USA - no universal health care: Denmark and Greenland - universal health care.
There's one example.
Over 90% of Greenland voted to stay with Denmark and didn't want anything to do with becoming us citizens.
Word pairs. New game 9th November
Gransnet forums
News & politics
US/Greenland - charm offensive fails but.......
(101 Posts)Here's the story...
Trump still plans to annex Greenland - on Wednesday he said “that the US will "go as far as we have to go" to accomplish that goal”.
Meanwhile, plans have changed. Originally the Second Lady Usha Vance was only supposed to travel to Greenland, a semi-autonomous part of Denmark, with her son to attend a dog-sledding race and other events in the capital of Nuuk. “Soft diplomacy”.
However the scale of security preparations made it something bigger, and it was clear that no one had actually invited anyone from the USA
Greenlanders made clear they would protest Mrs Vance's presence.
“Then when it was announced that White House National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, Trump's national security advisor, would join the delegation visiting the island, the people of Greenland and Denmark appeared to grow even more uncomfortable".
The American visits began to look less like a cultural interaction and more like an effort to meddle in the island's internal politics by rallying support for closer ties to the US among the local population - at the expense of Danish sovereignty.
Greenland's Acting Prime Minister Mute B Egede said it was a "provocation" and "demonstration of power", and asked the international community to step up.
"Just for the record, the government of Greenland has not extended any invitations for any visits, neither private nor official," Egede said.”
So the US delegation…..
The US administration could see they were heading for PR catastrophe," political analyst Noa Redington said.
They were heading for a charm offensive without charm," he said. "With people absolutely not happy to see Usha Vance or any other American politicians
A mere two days after Usha Vance's trip was announced, the cultural itinerary was dropped, replaced by a single visit to a remote US military installation - Pituffik Space Base. And now, Vice-President Vance would be joining his wife.
Waltz was no longer listed on the itinerary, though he was added again later.
Vance is the highest-ranking US official to ever visit Greenland and while the limited scope of the trip has pleased Denmark, the fact that he is going at all underscores the high level of interest the Trump administration has in the island.
Information and pictures from
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg128xkvlqo
You seem to have more faith in the new, aggressive, unpredictable, greedy US than others David49.
Vance isn't undiplomatic. He's a rude bully.
I doubt Trump's Greenland approach is purely Trump. The underlying issues - national security, mineral resources - likely reflect US policy concerns of longstanding.
David49 Will you happily give any country to Trump that he wants? Do you think he's correct in wanting to annexe Canada as a state? Where would you set the boundary or perhaps you wouldn't set one at all.
As for your 'freeloading' comments. Perhaps consider the following.
Defence expenditures of NATO countries as a percentage of GDP 2024. In 2024, Poland's defence spending as a share of gross domestic product was 4.12 percent, the highest of all NATO member states, followed by Estonia at 3.43 percent, and then the United States at 3.38 percent. In money terms the United States does spend more on defence than the rest of NATO, but the US is a global superpower with military commitments around the world in the Atlantic and the Pacific, not just to NATO. The widow's mite comes to mind. We don't all pay the same monetary value in taxes but according to our incomes, does that make those that pay less 'freeloaders'?
I fear that Trump has been talking Greenland with Putin .........
The trouble is that as the ice melts it is allowing the possibility of access to loads of natural resources.. so naturally our wonderful climate emergency denier Trump wants to plunder them..
Talk of security is a double bluff
David49
Not a Trump apologist at all if Greenland becomes an independant nation and China or Russia make them an offer for minerals better than the US the will not be able to uphold ant rights at all.
Their rights as US citizens would be a good deal better than Chinese or Russian dominance, feel free disagree if you wish.
It is no one’s to give away, except the Greenlanders, and they have made their opinion almost 100% “no” .
No one has been concerned about their security up until Trump.
Weird that.
The problem for Greenland is, it os only 50% self supporting.
David49
Vance isn’t exactly diplomatic for sure, with only 55k population Greenland isnt a viable nation they cannot possibly defend themselves, or even exist independantly.
It costs Denmark £500m to support them, the US has largely been responsible for security through NATO, Greenland has been freeloading on US too.
Strategically someone has got to control Greenlands security Denmark or even Europe isnt capable, becoming US citizens isnt the worst fate for Greenlanders is it.
What if the us leaves NATO?
Grantanow
I doubt Trump's Greenland approach is purely Trump. The underlying issues - national security, mineral resources - likely reflect US policy concerns of longstanding.
If national security as seen as an issue, apart from the fact that the Denmark is firmly a member of the western alliance and it is also ready to allow the Americans to have more facilities and have more of their military in the country, it is also the wrong side of the USA if China and Russia are seen as the enemy, China is the other side of the Pacific, not the Atlantic and the hop skip and jump between Russia and the US is, again in the far North West, between Russia and Alaska.
What it is all about is greed and power. Trump wants Greenland for its mineral resources and the power having those resources would give him. And being Trump he doesn't want to pay for them if he can bully Denmark to give him them for free.
