firmly established that the decision to go for independence from Denmark would now rest with the Greenlandic people.
There is no doubt that the majority of Greenlanders want to use this option eventually. Polls show this. Independence has been accepted in Denmark as well. However, polls also consistently show that Greenlanders do not want independence if the price is the collapse of the Greenlandic welfare state.
Of course, you can't do that, there are criminal consequence: yes you can get arrested for that. Like in any country.
There are even worse: financial consequences (600M USD lost per year!).
But what if a richer buddy offers you protection and more money ?
In that specific agreement:
> "The agreement on independence shall be endorsed by a referendum in Greenland. The agreement shall furthermore be subject to the consent of the Folketing [Danish Parliament]."
It's "yes, you can leave, but you need our permission".
Today, Danish parliament is not really happy at the idea of giving away Greenland to anyone.
https://www.euronews.com/2026/01/08/danish-soldiers-would-sh...
They won't shoot at the US, but they can repress protests if that gets too far.
Finding a new "buddy" to replace Denmark makes no sense. Why would they want to swap their dependence on a country which likes its welfare state (and is demonstrably good at administering it) for one which takes a notoriously dim view on such things?
2) Greenland becoming independent implies changing the borders of the kingdom of Denmark. That obviously requires a decision by parliament, no way around it.
Anyone interested in the facts can see the law in question here:
https://www.lovtidende.dk/api/pdf/125052
It would obviously not exist if Denmark was hellbent on denying Greenland its independence. All it does is lay out an orderly and straightforward process for the transition.
Statistically you are right, but in practice I would be cautious. I'm betting on the fact that a mad world is going to be even more mad (I couldn't imagine US threatening to invade Denmark... though I understand the US opportunity as well).
10 years ago I would totally agree with you.
So let's see.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_the_Danish_West_Indi...
> During 1916, the two sides agreed to a sale price of $25,000,000, and the United States accepted a Danish demand for a declaration stating that they would "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland".
Nobody would, but 1 trillion defense (scratch that) war budget says you have to agree.
Why did denmark trust any treaty with the US when the US had broken pretty much every international treaty prior to and since?
The history of the world is a history of broken treaties. The US nor Denmark would exist without broken treaties.
Denmark has given the US exclusive and full military access to Greenland but the US does not use it. This has nothing to do with security.
1. Campaign for Greenland's independence, and apply pressure on Denmark to achieve that. Offer security agreements and trade deals to a newly independent Greenland.
A small majority of Greenlander's support independence today; this number would likely rise if they knew they had strong external support.
2. The trade agreements, security agreements and goodwill of Greenlanders for #1 would bring Greenland into the American sphere of influence.
3. Over time, use carrots and sticks to tie Greenland closer & closer to America.
This strategy has a high likelihood of success, has the moral high ground and would minimize the damage to America's alliances.
The only problem is that it would take multiple decades, and Trump won't be around that long.
Put sanctions on Denmark, not like actual sanctions, just +10000% tariffs.
Open investigations for corruption, funding terrorism, release dirty secrets of the government.
Help migrants to go to Denmark.
Arrange with Russia little green men to come on the island or just make it fear that Russia is planning an attack. US to the rescue.
Offer lot of money to each inhabitants.
Spread information that Denmark abandoned the island for so many years.
Plenty of ideas.
Those in my list are somewhat debatable, but you can get creative and figure out good ones.
etc
It's especially tragicomical when they frame it as a defense measure against Russia - which those same people are generally aligned with.
There is more than a hint of "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it" to those kinds of rationalizations.
How is a country that has sanctions against Russia, sends aid to a country it is at war with, and has recently been seizing Russian ships be aligned with Russia?
US aid towards Ukraine is just strong enough to keep the conflict going indefinitely (the “forever wars” policy) without resolving it.
What is really happening here is part of the Monroe Doctrine [1]. Trump is trying to consolidate the Western Hemisphere. Remember Canada being the 51st state?
Not only that. This accord is in force since 1951:
Inuit people are understood to have lived in Greenland since as early as 2,500BC and it was reached by Norse seafarers in the first millennium AD, who established settlements lasting several centuries. Modern colonisation began after the arrival of Hans Egede in 1721, acting with the support of what was then Denmark-Norway. During the second world war, when Denmark was occupied by Germany, Greenland was occupied by the US and was returned to Denmark in 1945.
It became part of the kingdom of Denmark in 1953, and in 1979 home rule was introduced. But Denmark still controls Greenland’s foreign and security policy. It has its own parliament, Inatsisartut, and two MPs in the Danish parliament, Folketing. But calls for independence have been growing.
Tensions have escalated significantly between Greenland and Denmark in recent years. There is intense anger in Greenland over investigations into the forced contraceptive (IUD) scandal of the 1960s and 70s, prompting the former Greenlandic prime minister to accuse Denmark of genocide. There have also been protests in Copenhagen and Nuuk over the separation of Greenlandic children from their parents. Denmark has banned the use of highly controversial “parenting competency” tests on Greenlandic people that have resulted in Greenlandic mothers being separated from their children. In September, after years of failing to acknowledge the violations, Denmark officially apologised to the victims of the IUD scandal, in which thousands of Greenlandic women and girls were forcibly fitted with contraceptive coils without their knowledge or consent. And in December, victims won a legal fight with the Danish government to receive compensation.
