>Europe owns Greenland, it also owns a lot of Treasuries. We spent most of last year arguing that for all its military and economic strength, the US has one key weakness: it relies on others to pay its bills via large external deficits. Europe, on the other hand, is America’s largest lender: European countries own $8 trillion of US bonds and equities, almost twice as much as the rest of the world combined.
>In an environment where the geoeconomic stability of the western alliance is being disrupted existentially, it is not clear why Europeans would be as willing to play this part. Danish pension funds were one of the first to repatriate money and reduce their dollar exposure this time last year. With USD exposure still very elevated across Europe, developments over the last few days have potential to further encourage dollar rebalancing.
>. . . From our perspective the key thing to watch over the next few days will be whether the EU decides to activate its anti-coercion instrument by putting measures that impact capital markets on the table.
>With the US net international investment position at record negative extremes, the mutual inter-dependence of European-US financial markets has never been higher. It is a weaponization of capital rather than trade flows that would by far be the most disruptive to markets.
https://www.ft.com/content/beeaf869-ca12-4178-95a1-bfb69ee27...
Sure, maybe Trump's peculiar mix of ego and ignorance might mean he's one of the few exceptions to that rule - but if he were to actually try claiming that a bond rout is somehow good news in the middle of a market panic, the reaction from distressed would be investors would be hard even for him to ignore.
But historically, he apes Putin's strongman routine. He wants to be him. Bibi too. Too powerful to be prosecuted.
He's got a few years left, doesn't give a shit, and knows he can strip mine the US for his family before he goes.
Greenland has a parliament and manages its own domestic affairs. Denmark manages some domains like foreign and defense policy, but Greenland governs its own territory.
I'm not saying there isn't a deal to be made but it's got to be with the people of Greenland.
If it can get federal control over greenland it doesnt need to take Canada. The case where Canada must be annexed is if Greenland somehow remains part of Denmark.
How does this follow? The US/Canada have previously made numerous mutual defense and land concession deals for joint infrastructure projects and defensive purposes. It's been USA policy for 150 years not to allow foreign interference in the Americas, and potential for Mexican or Canada to be used as grounds for continental attacks on the USA has been the cause of several pre-emptive wars.
If the US desired a military port in the arctic, such a deal could assuredly be negotiated again. As Canada's #1 trading partner, we also have significant leverage on negotiating mineral access and equitable property rights.
What does inheriting Canada's internal challenges including Quebec Succession discussions grant the USA? What makes the US "need" to own Canada?
They stand up for this.
> only that they would rather support him than the Democrats.
This literally counts as "uniformly supporting Trump". Nothing less. They are all in for Trump agenda. It is straightforwardly absurd to claim that this somehow represents someone against that agenda. And no, "I do it only because I prefer this over voting with people who are against it" does not changes anything on it.
If you would rather support Trumps agenda then vote with Democrats, then you are supporting Trump. And no, it is not as if they had to make some ideological or ethical sacrifice by voting with Democrats here. They cant do it simply because they support Trump.
Okay, but I can just as easily say that you are pro-crime because you share a coalition with progressives that get district attorneys like Chesa Boudin elected (just this week the newly-elected Democratic state legislature in Virginia introduced bills to reduce the penalties for burglary, a violent crime - no normal person was asking for this).
You have a point that anyone in a coalition supports the most extreme actions of that coalition, but if you can’t make any distinction between the intents of different actors in the coalition, the only option becomes total defeat of the other side. But that is difficult to achieve in practice, particularly with a near 50-50 party split like we have in the US today. Even when the US decisively defeated the Confederacy, there were still a lot of people that either sympathized with the South or at least thought an indefinite military occupation of the South wasn’t worth it (like the US tired of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan), which is why Reconstruction ended.
So counting on total defeat of the other side is a fool’s errand, unless one side or the other executes a coup, which sadly is looking more and more likely. Trump supporters argue that the Democrats and their sympathizers in the Republican Party performed a soft coup during Covid and the 2020 election, which is why Trump has taken care to surround himself with loyalists this time around.
In what world does the president have the authority to annex an autonomous territory from an ally?
Oh wait, that's the history of humanity - especially the bloody brutal history of Colonialism & Imperialism.
USA (rather The Five Eyes led by USA), EU, China are not just nations or blocs. They are Empires.
And this is what Empires do best: war (war for oil/resources, war for territory, war for wealth & glory, war for slaves, etc.)
If anyone threatened to take your home by force if you didn’t sell at his favorite price, the sane social discussion would focus on their uncivil threat and pro-social responses, not on victim blaming “the core issue is that I’ve abdicated my ability to defend my house by force.”
You could have a reasonable conversation about sovereign defense budgets and alliance contributions, but not while you’re threatening the sovereignty of an ally.
And all of this will make American citizens less safe, not more. It’s madness. There’s nothing to be gained here for most people by threat of force or hybrid warfare.