Vance speaking from Greenland - he spent 2 hours at the base.
"US Vice-President JD Vance has accused Denmark of leaving Greenland vulnerable to alleged incursions by China and Russia, as he asked its people to "cut a deal" with the US."
"Speaking during a visit to the Arctic island, Vance minimised recent threats by US President Donald Trump to take over the island by force.
Instead, he urged Greenlanders to sever ties with Denmark, which has owned the island for more than 300 years, saying it had not invested enough to protect the semi-autonomous territory."
"In his remarks, Vance sought to reassure the people of Greenland that the US would not use military force to take the island from Denmark. Instead, he urged Greenlanders to embrace "self-determination" and sever ties with Denmark, which has controlled the region since 1721. (what, and walk into "Self-determinaation with the US?)
But The vice-president said the US did not have immediate plans to expand its military presence on the ground, but would invest more resources, including naval ships and military icebreakers
"We think we're going to be able to cut a deal, Donald Trump-style, to ensure the security of this territory," Vance said.
"Back at the White House, President Trump insisted the US needed Greenland to guarantee "peace of the entire world" and that its waterways had "Chinese and Russian ships all over the place".
"We need Greenland, very importantly, for international security," he said.
"We have to have Greenland. It's not a question of: 'Do you think we can do without it?' We can't".
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr525e49m2do
The tactics of the late Kray Twins: you are in grave danger, and need our protection
Let's look at two statements from posts this morning:
Reported statement made by Vance:
"We think we're going to be able to cut a deal, Donald Trump-style, to ensure the security of this territory," Vance said.
MOnics
What it is all about is greed and power. Trump wants Greenland for its mineral resources and the power having those resources would give him. And being Trump he doesn't want to pay for them if he can bully Denmark to give him them for free.
I think MOnica has the nub of it.
Trump 'deals' are premised on 'winner takes all', preferably with nothing left for the 'loser'.
You can be sure that Greenland would gain absolutely nothing from a 'deal' with Trump.
If Greenland and Denmark continue to say 'No', what is his next step? Boots on the ground?
Chocolatelovinggran
The tactics of the late Kray Twins: you are in grave danger, and need our protection
The only grave danger, as far as I can see, comes from the US...
MaizieD
Chocolatelovinggran
The tactics of the late Kray Twins: you are in grave danger, and need our protection
The only grave danger, as far as I can see, comes from the US...
I read it as Chocolatelovinggran meaning exactly that.
No country in the world would want to be run by the USA. There is something very wrong with the current administration. Bullying and telling lies in an attempt to control other countries is pretty low. It’s also shocking that a country once so great and well respected can no longer be regarded as a trusted ally anymore.
The age-old protecton racket, beloved of gangsters from prehistory on. - "If you give me all the firewood and dried meat and fish that you have stored in your cave for the winter, and if you swear not to set your sons to chase me away when I come to carry off your daughters for winter bedwarmers, I will help you fight off Ug and Thump when they try to grab yout stores and family. You really need me on your side, so you can't refuse. If you do, I and my mates will kill you all, as well as taking all the aforesaid stores and the female enemy personell"
"If you pay us protection money, we'll make sure no-one else will come and destroy your business. If you don't pay us then suffer the consequences."
I remember that happening to a family near us in London who owned a restaurant. It was horrific. 😥
Whitewavemark2
David49
Not a Trump apologist at all if Greenland becomes an independant nation and China or Russia make them an offer for minerals better than the US the will not be able to uphold ant rights at all.
Their rights as US citizens would be a good deal better than Chinese or Russian dominance, feel free disagree if you wish.It is no one’s to give away, except the Greenlanders, and they have made their opinion almost 100% “no” .
No one has been concerned about their security up until Trump.
Weird that.
Quite!
I wasn't aware many of the Greenland people are refusing to acknowledge the visit from America. I'd turn my back/shut my doors/etc too. They'd grow pretty blinkin' hungry if no-one would feed them whilst they're there. Also - where are they staying whilst there?
Greenlanders are Danish. I would have thought that Denmark will need to play a big part in what they want to do.
fancythat
Greenlanders are Danish. I would have thought that Denmark will need to play a big part in what they want to do.
Greenlanders want to be independent but, for the time being, they might be better off as an autonomous territory of Denmsrk with the benefits that brings.
They also benefit from being sort of associate members of the EU. They have freedom of movement within the EU and have beneficial trade agreements.
The security of Greenland hasn’t been an issue because what resources it may have, have not been needed, at some time in the future they will be.
The argument that a population of 55k makes a nation is not valid especially because it’s not sustainable. You could say any small town in the UK could declare independence because it doesn’t like the government.
Greenland needs someone, why not Denmark yet they want independance. If you have resources that others want you have to defend them, an island larger than Australia cannot be defended by that population
If you have resources that others want you have to defend them
A country such as the USA should not be threatening them such that they need to defend themselves!
If a country has resources that others would like then they can sell those resources, lease some of the land or just say no, we will consider our options.
Your analogy with a town in the UK just does not work David49
Join the conversation
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »