Behind the public bluster and noise from the political class and media pundits, there is almost an assurance of Greenland being a bigger part of the American sphere in the long run. Not through storming her shores, but firm backroom diplomacy and Realpolitik sausage-making. Not for the resources (mostly), but as another backstop for the American security apparatus.
All of that could/should have been discussed IN THAT BACKROOM rather than outright threatening a NATO ally. Publicly threatening the Danes for the second time in ~9 months isn’t going to make them warm up to that idea.
While that well be the desired end-state, a coordinated announcement after that political sausage making would have been far better than what can only be seen by the Danes AS an outright threat TO storm their shores.
Concur. The irony is that all these same nations don't play word games at the Arctic Conferences, where they share US concerns. I went back and forth on social media with a Dane whose question was: aren't the current bases enough, and if not, why not? The simple answer is threat environment has changed. I'd have thought the Danes would be the first to propose expanding US (OK, call them NATO bases, if it makes everyone feel better) bases in Greenland, as well as Scandinavian participation in same.
Off the top of my head, really competitive rates for U.S. energy comes mind as a bargaining chip...but does the EU have a say on who can import what and at what price to the EUROZONE? Asking because I don't know.
Yes, the Great Circle Route takes ICBMs from Russia and Iran directly over Greenland, as shown in the chart. What the chart does not show is the radar coverage fan from the giant missile tracking radar that the U.S. has operated for decades from its Space Force Base at Pituffik (formerly Thule) on Greenland. If we have additional defense needs on Greenland, they can be negotiated with the local Greenland government and the Danes. They have been very receptive to our requests, including a significant upgrade to this radar in the 2000s that gave it enhanced missile detection and tracking capabilities that are tied into our overall ballistic missile defense system for the Continental U.S.
YOU might think the CINC is "Putin's puppet"; fact and reality say different. As for the "end of NATO"; it's not "NATO" checking Putin to the west but the countries of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic looking out for their own interests that accomplish that.
Speaking of Poland, seems that we've had a significant presence there in recent months, but hey, you just keep "thinking"
The "grown-ups" are blind to the corruption going on before their very eyes. Nothing is higher on Putin's "to do" list than destroying NATO, and his puppet is working on that task as hard as he can.
This is not linear math. The ebb and flow of these geopolitical machinations don't fit some nice & tidy model spitting out easily predictable outcomes. I have low regard for the decades of Europe letting the U.S. shoulder the bulk of NATO's defense posture but that doesn't mean the U.S. didn't get something out of the bargain. What are your ROE WRT the potentially involuntary annexation of an ally's land and causing every capital in Europe to openly question the U.S. as a security partner? Getting Europe to put on their big boy pants is long overdue and we pussy-footed around that for decades and we've long gone past the expiration date on subject. What we didn't need to do is create the diplomatic upheaval that we now find ourselves in WRT Greenland. And that will have consequences regardless of whether a genuine and mutually-agreed upon solution happens on this subject or not.
I’ll take that as an admission that you are pro US imperialism then. Gotcha. I’m sure somehow you’ve justified the freedom for me but not for thee cognitive dissonance that represents. Other countries, particularly liberal democracies, don’t care for it thanks. Keep your MAGA ridiculousness within your own sovereign borders.
This is true but President Trump has made everyone aware of its strategic importance to the USA in a very different manner. However, until Trump started talking about it nobody was talking about it. I also wonder if he went this route because issues dealing with NATO in Trump.01. I do get your point and share it.
Has he? Has he published an essay about its strategic importance or has he held onto a wall and said he wants it? I think this is the most important point of critics. Get the right message to the right people to communicate the best strategic path. That's not what's happening.
With Trump the thing is often not the thing. Sometimes he says and does things to make a point about something else. He is a master of dealing himself extra cards to play. It wouldn't surprise me if his intent was to rouse Denmark into taking Greenland seriously and spending more money to defend it.
Or maybe, like his generals have been saying, he has a tendency to deliver off the cuff remarks to the press about whatever happens to be passing through his mind at the time, regardless of its security category.
I like your comment but maybe don't agree. Trump is crazy like a fox at this stuff. Bully, bluster, sweet talk, ramble, I'm not convinced it isn't part of some plan. I definitely think one of his talents is to intentionally infuriate his enemies, getting them so mad they make mistakes he can exploit.
Think about professional wrestling - so much of what Trump does fits that mold - it's off the cuff blather and insults but also has intent in forming a storyline.
