USA Issues Threat To Greenland

If Greenland was to associate itself with another country other than Denmark, Canada makes absolute sense. It's closer to Canada, and as the people are largely Inuit that aligns with the Inuit population of northern Canada.

Of course Trump wants Canada too. Only a moron like Trump (or his supporters) could expect a country larger than his to become the 51st state. It would be laughable if he wasn't so dangerous.

Rosie51

If Greenland was to associate itself with another country other than Denmark, Canada makes absolute sense. It's closer to Canada, and as the people are largely Inuit that aligns with the Inuit population of northern Canada.

Very true.

Oreo

Rosie51

If Greenland was to associate itself with another country other than Denmark, Canada makes absolute sense. It's closer to Canada, and as the people are largely Inuit that aligns with the Inuit population of northern Canada.

Very true.

Is Canada going to come to Greenands aid.?
I would have thought they had enough problems with Trump, there has to be an agreement with Denmark.

Nobody has said anything about Canada coming to Greenland's aid, I said it would be a more logical alliance than with the USA. What do you mean there has to be an agreement with Denmark.? Are you saying they should give in to Trump's demands? That would only feed the bully, he'd not stop there, bullies never do.

Rosie51

Nobody has said anything about Canada coming to Greenland's aid, I said it would be a more logical alliance than with the USA. What do you mean there has to be an agreement with Denmark.? Are you saying they should give in to Trump's demands? That would only feed the bully, he'd not stop there, bullies never do.

As you introduced Canada into the debate what did you mean by association.

If the Greenlanders have been watching the ICE shooting in the USA just now, that might put off any who are in favour of selling to Trump.

David49

Rosie51

Nobody has said anything about Canada coming to Greenland's aid, I said it would be a more logical alliance than with the USA. What do you mean there has to be an agreement with Denmark.? Are you saying they should give in to Trump's demands? That would only feed the bully, he'd not stop there, bullies never do.

As you introduced Canada into the debate what did you mean by association.

I thought my meaning was clear enough but I'll expand. If Greenland decided it wanted to be free of Danish control/support but felt it needed a union with another country then my thought is that its proximity to Canada and the shared ethnicity of its Inuit heritage people and those who live in northern Canada made for a logical choice. Is that clearer? Perhaps you can now reciprocate by explaining exactly what you mean by your there has to be an agreement with Denmark.

It could be absolutely anything, in exactly the same way an agreement with Canada could be, anything that avoids a military action is good . In particular a fully independant Greenland is highly undesirable.

That's as clear as mud. Why is a fully independent Greenland highly undesirable? Is a fully independent USA, Australia, UK or Russia equally undesirable?

Canada is not threatening Greenland, unlike its bullying neighbour USA.

Trump would have to jump through a lot of hoops legally to buy Greenland and it may not be possible.
It looks like the only way would be to send in troops. There would be little opposition with possibly one US soldier to every one Greenlander.

If he moves to annexe Greenland, NATO is dead in the water. Article 5 of NATO states that an attack on one is an attack on all and therefore all must be prepared to move against the attacker, but there is no protocol if the attacker is itself a NATO member - not only a member but the major stakeholder.
Lord David Ricketts, former British Ambassador to NATO speaking about the chance of Washington mobilising its military to take control of the country, said: "[US president Donald] Trump loves to deal in unpredictability, doesn't he? And I would have said, when he first came into office, that this sounded more like bluster and bravado, with the aim of getting a closer relationship with Denmark on Greenland.
"Now, I'm less sure. I think he feels he's on a roll. He feels he's invincible after the assault on [former president Nicolas] Maduro in Venezuela. And, therefore, I don't think we can rule anything out."
"I think if we get to a point where one ally annexes by military force of another ally, then that breaks the fundamental compact of trust, which is at the heart of Nato," the former National Security Advisor warned.
"Nato would no longer be an effective alliance at that point."
He added that he thought the Nato treaty would not be able to continue functioning if the military action ever occurred.

Sobering stuff.

David49

It could be absolutely anything, in exactly the same way an agreement with Canada could be, anything that avoids a military action is good . In particular a fully independant Greenland is highly undesirable.

There are always more ways than one to gain control of another independent country. Infiltration by the legal means of trade, culture, and co-operative business and manufacuring deals gives outsiders a foothold, from which they can extend a stronger hold on the government of that country, which can be reinforced in future with military help in defence or with internal policing of a recalcitrant population. Once enough of your troops are established in a country, they can be used aggressively.

Also sobering stuff!

Maybe it will be Mexico next?

thehill.com/homenews/administration/5680747-trump-land-strikes-drug-cartels/

Trump is taking the world back to over 100 years ago with his empire building.
We all know what happened to empires in the past.

Etoile2701

Oh please don't talk of WW3!

So many similarities to 1938/39. I do think we have to be aware.

imaround

I know I shouldn't make a joke about this, but I don't see what else I can do so I may as well.

So, welcome to the dark side?

The tanker was part of the Shadow Fleet. It was a missing bit of my education. This:

Shadow Fleet typically refers to a loosely connected network of ships—most often oil tankers—that operate outside standard international oversight to evade sanctions, regulations, or tracking.

In a geopolitical and maritime context, the Shadow Fleet:
Uses tactics like turning off AIS transponders, frequent ship renaming, flag-hopping, and opaque ownership structures

Is commonly associated with transporting sanctioned oil (e.g., linked to Russia, Iran, or Venezuela)

Operates with limited insurance and safety compliance, increasing environmental and security risks

More broadly, the term can also be used metaphorically or fictionally to describe covert, deniable forces operating in secrecy, but in current real-world usage it most often refers to these sanctions-evading maritime networks.

(Sorry if this has been covered - I'm just catching up.)

With articulate and knowledgeable contributors, this is one of the best phone-ins I have heard. As our knowledge of Greenland is likely to be pretty basic, well worth listen to to gain factual information.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeXy63MgKfA

Thanks DAR, will watch this.
Meanwhile, according to Facebook,
spooks are monitoring Greenlanders' social media in the hope of identifying 'Quizzlings' they could influence in Trump's favour.

Maremia

Thanks DAR, will watch this.
Meanwhile, according to Facebook,
spooks are monitoring Greenlanders' social media in the hope of identifying 'Quizzlings' they could influence in Trump's favour.

Have they really spelled it quizzling? That's hilarious (and very Facebook). 😂😂😂

Fessing up. Probs my spelling error.
Mea culpa.

Oh sorry, didn't mean to mock, but it did make me laugh.

Not offended in the slightest. Not often we get to laugh on these serious Threads.