Gransnet forums

News & politics

Greenland Update

(343 Posts)
Cossy Tue 13-Jan-26 10:41:16

Telegraph today

Trump’s plan to make Greenlanders an offer they can’t refuse

Sounds more than a little ominous?

Really interesting article covering two things

1) Trumps complete “lie” about Russian and China having ships in Greenland water, not ONE local report from Greenland, across many sources, about spitting even ONE ship.

2) Very very interesting info around Greenland’s minerals. A good read if you have time, link below.

It raises yet again how gun-ho Trump is about getting what he wants, lying, cheating and breaking all kinds of protocol because man-child Trump chooses.

My heart goes out to Greenlanders, who appear very content with Denmark and both Greenland and Denmark have cooperated fully with USA re security since the 1950’s.

My view? Come on Europe, pool ALL your resources and stop this idiot before he ruins our entire world with his greed.

What do you think?

Just in case link doesn’t work, salient points from the article are below, warning, it’s long!

.*Trump’s plan to make Greenlanders an offer they can’t refuse
US proposals to buy the island have been met with protests and alarm by locals
Eir Nolsøe is Economics Correspondent at The Telegraph covering stories on government tax and spend, the labour market and monetary policy.
When Aka Binzer-Johnsen prepared her two daughters for school and nursery after the holidays at the start of January, she felt compelled to tell them about Donald Trump. “I asked my daughters if they could remember from last year that Trump really wants our country,” she says. “I tried to explain in a child-friendly way that this is happening again, and if they hear anything, that’s why.”
The 38-year-old mother, her husband Uju and their daughters, aged five and seven, live on the outskirts of Nuuk, the capital of Greenland.
Home to just 20,000 people, life in the quiet town with colourful wooden houses normally feels safe and far removed from the world’s troubles.
But the US president’s threats to seize Greenland have brought a crisis to Nuuk’s doorstep. “This was always like a safe little bubble,” says Binzer-Johnsen, who is a project manager for a charity. “That’s what we are used to from growing up here.”
She adds: “Everything has changed so fast. People are very scared, and emotions are heightened. I’ve felt really bad about what is going on. I’ve had sleepless nights.
“I have so many questions, wondering what we are going to do. If I want to protect my family, is this the time to act?
“I constantly feel ready to flee and leave, just for a period. But at the same time, we can’t just stop living. Everything we’ve invested in is here: our dreams and our life.”

Such considerations are now weighing on the minds of many Greenlanders, regardless of the territory’s status as a Nato member and having served as an American ally for more than 80 years.
The fate of the world’s largest island has been thrust back into the spotlight this month following Trump’s capture of Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan president.
Buoyed by his coup in Latin America, Trump has now set his sights on Greenland, the sparsely populated autonomous Danish territory.
“We need Greenland from a national security situation,” Mr Trump said last week, adding that he may have to choose between preserving Nato or expanding America’s influence in the western hemisphere.

“It’s so strategic. Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place.”
The threats have sent alarm bells ringing in Copenhagen and Brussels, prompting stunned European leaders to issue a joint statement saying they will “not stop defending” Greenland.
However, it should not come as a surprise.
The US president has long been fascinated by Greenland, which has been part of the Danish kingdom for hundreds of years, like the Faroe Islands.
Trump first proposed buying the island during his first term in 2019, comparing it to “a large real estate deal”.

Seven years later, he has returned to the issue, alternating between threats of military force and offers to make Greenlanders rich.
All in all, last week’s events suggest the US president may be determined to make Greenlanders an offer they can’t refuse.
However, in Nuuk, the mood is one of anger and defiance.
“He can go f--- himself,” is the verdict from a local pensioner.

So why has the world’s most powerful man decided that, come hell or high water, he must own the world’s largest island?
“The Arctic is the crossroads of the world,” says Dwayne Menezes, founder of the Polar Research and Policy Initiative in London.
“Greenland is strategically located along the shortest air and sea routes between three continents: North America, Europe and Asia.”
The country’s position means it would offer the shortest route for ballistic missiles targeting North America, and it is key to surveillance in the Arctic.
“It also is a vast resource frontier, all of which is becoming increasingly strategically important for the US, but also increasingly accessible because of climate change,” Menezes adds.