It's important to only lightly hold onto any belief that can't possibly be disproven. And in that case it's more of a hunch than a belief. "Trump is crazy like a fox" doesn't seem to be a disprovable hypothesis.
Well said. But I don't think he is smart, as in, a guy who knows a lot of things. I think he's a genius level of sizing people up, figuring out what makes them tick, and what path to manipulate people to get to where he wants to go.
Imagine being a real estate developer in New York. Dealing with public officials, permitters, unions, the public. And being wildly successful. he did it by becoming larger than life.
Angry people don't make rational decisions, so he winds people up intentionally, waits till they screw up, and takes advantage. You get the outrage of the week. It's the stray voltage theory of Obama, taken to 11. People pissed and angry over here, can't pay attention over there, where he is moving the ball forward. And he is always moving forward. They win on one issue, and he winds of five, and has another six issues going. Then he circles back to pick up the issue he lost on.
Ok I ditched my TDS for the entire read of the article and…for what? You don’t say anything except we can probably just negotiate what we need. Oh gee, why didn’t I think of that.
The Danes have given their blood in our defense. Per capita, they lost more troops in our Asian excursion than we did. Think on that for a moment; the loss of life for the Danes was a higher percentage of their population than our casualties were of ours.
It is all well and good to spend money on defense, but nations that spend blood deserve better than the way we are treating Denmark.
I know know that much about things that happened before I was born. I do know that when my country was attacked, Denmark sent troops to fight, and die, with ours.
Initial Invasion: Germany invaded Denmark on April 9, 1940, quickly overwhelming the small Danish forces and leading to a swift capitulation.
Cooperation Policy: Denmark pursued a policy of "cooperation" with the occupiers, allowing a degree of autonomy while supplying food and resources.
Resistance: Despite this, a strong Danish Resistance movement engaged in sabotage and intelligence gathering against the Germans.
In essence, while Denmark's regular army remained separate and was eventually disbanded, a nationally-backed volunteer unit fought for Germany, distinct from the occupied nation's formal military structure.
Your are an idiot. That simple. Greenland ownerhip is based upon the Arctic Council. That simple. We have a small template in the arctic with Alaska. The Russians and the Canadians have great template. The Chinese want to intrude into the arctic (the Chinese have more ice breaker ships than the Russians have and we do not have very few). And the Chinese have no teritory in the Arctic circle. The Arctic is the next frontier. So if we do not gear up with more ice breaker ships and we do not build more than the Chinese will take over the Arctic. That simple.
We need more SHIPS period (mostly naval) but we don’t have them and worse still we don’t have the capacity (or capability in some instances). THAT’S a huge problem we have to get our arms around, and the infrastructure to build them at pace is years/decades away.
I’ve breakers should definitely be on the list, but we’re so far behind we can’t afford to put them at the top.
Any conflict in the Pacific will be naval, as has repeatedly been proven. We’re not ready and that hasn’t gone unnoticed by the PRC.
Hey, Danes, how bout this to kick off the discussion: The US will mine your Greenland oil, gas & minerals and pay you generous royalties, for a fair ROI and a stronger military self defense presence. Denmark will get richer and stronger. Danes will have better lives, more secure and more prosperous. NATO will be more secure. Our expanded presence will help to deter WW3… which will be really good for the environment, not to mention humanity in general.
High standard of living. Denmark has a mix of socialism and free-market capitalism. They are an example of the “Nordic model.” An internationally high tax level, and a correspondingly high level of government-provided services (e.g. health care, child care and education services). There are also income transfers to various groups, such as retirees, disabled people, the unemployed, and students.
She has a modern high-income and highly developed mixed economy, dominated by the service sector with 80% of all jobs; about 11% of employees work in manufacturing and 2% in agriculture. The nominal gross national income per capita was the ninth-highest in the world at $68,827 in 2023.
Income inequality has traditionally been low in Denmark. The Danish labour market is characterized by a high degree of union membership rates and collective agreement coverage dating back from 1899.
That approach worked fairly well with Alaska (once owned by Russia, but I digress...) so maybe it'd work with Greenland for both the Danes and the USA as beneficiaries, right?
So a few years down the road, DJT's era's past tense, the Dems have overcome their aversion to practical politics and now head the latest Administration. One plank of their platform still solidly in place is "WE'VE GOT TO STOP BURNING OIL!!!" so they declare Greenland off limits to resource extraction. Happened with Alaska you know, and pipelines planned for other energy developments in the lower 48.
Besides, they're disgruntled because the 10% going into their (offshore) pockets is part of what's been going back to the Danes for access to land that's strategically worth the US's attention.
