Ridiculous state of affairs we're in- literal threatening hostile takeover as just another in the endless stream of distraction to keep from being held accountable for anything.
I am starting to believe that this might actually be the objective. There is no other logical reason for the US to act this way (not that anything under Trump is logical anyway). They already have full access to Greenland for defence purposes (or pretty much any other purpose) under NATO. It's no secret that Trump is Russian aligned and that he has a intolerance (hatred?) for Europe.
> Greenland is important piece of land for US security - and the US has eyed it for a long time.
The US have the ability to do everything up to and including basing troops and missiles there, today, under treaty so it's unclear what is meant by the US need for "security."
That's what I don't get. We had a solid relationship with our fellow NATO country and that relationship left all the room in the world for collaboration, including what you're describing.
We're trashing that relationship not just with Denmark but with NATO. What gains do we see that can offset that?
I guess this is not just a rhetorical question, but what is more secure than stable relationships with existing allies?
All interesting questions that fall short unless you’re willing to assume the American president will act deliberately in the national interest. I feel we’ve clearly moved past that point.
The US can, and always has been able to, maintain its security interests in Greenland without trying to forcibly take it. The calls for doing so now are not about US security.
Well of course, Greenland is a massive welfare drain, trying to forcibly take it when you already get to use it for defense is would be like marrying the $20 hooker for the 'free' services. You wouldn't buy the cow when you already get the milk cheaper than the farmer.
The reason Trump wants Denmark is for vanity purposes.
If Denmark actually can shitcan the place while making it look like a victory they would definitely do it. Although the only way I think they can pull that off is by convincing Greenland to become independent and then the US swooping in when Greenland realizes their free money hydrant has turned off and they need a new sugar daddy because all those minerals they're sitting on aren't actually worth a dime unless someone is dumb enough to try and use them in one of the most hostile inhabited environments on earth to mine them.
There are some truths in what you are saying. But I don't think Denmark wants to give up Greenland, I think they are ok with the money they pay (around $600 million per year). Denmark is a rich country so money is not a big deal.
The Danes would have allowed all those things without the annexation, think new sub pens for our Virginias, Space Force base expansions and so on. There is simply no need to piss off an ally with this nonsense.
I think the best outcome would really be the US' current allies are just waiting until trump goes and he doesn't break too much and the new person goes back to a more stable posture.
It's probably a more realistic outcome however is that no one really trusts the US any more and trump has just hastened the decline as the EU looks inward more, and other areas move more quickly to get support from china.
I hope they are more long-sighted than that. They did the same thing with Bush II's "with us or against us" rhetoric and actions. Appease the POTUS while he's there and hope the next one is a little better. Obama was more conciliatory to our allies' needs, but the cycle has been like this since 2001. The US is getting less stable instead of more stable, so I don't know what Europe is hoping for.
> The US is getting less stable instead of more stable
> I hope they are more long-sighted than that
Quoting you out of order, but when one puts all three together what do you believe the long-term plan should be? America is, by your own admission, becoming less stable, and currently threatening annexation of multiple countries. What exactly do you think "less stable" looks like after this?
> I think the best outcome would really be the US' current allies are just waiting until trump goes and he doesn't break too much and the new person goes back to a more stable posture.
I’m afraid that ship has sailed. This was the general feeling during Bidens’ presidency. After Trump’s reelection, it’s clear that the USA is permanently one swing state away from electing a tyrant.
I think the rest of the world will need to see a widely held conviction of never again and fundamental changes to America’s democratic system, before trust can be rebuilt.
Somehow, "deep state" is always there as the god of Trump's failures. The concept of "deep state" should be excised from conversation now that we can clearly see the unilateral rule of this administration. At this point, I wish there was a deep state, but unfortunately there's just Trump. His personal idiosyncrasies explain things much better than any conspiracy theory ever could.
No, there is a deep state. It's people who are in the government, who hold to the constitution and the rule of law, rather than implementing whatever wild idea Trump currently proposes that is illegal and/or unconstitutional, and who therefore work internally to block a bunch of Trump's plans.
Or at least they must feel like the deep state to Trump. It's just that, for those who like the rule of law, those people are the good guys.
Nonsense. What "deep stater" would think taking de jure control of Greenland would be worth destroying NATO and transatlantic relations broadly, especially when the US already has access to it for military purposes?
Luckily there are other defensive alliances in place.
The broad advantage of having a "felt of society" —mutually overlapping circles— as opposed to a "fabric of society", is that the latter is much easier to tear.
And what will we Europeans do if Denmark triggers article 5. A single US carrier group could stop all commercial traffic to Europe and a single USA submarine could keep the parody of navies we have in check.
Why? Because even if Oceania, Rasia, and Eastasia want to play 1984 sphere of influence games, we can probably position ourselves neutrally, to trade freely with all of them — and whenever one has designs on us, then the other two would naturally be forced to counter.
It's stupider than any notion of the deep state. It's rich billionaire assholes like Ronald Lauder that pushed stuff like the annexation of Greenland because they have money-induced rotting brains and have never encountered pushback for anything in their lives. And if there's anything Trump loves more than gaudy fake gold, it's trying to be one of the big shots.
The US would erupt in protest if the American military laid a finger on any <checks notes> Danish or other NATO-allied troops.
Indeed, there would likely be a great deal of backlash in the military itself.
This is not what Americans want. It cannot even be said that those who voted for Our National Embarrassment want this, because He Who Shall Not Be Named ran on an isolationist, xenophobic platform that pledged "no new wars" and that he would be the "president of peace".
"Zero backlash" isn't fully accurate. You could complain about the focus of current protests in the United States being in other areas, but that's what happens when masked thugs are brutalizing and abducting your neighbors under color of authority.
All signs except for polls showing a large majority of Americans opposing the idea[1], opposition from within Trump's own party[2], and resistance from the military[3], for example... This Greenland nonsense is Trump's private obsession. The only Americans supporting it are Trump loyalists who would just as readily support a plan to blow up the moon if Trump started yammering on about that instead.
Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg have invested in the mineral exploration company KoBold Metals in 2019, and the company began drilling in Greenland in August 2022.
Peter Thiel backed Praxis, a startup that envisions building a semi-autonomous, low-regulation "network city" in Greenland. The vision is led by Praxis co-founder Dryden Brown, who sees Greenland as an ideal testing ground for a future Mars colony. Praxis has raised hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, however, the proposal faces significant opposition from unexpectedly Greenlandic and Danish politicians.
And then there's this:
Ibtimes reports that MAGA Supporters Urge Barron Trump to Marry Princess of Denmark and Claim Greenland as Dowry
MAGA wants Barron Trump to marry Princess Isabella of Denmark to claim Greenland
They should also be arming the population to make an occupation impossible. This is assuming they have mandatory military training in Denmark and people know how to use automatic weapons, grenades, etc.
If the would-be invaders were "normal", they'd not go near populated areas. They'd just set up base wherever they wanted to extract resources or whatever.
But the US already had excellent relations with Denmark and could probably have gotten mining rights or whatever they wanted without this weird display of power.
The huge downside to that would be it would quickly demonstrate how incredibly expensive, slow and uncertain such mining operations would be.
I must conclude the annexation of Greenland is mostly a play for the US domestic audience. Very similar to Russia - Ukraine. Maybe a way to put pressure on Canada too.
A number of my Canadian friends are of the opinion that if the US takes Greenland, Canada will be the next acquisition target. I really, really wish I could argue against that notion.
You can buy a rifle like a hammer in Greenland. It has probably the loosest gun control for bolt action arms of any relatively well off country, including looser than the US as there is no background check (nor licensing) for commercial sales.
The only language Trump and Putin speak is blunt power. (Except Trump also responds well to flattery. I doubt you'd get very far with Putin speaking that language.)
There is certainty, however, in cost in sending troops to Denmark.
So it allows US to sap the resources of the adversary, making it even more expensive to hold Denmark. And that is ultimately the goal, because the more pain in the ass and expensive it is for Denmark to hold Greenland, the quicker there will be for pressure for Greenland to become independent.
And independence is only a hop, skip, and jump away from foreign influence; given that Greenland is indefensible without alliance and economically heavily subsidized.
Who said anything about actually invading? I'm talking about the threat of invading to make it cost Denmark even more than it currently does to hold. The US doesn't need to invade, only create a bluff to make it more painful to hold it.
And no, 99% of countries on the planet do not get 10-15k of outside subsidies per resident.
Also I think you are ignoring nuance on the importance of alliance; the population density and population is incredibly low and they are situated quite close to the US. The US has disproportionately strong-armed virtually every nation around it of similar size/strength; that's why central America and the Caribbean are chalk full of stories of US meddling. It's not similar to places like Brazil where an invasion of a world power would still cost an adversary a lot more than they bargain for in ground losses even without alliance even if the adversary would doubtlessly win a clear victory. They are far weaker at the negotiation table than, say, Germany, when in comes to foreign influence.
