Greenland

[hog88]

Kind of meaningless if they have US subsidies as an option.

What point against giving them that option are you actually making?

Personally I don't want another welfare dependent territory.

 

[hog88]

Wasn’t sure about the legal status of Greenland.

Not sure I disagree with the last part, but a hypothetical where the West Coast, New York, and New England (sans Maine, probably) were allowed to secede (Minnesota might leave too if a vote were held today) is kind of interesting.

We'll breakup at some point.

 

[LouderVol]

The funny part is Denmark is almost certainly going to grant independence. All Trump is doing is screwing up the timeline.

carrot vs the whip.

no idea why we aren't going with the carrot. we saw what happens when Trump gets involved with international politics. Canada was poised to take a step towards the right, but Trump stuck his nose in and it went harder left.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Personally I don't want another welfare dependent territory.

I am not arguing for that. I could see a voluntary partnership/treaty where they give us rights to develop resources and control access/trade for a profitable income to the nation--i.e. a truly symbiotic relationship where we get national security and a source of very important resources, starve our enemies of that source of resources, and become an economic boom to the country since we can access and make profitable resources that they can't.





My point was per:

When and if they are no longer part of Denmark, they can do whatever they want.

Until then, they are part of Denmark, and we have no business trying involve ourselves in Danish internal politics, or attempting to take Danish territory.

They do have a say, and it's been an ongoing process since 2009. Greenlanders can hold a referendum and declare full independence from Denmark with a majority vote, but they haven't because 60+% do not want independence if it means a lower standard of living, which it will when the Danish subsidies end.

Greenland

english.stm.dk

So again, it's Danish territory until it's not, and we have no business there.

It sounds like the argument is:

They are a sovereign territory with the right to leave (self determination).
They haven't left because it's been an economic impossibility (thus self-determination has been all but impossible).
The US has no right to offer them economic options until they leave (i.e. allow them newfound access to self-determination).

Seems like a needlessly restrictive circular argument that's almost designed to keep them from actual self-determination. (Edit to add that it's seems a pretty irrational argument, to argue that they are sovereign, but not sovereign enough to receive options unless Denmark allows them to. What...?)


If the US went with Bearded plans, it'd be a pretty major **** move--forcing them to only negotiate with the US after they'd alienated their current options and were too weak and desperate to actually negotiate. (Hey, you have to become homeless before we negotiate this home's price.)

 

[BeardedVol]

Kind of meaningless if they have US subsidies as an option.

What point against giving them that option are you actually making?

And if they wanted to consider that once they were independent of Denmark, then there's nothing stopping them from doing so.

Though I do find it hilarious that you're gung ho for taking on Greenland as welfare state given the MAGA position on US government assistance for current US citizens.

 

[Orange_Crush]

And if they wanted to consider that once they were independent of Denmark, then there's nothing stopping them from doing so.

Though I do find it hilarious that you're gung ho for taking on Greenland as welfare state given the MAGA position on US government assistance for current US citizens.

Keep reading.

 

[BeardedVol]

The Danish parliament still has the authority to block independence regardless of a referendum of independence.

Greenlanders would have to hold the referendum for it to be blocked by parliament; they haven't held it, and so parliament hasn't blocked it.

The last referendum was held in 2008 before the 2009 law was in place, and even then didn't have enough support to pass, and they've not held another because there isn't enough support for independence if it causes them to lose the ~$600 million that Denmark is sending to them annually.

 

[hog88]

Greenlanders would have to hold the referendum for it to be blocked by parliament; they haven't held it, and so parliament hasn't blocked it.

The last referendum was held in 2008 before the 2009 law was in place, and even then didn't have enough support to pass, and they've not held another because there isn't enough support for independence if it causes them to lose the ~$600 million that Denmark is sending to them annually.

There was not a referendum on independence in 2008, the referendum was a non-binding referendum on the draft of the Self-Government Act and it overwhelmingly passed. Get your facts straight.

 

[BeardedVol]

There was not a referendum on independence in 2008, the referendum was a non-binding referendum on the draft of the Self-Government Act and it overwhelmingly passed. Get your facts straight.