The US has cooperated with Greenland and Denmark on national security since the Second World War.
Americans operate the island’s only military base. Some 150 US soldiers staff the Pituffik Space Base on the north-west coast, down from 6,000 during the Cold War.
This is part of a defence agreement that has been in place between the US and Denmark since 1951.
“The US has had such critical infrastructure in Greenland since the Second World War, through the Cold War, and more recently, even now, it plays a very, very important role for the Space Force,” Menezes says.

Experts and locals are also sceptical of US claims that the island’s waters are full of ships from hostile states that pose a threat.
“If there are so many Chinese and Russian ships here, then how can it be that only Donald Trump has seen them?” says Frans Heilmann, the boss of fishing company Sigguk.
Heilmann adds: “All of Greenland is full of fishing trawlers. I have not heard of a single trawler that has spotted either a Russian or Chinese vessel near our coasts.

“I am not sure he [Trump] has much of a conscience. He says Greenland’s strategic position means he needs us for national security.
“But he already has that. That argument is worthless. He’s just after the minerals. He’s a trophy hunter.”
The suspicion that Trump’s interest in Greenland is its vast deposits of rare earths is widespread.
“It’s not really any more about wanting to get Greenland because of security reasons, but coming up with security reasons to get Greenland,” says Menezes.*

The island is rich in resources ranging from uranium that can be used to power nuclear plants to obscure minerals critical for modern-day electronics.*

apple.news/ADUBx4ZdcRbmK5xmG_p4znw

David49 Fri 23-Jan-26 04:15:54

Chocolatelovinggran

I repeat, David, that the deaths of countless Soviet men and women, not the USA, were the reason that the Allies won.
This does not mean that I support any of their behaviours after WW2, but the POTUS saying that the USA won the war is based on Hollywood films, not analysis from respected historians.

Im not denying that the Soviet losses were massive but the damage done to the Nazi war production by US and RAF bombing made it impossible to hold Soviet forces. At the same time the US defeated Japan, if the US had not entered WW2 the world would be a different place today.

Post war the US did gain massive economic benefits, but so did the new demilitarized German and Japanese economies. Britain tried and failed to maintain its empire but probably most damaging was the failure to modernize industrial infrastructure

Chocolatelovinggran Thu 22-Jan-26 16:46:36

I repeat, David, that the deaths of countless Soviet men and women, not the USA, were the reason that the Allies won.
This does not mean that I support any of their behaviours after WW2, but the POTUS saying that the USA won the war is based on Hollywood films, not analysis from respected historians.

Norah Thu 22-Jan-26 16:45:40

David49

Norah

Elegran

David49

Fallingstar

So Trump thinks the US won the Second World War, undoubtedly their presence towards the of the war bolstered flagging allied forces, though fact is they would never have got involved if Pearl Harbour hadn’t happened.
But he is so wrong, it was the Soviets who truly helped the allies win the war.

Lets get this straight it was US war production that won WW2. The allies could not have stopped Hitler without the Tanks, Guns, Aircraft and Weapons the US produced. The Japanese made a grave error of judgement attacking Pearl Harbour, just as Hitler was stupid to attack Russia

The rest is history, today if Europe is to defend itself against agressive neighbours without the US our lifestyles are going to be reduced.

It should be remembered that they did not give away those armaments. They were sold to the Uk for money they did not at that point have, due to the expense of continuing the war while the US delayed entering until Pearl Harbour. The repayments of the loan were not completed for many years.

They never give freely, they entered the war to keep the fighting off their shores. They insisted on loan repayment, no beneficial Marshall plan for the UK.

No special relationship exists.

There was a lease lend arrangement, anything used or lost or destroyed would be free, or returned, anything kept would be paid for
Out of £30 billion arms, fuel and other supplies only £1 billion was paid for by a low interest loan finaly paid off in 2006.

That sounds like a pretty good deal to me!

That was a deal beneficial to the US, not the UK.

They received what they wanted, and we paid dearly. We merely wasted our Marshall plan funds rather than using to rebuild.

MaizieD Thu 22-Jan-26 15:51:41

Norah

Elegran

David49

Fallingstar

So Trump thinks the US won the Second World War, undoubtedly their presence towards the of the war bolstered flagging allied forces, though fact is they would never have got involved if Pearl Harbour hadn’t happened.
But he is so wrong, it was the Soviets who truly helped the allies win the war.