Well, if the Dhimmis have returned to “practical politics” as you fantasize, they will no longer be dhimmis and they will no longer be committing energy self-strangulation in the name pantheism (on behalf of China, Russia, Iran, OPEC, et al).
Concur. Greenland has been on the U.S.’s “would like to buy” list since the 1860s, but access is enough.
Part of the trouble is that Trump’s negotiating style is that of a Third World bazaar - he makes an absurd offer, expecting an equally absurd counteroffer, and then haggling. But many people in the First World don’t bargain like this. They expect an initial offer/counteroffer to be within 10% or so of the final price, and take anything else as an indication that you are not serious.
Well said. DJT's negotiation style is often counterproductive. Danes and Greenlanders deserve better, softer treatment. They are valued allies, and members of the first world.
With apologies to Greenland and Denmark, there comes a point where "it is what it is" becomes far more than just counterproductive and it is not a valid excuse. Trump's communication style is generally demeaning, confusing, imprecise and sloppy. For someone who is the president of the most powerful country on earth, he shoots his mouth off far too often.
Oh, and BTW, I have voted for him three times and support a solid 90% of his policies; but his irresponsible remarks drive me to distraction.
Choosing a candidate on the lesser of two evils argument's a pretty poor State of this Nation after 250 years.
I submit that we're 'lucky' to have DJT now, looking back on the debacles of recent Democrat administrations. Things could be a lot worse, we've lived through many years that serve well as examples of what must be avoided.
OH and where has the mealy mouthed "presidential" (hahahahaha) "diplomatic" soft verbiage ever gotten us? Other countries have been cheating us, eating our lunch, stomping on our bookbag, and stealing our homework for decades. Truman wanted Greenland. And here we are 70 years later still yapping about it. I see many responses where people could not, as our host requested, leave their TDS at the door.....
When Trump's first noises about the US taking control of Greenland were voiced (is first term if I recall correctly), it was in a more diplomatic but undeniably Trumpian tone of voice. While that is unfortunate, in international politics one has to be able to look past the style of the message for the actual content. Which works in the opposite direction as well: take care to not let your domestic style affect what ypou put forth when it concerns people from a different culture - they are not your home audience and will react in their own way.
Trump I think, given his business-background, ignores that, is my thinking. Not out of malice or sheer boorsihness but out of life-long habit. His persona is his personality so there's no longer any switching-off to be done.
Which means using the same language towards Denmark as towards Panama and the channel almost winding up in Chinese hands. As you state, completely unnecessary and an unforced error his administration seems Hell-bent to stick with.
As a Swede, I'm about 95% as qualified as a Dane to comment on one thing that may have been overlooked, on both sides:
Trump addresses Denmark as part of the EU, because to him that's what Denmark is.
Denmark listens and responds as the very old and sovereign kingdom that it is.*
And this obviously causes misunderstandings and talking past each other in both directions.
Trump needs to walk this back, and realise that the best bet is to develop a win/win - no lose type of deal with Denmark (not the EU, Denmark) that lets him thumb his nose at the EU before his core voter base in the USA, while taking care to show he respects and values Denmarks status as an ally and friend.
But walking things back isnt his strong suit.
He has created a very dangerous situation, and his advisors seem set to agravate things further. This serves to drive the EU closer together, and towards China.
If I was American, I'd start looking at which of his advisors and such stand to gain from increased tension between the EU and the USA. Bet you will find people with connections to China, and possibly the Middle East too.
*Settled in 10 000BC, the area that encompasses Denmark today was fully inhabited by the ancestors of today's Danes by 6 000BC - Denmark the place and people pre-dates the Egyptian pyramids. As does all the lands surrounding the Baltic Sea, except Russia (those late-comers have only been there for about 1 000 years or so...).
I don't agree 100%, but this is an interesting perspective on dealing with Demark vs. Europe. The US has done this with the UK for quite some time now, but much less so with continental Europeans and especially since the EEC/EU became an entitiy.
That tension seems only to go one way for some people. As long as we don't ruffle THEIR feathers, it's okay. Who cares who ruffles ours. Right? None of us knows for a fact how any negotiations really have gone and at what point private talks became public debate. I suggest Europeans have created a very dangerous situation. Countries have turned into immigrant pestholes full of no-go zones, burning Christian churches, rape squads and economic welfare wastelands. Denmark is now almost 13 percent immigrant population, the rate doubling in the last four years versus the previous ten. At what point does a country cease being your 6000 year old ancestral homeland full of Danes and becomes something else entirely that is not at all Danish? 20 percent? 30 percent? How quickly do you think immigrants will close that gap and then political control by newcomers will make treaties meaningless. (See NYC, by the way. Case in point. Mamdani is a lesson writ large for many other places.)