If you can't trust foreign governments any more than they can trust you (you are the foreigner to them, after all), why not just divvy up the world into a bunch of "hunger games" districts and use gunboat diplomacy to keep them in line?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unified_Command_map_...
I think the US may just remain secure without owning Greenland. I mean it's done ok so far.
As for conflict, what? The US already has military bases there and the only threat to continued military access to the area is that the US is acting like a fucking two year old and pissing off all of its allies.
And imagine the worst case scenario. The US loses access to the land and sea in the entire region. How specifically does this dramatically change US security? Is a naval invasion launched from Greenland actually a thing people are worried about? Surely a better approach to maintain US security is, you know, a stable global order and military alliances with other powerful nations in the region?
China is going to end up being every bit as powerful as the US ever was, both economically and militarily. Nothing will be off the table in what's coming. Russia has never had a true global projection navy, China will have a navy that is plausibly going to be both larger and more powerful than the US navy with full global reach. That global reach will include the entire North and South American region.
If you're the US you look to lock down Greenland and Panama, for starters.
In practice Greenland and Denmark have been quite sensitive to these things are unlikely to open a Chinese naval base. Which is one of the things that's sad about this - why attack one of your most faithful allies and wreck NATO in a way that horries most of the democratic world and delights Moscow? Not really the US's finest hour.
We now live in a world that knows for a fact a deal with the US is worth nothing and can not even be relied upon to last more than six months.
Countries and allies that made trade deals with Trump after he destroyed existing deals are now seeing further petty tariffs being applied by what appears to be a giant baby.
All the movements of plastic ships and little horses on a Risk map aside, the steady undercurrent of reliable trade and markets is headed out the window in an act of self defenestration.
I've thought more and more as time passes, that Jeanne Kirkpatrick was right when she said after the Cold War that the US should declare victory and exit NATO.
More from me on this: <https://np.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1b50qf5/the_uns...> and <https://np.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1ax0sx5/consequ...>
And the US has had full access to it for defense purposes since 1951:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp
At the end of WWII, the US had 17 military facilities on Greenland. By its own choice, it is now down to 1:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_in_Greenland
> As of 2020 Denmark's Arctic Command has one aircraft, four helicopters, four ships, and six dog sleds to patrol the entire island
Maybe you didn't notice, but it's 2026 now. Here's an update for you:
https://nordicdefencesector.com/en/article/denmark-invests-2...
> Greenland can declare independence on its own at any time
And wants to keep it that way. Considering what happened the last time secession was attempted in the US, and the legal aftermath which ruled it unconstitutional,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White#Majority_opinio...
that alone is enough to make joining the US a non-starter for them:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3kw5ezepo
> there is always an uncertainty from having to depend on a foreign government
So "uncertainty" is now a valid reason to invade allies? Because maybe some day they might no longer want to be allied? Put it that way and it seems more like a "psychological need". Oh, wait...
https://people.com/donald-trump-wants-ownership-greenland-ps...
> Annexation would also simplify US access to Greenland's natural resources
Implied in that statement is that it would allow mining companies to ignore what the natives want. We've seen that movie before (and so have the Greenlanders):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act#Legacy
> it leeches €600 million from Copenhagen annually
And this is a problem for the US?
> with Denmark and the US paying for everything
What is this "everything" that the US is supposedly paying for, other than the upkeep of the single military base it's kept there?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituffik_Space_Base
Personnel: 150. That is the measure of how important the US actually thinks Greenland is for its security. Needless to say, those 150 Americans are not there to defend Greenland; they are there to operate a US Space Force remote tracking station which provides early warning if something bad heads toward the continental US over the North Pole. You want the Greenlanders to pay for that?
> Greenland a) is inevitably going to gain independence—every single poll for decades has shown this
What the polls show is that the Greenlanders would like to become independent. They've had the option to do so since 2009, and they have not, because they know that Greenland
> b) is completely unable to function on its own as a bona fide independent country
Exactly. Now explain how you reconcile your (a) with your (b). Don't forget to explain why they would want to do so if they have "the best of all worlds now", which you claimed just before enunciating (a).
> I don't believe that the US would invade Greenland militarily; it will likely buy it
Which part of "no" don't you understand?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c338rm41y88o
https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idRW556309012026RP1/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/18/trump-consider...
> But let's say that the US does, and NATO dissolves.
Thus ending the security architecture which has kept Europe from blowing up the world a third time for nearly eight decades. In place of which you propose to put what?
> It comes down to net benefits. Would owning Greenland be more valuable for American national security, than the current NATO status quo of the US being willing to to accept its own cities being nuked if Russia invades Western Europe?
Quite obviously not. Let's say the US takes Greenland by force. First, this will happen:
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/19/politics/video/donald-tru...