Trump is not long for this world, MAGA might crumble or more probably fall under the control of one of the possible successors in the WH. Establishing diplomatic ties with his wranglers pre heart attack is smart.
As for how this is seen internally for Danes, at least in my part of the world the US admin has already achieved crackhead with a knife status. I suspect that trying the dog whisperer shtick (like Mamdani) will not be seen negatively.
Sure but why should they request a meeting? The Americans should go to Copenhagen if they want to discuss something.
You go to the King, the King does not go to you. The party that travels is the weaker one. Maybe that's childish but it is the standard power play even in daily life and business.
This Greenland saga is particularly stupid because the US can achieve essentially the same aims by doing the right thing, occupying the moral high ground.
The majority of Greenlanders want independence. That percentage would possibly increase if they knew that they had solid support for statehood with good security agreements and trade agreements from the US.
Strong pressure on Denmark from the US would likely get Greenland their independence. If Greenlanders want it, then many Danes would feel obligated to give it to them. US pressure would help turn that into reality.
Once Greenland is independent, then those trade & security agreements mentioned would provide the US with the minerals or whatever it's truly after.
The fact that we're even talking about this shows how far the US has gone off the rails. Trump has said and done a bigly amount of insane things, but the idea of invading Greenland has to be in the top 5.
Trump's behavior is (once more) ridiculous. There are many arguments against it (military/diplomatic inside NATO and economic). I believe the reasons behind a hostile takeover are a push from billionaires who control the government and want to get into extraction business and the urge to throw out the ongoing presence of China and Russia.
I maintain my conspiracy theory that a lot of the politically-motivated flagging on this platform is from the moderators, not the users. Y Combinator the company has shown to be openly pro-Trump.
2/3 of those articles are tech related, the other not obviously so, and the current not at all. Of course, the HN guidelines don't state "only tech news." They say submit stories which "gratify one's intellectual curiosity" and to avoid most political stories; I think this one fails on both counts. Scoring this charitably 3 to 1 nonetheless yields no significant insight.
Personally, I followed HN for news about hacking. I'd prefer all offtopic submissions flagged, or at least demoted. What's the point in a _hacker_ news Front Page RSS feed if I get dupes of major global stories?
US could just threaten to withdraw from NATO if it can't get Greenland. What then will remain of NATO that can defend itself from Russia and China? Besides the US, only the UK and France have nukes.
I cannot imagine how things would play out if Trump went through with the invasion. Things are getting increasingly grim here in the states locally and a combination of martial law + a clearly illegal invasion I think would lead to the immediate collapse of the US as well as NATO.
It's clear that Stephen Miller in all of his fascist eggheaded brain thinks that he can just do a real quick annexation and is one of the key people pushing for this. But I don't think any of them are prepared for the fallout.
"They" is not a valid entity; only individuals are valid entities. Immense political pressure can be exerted to force a survey. Some people will vote, and some won't. Those who don't vote will get assigned the median. The only way out for Greenlanders is to be united in voting a very high number, so high that the US could never afford to pay it, but realistically this is unlikely to happen under my specific noted approach which monotonically penalizes high values and rewards low values.
Oh the political pressure to conduct a survey would apply on mainland Denmark, not on Greenland. Unlike Donbas being occupied by Russia, note that Greenland is occupied by Denmark, so any bias is in favor of Denmark, not the US.
> The US needs Greenland to better protect the North Atlantic.
They already have forces there, and, at least until this admin's reckless imperialistic proclamations, Denmark would've almost certainly been amiable to leasing more space to the U.S. for whatever else they wanted to do.
> determine the minimum amount of money that they will be willing to accept to voluntarily align with the US
It is cheaper to do it by force, because so far Trump offered 100k USD/person. That's laughable lowballing when we consider that it would be gone within few visits in a hospital.
That's not even the case in the existing US territories which already have cheaper healthcare than the mainland. The existing hospital infrastructure and pricing would of course remain, at least until it gets gobbled up by private equity but this too is subject to the laws of the territory.
It seems weird for Denmark to be defending Greenland from US threats while also leasing land on Greenland to the US for Pituffik Space Force Base. European states seem to be doing everything by half measures in the hope that Trump loses interest in Greenland.
Months ago, the US was an ally of Denmark and Greenland. Greenland allowed an ally to have their military stationed there, because it served both (through NATO).