The US are ones asking for something, so yeah the onus is on them to not ruffle feathers in order to acquire what they want. Typically that's how bargaining goes.
Denmark has benefitted greatly from being in the EG/EU, because the Danes managed to negotiate a loophole for themselves and so can adust EU-regulations and policies to suit them. They could do this because when they joined Denmark was in an economic/financial slump, and were deemed by the EG to never be able to cause any problems (since the EU is London bankers*, Germany and France - the rest of us are satellites, influence-wise).
There's no political idea in Denmark over leaving the Union, but nor would they stay in to the death - they'd quietly leave while something big is going on; the Danes have zero illusions over their nation existing (historically speaking) at the suffering of their neighbours (or their own deft diplomacy, dep. on which nation's history books you study).
*De facto, since France under de Gaulle were vehemently against letting the UK into the Union, seeing it as the US puppet it was and thus untrustworthy and not in line with Union interests. But it was so long ago, it barely has bearing on present day mattters.
I would say that today the UK is more like an EU puppet and I wish they would just officially rejoin so we could just quit pretending about the special relationship. Labour is going to lose the next election anyway so they might as well do what they want. As for Greenland, there is some noise about doing a land acknowledgement deal with the indigenous people and just bribing Denmark to go away. While the Vikings were there before the current indigenous people who conquered the Dorset culture there was a couple of centuries of no European settlers before the Danes came.
Rus is from the area North of Stockholm, today called Roslagen: it means either "the lay of the Ros" or "the law of the Ros", and they created settlements all the way from the coast of the Baltic down to Miklagård (Constantinople), and travelled as far East as East of the Kaspian Sea.
The Varangian Guard of the Emperors of (East) Rome was made up of Swedes, mainly: Varangian is the Byantine spelling/pronounciation of Väring, a name meaning both "soldier-for-hire" and the name for people from a specific area of Sweden.
I'm agnostic about the defense benefits of a greater presence in Greenland. But from my POV the driver is potential profit going to Trump Family & Associates from the skim off mineral resource leases should the USA "run" Greenland. YMMV.
Behind the public bluster and noise from the political class and media pundits, there is almost an assurance of Greenland being a bigger part of the American sphere in the long run. Not through storming her shores, but firm backroom diplomacy and Realpolitik sausage-making. Not for the resources (mostly), but as another backstop for the American security apparatus.
All of that could/should have been discussed IN THAT BACKROOM rather than outright threatening a NATO ally. Publicly threatening the Danes for the second time in ~9 months isn’t going to make them warm up to that idea.
While that well be the desired end-state, a coordinated announcement after that political sausage making would have been far better than what can only be seen by the Danes AS an outright threat TO storm their shores.
Concur. The irony is that all these same nations don't play word games at the Arctic Conferences, where they share US concerns. I went back and forth on social media with a Dane whose question was: aren't the current bases enough, and if not, why not? The simple answer is threat environment has changed. I'd have thought the Danes would be the first to propose expanding US (OK, call them NATO bases, if it makes everyone feel better) bases in Greenland, as well as Scandinavian participation in same.
Off the top of my head, really competitive rates for U.S. energy comes mind as a bargaining chip...but does the EU have a say on who can import what and at what price to the EUROZONE? Asking because I don't know.
Yes, the Great Circle Route takes ICBMs from Russia and Iran directly over Greenland, as shown in the chart. What the chart does not show is the radar coverage fan from the giant missile tracking radar that the U.S. has operated for decades from its Space Force Base at Pituffik (formerly Thule) on Greenland. If we have additional defense needs on Greenland, they can be negotiated with the local Greenland government and the Danes. They have been very receptive to our requests, including a significant upgrade to this radar in the 2000s that gave it enhanced missile detection and tracking capabilities that are tied into our overall ballistic missile defense system for the Continental U.S.
Occupy Greenland and let the Danes whine. Schumer, too. A newly rearmed Germany can protect Denmark.
If it means the end of NATO as they claim then that would be icing on the cake.
There’s a reason NATO stands for Not At The Office or Not After Two O’clock.
Really?
As much as I LOVE DJT's trolling of our enemies domestic doing this to Danes is just plain DUMB - almost on a par with the above.
Actions like this are why we think Trump is Putin's puppet. There is nothing Putin would like more than the end of NATO. Trump is giving it to him.
This seizing of the Russian flagged tanker? Kayfabe.
YOU might think the CINC is "Putin's puppet"; fact and reality say different. As for the "end of NATO"; it's not "NATO" checking Putin to the west but the countries of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic looking out for their own interests that accomplish that.
Speaking of Poland, seems that we've had a significant presence there in recent months, but hey, you just keep "thinking"
He walks like Putin's puppet; talks like Putin's puppet; and is busting up NATO like Putin's puppet.
Go somewhere else, the grownups are talking.
The "grown-ups" are blind to the corruption going on before their very eyes. Nothing is higher on Putin's "to do" list than destroying NATO, and his puppet is working on that task as hard as he can.
Embarrassing dumb. SMH
…and NATO’s article 4.
Liked simply because Teddy Roosevelt smiles.
I can hear him saying "BULLY!"
Needs Americans To Operate.
This is not linear math. The ebb and flow of these geopolitical machinations don't fit some nice & tidy model spitting out easily predictable outcomes. I have low regard for the decades of Europe letting the U.S. shoulder the bulk of NATO's defense posture but that doesn't mean the U.S. didn't get something out of the bargain. What are your ROE WRT the potentially involuntary annexation of an ally's land and causing every capital in Europe to openly question the U.S. as a security partner? Getting Europe to put on their big boy pants is long overdue and we pussy-footed around that for decades and we've long gone past the expiration date on subject. What we didn't need to do is create the diplomatic upheaval that we now find ourselves in WRT Greenland. And that will have consequences regardless of whether a genuine and mutually-agreed upon solution happens on this subject or not.
We can worry about all that after the Stars and Stripes fly over Greenland. In the meantime enjoy a danish pastry and a cappuccino.
The jaw dropping casual imperialism in the comments is disturbing.
You are too easily disturbed.
I’ll take that as an admission that you are pro US imperialism then. Gotcha. I’m sure somehow you’ve justified the freedom for me but not for thee cognitive dissonance that represents. Other countries, particularly liberal democracies, don’t care for it thanks. Keep your MAGA ridiculousness within your own sovereign borders.
Doesn’t take much effort to get you riled up.
America is on the march and woe unto anyone who stands in her way!
lol, alright there champ.
I agree 100%. Watching the Administration butcher this issue for the past year (and still going on) has been extremely frustrating.
This is true but President Trump has made everyone aware of its strategic importance to the USA in a very different manner. However, until Trump started talking about it nobody was talking about it. I also wonder if he went this route because issues dealing with NATO in Trump.01. I do get your point and share it.
“Strategically important” doesn’t mean we need to own it.
Trump has never read "The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire."
Nor have I but I will put it on my reading list
There is that too. Rent, buy or make firm allies is he route to take.
It does mean, however, that we have to have absolute certainty about availability
Has he? Has he published an essay about its strategic importance or has he held onto a wall and said he wants it? I think this is the most important point of critics. Get the right message to the right people to communicate the best strategic path. That's not what's happening.
I agree. But....
With Trump the thing is often not the thing. Sometimes he says and does things to make a point about something else. He is a master of dealing himself extra cards to play. It wouldn't surprise me if his intent was to rouse Denmark into taking Greenland seriously and spending more money to defend it.
Or even use it as a distraction from other stuff he needs to get done.
Or maybe, like his generals have been saying, he has a tendency to deliver off the cuff remarks to the press about whatever happens to be passing through his mind at the time, regardless of its security category.
I like your comment but maybe don't agree. Trump is crazy like a fox at this stuff. Bully, bluster, sweet talk, ramble, I'm not convinced it isn't part of some plan. I definitely think one of his talents is to intentionally infuriate his enemies, getting them so mad they make mistakes he can exploit.
Think about professional wrestling - so much of what Trump does fits that mold - it's off the cuff blather and insults but also has intent in forming a storyline.
It's important to only lightly hold onto any belief that can't possibly be disproven. And in that case it's more of a hunch than a belief. "Trump is crazy like a fox" doesn't seem to be a disprovable hypothesis.
Well said. But I don't think he is smart, as in, a guy who knows a lot of things. I think he's a genius level of sizing people up, figuring out what makes them tick, and what path to manipulate people to get to where he wants to go.
Imagine being a real estate developer in New York. Dealing with public officials, permitters, unions, the public. And being wildly successful. he did it by becoming larger than life.
