The Strange case of US annexation of Greenland and the Post US security structure

ssu

(Even if discussed in the Trump thread, I think this deserved a thread of it's own)

US GREENLAND
Actually, Trump gave the reason explicitly in his inaugural address January 20th a year ago:

The United States will once again consider itself a growing nation — one that increases our wealth, expands our territory, builds our cities, raises our expectations, and carries our flag into new and beautiful horizons.

(see here)

And what else truly could Greenland give than a huge increase in territory for the US, when the US has already a military base in Greenland (which could be enlarged) and while Denmark is totally open for the US to launch mining operations etc in the island? Even the case of Greenland being independent and then having a Compacts of Free Association (COFA) with the US, an agreement like the Marshal Island etc gave, seems not to be enough. Trump needs Greenland to be US territory, as Trump has many times said, and Stephen Miller said it the most clear way: "What right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? What is the basis of their territorial claim? - - - Obviously Greenland should be part of the United States."

This shows us again the simplistic and bizarre mental landscape of Donald Trump.

Trump urged the intelligence services to get working on Greenland (see here) and there indeed have been the US intelligence operations attempting to get Greenlanders to secede from Denmark (see Denmark summons US envoy over suspected influence operations in Greenland), yet such classic subversion might not be needed, when simply the fact is that "obviously Greenland should be part of the US". With that kind of rhetoric, who the fuck cares about few Inuits.

And now not only Denmark and the Nordic countries, but many European countries have taken this quite seriously. In a joint statement by President Macron of France, Chancellor Merz of Germany, Prime Minister Meloni of Italy, Prime Minister Tusk of Poland, Prime Minister Sánchez of Spain, Prime Minister Starmer of the United Kingdom and Prime Minister Frederiksen of Denmark on Greenland, after the diplomatic niceties they end: "Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.”

Even in my country there's opinions that Finland should help Denmark by also sending troops to joint exercises with the Danes in Greenland, like there already have been with Denmark and France and others and with the US not participating in the Arctic Light 2025 exercises.

Future impact on the alliance

Now it all still maybe in the end MAGA trolling or smoke and mirrors, way to get the focus out of Venezuela & Epstein and perhaps Trump might be have something else to handle and will leave Greenland alone, but something has happened.

The International order that the US so long worked up is now collapsing, thanks to "Might makes right"-Trump, who has no appetite for alliances. The first Trump administration went rather smoothly, because there were the "adults in the room" minimizing Trump's brainfarts. But now there are only those that provide and larger echo base for the whims of Donald.

There's a lot of wishes that the Trump era will just pass over and that the international order that has worked for 80 years will still work, but in military spending and planning you do see the change already happening.

The European Union’s Security Action For Europe (SAFE) joint defense financing program will now also include Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand. When you think of it, those are basically all US treaty allies in Europe and in the Far East. The impact is actually quite big:

So even if Greenland won't be annexed by Trump, and annexation which would end NATO if the US attacks another NATO country, this might be one of those issues that really shows the separation of the US from it's allies. And things like the SAFE show that Europe is truly looking at that "Strategic Autonomy".

But what do you think? Will Trump take Greenland?

ChatteringMonkey

↪ssu

I just wrote this in the Venezuela thread on the topic:

I actually don't think NATO will be dismantled over Greenland, I changed my mind on this. Europeans are a bit shocked at the moment about it all, but will slowly come to the realisation that they really don't have anywhere else to go in the short term. And the US will realise that they can't take on the world on their own after all, so my guess is they will find a way to make it work, at least for now.

I don't think there will be a military conflict over Greenland in any case, to much is at stake for both parties, it would essentially be mutual suicide in a geo-political sense. Trump will try to negotiate for Greenland, and probably thinks he has a decent chance of succeeding as he has the better cards to play. But it also depends on how far Europe will want to take it, not in a military sense, but in terms of the price they want to pay economically, as the US is the main energy and digital services provider etc, and in terms of the Ukraine negotiations where they need the backing of the US.

ssu

Europeans are a bit shocked at the moment about it all, but will slowly come to the realisation that they really don't have anywhere else to go in the short term. — ChatteringMonkey

Defense procurement is long term thing. And that's why something like SAFE does tell a lot.