From one day to the other, the US behave like an enemy. And the US behave erratically. So NATO still exists on the paper because the US haven't invaded anyone yet, but the US are behaving like enemies and threaten to invade.
Seems more than rational, from the point of view of the rest of NATO, to prepare for an invasion, but at the same time hope that NATO still exists and that the US are not actually an enemy (probably not an ally anymore, but "partner" is better than "enemy").
That indeed seems to be what is happening. Here are the pledges of support which I have seen so far: DE ES FI FR IS IT NO PO SE UK, and I have heard of at least two countries with concrete plans to second troops for a NATO Greenland force.
If they rescinded that lease, then Trump's so called reasoning actually becomes valid. The US does actually have a geopolitical/strategic/military interest in being able to operate from and around Greenland. The reason this entire activity is a farce is because the US can already do that.
It's clear that Trump acts alone in foreign policy - formal channels and structures can barely check him. However, informal resistance still appears to exist. Trump apparently still takes into account the vibes of the people he surrounds himself with into account. In a haphazard way yes, but it's clear that Trump can be swayed to some degree by those around him.
The Trump administration is not a unified bloc, and there are likely many elements that see annexing Greenland as ridiculous. However, if they lost access, then they would be forced to concede that there was something actually valuable to gain.
Ridiculous state of affairs we're in- literal threatening hostile takeover as just another in the endless stream of distraction to keep from being held accountable for anything.
As well as distracting from the Epstein Files, the takeover of Greenland would be something that could destroy NATO which is one of Putin's aims.
I am starting to believe that this might actually be the objective. There is no other logical reason for the US to act this way (not that anything under Trump is logical anyway). They already have full access to Greenland for defence purposes (or pretty much any other purpose) under NATO. It's no secret that Trump is Russian aligned and that he has a intolerance (hatred?) for Europe.
[flagged]
> Greenland is important piece of land for US security - and the US has eyed it for a long time.
The US have the ability to do everything up to and including basing troops and missiles there, today, under treaty so it's unclear what is meant by the US need for "security."
That's what I don't get. We had a solid relationship with our fellow NATO country and that relationship left all the room in the world for collaboration, including what you're describing.
We're trashing that relationship not just with Denmark but with NATO. What gains do we see that can offset that?
I guess this is not just a rhetorical question, but what is more secure than stable relationships with existing allies?
All interesting questions that fall short unless you’re willing to assume the American president will act deliberately in the national interest. I feel we’ve clearly moved past that point.
Putin is winning. He's getting want he wants. The absolution of NATO.
The US can, and always has been able to, maintain its security interests in Greenland without trying to forcibly take it. The calls for doing so now are not about US security.
>The US can, and always has been able to, maintain its security interests in Greenland without trying to forcibly take it.
I think someone has shown Trump the Project Iceworm documents and he decided that it would be a great addition to the Golden Dome repertoire.
Well of course, Greenland is a massive welfare drain, trying to forcibly take it when you already get to use it for defense is would be like marrying the $20 hooker for the 'free' services. You wouldn't buy the cow when you already get the milk cheaper than the farmer.
The reason Trump wants Denmark is for vanity purposes.
If Denmark actually can shitcan the place while making it look like a victory they would definitely do it. Although the only way I think they can pull that off is by convincing Greenland to become independent and then the US swooping in when Greenland realizes their free money hydrant has turned off and they need a new sugar daddy because all those minerals they're sitting on aren't actually worth a dime unless someone is dumb enough to try and use them in one of the most hostile inhabited environments on earth to mine them.
There are some truths in what you are saying. But I don't think Denmark wants to give up Greenland, I think they are ok with the money they pay (around $600 million per year). Denmark is a rich country so money is not a big deal.
The Danes would have allowed all those things without the annexation, think new sub pens for our Virginias, Space Force base expansions and so on. There is simply no need to piss off an ally with this nonsense.
> There is simply no need to piss off an ally with this nonsense.
After you militarily threaten multiple allies, do they still count as allies? Or at least, are you still seen as an ally by them?
I think the best outcome would really be the US' current allies are just waiting until trump goes and he doesn't break too much and the new person goes back to a more stable posture.
It's probably a more realistic outcome however is that no one really trusts the US any more and trump has just hastened the decline as the EU looks inward more, and other areas move more quickly to get support from china.
I hope they are more long-sighted than that. They did the same thing with Bush II's "with us or against us" rhetoric and actions. Appease the POTUS while he's there and hope the next one is a little better. Obama was more conciliatory to our allies' needs, but the cycle has been like this since 2001. The US is getting less stable instead of more stable, so I don't know what Europe is hoping for.