In recent years there has been growing support for Greenlandic independence. But amid the spectre of Trump’s threat, Greenland in March formed a new four-party coalition government in a show of national unity, with the first page of the coalition agreement stating: “Greenland belongs to us.” The pro-independence party, Naleraq, which is the most US- and Trump-friendly party, came second in the election and is now in opposition. According to a 2009 agreement with Denmark, Greenland must hold a successful referendum before declaring independence.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/06/why-is-donald-...
Europe has a long and sordid history of such colonialist horrors but few perpetrated these crimes so recently.
When you think about the history of Europe you are faced with a society that violently performs genocide repeatedly. Having pacified the population through these eugenic methods they now claim that present day Greenlanders would rather be part of them.
Indeed one is reminded of Crimea, now assuredly Russian, and Donbas which will answer similarly.
In the end, there are people alive today who escaped the European 250k/month killings. Nothing comparable in the US.
Yes it's true, this is how US was built (and almost all countries)
Not necessarily. USA certainly had bigger guns in Vietnam and Afghanistan, and yet they eventually had to retreat from both.
And by the way, that’s not even the whole story. The civil rights movement succeeded without force or violence for the most part. So your whole framework is pretty flimsy I think.
Who decides what is morally unacceptable? Those with power.
> Force doesn’t determine morality.
Really? How else is morality enforced? Other than by force?
> It determines what happens.
What happens? Like deciding what is moral or not?
> Your statement amounts to a tautology: “whatever happens is what happens”
No it doesn't.
The historical path of Greenland in DK is irrelevant.
if it becomes US territory would it not be more like be more like Alaska than Venezuela?
> full rights as EU citizens and local autonomy to decide who gets the mining concessions
There is no such thing as an EU citizen - people are citizens of EU states. Would an independent Greenland join the EU? Would it join NATO? I can see advantages for a small (in population) country with rich national resources playing the big powers against each other.
Indigenous Greenlanders have also been treated pretty badly by Denmark, even very recently, not just a long time ago when it was a colony:
https://www.arctictoday.com/a-view-from-greenland-about-forc...
People are citizens of both the EU and the member states:
Why not something like Puerto Rico? why would Trump give rights to natives of Greenland? those people would vote Democrats , less of the two evils.
The next parliamentary elections are scheduled for 2029, too late for a pro-Trump swing unless he manages to stay in office somehow.
Not that Denmark (or even the EU) is capable of militarily defending it now. But politically it carries more clout than a tiny population in its own state.
I think the situation of Quebec here in Canada does show it's possible for regions/provinces to become somewhat more sovereign in their own land without full legal independence. Even if that has been fraught with all sorts of ridiculous conflict.
It's never been about what greenlanders want. It's why greenland was a colony for hundreds of years. It's why the argument over Greenland is between the US and Denmark/EU without much involvement from greenlanders. The US has been trying to buy Greenland from Denmark since we bought Alaska from the russians ( not the native alaskans ).
> local autonomy to decide who gets the mining concessions, under competitive terms open to all countries that maximize their profits, which stay in their hands.
In an ideal world sure. But we don't live in an ideal world. The US is not going allow the EU, Russia and most importantly China or anybody else to set up a significance presence in greenland.
Greenland is US territory in everything but name. Trump is just formalizing it and letting the international community come to terms with it.
This is the problem with historical narratives, history is not established fact but a continuous re-evaluation of the past. There is always that wako who will interpret some convenient or made up facts as proof that "Greenland is American in all but name".
> The US officially took over greenland after denmark *allied* with nazi germany during ww2. People forget that the danes were nazi collaborators.
Was occupied, comrade, is the word you're looking for. They've forgot to put it in your metodichka.
Occupied? More like warmly welcomed in. Read about the german "invasion" of denmark if you want a good laugh. Denmark was nazi collaborators.
Your comments are more than enough, don't need to go there.
- Will the rare earth minerals be mined eventually? As far as I see EU is going into that direction as well, as Greenland became so strategic over time
- What happens with all the land rights that American mineral extraction companies already bought? It means that even if EU/Greenland accepts mining they are already starting from a losing position
- What happens if the American government pays off the people and they want to join US? Will the Danish government still believe in the self determination of Greenland, or it's just political talk?
- what happens after US gets Greenland? Will NATO fall apart and EU get into an even worse position?
- They either mine the minerals responsibly or ask their king to take over the country so they can mine irresponsibly
- Bribery to vote for independence and subsequent joining with the US is the only legal way that Greenland will become part of the US. It would have to be accepted by the Kingdom of Denmark
- Depends on whether it is done legally or with force. If done with force NATO would go under pretty fast. If done with bribery NATO is probably done anyway just way further out.
Honestly I believe if they are willing to sell their future like that, they deserve everything the turd reich does to them.