So I read this and it’s only 1 article in a Trump friendly paper but… it seems like Greenland needs some freedom, not necessarily kinetically delivered.

https://nypost.com/2026/01/16/world-news/greenlanders-speak-out-against-danish-rule-they-stole-our-future/

Should we force this issue?

A new arrangement with a new independent Greenland or no more NATO?

If someone asks to buy your house and you tell them it’s not for sale, that’s the end of the conversation.

My speculation the US will negotiate a new SOFA with Denmark in Greenland similar to the agreement with the Marshall Islands, not being familiar with the social construct of Greenland, how much of the population is really tied to a Danish identity. In WW2 Denmark fell to the Wehrmacht in 6 hours and a Danish diplomat Henrik Kaufmann gave Greenland control to the Allies , since Denmark at this time was Axis control he was immediately fired since he had no permission to do this.

Is it time to fully open Keflavik, I was there when the USSR collapsed and we ended up with no mission.

5 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

If someone asks to buy your house and you tell them it’s not for sale, that’s the end of the conversation.

Maybe if the parties involved are equal but if they are not then eminent domain / you have to do this is just the way it is.

If the state I live in says a road / utility line has to go thru for the greater good, here’s your check now move along.

Great powers, more powerful countries sometimes just make things as they want.

The difference between the US and Russia, China, etc… is the reasons why, how we treat those we make do as we want and the how we make our will done upon others, particularly in this situation. Plenty of examples where we could have done better.

Not saying we are perfect, not saying the effort to “acquire” Greenland or just change the status quo is without criticism or risk but we can’t let the other powers into the Arctic more than they already are. This is our Golan Heights, we just have to have a greater say in what happens there. No apologies, not backing up and not going away.

Working with us is way better than not.

17 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

If someone asks to buy your house and you tell them it’s not for sale, that’s the end of the conversation.

Lol. Childish.

You can buy the houses surrounding them and make them miserable. You can use eminent domain. You can wait for a forest fire to obliterate the neighborhood then use onerous regulations to prevent the owner from rebuilding.

Pretending like the world is a libertarian playground is why Maduro lasted in our back yard for years and China became a super power using our money.

That doesn't mean we storm the beaches of Greenland, but especially considering the Danish status quo is only possible through the grace of our military umbrella, if we want it, the question is not "is it for sale," the question is "how much."

This is the devil's bargain Europe made 30+ years ago when they outsourced their military capacity to us. Turns out the interest on that loan is a killer.

Edited yesterday at 03:19 PM1 day by Lord Ratner

There is not a square ft on planet Earth that has not been taken from someone else by force by the current inhabitant or ancestors before. Ain’t no land belong to nobody.

15 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Maybe if the parties involved are equal but if they are not then eminent domain / you have to do this is just the way it is.

If the state I live in says a road / utility line has to go thru for the greater good, here’s your check now move along.

Great powers, more powerful countries sometimes just make things as they want.

The difference between the US and Russia, China, etc… is the reasons why, how we treat those we make do as we want and the how we make our will done upon others, particularly in this situation. Plenty of examples where we could have done better.

Not saying we are perfect, not saying the effort to “acquire” Greenland or just change the status quo is without criticism or risk but we can’t let the other powers into the Arctic more than they already are. This is our Golan Heights, we just have to have a greater say in what happens there. No apologies, not backing up and not going away.

Working with us is way better than not.

The difference is that you're a citizen of the government that is trying to use eminent domain to take your private property. This is akin to Australia wanting to buy your house; you said no, so they put pressure on your neighbors to coerce you to sell your house to the Aussies.

2 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

The difference is that you're a citizen of the government that is trying to use eminent domain to take your private property. This is akin to Australia wanting to buy your house; you said no, so they put pressure on your neighbors to coerce you to sell your house to the Aussies.

But that is what people do, maybe they shouldn’t but force & intimidation with a mixture of the fair, unfair and semi-fair application of laws/rules/treaties is how entities that occasionally use violence to resolve disputes do things.

I’m not for using one weapon on the Danes or anyone else participating in a presence and reassurance mission there for them but I am for using our leverage to get either a better status for first the USA, then the Greenlanders and ultimately for the Danes and NATO.

If they can’t meet us halfway on this, then we give them fair warning that the US membership in NATO is not guaranteed. You meet us halfway and we give you X,Y,Z… Values based diplomacy/international relations is not viable in this next phase of global affairs we are in.

Transactional relations with reasonable deference to civilizational values, natural rights and general respect for the natural world should be our COA going forward.

Remember when Iraq went into Kuwait?

What's different now?

I understand that Greenland is important but when did the USA start going after weaker countries for their goods?

We typically help out the defenseless not go after their property.

I suppose it could be that Trump wants Greenland to be the 51st star on the American flag. I doubt that's the plan though. I don't know what he wants, but I assume it's something more mundane (new SOFA as @Prosuper pointed out, maybe some kind of mineral rights, etc).

And when Trump wants to move the needle on something, but he knows he'll run into difficulty, he has a well-worn strategy:

If he wants X, he proposes X². When he knows he's going to face some kind of challenge on an issue, he proposes the most hyperbolic, most extreme version of what he wants.

The media melts down and the public melts down. Whoever is on the other side of whatever the issue is, melts down as well.

After all of the chaos, Trump backs down, and the other side backs down, they negotiate, and Trump often gets what he wants, or close to it.

It's not even all that unique. Developers do it all the time. When they want to put up a new 10 story building, but know they're going to face a bunch of NIMBYs, they go in with plans for 20 stories, take the attacks, and eventually walk it back to the 10 story plan they wanted in the first place.

I suspect that's what's happening with Greenland.