The Strange case of US annexation of Greenland and the Post US security structure
(Even if discussed in the Trump thread, I think this deserved a thread of it's own)
US GREENLAND
Actually, Trump gave the reason explicitly in his inaugural address January 20th a year ago:
And what else truly could Greenland give than a huge increase in territory for the US, when the US has already a military base in Greenland (which could be enlarged) and while Denmark is totally open for the US to launch mining operations etc in the island? Even the case of Greenland being independent and then having a Compacts of Free Association (COFA) with the US, an agreement like the Marshal Island etc gave, seems not to be enough. Trump needs Greenland to be US territory, as Trump has many times said, and Stephen Miller said it the most clear way: "What right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? What is the basis of their territorial claim? - - - Obviously Greenland should be part of the United States."
This shows us again the simplistic and bizarre mental landscape of Donald Trump.
Trump urged the intelligence services to get working on Greenland (see here) and there indeed have been the US intelligence operations attempting to get Greenlanders to secede from Denmark (see Denmark summons US envoy over suspected influence operations in Greenland), yet such classic subversion might not be needed, when simply the fact is that "obviously Greenland should be part of the US". With that kind of rhetoric, who the fuck cares about few Inuits.
And now not only Denmark and the Nordic countries, but many European countries have taken this quite seriously. In a joint statement by President Macron of France, Chancellor Merz of Germany, Prime Minister Meloni of Italy, Prime Minister Tusk of Poland, Prime Minister Sánchez of Spain, Prime Minister Starmer of the United Kingdom and Prime Minister Frederiksen of Denmark on Greenland, after the diplomatic niceties they end: "Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.”
Even in my country there's opinions that Finland should help Denmark by also sending troops to joint exercises with the Danes in Greenland, like there already have been with Denmark and France and others and with the US not participating in the Arctic Light 2025 exercises.
Future impact on the alliance
Now it all still maybe in the end MAGA trolling or smoke and mirrors, way to get the focus out of Venezuela & Epstein and perhaps Trump might be have something else to handle and will leave Greenland alone, but something has happened.
The International order that the US so long worked up is now collapsing, thanks to "Might makes right"-Trump, who has no appetite for alliances. The first Trump administration went rather smoothly, because there were the "adults in the room" minimizing Trump's brainfarts. But now there are only those that provide and larger echo base for the whims of Donald.
There's a lot of wishes that the Trump era will just pass over and that the international order that has worked for 80 years will still work, but in military spending and planning you do see the change already happening.
The European Union’s Security Action For Europe (SAFE) joint defense financing program will now also include Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand. When you think of it, those are basically all US treaty allies in Europe and in the Far East. The impact is actually quite big:
So even if Greenland won't be annexed by Trump, and annexation which would end NATO if the US attacks another NATO country, this might be one of those issues that really shows the separation of the US from it's allies. And things like the SAFE show that Europe is truly looking at that "Strategic Autonomy".
But what do you think? Will Trump take Greenland?
US GREENLAND
Actually, Trump gave the reason explicitly in his inaugural address January 20th a year ago:
The United States will once again consider itself a growing nation — one that increases our wealth, expands our territory, builds our cities, raises our expectations, and carries our flag into new and beautiful horizons.(see here)
And what else truly could Greenland give than a huge increase in territory for the US, when the US has already a military base in Greenland (which could be enlarged) and while Denmark is totally open for the US to launch mining operations etc in the island? Even the case of Greenland being independent and then having a Compacts of Free Association (COFA) with the US, an agreement like the Marshal Island etc gave, seems not to be enough. Trump needs Greenland to be US territory, as Trump has many times said, and Stephen Miller said it the most clear way: "What right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? What is the basis of their territorial claim? - - - Obviously Greenland should be part of the United States."
This shows us again the simplistic and bizarre mental landscape of Donald Trump.
Trump urged the intelligence services to get working on Greenland (see here) and there indeed have been the US intelligence operations attempting to get Greenlanders to secede from Denmark (see Denmark summons US envoy over suspected influence operations in Greenland), yet such classic subversion might not be needed, when simply the fact is that "obviously Greenland should be part of the US". With that kind of rhetoric, who the fuck cares about few Inuits.
And now not only Denmark and the Nordic countries, but many European countries have taken this quite seriously. In a joint statement by President Macron of France, Chancellor Merz of Germany, Prime Minister Meloni of Italy, Prime Minister Tusk of Poland, Prime Minister Sánchez of Spain, Prime Minister Starmer of the United Kingdom and Prime Minister Frederiksen of Denmark on Greenland, after the diplomatic niceties they end: "Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.”
Even in my country there's opinions that Finland should help Denmark by also sending troops to joint exercises with the Danes in Greenland, like there already have been with Denmark and France and others and with the US not participating in the Arctic Light 2025 exercises.
Future impact on the alliance
Now it all still maybe in the end MAGA trolling or smoke and mirrors, way to get the focus out of Venezuela & Epstein and perhaps Trump might be have something else to handle and will leave Greenland alone, but something has happened.
The International order that the US so long worked up is now collapsing, thanks to "Might makes right"-Trump, who has no appetite for alliances. The first Trump administration went rather smoothly, because there were the "adults in the room" minimizing Trump's brainfarts. But now there are only those that provide and larger echo base for the whims of Donald.
There's a lot of wishes that the Trump era will just pass over and that the international order that has worked for 80 years will still work, but in military spending and planning you do see the change already happening.
The European Union’s Security Action For Europe (SAFE) joint defense financing program will now also include Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand. When you think of it, those are basically all US treaty allies in Europe and in the Far East. The impact is actually quite big:
So even if Greenland won't be annexed by Trump, and annexation which would end NATO if the US attacks another NATO country, this might be one of those issues that really shows the separation of the US from it's allies. And things like the SAFE show that Europe is truly looking at that "Strategic Autonomy".
But what do you think? Will Trump take Greenland?
Comments (93)
I actually don't think NATO will be dismantled over Greenland, I changed my mind on this. Europeans are a bit shocked at the moment about it all, but will slowly come to the realisation that they really don't have anywhere else to go in the short term. And the US will realise that they can't take on the world on their own after all, so my guess is they will find a way to make it work, at least for now.
I don't think there will be a military conflict over Greenland in any case, to much is at stake for both parties, it would essentially be mutual suicide in a geo-political sense. Trump will try to negotiate for Greenland, and probably thinks he has a decent chance of succeeding as he has the better cards to play. But it also depends on how far Europe will want to take it, not in a military sense, but in terms of the price they want to pay economically, as the US is the main energy and digital services provider etc, and in terms of the Ukraine negotiations where they need the backing of the US.
Defense procurement is long term thing. And that's why something like SAFE does tell a lot.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Is there for Trump so much? If he get Greenland and the cost is NATO, why would it be for him a problem? Let's remember that this guy truly thinks that it's a great idea to go to Venezuela and take their oil and the US has been cheated by it's allies.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
I'm not sure what you refer on energy, because the US doesn't export much. With digital services, Europe is starting to be aware just how dependent they are on US tech. Basically the real issue here is that the US is an untrustworthy ally, and is capable of freezing the essential logistics and supplies of advanced weapons systems. This is one of the reason why the heated F-35 vs Gripen discourse in Canada, for example.
And then there's the case of France and it's independent defense industry, something again on the lines of "strategic autonomy".
I didn't really know much about this. I certainly applaud the initiative, because we do need more independence from the US. But it's always hard to tell with these initiatives if it eventually gets realized or gets stuck somewhere in bureaucracy and/or disagreement among members.
But yes in general I would say this Trump administration has fundamentally changed something within Europe in that we all became more aware of what our more pressing challenges are. If we will be able to rise to the challenge is another matter.
Quoting ssu
Because he sees himself as a kind of mob boss of his corner of the world, with Europe as a part of his turf. And Xi and Putin as his only peers. But as any mob boss he does need his minions to increase his importance. The issue with Europe in his mind is I think not that we are on the same team, but that we don't pay him enough respect.
Quoting ssu
LNG, the US is our main LNG supplier, which replaced the Russian pipeline gas. And also oil.
Quoting ssu
It's not only in defence, every digital and computer service we use is American. They could literally crash our entire economy overnight if they really wanted to. Probably not going to happen, but you know, a lot of unexpected things seem to be happening lately.
After Venezuela it has become a lot more likely, because:
- The US is showing clear commitment to enforcing the Monroe Doctrine (aka domination of the western hemisphere).
- The US views Europe as an unreliable ally in the long run (ironic, I know), and a potential rival.
- Greenland comes with large territorial and economic claims on the Arctic.
- In the case of a US-EU split, Greenland would serve as a forward base against the Russians (mainland Europe could no longer function as a bridgehead).
Well, this actually varies by country and do remember the change in energy production happening now. For example France gets a huge share of it's power needs from nuclear energy and my country gets 90% of it's electricity from nuclear power and renewable energy. Oil isn't so dominant as it was during the 1970's.
Quoting Tzeentch
I'd still call more accurately the Donroe doctrine, because Trump's moves are totally different from anything else we've seen. It's basically "we've got this awesome military, so we can plunder weaker countries.".
Quoting Tzeentch
Good that you notice the irony, because the US itself made this alliance and was truly successful of creating an alliance system that the Europeans voluntarily and happily were in, and thus gave US a say in their defense policies and also gave a lot of economic perks to the US (starting from the dollar being the reserve currency, even after Nixon's default).
Quoting Tzeentch
Actually, it's really about the map and territory. Trump wants Greenland and then perhaps Canada, because then the US would be the largest country in the World. Even with Greenland, that's the largest territory extension for a while in US history, because it's larger than Alaska.
The real estate man Trump wants Greenland because of this. Everything else is just hogwash and lies, just as Greenland being needed for "security reasons".
I think that now the US has less than 500 servicemen, perhaps as little as 150 in Greenland and just one military base (earlier they had 17). That's how really much this is a "security issue".
Quoting Tzeentch
In case of US-EU, the Russians hardly don't matter anymore.
You see, it just takes some time for Europe to get over the appeasement stage with Trump to accept that the Trump administration is a hostile threat to them. And invading Greenland would likely push them over that line. Naturally nobody wants that, because Europeans largely love Americans. I've lived there two years when I was small and I liked the people very much.
And why isn't anyone asking the question from Americans just how much they want to invade an ally like Denmark?
At least some Republicans in the Congress are saying just how stupid all of this is:
(Starts at 0:51 about the comments made by Miller on Greenland)
If only amateur hour would be over...
That doesn't sound different at all. That's US foreign policy in a nutshell. Except they didn't call it plundering before, but "spreading democracy and freedom".
Quoting ssu
That gave me a good laugh.
You tell me, , why isn't anyone asking those poor schmucks for their opinion?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's because Washington doesn't give a flying fuck about what the American people think.
I guess Average Joe needs to find himself in a trench under artillery fire for that penny to finally drop.
Too simplistic. All Great Powers have had quite different foreign policies toward different states.
Quoting Tzeentch
Well, only a minority supports the Venezuela campaign in the US.
When it comes to invading the Kingdom of Denmark, the whole idea is too strange and odd.
And there are those that didn't vote for Trump.
Will the Trump administration attempt to annex Greenland, Canada, or somewhere else? A prominent historian’s take
[sup]— Dan Drollette Jr, Daniel Immerwahr · Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists · Sep 4, 2025[/sup]
Denmark is an old US ally. The US already has bases on Greenland, since the 2nd world war. All in NATO since its formation. The Greenlanders are open to business, akin to whatever other places. House Trump has rambled about defense applicable to Greenland (as part of Denmark) and Canada.
Apart from Trump, there haven't been any particular moves to change that stuff. Extending anything, like NATO or US bases, for example, is probably not difficult (or at least wasn't until Trump, perhaps). Say, after 9/11, a hundred-or-so nations, including Denmark, came to aid the US in what followed, at own expense; what you might expect from allies I suppose.
So, what's missing, according to the Trumpists? A flag? Well, it really seems like it's a flag. Statements from House Trump and Ogles don't make much sense. What's missing?
That being said, previous US administrations have considered offering to buy Greenland. If Greenland is for sale anyway, then how about a bidding war? :D The best offer (not just money) to be considered?
Nothing as it simply doesn't make sense. It's all about the flag waving on the island. It's that Trump can say that he made the US greater in size with a territory larger than Alaska. It's make America Great, literally.
But there are no "adults in the room" in this administration, just yes-men that compete who can praise the president the most and reurgitate his fallacies. Yet I think this stunt might be the one that will change Europe's attitude of appeasement towards Trump. Already Denmark and Canada have seen the light.
Germany is the most important one, 'the economic engine' of Europe. I presume things will be looked at and negotiated in the context of NATO, not by looking at countries separately.
In Germany in 2024 about 40% of the electricity was produced by renewable energy. Then a large share comes from coal, which it get's from Poland.
And mind you the Kremlin thought that Germany would shiver in cold once the imported gas was turned off. It didn't. Even if Germany is an extremely bureaucratic country and reacts slowly, the idea of rolling blackouts or Germans even freezing to death (if the winter would have been harsh) made Germany quickly to rearrange.
That German economy is tanking is becoming more obvious with the day. The last thing Merz, feeling the heat from the right AFD, will want is energy prices potentially going up even more.
, perhaps it would be good to combine all these threads into a 'Recent geopolitical developments' thread, or something like that. A mod might be able to help with that, if you like the idea.
Yet here's the issue: if those high prices of energy happen because of pressure from another country, if let's say the US halted energy shipments to Germany in order to pressure Germany, that backfires.
You see, people are angry if the economy is tanking because of government mismanagement. If we in Finland would start to have cuts in our energy production in the middle of the winter suddenly, we would be angry and likely the present administration would lose in the next elections. Yet if Putin would start, out of the blue, bombing or sabotaging our energy power plants and thanks to that we would have blackouts, the blame wouldn't be on the government. Heck, then you just put on clothes, use candles and buy an aggregate!
Germany and the European countries aren't poor. If they have to buy with a higher cost energy from somewhere else, they will do it. Trump pressuring Europe will simply just backfire in this case as every move to pressure Europe into something that it doesn't want will reinforce the need for strategic autonomy. (Hence Trump demanding that Europe would spend on more on defense was taken happily on by the Europeans.)
Well, that morphs into a Trump thread, because there's always 'Recent geopolitical developments'... just as there will be the US president and his policy actions debated.
The fact is that some of threads may end and be forgotten... WHICH WOULD BE A SPLENDID OUTCOME!
It really would be great if this annexation of Greenland ended as being as one of the odd eccentricities of Donald Trump which created confusion, yet something that didn't end up in a tragedy or as a divisive infamous event (as his actions on January 6th became).
Remember that the Ukraine thread with it's 18.1k responses is called the "Ukraine Crisis" as the war hadn't yet happened when the thread was started (and earlier the discussion was on the Biden thread). Yet a war that has killed hundreds of thousands in Europe is something worth commenting.
I agree that people might accept some amount of price increase in the short term if they see that it's necessary to defend the interests of the country. But companies typically will not be swayed by patriotic sentiment, but by their bottom line. They will just stop investing in Europe and relocate because the numbers don't look good. Governments already pay certain industries 'energy subsidies' just so they wouldn't leave. It's the longer term consequences politicians will have to consider too. In 5 years people will have forgotten all about the thing that caused industries to leave and the potential economic crisis that followed it.
So like I said in my first post here, whether or not they turn over Greenland will probably also depend on how much economic pain Europe is willing to accept for it, if the US wants to play it that hard that is.
The amount of investment going into arms production in Europe will fuel an economic boost. Also if more energy is required in the short term, it will also act as a stimulus. These effects are probably already showing in Poland which is ahead of the curve in this process.
First, Europe should play hard.
Yet let's just think of this for a moment.
What does stop Trump simply from flying to Pituffik Space Base and declare that now Greenland is part of America, announce that Greenlanders will be given an American citizenship and perhaps 10 000$ and those who will not take the citizenship are to be deported to Denmark. And then it's just a huge ICE operation for those who don't take the money and the citizenship.
Once he has done this, Trump can then say that any resistance, be it the Danish military or the civilian population, is a threat to the US and will be dealt with maximum force of the US armed forces. He can obviously then enforce the insurrection act, perhaps martial law in the new territory formerly named Greenland now to be called Trumpland.
There will be ample amount of MAGA media-people cheering for their GodEmperor Trump and break up in U-S-A, U-S-A, chants once he has done this and they will just laugh at anybody criticizing the action. The interesting question is what ordinary Americans will do.
In this way he doesn't at first ask the military to plan to attack Denmark, which many in the Joint-Chiefs-of-Staff, the highest generals, would take as an illegal order. He surely doesn't need "Shock and Awe". It's the other way around: if the Danes use force, then it's natural that Trump can defend the US and it's citizens.
Why would this above be illogical? Trump already has declared that he is in charge of Venezuela, which he isn't in charge of. This would be a totally similar action.
He could do that and might do that, but 1) legally nothing has changed then. After his term, the next administration would have to affirm their willingness to enforce it over and over, because there is no agreement. And I know notions of legality might seem a bit silly in the world we seem to be heading to, but it does still matter to some extend.
And 2) he does still have to consider his political base somewhat. Even the Venezuela intervention is not all that supported, and I would imagine that taking over territory of an ally that isn't run by some crummy regime that is backed by US-rivals, would be even less supported.
Poland has and is still benefitting a lot from entering the EU market. Their economic trajectory is not comparable with that of Western European countries that already had developed their economies a lot earlier.
The militarisation could be some kind of economic boost, but I wouldn't know how this factors into the whole of the economy which has been stagnant for a while now.
I don't see how energy shortage, or a higher need could be a stimulus in itself, because cheap energy is a prerequisite for economic growth.
Latest interview starts really hinting on that. The easy or the hard way. This is bad.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Then the damage has already been done. NATO has already been done and the US has been seen as a threat itself. And how humiliating is it then give back US territory ...assuming there are MAGA-lunatics still around in US politics?
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Does he, really? Does his base really want the US to be in NATO? Does his base think it's important to have good relations with those puny Europeans? No, they will just cheer for their President to have the audacity to do what he wants. He will surely have his "base", no matter how small it is.
I wouldn't be so sure if there are going to be midterms the way things are going now. Do notice what he wants: he wants to use the insurrection act, he does want wars all around. It cannot be simply disregarded the possibility that he simply puts on hold midterms.
Remember this President in January 6th: he wanted to join the crowd in the assault on Congress, but his Secret Service simply drove him to the White House. This time it isn't so. He has loyalist in the political positions in the military and in the Justice Department. Do you think they would say no? The military might say no to literally attacking NATO allies, but he just can declare himself to be in control of Greenland and it's US territory. How well that will go on the Europeans?
And look, my sense is that he thinks he can push around Europe because it is weak in a number of ways. But I don't think he wants to push it that far that the US effectively loses all its allies, because that is part of what makes the US so powerfull.
I'm not sure if Trump understands that American power comes from the alliances it enjoys. I think he truly believes that US alliance with Europe has been only a financial burden without anything gotten back. He has stated this so many times, just like in his own mind the EU was formed to be against the US, again a totally bogus historical reason. He also has said so many times that "If we would need them, they wouldn't come", which just goes against history as the US did get help in Afghanistan the only time article 5 was used (after the 9/11 attacks).
(Danes in Afghanistan, back then few years ago)
Even Reuters is already working hard to warm people up to the idea:
Denmark's Greenland Dilemma: Defending a territory already on its way out
Europe, of course, will take it, be expected to like it, and thank Uncle Sam afterwards.
(Notice btw. that this Pro-Trump Reuters article leaves conveniently away the fact that the Greenlanders have no desire to be Americans and would like to be part of the EU if (when) they are independent. But who cares of some 50 000+ people made up mostly of Inuits.)
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Oh, he is really willing to do it. He needs Greenland, he needs to expand the territory of the US.
The real question is if the US government is really willing to let him do it. Luckily there are some signs that the Republicans won't swallow Trump's stupidity (see Thom Tillis' remarks above).
And if the Congress and the military will let him do it, annex Greenland, break NATO, the next real question is what will the Americans themselves not let him do.
And I'm sure that when (if) he does this, annexes Greenland, then will appear the "realists" that will say that Denmark has to give up Greenland and this actually doesn't mean anything for NATO, that the alliance is intact. And Trump will see what Europeans are really the degenerate surrender-monkeys (or cucks, as the favorite definition in MAGA world goes) as they have appeared to him.
What makes you think so? Haven't you noticed that a lot of what the Trump administration does is performative. A lot of them are podcaster, newsanchors, social media-figures... even Trump made his name in showbizz. A lot of the time there's a 'show'-element to it.
I bet if Europe stands united together and doesn't blink first on Greenland, nothing happens.
The only thing that makes Trump forget Greenland is that something else captures his imagination or demands his focus.
Remember that the "Let's buy Greenland" was a thing that already came to light in the first Trump adminstration. Then the Danes reacted just the way you assume Trump to be.
Well at least no one is talking about the Epstein files now.
Yes, this is the time. Let’s hope they do and let’s face it, if they don’t, they will be a laughing stock.
What is worrisome that NATO's secretary general Marcus Rutte has stayed silent. The guy that called Trump "Daddy". Seems to be an example of the European laughing stock.
The Daily Mail has come out with an interesting article (see Greenland Invasion Plot) which states that after the outstanding success of Maduro operation Miller and Trump have put the JSOC (Special Forces Command) to plan for the invasion of Greenland.
Admiral Bradley, current commander of JSOC got into the limelight earlier with the "doubletap" on Venezuelan boats.
What is encouraging is that the Daily Mail reports this planning is resisted by the joint chiefs of staff as an illegal order. This can be really the outcome: when it comes to the President commanding the military leaders to plan an attack on Greenland and thus a NATO ally, that they will say it's illegal is quite probable. Destroying NATO and attacking an ally without the approval of Congress sounds simply stupid.
Two retired American NATO commanders, general Breedlove and general Hodges were asked in different interviews what would the do if the President would ask to plan an invasion of Greenland. Both answered the same way: they wouldn't do it, because it's an illegal order. Both understood that their action would put them into trouble.
Now this actually might indeed have happened. Trump might already have gotten a cold silence from the military. Yet naturally what really has happened is something that we can verify only from history books. Nobody, both Trump or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, want to make public if this kind of breach has happened. Yet if top leaders start to retire before their term ends or Trump sacks the top generals, that is a very ominous event.
If the "Greenland thing" dies down, perhaps having a meeting with the Danes which will be continued in the future and then dropped, then it's likely Trump has been given a clear "NO" from the military.
But the Europeans are still alarmed. UK's Starmer is thinking of sending troops to Greenland, if necessary.
How long do you think some parts of the US military elite will hold out against a maverick US president? As far as I can tell, apart from them, there's really nothing to stop him.
Until he gets military people like Kash Patel, Pam Bondi and Kristi Noem to be man the crucial leadership places in the military. And it's totally possible: just start from a lieutenant general like Mike Flynn and put him in charge to first pick totally loyal MAGA people from the ranks of the military and then purge others. Luckily this would need real leadership qualities, which Trump doesn't have. But a true purge of the military would be needed if the Trump needs a totally loyal armed forces for himself.
Let's remember that former national security advisor (for 22 days) general Mike Flynn advised Trump to use the military to seize the voting machines when Trump lost to Biden. I think he would have the Trump character to attempt to make the armed forces loyal to dictator Trump.
Until that day, there might be too many generals like Mark Milley, who Trump loathes so much that the White House immediately when his second term started demanded his picture to be removed from the Pentagon, his security clearance was suspended and Hegseth is looking ways how Milley could be demoted now when retired.
So that's symbolic purge light.
Soldiers would be following illegal orders.
Seems unlikely that Congress would go for it.
Whether that'll stop Trump is another question.
Russia or China invading Greenland seems rather implausible, though they're always lurking around.
In the case of China, invading Greenland seems less plausible than invading Taiwan.
As @jorndoe commented above, when it comes to invading Greenland and annexing territory for a NATO member and thus creating the possibility of the dissolution of NATO, it's quite obvious that the view would be that it is an illegal order. Beyond stupidity, I say.
Yet if it's blowing up some boat in the Caribbean, a JSOC commander wouldn't and did not put his career on the line (as we can see from how general Bradley has acted).
Notice that the generals don't have their position totally dependent on Trump as their career has gone through the system, even if the political leadership has appointed them. If a general is totally dependent on the support of Trump and has no support in the military, then it would be different situation.
Like if somehow Trump would promote retired lieutenant general Mike Flynn to four star general and appoint him the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Flynn would know that once Trump is out, he will be too.
The US Military isn't there yet.
Let’s hope so. Would your assessment be that the President and his backers are working on complete military control so that he/they can retain power indefinitely?
Paradoxically, the reason I'm confident that NOW we aren't there yet is because of Trump himself.
He had the perfect situation to really do an autocoup on Jan 6th, but what did he do? Told he'd walk with his supporters to Capitol Hill, but was then whisked away to the White House by the Secret Service where he sat and watched on TV his supporters breaking into the Capitol Complex. And at some point, he finally listen to his daughter (or someone else) that's it's enough and they should go home.
But OMG, would you have a more capable populist leader like Victor Orban, you really should be scared. Or American would have already been living under President Trump for nine years with no end in sight.
If Canada was forcefully taken over by Trump, a movement of guerrillas and whatever troubles would emerge. A large anti-Trump voter base would become US citizens. I'm sure Putin would be thrilled about the commotion.
Trump's dumbassery seems to make allies look at China with friendlier eyes. Not because of allies going communist, though.
By the way, Jack Daniel's #7 is getting hard to come by in Canada. The Canadians are serious about boycotting Trump's US.
Hence he doesn't at all answer the question.
And why would he? It would extremely humiliating for Trump for the NATO secretary general to say the obvious (as it would be for NATO itself). Like referring to article 1. of the treaty that basically NATO members don't threat by force each other. Or that NATO would die if the US would take military action to annex Greenland.
Hence NATO members respond the in the classic diplomatic way when a totally unacceptable proposal is given. Just to assume that the proposal was about something totally else, security in the Arctic, and respond to this. And that basically what the Arctic Light 2025 exercise in Greenland was last year and what possible deployment of French and German troops to Greenland will be: strengthening the collective defense of Greenland ...against Russia and near Arctic country China.
(Danish F-16 in the US space base Pituffik)
That Trump has changed his rambling and smoke and mirrors to other countries, like now writing bellicose posts toward Cuba. Anything away from the Epstein scandal and the economic situation. And perhaps as a toddler that got a little bit too excited about an awesome performance (the kidnapping of Maduro) then wanting more and showing signs of a tantrum, the US armed forces try to get Trump's attention somewhere else.
(Now for rants about other countries... As long as taking over Greenland isn't mentioned, good.)
The next step we will seen tomorrow on Wednesday when the Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and his Greenlandic counterpart Vivian Motzfeldt meet Marco Rubio and JD Vance in the White House. Trump seems not to be in the meeting. Likely a "deal" to be made about Greenland is as likely as Putin accepting peace in Ukraine tomorrow. Perhaps here just how the Danes and the Greenlander will be treated will show much. If it's a bully session like with the White House meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky, that's bad. If it's just a bit awkward, that would be good.
Slightly optimistic, but you cannot know for sure with this White House.
I mean, it's not like the US is going to herd the residents of Greenland into a re-education camp and zap them in their heads with cattle prods if they're slow in repeating back the American propaganda, "Wall Street above Main Street."
They'll probably just give them guarantees of transport to an American hospital if needed by fixed wing aircraft, for which they'll have to pay about $450. I'm guessing, I don't know how much it will be.
All Anglosphere nations being peripheral to Eurasia, they share a common geopolitical strategy which focuses on keeping Eurasia divided, as per Mackinder's Heartland theory, most famously adapted to modern times in 'The Grand Chessboard' (1997) by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served under multiple US presidents, including as National Security Advisor under Jimmy Carter.
That's a long-winded way of saying, Canada will play along.
:lol:
By the Dutch indeed.
They basically agreed to disagree. Fundamentally. And hold further talks. Hope they (the Danes) succeed in holding those talks until Trump is kicked out and normal, rational people take control of the White House.
And anyway, now Trump is hellbent to take control of Iran. Or do something. And as @Tzeentch commented earlier, Iran might really have a revolution at hand.
I guess Trump has had enough issues to keep him in the limelight and think that he can focus somewhere else. But now it's obviously bullying time:
But this "I want Greenland because it would be awesome for my legacy" -craving from Trump will surely be one of the most strange and eccentric issues ever to rock the North Atlantic relations.
Not the Danes.
Two different people, you know.
What Europe should do is sent a stupid amount of troups to Greenland in order "to defend it from the Chinese and the Russians".
That would both render the US justification of Chinese and Russian takeover impotent and also make any US military take-over more problematic.
They are doing exactly that. And the amount may be literally stupid.
Ok, it's just a recon/advance force to get ready for an exercise. But still is perhaps more than that 1 Danish dogsled that Trump keeps talking about.
I never really took the Trump being a 'Putin agent' all that seriously, and I still think that is somewhat farfetched, but some form of collusion between the two of them against Europe does begin to make more and more sense.
Trump's rich friends have big plans for Greenland (original dansk)
[sup]— Mikkel Secher · TV2 · Jan 15, 2026[/sup]
Some rich folks looking for more riches.
And Trump is talking about his Golden Dome thing.
Seems to me like Trump has abandoned any particular interest in democracy, and is going by certain agendas set out by some particular people.
Also seems to me that Europeans need to cooperate, and get their act together.
I don't think it is at all far fetched. Let's remember that:
a) His bromance with Putin has been for a long time. He genuinely likes the guy. He likes tough guys, who are rich and powerful.
b) Russian customers saved earlier Trump from bankruptcy. He has known Russians for a long time.
c) Trump is really delusional. No seriously, the whole Greenland and Canada the 51st State are such lunacies that you can see that power has really gone to the head with Donald.
d) He is genuinely doing what the Kremlin wants. The Kremlin has wanted to break the NATO alliance and severe the ties between the US and Europe. The Kremlin doesn't at all like EU as it makes far more difficult for Russia to attempt to influence European countries as they stick together. Just look at what Donald is doing.
Anyway, we got a reminder that not all Americans are such lunatics as the people in the White House are with bipartisan delegation of the US Congress meeting their counterparts in Denmark.
Russia is a critical link in China's security strategy, basically providing a landbridge across Siberia to reach European (and other) markets over land, from where Chinese goods could be shipped under a neutral flag to the rest of the world even in the case of a maritime blockade.
One could argue that China has economically integrated the Heartland through its military strategic partnership with Russia, and therefore Washington's principal way to weaken China is now to break up that strategic partnership.
I suspect we'll go into a period during which Washington will try to bribe the Russians into changing their stance. The Russians on their part probably understand their position in this, and will drive a hard bargain, but it's conceivable the US will go along with it.
Europe will be what's on the menu.
You simply cannot make a deal with Trump. And that's why everybody is rapidly making deals with other (Canada with China, EU with Mercosur) because of Trump.
Remember that with the first tariff stupidity the egomaniac wrecked the agreement that his first administration had done with Canada and Mexico. Hence you cannot never trust Trump. (Perhaps only if you are Putin. Doing Putin's bidding has been extremely consistent.)
Lol, so my country, just as Norway, that sent two officers to Greenland to recon for future exercises, is facing Trump's 10% tariffs and later 25% tariffs.
And Trump's lies are so ridiculous. First he (and Vance) say that Denmark isn't taking care of the defense of Greenland and jokes that they have added one dogsled to the defense of Greenland making it two, and when Denmark does increase the defense of Greenland, it's creates according to Trump a "very dangerous situation for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Planet.” It's totally clear that Trump wants the largest territorial expansion of US soil since US buying Alaska (or the US-Spanish war) to make himself important. Greenland's new name could be really Trumpland, if Donald get's his way.
I hope that Denmark and the other NATO countries hold their line, and don't back away from the bully, but just stay calm, firm and let Trump implode himself.
We have to always remember that only a minority of Americans accept what Trump is doing now.
Ironically I feel like now would be a great time for Russia to make a move on Greenland either to take advantage of the tensions within NATO or to exacerbate them. It's questionable if the Trump is really come to it's defense (placing his personal beef with Europe over his obligations under Article 5) or if Trump will condition defense on owning Greenland outright and who knows what the state of NATO will be as a result. His MAGA base ironically will probably act like this whole situation vindicates their leader somehow despite causing it to happen so we'll have to deal with that too.
For a guy who doesn't believe in climate change his actions seem to suggest otherwise. My own guess is that his obsession with Greenland (and also Canada to a lesser extent) is because Putin is genuinely interested in the Arctic. Trump may not believe in or understand global warming but Putin probably does and in the case of the Russians they think it's beneficial to them because it makes the Arctic more important geopolitically. Trump sees what's happening with Russia and China making moves on Ukraine and Taiwan and doesn't want to miss out on all the fun.
Unless i'm missing something big in what you're suggesting...
U.S.–China Trade and Economic Deal (general trade framework with commitments on market access, export controls, and agricultural/industrial terms)
Reciprocal Tariff Frameworks with Japan
Reciprocal Tariff Framework with the European Union (baseline 15% tariff and investment/purchase commitments)
Trade Framework with the United Kingdom
Trade Agreements / Reciprocal Tariff Reductions with South Korea
Trade Agreements with Malaysia
Trade Agreements with Cambodia
Reciprocal Trade Frameworks with Thailand
Reciprocal Trade Frameworks with Vietnam
United States–Pakistan Trade Deal
Trade Deals with Argentina
Trade Deals with Ecuador
Trade Deal with Guatemala
Trade Deals with El Salvador
U.S.–Switzerland and United States–Liechtenstein Trade Deal Frameworks
I'm unsure this is either accurate or even a meaningful comment.
Fortunately for us Russia is already preoccupied with trying to secure the Donbas. It would cause overreach for Russia to invade other territories, especially a sea based invasion. Trump’s talk of Russia, or China looking to acquire Greenland is pure fantasy, along with most of his rationale right now. People are starting to say has he lost his mind. It’s beginning to look like a classic case of megalomania.
I think you’ve summed it up quite well there.
Yes, you indeed are missing my point.
Trump and the EU made last year a trade deal... which is now ripped open because basically of his own vanity in getting Greenland. And this vanity is obvious on the reply Trump made to the Norwegian prime minister (who btw or his government doesn't decide who gets the Nobel peace prize).
So less than a year has past and Trump already is changing what was decided.
This is the reason why I said that you cannot make a deal ...and basically assume that Trump would himself go along with what has been decided.
Russia has a totally different way to think about it: if things are great, then those treaties are upheld, no problem. Yet if there's problems with the relations Russia wants to push some agenda, perhaps there's a problem here or there and the treaty isn't so clear anymore. If for example before the FSB (acting as border guard in Russia) did keep people from wandering from Russia into my country, somehow later there was a huge influx of migrants without the needed papers coming to our and Norway's borders. When asked why they are there, they tell that they were told that the border was now open and the FSB was helping them to go to the border. So basically everything is on the table, negotiable.
This creates simply an environment which makes for example international trade very difficult and everything is basically very political. Political ties to the leadership becomes very important, which gives rise to corruption. This basically creates a large country risk, which is the cause that money doesn't (and didn't) flow from the West to Russia ...or many developing countries. International trade and investment needs strong reliable institutions.
I was watching some panels from the current WEF session early today (its about 2pm here). The tact that America takes there, compared with say Rachel Reeves contributions, seems common-sense national security considerations.
You're right, though. If Trump is (I can't quite see what you're seeing, but that's not surprising to me) renegging on several agreements, particularly on trade, then yeah thats bollocks and geopolitically unstable.
If, however, he's doing it as leverage to dominate the international landscape with a view to securing American interests - i don't quite know what I think anymore.
You think that changing tariffs less than in one year is rational? What international investments and trade simply needs is stability. Think about, if someone really plans to do large investments to the US, plans building a factory etc. it takes basically years to build one and locks the company for many years onward. If you don't know what is happens, that there's the possibility of some politician making Trump angry and then all your plans go bust, then you simply avoid doing anything and stay on the sidelines.
Or make deals with China as Canada has done now. Earlier, when the US was an ally to Canada, the country basically didn't allow Chinese electric cars on their market (as Biden wanted). Now the Canadian market is open for Chinese electric cars.
Why alienate countries that had good relations with you? It's all just the US shooting itself in the foot, which is hugely benefitting Russia and China.
Quoting AmadeusD
Political instability isn't good for the economy. Just look at how gold is doing.
Quoting AmadeusD
Is he really dominating the international landscape? What really is the benefit of this domination? What are these interests? That he himself gets vast amounts of money? How is that helping actually the US? He definitely is in the spotlight, sure. It's really a global reality show around him, which he obviously likes.
? says the Arctic needs protection from Putin (provided by him)
? invites Putin to his "Board of Peace"
:brow: What's going on here?
His creepy Putinfatuation isn't going to divide the Kremlin and Beijing.
But his backstabbery could send allies China's way instead.
Canada just met up with China and Qatar; could become a trend.
Carney Says Canada’s Old Relationship With the U.S. Is Over (— WSJ · Apr 25, 2025 · 1m:11s)
Trump on Canada-China trade deal: ’If you can get a deal with China, you should do that’ (— CBC Radio Canada · Jan 16, 2026)
US says Canada will regret decision to allow Chinese EVs into their market (— Reuters · Jan 17, 2026)
Should Greenland ask China for protection from the US? :grin:
Seems ridiculous, yet not more ridiculous than what comes out of House Trump.
EDIT: seems like I repeated some of your comment
Because from an America first perspective, these are untenable bases for making geopolitical decisions. I can't really say much more than that. It's an observation. I wouldn't get into bed with those I don't want to get into bed with. That's kind of where that reasoning ends.
Quoting ssu
I don't quite understand the question. It's not a matter of rationality. They are instrumental tariffs, not aimed at normalizing trade relations in the normal sense. They have largely achieved what Trump wanted (and that may be irrational!).
Quoting ssu
I understand the problem, but Trump has brought in billions of investment since this term started. Not the $21 trillion claimed, obviously, and that's at Trump's feet for being a buffoon publicly. I just think you're looking at goals that administration is not. It's hard to "come to terms" in that way. Its all theater to me.
Quoting ssu
I don't think this is a serious question. There may be too much daylight in how we're seeing things (or, what information we have access to day-to-day) to come to terms, as above. Trump is obviously dominating the geopolitical landscape. You call it a spotlight and that's fair - but his movements are hte talk of the globe, in most facets of geopolitical life. People are having to do what he wants, or do something relatively radical to not do what he wants. That is dominance to me. That doesn't mean its good.
Quoting ssu
Given the tariff situation, that's probably good in the short term. But its definitely not good across 24 months or more. It indicates a collapse is coming. But Trump, being hte mover he is, is probably aware of this.
Lol. The only thing he is looking at is the midterms. Huge win might get finally an impeachment that goes through. That's why he wants the economy to be fine, and what better would be is to lower interest rates. Nevermind the inflation later. So, I think gold might be going still up, even if the fears of military annexation of [s]Iceland[/s] Greenland by USA from Denmark isn't on the table.
It's estimated that the future Fed chairman will be perhaps between two Kevin's:
Or then it might be Kevin Warsh:
Let's remember that Trump has wanted to oust the present chairman for a long time.
Yeah, that's why the short term part is relevant there. He clearly can't think past his nose (or, at the very least, thinks it's a good idea to appear that way).
Quoting ssu
hahaha, i see what you did there.
Regarding the Kevin's, those outlines are clearly bent in a certain direction. I forego making comment cause I'm not informed, but again, from Trump's perspective, or those who trust his intuitions (lets say... clearly an inapt description of what motivates his actions) would just say "great!". Could be a bit more bollocks there. I just don't know - from what I've seen on the economic side its pretty bland and uninteresting, except for what things look like.
Both Biden and Trump have been very consistent on this.
I think this absurd thread will like be ending soon as Trump finally gave in. For now. Until someone asks him if he is still thinking of buying Greenland, to which he will say "Of Course..."
And then this continues... But now:
Sanity seems to have prevailed. :smile:
Quoting AmadeusD
Trump lovers will say: "This is the art of the deal!" "4D Chess!!!"
Trump haters will say: "This is TACO!"
End result: The US alliance system got a really a beaten and bad bruise which cannot be hidden and Europeans won't forget this, that Americans can attempt to annex territory from their allies and impose tariffs or other sanctions if this annexation is imposed.
Quoting AmadeusD
A bruise isn't something dangerous. An open cut which isn't treated might be. A mortal wound is truly something else. So that for the "figures of speech" here. So I'm not in the camp of declaring NATO to be dead.
Quoting AmadeusD
I do too.
Quoting ssu
True - but its a 'win' for a certain pre-disposition toward Trump's activities. I guess I'm trying to avoid the predisposition. It could be totally fumbling. But it could be what he intended all along, sacrificing looking a certain way to his detractors in the process. That would be respectable. I try to be charitable i suppose, having been trained on judgments which are almost always intended to trade of a set of facts most favourable to a defendant.
Trump posting himself (or, at least, someone in his feed) this AI picture tells more than a thousand words:
Yet let's think about this:
- Denmark wasn't going to sell it
- Greenlanders didn't want to become Americans
- Americans didn't want to buy and especially not to invade Greenland
- The military likely viewed it as an unlawful command as the NATO treaty is actually something as a law when the US has signed the treaty.
- The Republicans in Congress were not so hot about annexing territory from an ally.
- The only ones enthusiastic about this were the Russians.
What cards did Trump have? How is this a great opening?
Then of course there's the idea that all of this was part of the "Art of the Deal". That this was 4D Chess and Trump gives first an outrageous and demeaning bid, and then takes home something totally else.
Well, if so, just what on Earth did he get? What did Denmark now "reasonably" accept that made everything first to be worth it? We don't know.
This idea simply doesn't make sense. What makes sense is that the markets panicked of a sudden possibility of a trade war because of Greenland, and Trump had to quickly back down. And there was Rutte to give the hasty exit for the US president as this wasn't going anywhere.
And now Trump can focus on the "Bored of Peace"-thing.
These are the assumptions I have absolutely no interest in taking on board. This, and my alternative seem equally plausible. I think it takes someone in camp 1 from the previous thing to land on this side, as a statement rather htan speculation.
Quoting ssu
I'm not really sure what's so hard to swallow in this (albeit, your framing is highly prejudicial - but reasonable imo).
He's probably secured further defense positions and tactical mineral access. Which is what he wanted all along. Its just a question whether he's stumbled into it or there's some "art of hte deal" thing going on (note, I have already dismissed "4D Chess" as a cultish concept. But he is a Businessman). To me. It is not inconceiveable he predicted how the chatter would go and leading up to DAVOS, had this in mind all along). It's just also not inconceivable your framing is accurate.
You're right - we don't know. That's the point of hedging at this stage. Thinking yourself into knots about the President being senile or whatever overtly dumb thing you can claw on to (not you, but the more unhinged along these same lines) is bad for you and does nothing for anyone else given there's no real evidence at this stage of how this all came about.
Quoting ssu
What are the first five? I have a feeling a huge amount of rhetoric is doing lifting in response to this thing.
The good thing is that afterwards we will know. History will put these issues into context.
Just imagine the historical films done about Trump decades from now. Biden might be forgotten like Gerald Ford. Trump won't be. That's for sure.
Quoting AmadeusD
Look at the map: US with Canada and Greenland. The US is larger than Russia. And look at the people who Trump is telling these facts. From left to right: Starmer, Meloni, von der Leyen, Merz, Macron, Stubb(!!!), Zelenskyy, Rutte (I guess).
(Yep, it's nice that my tiny country's president is among those European heavy hitters.)
Haha, that's true. I wonder how it will look.
I recall on a forum i was on about 20 years ago there was a user who was highly conservative and was absolutely convinced History would look back on Bush II as one of the best presidents ever. Yeesh.
I can't quite grasp the point of the response to the Rhetoric comment. That's not a serious picture or anything, right? And unbecoming of a President to be so unserious but uhh - what are the first five of those more-than-a-thousand words?
No. Supposed to be Trump's humor.
But posting maps where countries are part of another one is actually no laughing matter. I just remember the maps that circulated of NovoRossiya after the takeover of Crimea. Or the maps published by ISIS of their future Caliphate.
He was the best president Israel ever had. :lol:
And people actually did take in the end the franchise very seriously... and are taking it. The situation in Sahel is still extremely volatile. Remember Trump's cruise missile attack in Nigeria. Not so long ago.