You are correct the non-binding referendum passed, and then they've never been able to muster enough support for a binding referendum since, because 60+% won't vote for independence if it results in a loss of Danish subsidies.

 

[CagleMtnVol]

Greenland is going make a great 51st state.

Did you know Greenland is closer to Maine, than Hawaii is to California.

It's roughly around 200 miles further than Alaska to Washington (state).

 

[RockyTop85]

We'll breakup at some point.

What’s interesting (to me) is hypothesizing the ripple effects of losing 35-40% of revenue off the federal ledgers coupled with losing those states’ representation in congress.

The point at which voters balk at cutting certain government services would probably end up defining political parties for a few generations. It’d turn into a coalition of wealthy states that can afford to subsidize those services on their own versus poorer states that rely on contributions.

 

[tim]

What’s interesting (to me) is hypothesizing the ripple effects of losing 35-40% of revenue off the federal ledgers coupled with losing those states’ representation in congress.

The point at which voters balk at cutting certain government services would probably end up defining political parties for a few generations. It’d turn into a coalition of wealthy states that can afford to subsidize those services on their own versus poorer states that rely on contributions.

Net win imo. California, with the dems, could not sustain any type of civilization. It’d be like Cuba in 3 years except they’d just drive out of the state.

 

[Volnanza]

carrot vs the whip.

no idea why we aren't going with the carrot. we saw what happens when Trump gets involved with international politics. Canada was poised to take a step towards the right, but Trump stuck his nose in and it went harder left.

And now they are suffering more than ever. Trump gave them choice. They choose poorly and must continue to suffer. TDS can be fatal.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You are correct the non-binding referendum passed, and then they've never been able to muster enough support for a binding referendum since, because 60+% won't vote for independence if it results in a loss of Danish subsidies.

So why is it wrong for the US to offer them options?

 

[LSU-SIU]

So why is it wrong for the US to offer them options?

Nothing. It appears to have been rejected.

 

[n_huffhines]

Maybe this has already been mentioned here. I can't keep up with these threads in this news cycle. It's out of control.

We already have an agreement for access to Greenland for building military bases, including naval and missile defense, and this has existed for 70 years. The main stipulations are that we do it for the sake of NATO (which is currently us) and that we don't put nukes there. So it seems to me these are the 3 most likely explanations for this madness, besides the obvious that he needs to distract from the fact that he's illegally protecting pedos:

- Trump is just being dementia-riddled orange man, and there is no method to the madness.
- Trump wants to put nukes in Greenland.
- Trump wants to pull us out of NATO and fears Denmark will pull out of our agreement.

 

[tvolsfan]

Maybe this has already been mentioned here. I can't keep up with these threads in this news cycle. It's out of control.

We already have an agreement for access to Greenland for building military bases, including naval and missile defense, and this has existed for 70 years. The main stipulations are that we do it for the sake of NATO (which is currently us) and that we don't put nukes there. So it seems to me these are the 3 most likely explanations for this madness, besides the obvious that he needs to distract from the fact that he's illegally protecting pedos:

- Trump is just being dementia-riddled orange man, and there is no method to the madness.
- Trump wants to put nukes in Greenland.
- Trump wants to pull us out of NATO and fears Denmark will pull out of our agreement.

I think Trump is delusional enough to think he’ll be remembered as some conquering hero if he expands US territory. Destroying NATO is just an added bonus for him.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

My cousin lived in Alaska. A whale rammed his boat and nearly sank it.

Whales ram boats all the time in Alabama....

 

[volfanhill]

Maybe this has already been mentioned here. I can't keep up with these threads in this news cycle. It's out of control.

We already have an agreement for access to Greenland for building military bases, including naval and missile defense, and this has existed for 70 years. The main stipulations are that we do it for the sake of NATO (which is currently us) and that we don't put nukes there. So it seems to me these are the 3 most likely explanations for this madness, besides the obvious that he needs to distract from the fact that he's illegally protecting pedos:

- Trump is just being dementia-riddled orange man, and there is no method to the madness.
- Trump wants to put nukes in Greenland.
- Trump wants to pull us out of NATO and fears Denmark will pull out of our agreement.