Angry people don't make rational decisions, so he winds people up intentionally, waits till they screw up, and takes advantage. You get the outrage of the week. It's the stray voltage theory of Obama, taken to 11. People pissed and angry over here, can't pay attention over there, where he is moving the ball forward. And he is always moving forward. They win on one issue, and he winds of five, and has another six issues going. Then he circles back to pick up the issue he lost on.
Newthinks may be right
Ok I ditched my TDS for the entire read of the article and…for what? You don’t say anything except we can probably just negotiate what we need. Oh gee, why didn’t I think of that.
The Danes have given their blood in our defense. Per capita, they lost more troops in our Asian excursion than we did. Think on that for a moment; the loss of life for the Danes was a higher percentage of their population than our casualties were of ours.
It is all well and good to spend money on defense, but nations that spend blood deserve better than the way we are treating Denmark.
Counterpoint: They voluntarily supplied a complete Division to the SS in WW2.
I know know that much about things that happened before I was born. I do know that when my country was attacked, Denmark sent troops to fight, and die, with ours.
Danish Military & Occupation:
Initial Invasion: Germany invaded Denmark on April 9, 1940, quickly overwhelming the small Danish forces and leading to a swift capitulation.
Cooperation Policy: Denmark pursued a policy of "cooperation" with the occupiers, allowing a degree of autonomy while supplying food and resources.
Resistance: Despite this, a strong Danish Resistance movement engaged in sabotage and intelligence gathering against the Germans.
In essence, while Denmark's regular army remained separate and was eventually disbanded, a nationally-backed volunteer unit fought for Germany, distinct from the occupied nation's formal military structure.
Your are an idiot. That simple. Greenland ownerhip is based upon the Arctic Council. That simple. We have a small template in the arctic with Alaska. The Russians and the Canadians have great template. The Chinese want to intrude into the arctic (the Chinese have more ice breaker ships than the Russians have and we do not have very few). And the Chinese have no teritory in the Arctic circle. The Arctic is the next frontier. So if we do not gear up with more ice breaker ships and we do not build more than the Chinese will take over the Arctic. That simple.
Perhaps wait on calling someone an idiot until after you learn proper word form and can discern possessive and contraction use of a word.
Why is calling for a different approach idiotic?
Because there is a difference between an idiot and something that is idiotic
Do you have a different proposal?
My point, apparently missed, was that he called someone an idiot.
You misrepresented his comment as on damn near any day, we humans are capable of doing something idiotic
Please. Whether he has a different proposal or does not have a different proposal is not the issue.
You are being politely asked to refrain from labeling folks you disagree as an idiot.
I agree.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
Not saying you are a loser Buddy just a quote from an anonymous source.
We need more icebreakers.
We need more SHIPS period (mostly naval) but we don’t have them and worse still we don’t have the capacity (or capability in some instances). THAT’S a huge problem we have to get our arms around, and the infrastructure to build them at pace is years/decades away.
I’ve breakers should definitely be on the list, but we’re so far behind we can’t afford to put them at the top.
Any conflict in the Pacific will be naval, as has repeatedly been proven. We’re not ready and that hasn’t gone unnoticed by the PRC.
I agree!
They seem to have a radar problem.
Didn't we just sign an agreement to get more icebreakers? Or was that a proposal that hasn't been funded yet?
Hey, Danes, how bout this to kick off the discussion: The US will mine your Greenland oil, gas & minerals and pay you generous royalties, for a fair ROI and a stronger military self defense presence. Denmark will get richer and stronger. Danes will have better lives, more secure and more prosperous. NATO will be more secure. Our expanded presence will help to deter WW3… which will be really good for the environment, not to mention humanity in general.
I don't know about every particular but I think you are on the right track.
I thought that had been proposed.
Maybe? I haven’t heard it. But it’s also hard with all the middle school taunting this administration does towards a solid ally.
Nobody in the EU is a solid ally.
It appears shared economic development is slowly turning the relationship over the Falklands between Argentina and the UK. This might be the template.
Where on earth do you get that from??
There were some brief talks an age ago, but they've been pretty much in aspic for years. Falklands have moved on without them.
Ten years ago, and yes there's been a recent kerfuffle just a few month's ago. The fall of the Kirchners might help as well.
Danes live better than we do.
If so, why is that?
High standard of living. Denmark has a mix of socialism and free-market capitalism. They are an example of the “Nordic model.” An internationally high tax level, and a correspondingly high level of government-provided services (e.g. health care, child care and education services). There are also income transfers to various groups, such as retirees, disabled people, the unemployed, and students.