> the cycle has been like this since 2001
> The US is getting less stable instead of more stable
> I hope they are more long-sighted than that
Quoting you out of order, but when one puts all three together what do you believe the long-term plan should be? America is, by your own admission, becoming less stable, and currently threatening annexation of multiple countries. What exactly do you think "less stable" looks like after this?
> I hope they are more long-sighted than that.
If it happened once it may very well happen again. Things will change after this.
> They did the same thing with Bush II's "with us or against us"
I don't think that Bush II threatened to invade Europe, and that Europe responded by preparing for an invasion, though.
Yeah I agree. It's been a progression. There are tik-toks going around liberal circles pining for the days of Bush II even.
> I think the best outcome would really be the US' current allies are just waiting until trump goes and he doesn't break too much and the new person goes back to a more stable posture.
I’m afraid that ship has sailed. This was the general feeling during Bidens’ presidency. After Trump’s reelection, it’s clear that the USA is permanently one swing state away from electing a tyrant. I think the rest of the world will need to see a widely held conviction of never again and fundamental changes to America’s democratic system, before trust can be rebuilt.
Somehow, "deep state" is always there as the god of Trump's failures. The concept of "deep state" should be excised from conversation now that we can clearly see the unilateral rule of this administration. At this point, I wish there was a deep state, but unfortunately there's just Trump. His personal idiosyncrasies explain things much better than any conspiracy theory ever could.
No, there is a deep state. It's people who are in the government, who hold to the constitution and the rule of law, rather than implementing whatever wild idea Trump currently proposes that is illegal and/or unconstitutional, and who therefore work internally to block a bunch of Trump's plans.
Or at least they must feel like the deep state to Trump. It's just that, for those who like the rule of law, those people are the good guys.
Nonsense. What "deep stater" would think taking de jure control of Greenland would be worth destroying NATO and transatlantic relations broadly, especially when the US already has access to it for military purposes?
“Acquiring” in that sentence is doing a lot of work for “forcibly invading a NATO ally and triggering article 5”.
I don't think it will trigger article 5. Rather it will (or has?) destroy NATO.
Luckily there are other defensive alliances in place.
The broad advantage of having a "felt of society" —mutually overlapping circles— as opposed to a "fabric of society", is that the latter is much easier to tear.
European Union article 42(7) for example. But it has not been very well developed since there was little need with Nato around.
Exactly what Putin wants.
And what will we Europeans do if Denmark triggers article 5. A single US carrier group could stop all commercial traffic to Europe and a single USA submarine could keep the parody of navies we have in check.
(a) if DK triggered Art 5, could Ambassador Whitaker not implement a Denial of Service attack?
(b) I'm more optimistic. Indeed, on the scale of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46510437 I'm currently on "practise speaking Cantonese".
Why? Because even if Oceania, Rasia, and Eastasia want to play 1984 sphere of influence games, we can probably position ourselves neutrally, to trade freely with all of them — and whenever one has designs on us, then the other two would naturally be forced to counter.
> This is more than Trump being Trump.
Correction: This is more than Trump not being Presidential!
It's stupider than any notion of the deep state. It's rich billionaire assholes like Ronald Lauder that pushed stuff like the annexation of Greenland because they have money-induced rotting brains and have never encountered pushback for anything in their lives. And if there's anything Trump loves more than gaudy fake gold, it's trying to be one of the big shots.
The US would erupt in protest if the American military laid a finger on any <checks notes> Danish or other NATO-allied troops.
Indeed, there would likely be a great deal of backlash in the military itself.
This is not what Americans want. It cannot even be said that those who voted for Our National Embarrassment want this, because He Who Shall Not Be Named ran on an isolationist, xenophobic platform that pledged "no new wars" and that he would be the "president of peace".
The American military has already threatened to invade multiple "allies" (POTUS being the chief of the military, right?). Did the US erupt in protest?
> The US would erupt in protest
Would it? Only if by protest you mean doing some moaning on Twitter and Reddit, then scrolling to the next post.
https://apnews.com/article/poll-trump-venezuela-foreign-poli...
It's OK to name him, his name is pedophile Don.
[flagged]
"Zero backlash" isn't fully accurate. You could complain about the focus of current protests in the United States being in other areas, but that's what happens when masked thugs are brutalizing and abducting your neighbors under color of authority.