I don't think there will be a military conflict over Greenland in any case, to much is at stake for both parties — ChatteringMonkey

Is there for Trump so much? If he get Greenland and the cost is NATO, why would it be for him a problem? Let's remember that this guy truly thinks that it's a great idea to go to Venezuela and take their oil and the US has been cheated by it's allies.

as the US is the main energy and digital services provider etc, — ChatteringMonkey

I'm not sure what you refer on energy, because the US doesn't export much. With digital services, Europe is starting to be aware just how dependent they are on US tech. Basically the real issue here is that the US is an untrustworthy ally, and is capable of freezing the essential logistics and supplies of advanced weapons systems. This is one of the reason why the heated F-35 vs Gripen discourse in Canada, for example.

And then there's the case of France and it's independent defense industry, something again on the lines of "strategic autonomy".

ChatteringMonkey

Defense procurement is long term thing. And that's why something like SAFE does tell a lot. — ssu

I didn't really know much about this. I certainly applaud the initiative, because we do need more independence from the US. But it's always hard to tell with these initiatives if it eventually gets realized or gets stuck somewhere in bureaucracy and/or disagreement among members.

But yes in general I would say this Trump administration has fundamentally changed something within Europe in that we all became more aware of what our more pressing challenges are. If we will be able to rise to the challenge is another matter.

Is there for Trump so much? If he get Greenland and the cost is NATO, why would it be for him a problem? Let's remember that this guy truly thinks that it's a great idea to go to Venezuela and take their oil and the US has been cheated by it's allies. — ssu

Because he sees himself as a kind of mob boss of his corner of the world, with Europe as a part of his turf. And Xi and Putin as his only peers. But as any mob boss he does need his minions to increase his importance. The issue with Europe in his mind is I think not that we are on the same team, but that we don't pay him enough respect.

I'm not sure what you refer on energy, because the US doesn't export much. — ssu

LNG, the US is our main LNG supplier, which replaced the Russian pipeline gas. And also oil.

With digital services, Europe is starting to be aware just how dependent they are on US tech. Basically the real issue here is that the US is an untrustworthy ally, and is capable of freezing the essential logistics and supplies of advanced weapons systems. This is one of the reason why the heated F-35 vs Gripen discourse in Canada, for example.

And then there's the case of France and it's independent defense industry, something again on the lines of "strategic autonomy". — ssu

It's not only in defence, every digital and computer service we use is American. They could literally crash our entire economy overnight if they really wanted to. Probably not going to happen, but you know, a lot of unexpected things seem to be happening lately.

Tzeentch

Will Trump take Greenland? — ssu

After Venezuela it has become a lot more likely, because:
- The US is showing clear commitment to enforcing the Monroe Doctrine (aka domination of the western hemisphere).
- The US views Europe as an unreliable ally in the long run (ironic, I know), and a potential rival.
- Greenland comes with large territorial and economic claims on the Arctic.
- In the case of a US-EU split, Greenland would serve as a forward base against the Russians (mainland Europe could no longer function as a bridgehead).

ssu

LNG, the US is our main LNG supplier, which replaced the Russian pipeline gas. And also oil. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, this actually varies by country and do remember the change in energy production happening now. For example France gets a huge share of it's power needs from nuclear energy and my country gets 90% of it's electricity from nuclear power and renewable energy. Oil isn't so dominant as it was during the 1970's.

- The US is showing clear commitment to enforcing the Monroe Doctrine (aka domination of the western hemisphere). — Tzeentch

I'd still call more accurately the Donroe doctrine, because Trump's moves are totally different from anything else we've seen. It's basically "we've got this awesome military, so we can plunder weaker countries.".

