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 Sunday at 03:19 PM2 days 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.

3 hours ago, Biff_T said:

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.

The security environment has changed / gotten more dangerous

I don’t like it but methinks behind the scenes the other players are maneuvering their chess pieces, developing systems they are not publicly disclosing, preparing for another major military action to change the world order to their benefit.

Blocking this is in our interest and Europe’s.

Perhaps a bit over dramatic but a scene from the Netflix series the Diplomat gives a fictional but realistic reasoning why we need a new status with Greenland

It’s strategic real estate in preparation for the inevitable tension and stand off in the Arctic, for basing and securing the North Atlantic and a source of the minerals we will need to build tech, weapons and prosperity to keep authoritarian regimes at bay.

We are not perfect but we are a helluva lot better than the alternative hegemony.

Libs don’t like it, but the rules have changed. Power begets power. Alliances must be reconsidered. And if it requires some constitutional understandings be re-litigated, we should do it to ensure our country is prioritized.

Does this mean MAGA believes Global Warming is real now?

1 hour ago, archer said:

Does this mean MAGA believes Global Warming is real now?

What does this have to do with global warming?

One of the primary impetuses for Greenland is arctic competition due to a more accessible northern trade route along with rare earths and hydrocarbons becoming accessible as ice melts.

Edited yesterday at 10:03 PM1 day by archer

Is trump trying to get Denmark or nato to buy more f35s?

Greenland doesn’t need shit. This is fucking ridiculous.

So Germany really needed Poland, Japan really needed Manchuria, North Korea really needed the south, North Vietnam really needed South Vietnam, Argentina really needed the Falklands, the USSR really needed Afghanistan, Iraq really needed Kuwait, and Russia really needed Ukraine.

We were with the defenders in every single instance. The only people excited about the US shaking down a NATO ally are Russia, China, NK and Iran. This will not end well for the Republicans.

Does anyone here actually believe that Trump is going to try and get the US to invade Greenland? If he does do you really think we'd actually do it? This is political theater.
We reminded the world that the western hemisphere is ours. Now he's trying (poorly) to remind NATO that they really need us and we don't need them.

Edited 18 hours ago18 hr by FourFans

6 hours ago, ecugringo said:

Is trump trying to get Denmark or nato to buy more f35s?

They’re already buying them.

Threatening to beat up your playground sidekick to get his lunch money is slightly better than actually beating him up.

The entire Greenland thing is asinine (in addition to being immoral) not one of the justifications makes any sense. Much like narco boats, they are all sophistry.

This, like Venezuela is about Monroe doctrine.

Its about financial security. We've all heard it over-and-over that America subsidizes the security of Europe, so much so that we blow off its impacts as insignificant... they are not.

The primary reason these countries are able to maintain welfare states is because we do this. The primary reason America is in significant debt is because we have subsidized so much of the world (defense and otherwise), and asked almost nothing in return. This is a core Christian value, not sustainable in a national policy context.

It is no small thing. Every time someone highlights something another country has better, its drawing on this reality.

Greenland is an extension of this conflict.

Its important to position against China/Russia in the artic, but we can't subsidize European defense again without potential upside, there is no potential upside on offer from Europe right now. They want the US protection and all the resources.

Edited 7 hours ago7 hr by FlyingWolf

3 hours ago, busdriver said:

Threatening to beat up your playground sidekick to get his lunch money is slightly better than actually beating him up.

The entire Greenland thing is asinine (in addition to being immoral) not one of the justifications makes any sense. Much like narco boats, they are all sophistry.

This, like Venezuela is about Monroe doctrine.

It's not immoral if the plan is to buy it. It may be exploitative negotiations, but as I said before, that's the devil's bargain Europe made when they outsourced their security to the US.

I happen to think a big fucking war is coming, so I'm a bit more amenable to efforts to shore up our side of the globe.

I am, however, skeptical of Trump's specific strategy in this case for obtaining Greenland. I think his taunting of Canada was a pretty big whiff, so we'll see if it works with Europe. I would consider any arrangement where the US "owns" any part(s) of Greenland to be used 100% at our discretion as a big win. I think the best case scenario, and perhaps most likely, is that the "compromise" ends up being the sale of specific small, strategic, uninhabited parts of Greenland to the U.S. and mineral/resource agreements with Denmark for the rest of the land. We get what we need with none of the headache of another random population that is and isn't American.

Trump is 80. There's no universe where his prowess and people skills are what they used to be, and it's showing. I think he's still on the mark for the "what" of his foreign policy, but the "how" is struggling.

7 hours ago, busdriver said:

Threatening to beat up your playground sidekick to get his lunch money is slightly better than actually beating him up.

The entire Greenland thing is asinine (in addition to being immoral) not one of the justifications makes any sense. Much like narco boats, they are all sophistry.

This, like Venezuela is about Monroe doctrine.

Agreed, though I'll call that a false equivalency. This is us pushing back against an organization of countries that have abused the good graces of the USA and acted as though access to our markets and access to use of our military force is their own personal birthright. During my time in NATO that attitude was common, and rather amusing to point out. Denmark really is too poor to buy blanks for it's military, so they point and say 'bang'. I'd guess the UK, some of the Nordic countries, and possibly now Poland are the only EU countries that could actually defend their own boarders...though Germany is on that path finally...(the history buff in me shutters at that). The US and the reputation of our military has kept the EU's Eastern flank secure for so long that the Europeans have forgotten that fact. Now the are being reminded and their calling foul on what should be called truth. Saying we're stealing our sidekick's lunch money is like saying a battered wife who finally defends herself is committed assault (I imagine something like Ronda Rousey being a battered wife for years and then finally realizing, wait, I can kill this guy...). On a technical level it might technically be true. On the truth level it's not.

This is isn't bullying. This is the US finally standing up for itself.