All signs except for polls showing a large majority of Americans opposing the idea[1], opposition from within Trump's own party[2], and resistance from the military[3], for example... This Greenland nonsense is Trump's private obsession. The only Americans supporting it are Trump loyalists who would just as readily support a plan to blow up the moon if Trump started yammering on about that instead.
1) https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/06/politics/trump-western-he...
2) https://time.com/7344316/republicans-break-ranks-with-trump-...
3) https://www.ibtimes.com/trumps-greenland-invasion-plot-spark...
I’m less interested in what Americans say than in what they actually do.
Well if someone threatens to invade you, and you don't send military reinforcements, what would that say?
It’s still important to point out when the „reasonable right” take on it is that it’s just Trump being Trump.
Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg have invested in the mineral exploration company KoBold Metals in 2019, and the company began drilling in Greenland in August 2022.
Peter Thiel backed Praxis, a startup that envisions building a semi-autonomous, low-regulation "network city" in Greenland. The vision is led by Praxis co-founder Dryden Brown, who sees Greenland as an ideal testing ground for a future Mars colony. Praxis has raised hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, however, the proposal faces significant opposition from unexpectedly Greenlandic and Danish politicians.
And then there's this: Ibtimes reports that MAGA Supporters Urge Barron Trump to Marry Princess of Denmark and Claim Greenland as Dowry
MAGA wants Barron Trump to marry Princess Isabella of Denmark to claim Greenland
They should also be arming the population to make an occupation impossible. This is assuming they have mandatory military training in Denmark and people know how to use automatic weapons, grenades, etc.
At 0.026 people per square kilometer, you could argue it's indeed proven difficult to occupy.
If the would-be invaders were "normal", they'd not go near populated areas. They'd just set up base wherever they wanted to extract resources or whatever.
But the US already had excellent relations with Denmark and could probably have gotten mining rights or whatever they wanted without this weird display of power.
The huge downside to that would be it would quickly demonstrate how incredibly expensive, slow and uncertain such mining operations would be.
I must conclude the annexation of Greenland is mostly a play for the US domestic audience. Very similar to Russia - Ukraine. Maybe a way to put pressure on Canada too.
> Maybe a way to put pressure on Canada too.
A number of my Canadian friends are of the opinion that if the US takes Greenland, Canada will be the next acquisition target. I really, really wish I could argue against that notion.
You can buy a rifle like a hammer in Greenland. It has probably the loosest gun control for bolt action arms of any relatively well off country, including looser than the US as there is no background check (nor licensing) for commercial sales.
Why the fuck is this flagged?
Tripwire force intended to signal commitment and achieve deterrence by creating uncertainty about the costs involved.
> creating uncertainty about the costs involved.
Is anyone uncertain about the cost of invading a military ally to acquire more "vital" space?
I mean, normally, no, but nowadays, yes.
The only language Trump and Putin speak is blunt power. (Except Trump also responds well to flattery. I doubt you'd get very far with Putin speaking that language.)
There is certainty, however, in cost in sending troops to Denmark.
So it allows US to sap the resources of the adversary, making it even more expensive to hold Denmark. And that is ultimately the goal, because the more pain in the ass and expensive it is for Denmark to hold Greenland, the quicker there will be for pressure for Greenland to become independent.
And independence is only a hop, skip, and jump away from foreign influence; given that Greenland is indefensible without alliance and economically heavily subsidized.
> given that Greenland is indefensible without alliance and economically heavily subsidized.
That's valid for like 99% of countries on the planet so I'm not sure what signals it sends.
They could use the same logic to invade Germany tomorrow if they wanted, who's going to stop them anyways ?
Who said anything about actually invading? I'm talking about the threat of invading to make it cost Denmark even more than it currently does to hold. The US doesn't need to invade, only create a bluff to make it more painful to hold it.
And no, 99% of countries on the planet do not get 10-15k of outside subsidies per resident.
Also I think you are ignoring nuance on the importance of alliance; the population density and population is incredibly low and they are situated quite close to the US. The US has disproportionately strong-armed virtually every nation around it of similar size/strength; that's why central America and the Caribbean are chalk full of stories of US meddling. It's not similar to places like Brazil where an invasion of a world power would still cost an adversary a lot more than they bargain for in ground losses even without alliance even if the adversary would doubtlessly win a clear victory. They are far weaker at the negotiation table than, say, Germany, when in comes to foreign influence.
> 99% of countries on the planet do not get 10-15k of outside subsidies per resident.
While not 10-15k, the feds put ~5-8k [0,1,2] per-resident into Alaska, a remote territory the country intends to hold
[0] https://www.usaspending.gov/state/alaska/latest
[1] https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20250305/117980/HHRG...
[2] https://usafacts.org/answers/how-much-money-does-the-federal...
> The US doesn't need to invade, only create a bluff to make it more painful to hold it.
When you create a bluff pretending to be an enemy, do you still count as an ally?
Possibly not, but I don't think you can count on 1:1 pairing of enemy/ally pre and post Denmark as the sovereign of Greenland.
A tripwire force doesn't cost much because it's minimal. That's by design.
https://www-dr-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/indland/groenland/e...
Both sides are meeting again today. Not sure what are they going to discuss when it’s a complete deadlock situation.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/denmark-greenland-face-...
Not sure why the Danish and Greenlandic governments go to the WH to discuss with Vance. This is appearing weak.
Civilised people might consider it to be "appearing reasonable"?
Trump is not long for this world, MAGA might crumble or more probably fall under the control of one of the possible successors in the WH. Establishing diplomatic ties with his wranglers pre heart attack is smart.
As for how this is seen internally for Danes, at least in my part of the world the US admin has already achieved crackhead with a knife status. I suspect that trying the dog whisperer shtick (like Mamdani) will not be seen negatively.
They requested a meeting with Rubio. Only later on Vance said he would crash the party.
Sure but why should they request a meeting? The Americans should go to Copenhagen if they want to discuss something.
You go to the King, the King does not go to you. The party that travels is the weaker one. Maybe that's childish but it is the standard power play even in daily life and business.
This Greenland saga is particularly stupid because the US can achieve essentially the same aims by doing the right thing, occupying the moral high ground.
The majority of Greenlanders want independence. That percentage would possibly increase if they knew that they had solid support for statehood with good security agreements and trade agreements from the US.
Strong pressure on Denmark from the US would likely get Greenland their independence. If Greenlanders want it, then many Danes would feel obligated to give it to them. US pressure would help turn that into reality.
Once Greenland is independent, then those trade & security agreements mentioned would provide the US with the minerals or whatever it's truly after.
Denmark's parliament has been favourably diposed to Greenland independence so far so there's not much to pressure.
This approach would expect for Trump to have some patience and also to acknowledge that it would not happen within end of his presidency.
The fact that we're even talking about this shows how far the US has gone off the rails. Trump has said and done a bigly amount of insane things, but the idea of invading Greenland has to be in the top 5.
Trump's behavior is (once more) ridiculous. There are many arguments against it (military/diplomatic inside NATO and economic). I believe the reasons behind a hostile takeover are a push from billionaires who control the government and want to get into extraction business and the urge to throw out the ongoing presence of China and Russia.
Why this was flagged?
Censorship in HN came to a point that can't be ignored anymore.
It is ok to post an article saying Trump will send troops to Greenland, but a post saying Denmark will send troops defend Greenland is flagged?
It's ridiculous.
[flagged] Warsaw Under Siege: Poles Fight Fiercely in Air & Street Battles to Repel German Invaders
[flagged]
[flagged]
Yet somehow other political posts that aren't as overtly critical of the US government aren't being flagged. Weird, huh?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46616745
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46614963
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46600194
I maintain my conspiracy theory that a lot of the politically-motivated flagging on this platform is from the moderators, not the users. Y Combinator the company has shown to be openly pro-Trump.
2/3 of those articles are tech related, the other not obviously so, and the current not at all. Of course, the HN guidelines don't state "only tech news." They say submit stories which "gratify one's intellectual curiosity" and to avoid most political stories; I think this one fails on both counts. Scoring this charitably 3 to 1 nonetheless yields no significant insight.
Personally, I followed HN for news about hacking. I'd prefer all offtopic submissions flagged, or at least demoted. What's the point in a _hacker_ news Front Page RSS feed if I get dupes of major global stories?
> Y Combinator the company has shown to be openly pro-Trump.
Paul Graham is pretty anti-trump if you follow is twitter account.
Agent Krasnov is busy destroying the United States, NATO, and the post-war world order. Things will get much, much worse, very quickly.
US could just threaten to withdraw from NATO if it can't get Greenland. What then will remain of NATO that can defend itself from Russia and China? Besides the US, only the UK and France have nukes.
How is that a threat, considering that the US also effectively withdraws from NATO if it can get Greenland?
It is a veiled threat because once the US voluntarily withdraws from NATO, it is no longer bound to any obligation to not seize Greenland by force.
Most of Europe and Canada.
Congress can, Trump cannot.
I cannot imagine how things would play out if Trump went through with the invasion. Things are getting increasingly grim here in the states locally and a combination of martial law + a clearly illegal invasion I think would lead to the immediate collapse of the US as well as NATO.
It's clear that Stephen Miller in all of his fascist eggheaded brain thinks that he can just do a real quick annexation and is one of the key people pushing for this. But I don't think any of them are prepared for the fallout.
Unless The Ballroom Bunker is part of the prep!
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if folks in the pentagon were running "controlled nuclear war" scenarios.
Or civil war over Washington. What's "nice" with a nuclear bunker is that you can clear the area you are in with nukes.
[flagged]
Well. What is the minimum amount of money people in Minnesota would accept in order to join Canada?
"The native people of Greenland need to however be surveyed "
And if they say "no - no survey"?
Then what?
"They" is not a valid entity; only individuals are valid entities. Immense political pressure can be exerted to force a survey. Some people will vote, and some won't. Those who don't vote will get assigned the median. The only way out for Greenlanders is to be united in voting a very high number, so high that the US could never afford to pay it, but realistically this is unlikely to happen under my specific noted approach which monotonically penalizes high values and rewards low values.
"Immense political pressure can be exerted to force a survey"
Ok, what pressure - other than violence - will be brought to bear on the poor Greenlanders.
Sounds more and more like voting in the Donbas.
Oh the political pressure to conduct a survey would apply on mainland Denmark, not on Greenland. Unlike Donbas being occupied by Russia, note that Greenland is occupied by Denmark, so any bias is in favor of Denmark, not the US.
Note: Greenland is not occupied by Denmark unless you agree that Hawaii is occupied by the US.
And if Denmark says “nope, no survey”.
Then what?
https://theonion.com/u-s-to-give-every-iraqi-3-544-91-let-fr...
> The US needs Greenland to better protect the North Atlantic.
They already have forces there, and, at least until this admin's reckless imperialistic proclamations, Denmark would've almost certainly been amiable to leasing more space to the U.S. for whatever else they wanted to do.
> determine the minimum amount of money that they will be willing to accept to voluntarily align with the US
It is cheaper to do it by force, because so far Trump offered 100k USD/person. That's laughable lowballing when we consider that it would be gone within few visits in a hospital.
> gone within few visits in a hospital.
That's not even the case in the existing US territories which already have cheaper healthcare than the mainland. The existing hospital infrastructure and pricing would of course remain, at least until it gets gobbled up by private equity but this too is subject to the laws of the territory.
[flagged]
It seems weird for Denmark to be defending Greenland from US threats while also leasing land on Greenland to the US for Pituffik Space Force Base. European states seem to be doing everything by half measures in the hope that Trump loses interest in Greenland.
Can you explain to me how it is weird?
Months ago, the US was an ally of Denmark and Greenland. Greenland allowed an ally to have their military stationed there, because it served both (through NATO).
From one day to the other, the US behave like an enemy. And the US behave erratically. So NATO still exists on the paper because the US haven't invaded anyone yet, but the US are behaving like enemies and threaten to invade.
Seems more than rational, from the point of view of the rest of NATO, to prepare for an invasion, but at the same time hope that NATO still exists and that the US are not actually an enemy (probably not an ally anymore, but "partner" is better than "enemy").
Or am I missing something?
That indeed seems to be what is happening. Here are the pledges of support which I have seen so far: DE ES FI FR IS IT NO PO SE UK, and I have heard of at least two countries with concrete plans to second troops for a NATO Greenland force.
If they rescinded that lease, then Trump's so called reasoning actually becomes valid. The US does actually have a geopolitical/strategic/military interest in being able to operate from and around Greenland. The reason this entire activity is a farce is because the US can already do that.
It's clear that Trump acts alone in foreign policy - formal channels and structures can barely check him. However, informal resistance still appears to exist. Trump apparently still takes into account the vibes of the people he surrounds himself with into account. In a haphazard way yes, but it's clear that Trump can be swayed to some degree by those around him.
The Trump administration is not a unified bloc, and there are likely many elements that see annexing Greenland as ridiculous. However, if they lost access, then they would be forced to concede that there was something actually valuable to gain.
This is a good point - thanks!
I see it as one of those inertial things initiated many administrations ago, e.g. Guantanamo Bay's lease from Cuba.