He wants the rare earth minerals

 

[n_huffhines]

He wants the rare earth minerals

I hear them say that but is there some reason we can't just keep trading for them?

 

[LSU-SIU]

I hear them say that but is there some reason we can't just keep trading for them?

Maybe that game is up?

 

[volfanhill]

I hear them say that but is there some reason we can't just keep trading for them?

Why trade when you can take? See Venezuela.

 

[TheDeeble]

Maybe this has already been mentioned here. I can't keep up with these threads in this news cycle. It's out of control.

We already have an agreement for access to Greenland for building military bases, including naval and missile defense, and this has existed for 70 years. The main stipulations are that we do it for the sake of NATO (which is currently us) and that we don't put nukes there. So it seems to me these are the 3 most likely explanations for this madness, besides the obvious that he needs to distract from the fact that he's illegally protecting pedos:

- Trump is just being dementia-riddled orange man, and there is no method to the madness.
- Trump wants to put nukes in Greenland.
- Trump wants to pull us out of NATO and fears Denmark will pull out of our agreement.

I think it's some of the 3rd bullet. I don't think he wants to pull out of NATO but I think he, or the people that have his ear, want to put more pressure on the Europe to be more responsible for their defense. But I do think he'd love to have Greenland as a sole US asset. What's he willing to do? Who knows really.

Over the past few days I've seen a few videos from European/NATO leaders and read a few articles. One thing they mostly all referenced was the new US National Security Strategy that was released last month. There appears to be some departure from the traditional role the US has played in the world since WW2. Maybe more people in this thread were already aware of it. It was new to me. But the portion on Europe has folks across the Atlantic panicking. This is just one of many analyses.

Analyzing the 2025 National Security Strategy - Center for Maritime Strategy

On December 4, 2025, the White House released its National Security Strategy (NSS) outlining the Trump administration’s view of the most pressing national security challenges facing the United States and its plans to address them. The 29-page strategy is unmistakably infused with and reflective...

centerformaritimestrategy.org

 

[LSU-SIU]

I think it's some of the 3rd bullet. I don't think he wants to pull out of NATO but I think he, or the people that have his ear, want to put more pressure on the Europe to be more responsible for their defense. But I do think he'd love to have Greenland as a sole US asset. What's he willing to do? Who knows really.

Over the past few days I've seen a few videos from European/NATO leaders and read a few articles. One thing they mostly all referenced was the new US National Security Strategy that was released last month. There appears to be some departure from the traditional role the US has played in the world since WW2. Maybe more people in this thread were already aware of it. It was new to me. But the portion on Europe has folks across the Atlantic panicking. This is just one of many analyses.

Analyzing the 2025 National Security Strategy - Center for Maritime Strategy

On December 4, 2025, the White House released its National Security Strategy (NSS) outlining the Trump administration’s view of the most pressing national security challenges facing the United States and its plans to address them. The 29-page strategy is unmistakably infused with and reflective...

centerformaritimestrategy.org

It became very apparently to me living in Europe that it had a short to medium lifespan, I would say the U.S. is on a similar track, although Europe is further along. The "euro" was an attempt to stop the coming collapse, in essence Europe has issues that are not really repairable but the "euro" was a tool to mask the issues with growth eastward. They needed to expand further and obtain stuff from free i.e. move east. The U.S. and the neocons used this as a way into the Ukraine as a proxy on Russia, hence the Ukraine war.

NATO will most likely collapse and Europe will most likely collapse in its present form -- they are finally starting to wake up to this possibility but its probably too late to alter the outcome.

War in Ukraine

This all starts when Europe finally figures out the United States isn't there friend. Europe is going to suffer for decades to come either way.

I would say this, its probably getting to the point where its in the world's interest to go ahead and pull the plug on the global finance system.

None of this is complex, not really... it seems very apparent.

 

[EasternVol]

Net win imo. California, with the dems, could not sustain any type of civilization. It’d be like Cuba in 3 years except they’d just drive out of the state.

That's an amazing conclusion.