This is a “quick question” with likely a long answer:
Genuinely what “security” benefits does a USA “Owned” Greenland offer to the USA?
Claiming Greenland is “required for the Security of the USA” suggests there are threats from Russia and China which Greenland is positioned to block…but
i am lost what strategic benefit Greenland offers to the USA from Russian and Chinese attacks?
(as and aside, i really cannot see Russia or China ever “going to war” with USA, the only benefit worth fighting for would be “world domination” as POTUS is the “leader of the free world” and so take USA, you take the “free world”.
but in reality it would just be the destruction of the world as we know it….nuclear weapons or otherwise, any “war” would end in mutually assured destruction on the basis that the “enemy” is now no longer trusted to play nice and so must be destroyed. This isn’t to say Russia and China are good friends of the world, and we all get along - but the threat as M&S and Coop recently found out is via Cyber attacks - destroying our way of life by breaking the infrastructure we depend on)
so the only consideration (ie real reason) POTUS really has interest in Greenland is its oil and other mineral resource…but is dressing it up as “security” needs as he can’t use Drugs smuggling as a reason
have i understood that right or am i woefully ignorant in the strategic benefit Greenland offers?
NB - I appreciate the map above is simplified, there are routes not shown where Russia can patrol the north pole and surrounding waters, and indeed come across those waters, but they’ll hit Canada before USA so still see the Pacific as the “direct” route to USA shores…
Greenland isn’t of interest because of USA security, but if it becomes territory of someone else (the status quo changes) it becomes an issue - so he is getting ahead of the curve now
You’ve said it yourself; it’s not about “security” in its traditional sense - it’s more about economic and resource security -
“Security” of exploitation of rare earth minerals without dependency of imports.
“Security” of another potentially exploitable source of oil and natural gas.
“Security” of hosting their own (naturally cooled) data centres, without the additional costs of expensive air conditioning systems (look at the revenue Iceland is currently generating with this - Greenland could be their own little patch of awesome).
It’s a land grab with potentially lucrative financial gains. At the moment, Greenland’s environment is rigorously protected, and where things are harvested and explored, Denmark take a healthy cut of the revenues. Under the ownership of the United States of Trump, they can rebrand it Trumpland, roll back those environmental protections and exploit everything they need.
There is no benefit that they don’t already have with pre-existing agreements with Denmark & as part of NATO.
They can build whatever facilities they like, station however many they want & US businesses are free to go after the minerals.
Honestly I think this is just a big story to distract from the Epstein files. I find myself thinking that he must really have done something awful to be willing to go this far to try and bury it.
I mean, it would be the end of NATO. Why on earth would the US choose to blow up the power structure they created and lead, that gives them so much strength, in order to ‘own’ Greenland?
It makes absolutely zero sense any way you cut it. Let’s presume for a moment that they do lose the plot and take the territory. NATO is done, so no need to keep up pretense. EU/UK will apply economic pressure, restrict US ability to conduct missions out of Europe, review SOFA’s etc.
Within 18 to 24 months the domestic pressure caused by spiralling costs and loss of prestige would bring Trump down
He’s one year into his second four year term in 24 mths he will be in his final year. People would probably wait him out at that point. If he loses the mid-terms then there might be a movement to oust but I think that will only after he has served the majority of his term as that would allow
From what I understand, Greenland gaining independence from Denmark would take longer than Trump’s remaining time in office (unless he can somehow wrangle another term).
I don’t think Vance will be electable in this circumstance, he barely is now as he has the charisma of month old milk.
I believe it would bring everyone down associated with Trump, for enabling him. In fact the only positive I can see coming out of this scenario is that it forces the US to make changes to their political system to prevent a Trumpist 2.0 admin from occuring again.
If Trump we’re to invade Greenland then he’s following in Putin’s footsteps and is tearing up the international rule book; effectively a return to the Wild West.
I wonder how he’d feel if somebody else decided they wanted Mar El Lago and took it by force, killing his staff - the principle is the same.
it would be the end of NATO, probably the UK Falklands and island owners in the Caribbean would be at risk.
Canada’s firm stance to remain independent would also place them at risk.
Not sure what this has to do with it, considering NATO did nothing and we had to liberate them on our own (with some low key / deniable support from the US).
The Falklands is nothing to do with NATO, we all should know that but by Trumps actions, The Argies are likely to be emboldened! Let’s face it we can’t root around again like last time to service a Vulcan or two!
It wasn’t an argument about self-determination that returned the Falklands to British control. The UN was never going to remove the Argentine invaders: that took a British task force.