Second, Russia would immediately follow the example and seize Svalbard while the West is busy tearing itself apart. And of course create a security zone around Murmansk; as you surely know, the Russian Northern Fleet's main base is less than 30 miles from the (current) Norwegian border:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapadnaya_Litsa_(naval_base)
Another little thing which would be taken care of quickly would be that corridor to Kaliningrad which they've been wanting since their latest imperial collapse:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suwa%C5%82ki_Gap
The Baltics would then be easy pickings.
At this point you have Denmark in a shooting war with the US; and Norway, Poland, the three Baltic states and most likely Finland + Sweden in a shooting war with Russia; the perfect moment for China to make its move on Taiwan, and for North Korea to "help" by attacking South Korea (incidentally seizing or destroying 90% of the world's compute production capacity).
Congratulations, you just started WW III.
And all because of a "psychological need" which could only be satisfied by turning half a billion friends into enemies who will never forget, let alone forgive, your betrayal.
Brilliant strategy.
The way I see it, I only need to be able to deadlift things like jacks, chains, SSQA fork frames, etc.
If anything, the Greenlanders have fought for the right to be Greenlanders.
> How are you treating Hawaii
Hawaiians are Americans, so we treat them fine I guess?
Where were you educated?
Citizens of other Nordic countries can also live and work in Greenland without any permits. However, some jobs are restricted to Danish citizens who were born or raised in Greenland. EU citizens need a residence permit, because Greenland is not in the EU.
https://theconversation.com/greenland-is-rich-in-natural-res...
Greenland is either about Trump intentionally causing chaos with NATO for the benefit of Russia (depending on your politics), or it's the Pentagon & Co. looking to lock down strategic territory for the near future superpower stand-off with China, which will be a global conflict (and may involve China and Russia on one side). Controlling Greenland and Alaska would provide the US with enormous Arctic Ocean positioning. Now what does that have to do with China you may ask? Trade, transit and military asset positioning. The US is looking to secure what it regards as its hemisphere, while China is about to massively push outward globally with a projection navy. The US has less than ~20 years to lock down its hemisphere (again, what the US believes to be its hemisphere) before China starts showing up with its navy everywhere. There will be constant navy-navy challenges everywhere. China will constantly probe the US points of control, for all the obvious reasons. The US will want to keep China as far away as possible.
Denial to others? If you're going to the Arctic from the south, you have to come up through either the Bering straight (next to Alaska) or through the waters around Greenland.
The US only recognizes two threatening competitor powers in the world today: China and Russia. Russia is of course not what it was during the Soviet era. However a long-term partnership with China would change the dynamic a lot. Russian territory may come to host major Chinese ports in time. For the right price it's extremely likely that China can buy a multi port deal in the Arctic Ocean region from Russia. It'd be invaluable access & projection potential for China. Any superpower would want that realistically.
By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does
Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to Moscow.
This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada.
And no, Canada is not a particularly cooperative military partner. Canada barely has a military at this point. Canada is highly skeptical of most of the global military adventurism of the US. While you can agree with that skepticism, it would be wildly unrealistic to think the US wants to be beholden to Canada for much of anything when it comes to force projection.
It's quite plausible the US is looking to begin using its superpower military, to become the empire it has always been accused of being (but never actually was).
Canada allowing the US use of its airspace for nuclear weapons is laughable. I'm talking about the US stationing a large number of nuclear weapons in Greenland, thousands of KM closer to Moscow than any other point in the US now. What does Canada have to do with that?
Having Greenland gives the US an extremely powerful position over the Arctic Ocean for the next century. Build multiple ports.
The logistical value is extremely obvious.
And possessing Greenland reduces the need to have so many military bases in Europe. It lessens the US dependency on Europe.
This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada.
I'm talking about the US stationing a large number of nuclear weapons in Greenland, thousands of KM closer to Moscow than any other point in the US now.
Having Greenland gives the US an extremely powerful position over the Arctic Ocean for the next century. Build multiple ports.
The logistical value is extremely obvious.
An actually interesting proposal would be Jan Mayen.
I'm no expert here, but more missile bases positioned more closely to your targets seems better, no?
> With what ships? The US Navy is not particularly well-equipped with arctic ships beyond the subs.
I'm a big proponent of repealing the Jones Act, but don't forget that Trump struck a big shipbuilding deal with South Korea recently. Maybe the "Trump class" (barf) battleship will be particularly well suited for arctic climates.
I'm no expert here, but more missile bases positioned more closely to your targets seems better, no?
There's a million different strategies with different tradeoffs here. I'm asking what set of plausible reasons point to Greenland as a local optimum.
re: ships, the two leading countries for arctic ship design (excluding Russia) are Finland and Canada.
> Since the US military strikes on Venezuela and seizure of its president Nicolás Maduro this month, Trump has said he plans to tap into the country's huge oil reserves.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4qdnj5vl9o] 4 day ago