Trump says ownership of Greenland 'is an absolute necessity'

President-elect Donald Trump shared his renewed interest Sunday in the U.S. controlling the autonomous territory of Greenland, which is owned by Denmark.

"For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity," Trump wrote in a statement announcing that he had chosen Ken Howery to serve as ambassador to Denmark.

Greenland's prime minister, Mute Egede, has already rejected Trump's remarks, saying in a statement: “Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom," according to Reuters.

Trump says ownership of Greenland 'is an absolute necessity'

Mr. Trump isn't the first POTUS to want Greenland for the USA.

The U.S. has considered purchasing Greenland at least twice, including in 1867 and then in 1946, when President Harry S. Truman proposed buying it for $100 million. Denmark rejected the offer.

so I guess the DoD wants to base radar and such there.
nice to have access to the middle of the North Atlantic.
and, remember, we have a US Space Command that would probably like tracking station or two.

I'm thinking we have some hi-tech surveillance toys that we don't want to put on non-US soil.
if Denmark were threatened I suspect they might allow this, but right now they're safe so the can afford to let the US protect them from a distance.

a reply to: Coelacanth55

He’s correct that the GIUK gap needs to be protected at all costs.

The GIUK Gap’s strategic significance

After a long period of neglect after the end of the Cold War, the so-called Greenland–Iceland–United Kingdom (GIUK) Gap has returned as one of NATO’s major strategic maritime concerns and features prominently in the calculations of others – especially the Russian Navy. Geopolitical, climatic and technological developments mean, however, that the Gap’s strategic significance must be evaluated afresh.

www.iiss.org...

Maybe Denmark can swing a deal with President Trump to waive their NATO payment arrears.

www.usnews.com...

a reply to: Coelacanth55

We already have a very substantial military presence in the area. A major Space Force base in Thule Greenland, a modern radar base in the Faroe Islands (both are on Danish territory, BTW), multiple attack submarines and aircraft patrols on station 24/7, new ASW facilities in Lossiemouth, Scotland, etc.

I couldn't help but notice that Trump did not give any specifics about what would be different if the US had sovereignty over Greenland, as compared to the current situation in which we and NATO have the rights to base and operate military forces in and around the area pretty much whenever and wherever we want to. How would US. sovereignty over Greenland contribute to US National Security and World Freedom in a way that it doesn't now? Do we really need to own an entire continent-sized island in order to have another naval base or air base?

What you're doing here is "sanewashing" Trump's stupid and dishonest statements. You're basically making up imaginary reasons why what he's saying aren't the ravings of a senile old fool but are instead examples of 4-dimensional chess.

Tomorrow he'll get a wild hair up his butt and issue an executive order that all US citizens have to wear their underpants on the outside from now on, and you will suddenly decide that's a terrific idea.

a reply to: Boomer1947

He want's Greenland. He want's the Panama Canal. He also promises to put high tariffs on Mexico and Canada suggesting that they might want to become the next two US states to avoid those tariffs. And while I know this is an out of the box exaggeration, it seems that his notion of isolationism might also include him not only running the US, but the entire continent of North America to boot. His imperialistic nature is shining bright.

He want's Greenland. He want's the Panama Canal. He also promises to put high tariffs on Mexico and Canada suggesting that they might want to become the next two US states to avoid those tariffs. And while I know this is an out of the box exaggeration, it seems that his notion of isolationism might also include him not only running the US, but the entire continent of North America to boot. His imperialistic nature is shining bright.

a reply to: BingoMcGoof

Trump campaigned for over a year and WON the election and a big reason was his promise to look into every trade deal the US has with every country. China is moving in on the Panama Canal and there are other issues, Canada has an untenable trade imbalance with the US as well as an illegal immigration problem, Mexico has not been a good neighbor to the US in many ways and Greenland is a resource that the US can utilize strategically both militarily and economically. I am sure Denmark would make a deal. To see this as isolationism is not very insightful. The US will continue to buy and sell goods and services internationally at levels no other country can match however the imbalance and uneven playing field in regards to trade and global commerce needs to be recalibtated. As kindly as I can put it to relate this to isolationism is just plain ignorant, I expect that from the propaganda legacy media, are you just parroting what you hear? It makes no sense, the US is the global leader militarily, economically, politically and despite the efforts of so many it's hegemony will endure. Trump is doing the heavy lifting decades past presidents were too weak and corrupt to do. This is what MAGA looks like, get used to it.

I couldn't help but notice that Trump did not give any specifics about what would be different if the US had sovereignty over Greenland, as compared to the current situation in which we and NATO have the rights to base and operate military forces in and around the area pretty much whenever and wherever we want to. How would US. sovereignty over Greenland contribute to US National Security and World Freedom in a way that it doesn't now? Do we really need to own an entire continent-sized island in order to have another naval base or air base?

a reply to: Boomer1947

Why would Trump give any specifics about what would be different if the US had sovereignty over Greenland??
Trump is, right now, negotiating with Denmark so don't expect too many details. Expect some big changes at the Panama Canal too. Trump has a way of setting the narrative and many don't even see it. With just a message or a veiled threat Trump has essentially renegotiated with Mexico and Canada. More to come. The trip to France-ostensibley to see Notre Dame- where he met with Macron and Zelensky went well. Many world leaders have made the pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago. If you want Trump to fail then you want America to fail and have the world spin into chaos a la Biden's leadership-or lack there of. I wouldn't bet against Trump and his team or the USA.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

This is what MAGA looks like, get used to it.

Oh yeah, I get it, this is what maga looks like. While Magaists enjoy the swaggering jargon Trump dishes out along with the imperialist slant he spews, nearly half the voters in the US do not. I think it's short sighted to continue to believe that his bully-boy posturing is just going to make the rest of the world roll over and beg for mercy.

a reply to: Boomer1947

The Red Herrings and false equivalencies against Trump are getting more concerning by the day.

There's also a secret network of scientists and PR people that know Greenland is a key to controlling Climate Change narratives ! 😊

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

This is what MAGA looks like, get used to it.

Oh yeah, I get it, this is what maga looks like. While Magaists enjoy the swaggering jargon Trump dishes out along with the imperialist slant he spews, nearly half the voters in the US do not. I think it's short sighted to continue to believe that his bully-boy posturing is just going to make the rest of the world roll over and beg for mercy.

and in this situation, it's best to let your TDS take over and guide you. Never let the situation happen organically, it's best to always assume the worst, and gloat prematurely, to exude the appearance of confidence. You are doing it right.

a reply to: BingoMcGoof

I don’t know about all of that.

Canada is finally improving their border security and getting their act together to avoid tariffs.

This half assed governance by self serving politicians is going to come to an end one way or another.

As far as Denmark goes, they need to stop depending on handouts from the US to bolster their national security within NATO and pull their weight. Or contribute some other way.

Same with Canada. Relying on your neighbor to protect your country while bad mouthing them isn’t a good look.

www.reuters.com...

In a recorded message released by Panama's President Mulino on Sunday afternoon, the nation's leader said that Panama's independence was non-negotiable and that China had no influence on the canal's administration. He also defended the passage rates Panama charged, saying they were not set "on a whim".
China does not control or administer the canal, but a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings has long managed two ports located on the canal's Caribbean and Pacific entrances.

Chinese corporation = Chinese government.
Trump wants the US to control.

No-one considered what the people of Greenland want?

The USA has no historical link to Greenland, if the inhabitants want to remain part of Denmark and Denmark doesn't want to relinquish ownership there is no moral justification for this.

a reply to: network dude

Hiya Dude, long time. You continue to push that TDS stuff yet, as I have often said in reply you ain't got any clue as to the real nature of TDS. The real TDS, the real Trump Derangement Syndrome is a malady suffered by staunch right-wingers who have chaffed for so long against the ill-fated liberal agenda and accepted as their champion, a self serving elitist who knows how to push those conservative buttons. He is what we all have now and we will see how it goes. So far, I"m not surprised at all. Well, that's not true. He wants to change the name of a mountain . Whoop...

a reply to: Coelacanth55

And that Chinese "involvement" is just the surface window dressing. Good bet the "involvement" is 100x deeper than what they tell. 😬 Trump obviously knows how deep the "deep" is.

a reply to: xuenchen

Why not rent the relatively small area we need, instead of buying the entire island?

originally posted by: NorthOS

Canada is finally improving their border security and
getting their act together to avoid tariffs.
Relying on your neighbor to protect your country
while bad mouthing them isn’t a good look.

Looks are skin deep,
Meanwhile u.s has a problem with drugs, and illegal gun exports.
U.s needs to walk the talk, and get their sh@t in order,
instead of wasting time in pointing fingers, sending their kids in expanding wars.
The war INDUSTRY and EXPANSIONISM will NOT save u.s, On the contrary,
No matter how it makes you feel.
. . . but keep telling that delusion to your self . Lol

__________________________

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

I couldn't help but notice that Trump did not give any specifics about what would be different if the US had sovereignty over Greenland, as compared to the current situation in which we and NATO have the rights to base and operate military forces in and around the area pretty much whenever and wherever we want to. How would US. sovereignty over Greenland contribute to US National Security and World Freedom in a way that it doesn't now? Do we really need to own an entire continent-sized island in order to have another naval base or air base?

a reply to: Boomer1947

Why would Trump give any specifics about what would be different if the US had sovereignty over Greenland??Many world leaders have made the pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago. If you want Trump to fail then you want America to fail and have the world spin into chaos a la Biden's leadership-or lack there of. I wouldn't bet against Trump and his team or the USA.

National leaders give specifics about what the National Strategic Goals are/should be so that they can get support from Congress and the public to actually move forward with those goals. Abraham Lincoln did it, FDR did it, JFK did it, LBJ did it, Richard Nixon did it, and Ronald Reagan did it, to name a few. You have to get funding and authorization to do it, otherwise it doesn't get done.

In this case, and assuming Trump isn't just bloviating, it looks like the only two options are 1) negotiate a deal with Denmark/Greenland for a peaceful, business-like acquisition (similar to the Louisiana Purchase from France or the Alaska Purchase from Russia) or 2) a military action to seize control by force of arms. Option 1 would require Congress to provide funds for the transaction and the Senate would have to ratify a treaty, but Denmark has already said they are not interested. Option 2 would actually be an act of war, and Congress would also have to get involved at some point to either fund it or refuse to fund it. By the way, since Denmark is a member of NATO, making war on Denmark/Greenland would be a US violation of the NATO treaty, which would get the US expelled from NATO and probably bring up impeachment charges again. The Senate would undoubtedly have a strong opinion about that.

You can't sneak something like this through on the basis of lies and deception, hoping that nobody will notice.

Like most Trump worshippers, you are conflating Donald Trump's interests with the nation's interests. Personally, I don't care whether Donald Trump as an individual fails or succeeds. As a citizen, I would prefer he fails at hare-brained schemes like this one which only serve to weaken the nation.

a reply to: Boomer1947

Not paying even their agreed percentage of their minuscule GDP is also in violation of the treaty.

What’s more likely to come out of this is that Denmark will provide rent free locations in Greenland for American bases as payback for their dismal NATO contributions.

I’d be surprised if Canada will be subject to 25% tariffs come the end of January as well.

Trump is getting what he wants by offering these countries what they don’t want.

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: xuenchen

Why not rent the relatively small area we need, instead of buying the entire island?

We already are........ Pituffik Base

Something else must be in play.

a reply to: ToneD

What is delusional is thinking that Trump is an expansionist.

Follow along, it’s called negotiation.