She has a modern high-income and highly developed mixed economy, dominated by the service sector with 80% of all jobs; about 11% of employees work in manufacturing and 2% in agriculture. The nominal gross national income per capita was the ninth-highest in the world at $68,827 in 2023.
Income inequality has traditionally been low in Denmark. The Danish labour market is characterized by a high degree of union membership rates and collective agreement coverage dating back from 1899.
That approach worked fairly well with Alaska (once owned by Russia, but I digress...) so maybe it'd work with Greenland for both the Danes and the USA as beneficiaries, right?
So a few years down the road, DJT's era's past tense, the Dems have overcome their aversion to practical politics and now head the latest Administration. One plank of their platform still solidly in place is "WE'VE GOT TO STOP BURNING OIL!!!" so they declare Greenland off limits to resource extraction. Happened with Alaska you know, and pipelines planned for other energy developments in the lower 48.
Besides, they're disgruntled because the 10% going into their (offshore) pockets is part of what's been going back to the Danes for access to land that's strategically worth the US's attention.
Well, if the Dhimmis have returned to “practical politics” as you fantasize, they will no longer be dhimmis and they will no longer be committing energy self-strangulation in the name pantheism (on behalf of China, Russia, Iran, OPEC, et al).
Counterproductive? Our President? Surely not. When has that ever happened?
Narrator: You'd better sit down. This might take a while.
Concur. Greenland has been on the U.S.’s “would like to buy” list since the 1860s, but access is enough.
Part of the trouble is that Trump’s negotiating style is that of a Third World bazaar - he makes an absurd offer, expecting an equally absurd counteroffer, and then haggling. But many people in the First World don’t bargain like this. They expect an initial offer/counteroffer to be within 10% or so of the final price, and take anything else as an indication that you are not serious.
Well said. DJT's negotiation style is often counterproductive. Danes and Greenlanders deserve better, softer treatment. They are valued allies, and members of the first world.
This is part and parcel of The Trump Style of negotiation. It, as the kids say, is what it is, and one of the things it is, is curiously effective.
If we collectively knew who anyone significant in Denmark was, and we do NOT, we'd be hearing some play on his or her name, say,
"Oh, that Meddy-Freddy is a real wiener broad, let me tell you."
"I love the smell of Danish in the morning!"
See? I can't do it. The Man has a gift.
With apologies to Greenland and Denmark, there comes a point where "it is what it is" becomes far more than just counterproductive and it is not a valid excuse. Trump's communication style is generally demeaning, confusing, imprecise and sloppy. For someone who is the president of the most powerful country on earth, he shoots his mouth off far too often.
Oh, and BTW, I have voted for him three times and support a solid 90% of his policies; but his irresponsible remarks drive me to distraction.
I voted for Donald Trump three times as well. He drives me to distraction as well. I am not sorry for any vote for Donald Trump.
But we do not get to customize or 'remodel' the President. Grin and bear him at times, even many times?
I find him highly amusing. Sometimes that stupid china shop needs a bull charging through it showing how useless a lot of the tchotchkes really were.
Yeah, same here.
Choosing a candidate on the lesser of two evils argument's a pretty poor State of this Nation after 250 years.
I submit that we're 'lucky' to have DJT now, looking back on the debacles of recent Democrat administrations. Things could be a lot worse, we've lived through many years that serve well as examples of what must be avoided.
OH and where has the mealy mouthed "presidential" (hahahahaha) "diplomatic" soft verbiage ever gotten us? Other countries have been cheating us, eating our lunch, stomping on our bookbag, and stealing our homework for decades. Truman wanted Greenland. And here we are 70 years later still yapping about it. I see many responses where people could not, as our host requested, leave their TDS at the door.....
When Trump's first noises about the US taking control of Greenland were voiced (is first term if I recall correctly), it was in a more diplomatic but undeniably Trumpian tone of voice. While that is unfortunate, in international politics one has to be able to look past the style of the message for the actual content. Which works in the opposite direction as well: take care to not let your domestic style affect what ypou put forth when it concerns people from a different culture - they are not your home audience and will react in their own way.
Trump I think, given his business-background, ignores that, is my thinking. Not out of malice or sheer boorsihness but out of life-long habit. His persona is his personality so there's no longer any switching-off to be done.
Which means using the same language towards Denmark as towards Panama and the channel almost winding up in Chinese hands. As you state, completely unnecessary and an unforced error his administration seems Hell-bent to stick with.
As a Swede, I'm about 95% as qualified as a Dane to comment on one thing that may have been overlooked, on both sides:
Trump addresses Denmark as part of the EU, because to him that's what Denmark is.
Denmark listens and responds as the very old and sovereign kingdom that it is.*
And this obviously causes misunderstandings and talking past each other in both directions.
Trump needs to walk this back, and realise that the best bet is to develop a win/win - no lose type of deal with Denmark (not the EU, Denmark) that lets him thumb his nose at the EU before his core voter base in the USA, while taking care to show he respects and values Denmarks status as an ally and friend.
But walking things back isnt his strong suit.
He has created a very dangerous situation, and his advisors seem set to agravate things further. This serves to drive the EU closer together, and towards China.
If I was American, I'd start looking at which of his advisors and such stand to gain from increased tension between the EU and the USA. Bet you will find people with connections to China, and possibly the Middle East too.
*Settled in 10 000BC, the area that encompasses Denmark today was fully inhabited by the ancestors of today's Danes by 6 000BC - Denmark the place and people pre-dates the Egyptian pyramids. As does all the lands surrounding the Baltic Sea, except Russia (those late-comers have only been there for about 1 000 years or so...).
I don't agree 100%, but this is an interesting perspective on dealing with Demark vs. Europe. The US has done this with the UK for quite some time now, but much less so with continental Europeans and especially since the EEC/EU became an entitiy.
That tension seems only to go one way for some people. As long as we don't ruffle THEIR feathers, it's okay. Who cares who ruffles ours. Right? None of us knows for a fact how any negotiations really have gone and at what point private talks became public debate. I suggest Europeans have created a very dangerous situation. Countries have turned into immigrant pestholes full of no-go zones, burning Christian churches, rape squads and economic welfare wastelands. Denmark is now almost 13 percent immigrant population, the rate doubling in the last four years versus the previous ten. At what point does a country cease being your 6000 year old ancestral homeland full of Danes and becomes something else entirely that is not at all Danish? 20 percent? 30 percent? How quickly do you think immigrants will close that gap and then political control by newcomers will make treaties meaningless. (See NYC, by the way. Case in point. Mamdani is a lesson writ large for many other places.)
The US are ones asking for something, so yeah the onus is on them to not ruffle feathers in order to acquire what they want. Typically that's how bargaining goes.
So when does Denmark withdraw from the EU. Dexit?
Denmark has benefitted greatly from being in the EG/EU, because the Danes managed to negotiate a loophole for themselves and so can adust EU-regulations and policies to suit them. They could do this because when they joined Denmark was in an economic/financial slump, and were deemed by the EG to never be able to cause any problems (since the EU is London bankers*, Germany and France - the rest of us are satellites, influence-wise).
There's no political idea in Denmark over leaving the Union, but nor would they stay in to the death - they'd quietly leave while something big is going on; the Danes have zero illusions over their nation existing (historically speaking) at the suffering of their neighbours (or their own deft diplomacy, dep. on which nation's history books you study).
*De facto, since France under de Gaulle were vehemently against letting the UK into the Union, seeing it as the US puppet it was and thus untrustworthy and not in line with Union interests. But it was so long ago, it barely has bearing on present day mattters.
I would say that today the UK is more like an EU puppet and I wish they would just officially rejoin so we could just quit pretending about the special relationship. Labour is going to lose the next election anyway so they might as well do what they want. As for Greenland, there is some noise about doing a land acknowledgement deal with the indigenous people and just bribing Denmark to go away. While the Vikings were there before the current indigenous people who conquered the Dorset culture there was a couple of centuries of no European settlers before the Danes came.
The Rus came from Sweden, no? Or were you talking about Slavs.
Rus is from the area North of Stockholm, today called Roslagen: it means either "the lay of the Ros" or "the law of the Ros", and they created settlements all the way from the coast of the Baltic down to Miklagård (Constantinople), and travelled as far East as East of the Kaspian Sea.
The Varangian Guard of the Emperors of (East) Rome was made up of Swedes, mainly: Varangian is the Byantine spelling/pronounciation of Väring, a name meaning both "soldier-for-hire" and the name for people from a specific area of Sweden.
I'm agnostic about the defense benefits of a greater presence in Greenland. But from my POV the driver is potential profit going to Trump Family & Associates from the skim off mineral resource leases should the USA "run" Greenland. YMMV.
I had thought that this was part of Trump's negotiating process. Go for the whole wheel of cheese and settle for a portion that serves our purposes.
Finally, someone who gets it. It's the same tactic the Russians use (but using loaf of bread as the symbol.)