Lets get this straight it was US war production that won WW2. The allies could not have stopped Hitler without the Tanks, Guns, Aircraft and Weapons the US produced. The Japanese made a grave error of judgement attacking Pearl Harbour, just as Hitler was stupid to attack Russia

The rest is history, today if Europe is to defend itself against agressive neighbours without the US our lifestyles are going to be reduced.

It should be remembered that they did not give away those armaments. They were sold to the Uk for money they did not at that point have, due to the expense of continuing the war while the US delayed entering until Pearl Harbour. The repayments of the loan were not completed for many years.

They never give freely, they entered the war to keep the fighting off their shores. They insisted on loan repayment, no beneficial Marshall plan for the UK.

No special relationship exists.

Err...

Britain got more money from Marshall Aid than any other European country.

It was wasted on trying to maintain the Empire and our position as a world power. But we definitely had the money

www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml

David49 Thu 22-Jan-26 15:39:08

Norah

Elegran

David49

Fallingstar

So Trump thinks the US won the Second World War, undoubtedly their presence towards the of the war bolstered flagging allied forces, though fact is they would never have got involved if Pearl Harbour hadn’t happened.
But he is so wrong, it was the Soviets who truly helped the allies win the war.

Lets get this straight it was US war production that won WW2. The allies could not have stopped Hitler without the Tanks, Guns, Aircraft and Weapons the US produced. The Japanese made a grave error of judgement attacking Pearl Harbour, just as Hitler was stupid to attack Russia

The rest is history, today if Europe is to defend itself against agressive neighbours without the US our lifestyles are going to be reduced.

It should be remembered that they did not give away those armaments. They were sold to the Uk for money they did not at that point have, due to the expense of continuing the war while the US delayed entering until Pearl Harbour. The repayments of the loan were not completed for many years.

They never give freely, they entered the war to keep the fighting off their shores. They insisted on loan repayment, no beneficial Marshall plan for the UK.

No special relationship exists.

There was a lease lend arrangement, anything used or lost or destroyed would be free, or returned, anything kept would be paid for
Out of £30 billion arms, fuel and other supplies only £1 billion was paid for by a low interest loan finaly paid off in 2006.

That sounds like a pretty good deal to me!

DaisyAnneReturns Thu 22-Jan-26 15:09:26

MaizieD

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD total assumption on my part here, but as the USA has had multiple military bases dotted all over Greenland previously as opposed to the solitary one they have now.

I am guessing that there is a good chance that minerals could be found at previous sites. If they are Sovereign Territory USA can do as they please regarding mining.

Two thoughts:

If the bases are not in use is sovereignty lost?

Are the 'rules' for the US bases the same as the ones for British bases which DAR has quoted?

There are no US SBAs like the ones in Cyprus. I'm afraid ours may well be the result of Empire. The US would be coming from the opposite direction!

Fallingstar Thu 22-Jan-26 14:53:23

The UK made its last payment of the loan given to it in 1945 by the US in 2006.
There was no largesse, the US got every dime of that loan back again.

Norah Thu 22-Jan-26 14:49:38

Elegran

David49

Fallingstar

So Trump thinks the US won the Second World War, undoubtedly their presence towards the of the war bolstered flagging allied forces, though fact is they would never have got involved if Pearl Harbour hadn’t happened.
But he is so wrong, it was the Soviets who truly helped the allies win the war.

Lets get this straight it was US war production that won WW2. The allies could not have stopped Hitler without the Tanks, Guns, Aircraft and Weapons the US produced. The Japanese made a grave error of judgement attacking Pearl Harbour, just as Hitler was stupid to attack Russia

The rest is history, today if Europe is to defend itself against agressive neighbours without the US our lifestyles are going to be reduced.

It should be remembered that they did not give away those armaments. They were sold to the Uk for money they did not at that point have, due to the expense of continuing the war while the US delayed entering until Pearl Harbour. The repayments of the loan were not completed for many years.

They never give freely, they entered the war to keep the fighting off their shores. They insisted on loan repayment, no beneficial Marshall plan for the UK.

No special relationship exists.

Allira Thu 22-Jan-26 12:32:27

But they didn't, did they?
^The Red Army had physically liberated/occupied most of Eastern and Central Europ. They had liberated Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia
Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.^

It depends on the interpretation of liberate.

Anyone who had family left in East Germany (as our friends did) would not call it liberation.

GrannyGravy13 Thu 22-Jan-26 12:27:52

MaizieD

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD total assumption on my part here, but as the USA has had multiple military bases dotted all over Greenland previously as opposed to the solitary one they have now.

I am guessing that there is a good chance that minerals could be found at previous sites. If they are Sovereign Territory USA can do as they please regarding mining.

Two thoughts:

If the bases are not in use is sovereignty lost?

Are the 'rules' for the US bases the same as the ones for British bases which DAR has quoted?

Well they really are the $billion questions?

The Cyprus Bases are there in good faith to keep peace and distance between the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. We (UK) have not deviated (as far as I can find) from the original remit.

The USA has a significant presence at our (UK) RAF Base at Akrotori, but no bases of its own on the Island.

I suppose the one thing we have come to expect with this POTUS is the unexpected.

Galaxy Thu 22-Jan-26 12:18:21

Well yes he was never going to invade Greenland.

MaizieD Thu 22-Jan-26 12:18:00

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD total assumption on my part here, but as the USA has had multiple military bases dotted all over Greenland previously as opposed to the solitary one they have now.

I am guessing that there is a good chance that minerals could be found at previous sites. If they are Sovereign Territory USA can do as they please regarding mining.

Two thoughts:

If the bases are not in use is sovereignty lost?

Are the 'rules' for the US bases the same as the ones for British bases which DAR has quoted?

DaisyAnneReturns Thu 22-Jan-26 12:13:42

From Trump on Truth Social

Based upon a very productive meeting that I've had with the secretary general of NATO, Mark Ruddy, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and in fact the entire Arctic region. This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America and all NATO nations. Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st. Additional discussions are being held concerning the Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland. Further information will be made available as discussions progress. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witco, and various others, as needed, will be responsible for the negotiations. They will report directly to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America.

DaisyAnneReturns Thu 22-Jan-26 11:53:31

In my earlier posts about SBAs I missed what they are not allowed to do:

Under the Treaty of Establishment (1960), the UK explicitly agreed not to develop the SBAs for commercial or economic exploitation. The bases were retained “solely for military purposes”

The UK is barred from:

Mining, Industrial development, Resource extraction for profit, Creating a colonial-style economy. Even agriculture inside the SBAs is tightly constrained and regulated.

DaisyAnneReturns Thu 22-Jan-26 11:44:39

Allira

Chocolatelovinggran

Most reputable historians agree with Fallingstar that it was the Soviet dead, in their countless millions, that stopped the Nazi was machine in its tracks, David.
Of course, this may, or may not, be what is written in American history books.

Well, they did, of course.

But then marched over Eastern Europe and took it themselves.

But they didn't, did they?
The Red Army had physically liberated/occupied most of Eastern and Central Europ. They had liberated Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia
Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria.

Soviet forces had suffered enormous losses (≈27 million dead total USSR), so when Germany collapsed, the Soviets didn’t “march over Eastern Europe" They were already on the ground, with millions of troops.

They stopped where the Red Army was already deployed with Allied armies present to the west. The line that emerged was military, not purely diplomatic. The initial presence was wartime reality. It was what followed that was not what had been promised. Because ther was ambiguity in the agreement, the Soviet style of goverment could be inflicted upon the people in the Russian areas.

AGAA4 Thu 22-Jan-26 11:19:30

Maremia

Just reading the USA posts that I follow on Facebook, they are all saying that the Europeans have shown them how to treat Trump.
Hope the joy lasts.

It's really up to the people of the US to get out and vote in the mid terms against Trump.

Maremia Thu 22-Jan-26 11:16:49

Just reading the USA posts that I follow on Facebook, they are all saying that the Europeans have shown them how to treat Trump.
Hope the joy lasts.

DaisyAnneReturns Thu 22-Jan-26 11:06:31

I understood from what GG13 said earlier that the 'sovereignty' would be over sites for extraction of minerals. Whereas it's usually over military bases.

It's all a bit in the air at the moment but I can't see how that could happen - it certainly wouldn't an SBA as we know it. I looked up Episkopi - an SBA in Cyprus. (I lived there for a while so unsurprisingly interested). So:

It is fully sovereign British territory (UK law applies)

Purpose: military command, logistics, intelligence, and regional power projection

It hosts:
British Forces Cyprus HQ
Signals intelligence facilities
Air and logistics support for the Middle East
So far, that fits the classic SBA.

Episkopi proves that sovereign bases are deliberately stripped of economic purpose. What may be floating in the Trump brain is not a Sovereign Base Area. Even more stupidly, America could already negotiate some of the most advantageous agreements for mining anywhere in the world. It's almost as if he isn't really interested in defence or mining but land banking!

win Thu 22-Jan-26 11:02:48

Why oh why is there not an edit facility on this forum, surely that would not be hard to arrange???

win Thu 22-Jan-26 11:01:49

Fallingstar

Avanew

From what I can learn, the majority of Greenlanders are largely or entirely Inuit by heritage, ie the native people of the land.

They can probably see very clearly what happens when America takes over land occupied by the native peoples who have lived there from time immemorial. Quite reasonably, the Greenlanders don't want to sell their birthright. They have not always been well treated by Denmark, but better the devil you know....

Yes Greenland does not belong to Denmark or the US but to the native people, unsurprisingly their voices are not being heard. What an unjust and sad world we live in.

That is not true at all their voices is very much being heard. Their Prime minister and many others have spoken up there are loads of links and interviews if your Google it here is onehttps://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DxJrjXAEOiOs&ved=2ahUKEwimxYa6_p6SAxXeUUEAHbsGLXkQ3aoNegQIHBAK&usg=AOvVaw2L1TzofEEqBoCbyXPA9hpW

RosiesMawagain Thu 22-Jan-26 10:51:48

“After the war, which we won big, if it wasn’t for us you’d all be speaking German (and a little Japanese)”

Nice one, Donald, in Davos in the German speaking canton of Graubünden
You couldn’t make it up!

If he wasn’t so powerful a maniac, you might be tempted to laugh, but no.

Elegran Thu 22-Jan-26 10:34:02

David49

Fallingstar

So Trump thinks the US won the Second World War, undoubtedly their presence towards the of the war bolstered flagging allied forces, though fact is they would never have got involved if Pearl Harbour hadn’t happened.
But he is so wrong, it was the Soviets who truly helped the allies win the war.

Lets get this straight it was US war production that won WW2. The allies could not have stopped Hitler without the Tanks, Guns, Aircraft and Weapons the US produced. The Japanese made a grave error of judgement attacking Pearl Harbour, just as Hitler was stupid to attack Russia

The rest is history, today if Europe is to defend itself against agressive neighbours without the US our lifestyles are going to be reduced.

It should be remembered that they did not give away those armaments. They were sold to the Uk for money they did not at that point have, due to the expense of continuing the war while the US delayed entering until Pearl Harbour. The repayments of the loan were not completed for many years.

CariadAgain Thu 22-Jan-26 10:32:06

foxie48

Trump has got nothing that he couldn't have agreed without this charade. The US has been closing it's bases in Greenland until it only had one and Greenland has always been open to investment in it's country for mining. This is all about keeping the Epstein files off the front pages.

That'll likely be a lot of it.....having duly watched yet another video yesterday by a victim of all that - and she looked a totally different woman (ie very very nervy indeed) and so broken by the fact that she even escaped them with her life and broke down totally during the video.

I expect there's a lot that went on in all that that would make us all sick to our stomachs.

CariadAgain Thu 22-Jan-26 10:28:29

Avanew

From what I can learn, the majority of Greenlanders are largely or entirely Inuit by heritage, ie the native people of the land.

They can probably see very clearly what happens when America takes over land occupied by the native peoples who have lived there from time immemorial. Quite reasonably, the Greenlanders don't want to sell their birthright. They have not always been well treated by Denmark, but better the devil you know....

Well yep...taking over someone else's land does seem to be rather in the American psyche - given that America isn't actually theirs anyway and a lot of the real inhabitants are probably out there on reservations.

Fallingstar Thu 22-Jan-26 10:27:25

Avanew

From what I can learn, the majority of Greenlanders are largely or entirely Inuit by heritage, ie the native people of the land.

They can probably see very clearly what happens when America takes over land occupied by the native peoples who have lived there from time immemorial. Quite reasonably, the Greenlanders don't want to sell their birthright. They have not always been well treated by Denmark, but better the devil you know....

Yes Greenland does not belong to Denmark or the US but to the native people, unsurprisingly their voices are not being heard. What an unjust and sad world we live in.