- The US views Europe as an unreliable ally in the long run (ironic, I know), and a potential rival. — Tzeentch

Good that you notice the irony, because the US itself made this alliance and was truly successful of creating an alliance system that the Europeans voluntarily and happily were in, and thus gave US a say in their defense policies and also gave a lot of economic perks to the US (starting from the dollar being the reserve currency, even after Nixon's default).

- Greenland comes with large territorial and economic claims on the Arctic. — Tzeentch

Actually, it's really about the map and territory. Trump wants Greenland and then perhaps Canada, because then the US would be the largest country in the World. Even with Greenland, that's the largest territory extension for a while in US history, because it's larger than Alaska.

The real estate man Trump wants Greenland because of this. Everything else is just hogwash and lies, just as Greenland being needed for "security reasons".

I think that now the US has less than 500 servicemen, perhaps as little as 150 in Greenland and just one military base (earlier they had 17). That's how really much this is a "security issue".

- In the case of a US-EU split, Greenland would serve as a forward base against the Russians (mainland Europe could no longer function as a bridgehead). — Tzeentch

In case of US-EU, the Russians hardly don't matter anymore.

You see, it just takes some time for Europe to get over the appeasement stage with Trump to accept that the Trump administration is a hostile threat to them. And invading Greenland would likely push them over that line. Naturally nobody wants that, because Europeans largely love Americans. I've lived there two years when I was small and I liked the people very much.

And why isn't anyone asking the question from Americans just how much they want to invade an ally like Denmark?

At least some Republicans in the Congress are saying just how stupid all of this is:

(Starts at 0:51 about the comments made by Miller on Greenland)

If only amateur hour would be over...

Tzeentch

[...] Trump's moves are totally different from anything else we've seen. It's basically "we've got this awesome military, so we can plunder weaker countries.". — ssu

That doesn't sound different at all. That's US foreign policy in a nutshell. Except they didn't call it plundering before, but "spreading democracy and freedom".

And why isn't anyone asking the question from Americans just how much they want to invade an ally like Denmark? — ssu

That gave me a good laugh.

You tell me,

↪ssu

, why isn't anyone asking those poor schmucks for their opinion?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's because Washington doesn't give a flying fuck about what the American people think.

I guess Average Joe needs to find himself in a trench under artillery fire for that penny to finally drop.

ssu

That doesn't sound different at all. That's US foreign policy in a nutshell. — Tzeentch

Too simplistic. All Great Powers have had quite different foreign policies toward different states.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's because Washington doesn't give a flying fuck about what the American people think. — Tzeentch

Well, only a minority supports the Venezuela campaign in the US.

WASHINGTON, Jan 5 (Reuters) - One in three Americans approves of the U.S. military strike on Venezuela that toppled the country's president and 72% worry the U.S. will become too involved in the South American country, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that concluded on Monday.

When it comes to invading the Kingdom of Denmark, the whole idea is too strange and odd.

And there are those that didn't vote for Trump.

jorndoe

Republished, apropos:

Will the Trump administration attempt to annex Greenland, Canada, or somewhere else? A prominent historian’s take
^{— Dan Drollette Jr, Daniel Immerwahr · Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists · Sep 4, 2025}

Denmark is an old US ally. The US already has bases on Greenland, since the 2nd world war. All in NATO since its formation. The Greenlanders are open to business, akin to whatever other places. House Trump has rambled about defense applicable to Greenland (as part of Denmark) and Canada.

Apart from Trump, there haven't been any particular moves to change that stuff. Extending anything, like NATO or US bases, for example, is probably not difficult (or at least wasn't until Trump, perhaps). Say, after 9/11, a hundred-or-so nations, including Denmark, came to aid the US in what followed, at own expense; what you might expect from allies I suppose.

So, what's missing, according to the Trumpists? A flag? Well, it really seems like it's a flag. Statements from House Trump and Ogles don't make much sense. What's missing?

That being said, previous US administrations have considered offering to buy Greenland. If Greenland is for sale anyway, then how about a bidding war? :D The best offer (not just money) to be considered?

ssu

Statements from House Trump and Ogles don't make much sense. What's missing? — jorndoe

Nothing as it simply doesn't make sense. It's all about the flag waving on the island. It's that Trump can say that he made the US greater in size with a territory larger than Alaska. It's make America Great, literally.

But there are no "adults in the room" in this administration, just yes-men that compete who can praise the president the most and reurgitate his fallacies. Yet I think this stunt might be the one that will change Europe's attitude of appeasement towards Trump. Already Denmark and Canada have seen the light.

ChatteringMonkey

Well, this actually varies by country and do remember the change in energy production happening now. For example France gets a huge share of it's power needs from nuclear energy and my country gets 90% of it's electricity from nuclear power and renewable energy. Oil isn't so dominant as it was during the 1970's. — ssu

Germany is the most important one, 'the economic engine' of Europe. I presume things will be looked at and negotiated in the context of NATO, not by looking at countries separately.

ssu

Germany is the most important one, 'the economic engine' of Europe. — ChatteringMonkey

In Germany in 2024 about 40% of the electricity was produced by renewable energy. Then a large share comes from coal, which it get's from Poland.

And mind you the Kremlin thought that Germany would shiver in cold once the imported gas was turned off. It didn't. Even if Germany is an extremely bureaucratic country and reacts slowly, the idea of rolling blackouts or Germans even freezing to death (if the winter would have been harsh) made Germany quickly to rearrange.

ChatteringMonkey

↪ssu

They lucked out because we had a very mild winter in Western Europe. And the point is not that people will die of the cold, but that energy became much more expensive. You cannot be competitive if you pay a lot more for energy compared to the rest.

That German economy is tanking is becoming more obvious with the day. The last thing Merz, feeling the heat from the right AFD, will want is energy prices potentially going up even more.

Tzeentch

Looks like Iran is about to pop off as well. Several analysts have already predicted that something was about to happen in Iran.

↪ssu

, perhaps it would be good to combine all these threads into a 'Recent geopolitical developments' thread, or something like that. A mod might be able to help with that, if you like the idea.

ssu

↪ChatteringMonkey

That's also the story of UK, actually. Yet here Germany shot itself on the foot by getting rid of nuclear energy.

Yet here's the issue: if those high prices of energy happen because of pressure from another country, if let's say the US halted energy shipments to Germany in order to pressure Germany, that backfires.

You see, people are angry if the economy is tanking because of government mismanagement. If we in Finland would start to have cuts in our energy production in the middle of the winter suddenly, we would be angry and likely the present administration would lose in the next elections. Yet if Putin would start, out of the blue, bombing or sabotaging our energy power plants and thanks to that we would have blackouts, the blame wouldn't be on the government. Heck, then you just put on clothes, use candles and buy an aggregate!

Germany and the European countries aren't poor. If they have to buy with a higher cost energy from somewhere else, they will do it. Trump pressuring Europe will simply just backfire in this case as every move to pressure Europe into something that it doesn't want will reinforce the need for strategic autonomy. (Hence Trump demanding that Europe would spend on more on defense was taken happily on by the Europeans.)

ssu

perhaps it would be good to combine all these threads into a 'Recent geopolitical developments' thread, or something like that. A mod might be able to help with that, if you like the idea. — Tzeentch

Well, that morphs into a Trump thread, because there's always 'Recent geopolitical developments'... just as there will be the US president and his policy actions debated.

The fact is that some of threads may end and be forgotten... WHICH WOULD BE A SPLENDID OUTCOME!

It really would be great if this annexation of Greenland ended as being as one of the odd eccentricities of Donald Trump which created confusion, yet something that didn't end up in a tragedy or as a divisive infamous event (as his actions on January 6th became).

Remember that the Ukraine thread with it's 18.1k responses is called the "Ukraine Crisis" as the war hadn't yet happened when the thread was started (and earlier the discussion was on the Biden thread). Yet a war that has killed hundreds of thousands in Europe is something worth commenting.

The Strange case of US annexation of Greenland and the Post US security structure

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions