With the Nordic Council it becomes 22 million people with a GDP of US$ 2.2 trillion, the same GDP as Canada, close to Italy, Russia, and Brazil.
You piss off Denmark and the rest of the Nordic Council members will support it.
On top of all of that you then have the European Union, in which the majority of members will also put support behind one of its members (notwithstanding the likes of Hungary, and perhaps Slovakia with its latest government).
It's really sad to watch this rhetoric unfold from the USA, it starts with the heads but now we see it creeping into comments here on HN. It's bizarre how easily American public opinion is manipulated.
Trump doesn’t understand that Greenland is a ~country~ self-gorverning territory in itself in the Kingdom of Denmark. Just like Australia is country in itself in the Commonwealth.
England would never be able to sell Australia to the US, just as we in Denmark are not able to sell Greenland.
The only way forward is trade war it seems and it would be better to escalate it quickly in order for Trump to understand the message.
However, Trump has done everything to turn Greenlanders away, and not done anything to convince them of independence would be good for them, so a vote for independence will likely fail catastrophically right now. Independence is many decades away, as they would really have to build a stronger economy to make it happen, but that is the direction Greenlanders would like to go, at least if you asked them 2 years ago.
It’s like a sleight of hand magic trick pulled on an infant that is then gleeful for the deception.
That’s really not even close. Greenland isn’t even remotely self sustainable without Danish funding. It also has MPs in the Danish parliament. So yes while it technically has self-rule it’s still effectively a colony
Being self sufficient or not isn't part of the definition of a colony
So whatever proposal or threat of breaking down NATO that Trump will come up with will be met with a no from Danish politicians. It is simply not for them to decide. His only option seen from a Danish perspective is to use the military.
Pushing the me-strong logic to the (absurd?) limit, why isn’t California a country? Or New England? Or the red state swath of the US?
Asking for an kingdom I know.
International law does not promote nor support unilateral secessions. If a region or autonomous republic wants to secede it should only do so in accordance to the host country laws. E.g. the Quebec and Scotland referendums were made in accordance to the host countries of Canada and UK.
But then we created that dangerous case where now every region can secede from their host one unilaterally, even if it's occupied by foreign forces. And in practice, the "legality" of it, really depends on international recognition and the undergoing narratives.
International laws have always been pleasantries, as there's no real ways to enforce them, but there were powerful incentives for everybody to play by the rules.
The only precedents of unilateral secession were Slovenia and Croatia from Yugoslavia and Bangladesh from Pakistan but none did so under foreign military presence.
Kosovo was helped to avoid another genocide.
This is a very insightful answer to my snarky cynic comment.
And you’re right, of course. We dug our own grave.
It may not be straightforward, however; as Linebarger states:
> Formally, war may be defined as the "reciprocal application of violence by public, armed bodies."
> If it is not reciprocal, it is not war, the killing of persons who do not defend themselves is not war, but slaughter, massacre, or punishment.
> If the bodies involved are not public, their violence is not war. Even our enemies in World War II were relatively careful about this distinction, because they did not know how soon or easily a violation of the rules might be scored against them. To be public, the combatants need not be legal—that is, constitutionally set up; it suffices, according to international usage, for the fighters to have a reasonable minimum of numbers, some kind of identification, and a purpose which is political. If you shoot your neighbor, you will be committing mere murder; but if you gather twenty or thirty friends, together, tie a red handkerchief around the left arm of each man, announce that you are out to overthrow the government of the United States, and then shoot your neighbor as a counterrevolutionary impediment to the new order of things, you can have the satisfaction of having waged war. (In practical terms, this means that you will be put to death for treason and rebellion, not merely for murder.)
> ...
Note that this advice was from the mid-XX; in the XXI not all kingdoms seem to recognise the Geneva Conventions anymore!
These days it's probably a case of conjugating irregular verbs?
I am a (dissident turned) freedom fighter
You are a (perfidious) combatant
They are (drug-running) terroristsThe risks are totally not worth it and there are a million better ways to increase pressure (like the trade bazooka).
This is an incoherent position. If the threat is as real as claimed, a simple weapon test should be merited. France's official nuclear doctrine permits first strikes anyway.