[NY Post] Trump wants to buy Greenland, again, after claiming US could take back ownership of Panama

actually, I'll go a step further . . . I do not believe I have seen ANYONE say that incorporating Greenland into the United States's sphere of influence (however that would manifest itself) would be as "easy" as "purchasing a pack of gum."

That statement is pretty much a straw man . . . no one's making that statement or argument. Not that I can see.

 

fair enough--but I still have not seen "writers and pundits . . . {who} act like Greenland and (sometimes) Canada are a bag of chips that can be purchased."

And I have tried to conscientiously post fairly serious discussion about the Greenland topic. Maybe I'm just not seeing the flippant things by the writers and pundits you're seeing, but I suspect folks who "{who} act like Greenland and (sometimes) Canada are a bag of chips that can be purchased" are perhaps themselves trying to mock the entire idea and parody the Greenland issue into a reductio ad absurdum.

 

no, it seems to me he is weighing the hypothetical possibility of Canada joining the EU against what might be considered a "better offer" geo-politically, in terms of power, prestige, and benefits to Canada/Canadian citizens. As speculative reasoning, his statement "That's a respectful offer" does not strike me as outlandish or absurd. I think you have to consider the merits of his argument based on what the entire piece is attempting to do: consider LONG-TERM strategic thinking.

"buyout package" is no more about "purchasing Greenland" than it is in the sports context when we talk about negotiating buyout packages with professional athletes. He is simply discussing the financial incentives that might in fact actually sway native Inuit Greenlanders to consider more a role for the United States in Greenland's governance. I think your bias is preventing you from reading that clearly

I myself speculated on similar numbers last week using the amount Biden calculated for forgiving student loans--$175 billion (here). If we left student loans alone, and distributed that $175 billion to Greenland's 57,000 Inuit citizens, each one would get just over $3 million apiece. There's no reason to reject that out of hand--refusing to even speculate about that kind of offer in effect de-humanizes the Inuit Greenlanders and takes the decision that ought to be rightfully theirs and puts it in your biased paternalistic hands. I'd rather put it to the Greenlanders than leave it to you (respectfully). It's not even all that different in principle than the oil benefits Alaska citizens get from the Alaska Permanent Fund each year.

no

no different than making someone a part of the Houston Rockets or Oklahoma City Thunder.

I disagree. strongly.

 

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trump-i...ch-places-1e954d30?mod=hp_opin_pos_6#cxrecs_s

Trump Is a Realist on Greenland
In fact, stability depends on the U.S. being ready to act in the places the president-elect keeps talking about.
By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr.
Jan. 17, 2025 at 5:21 pm ET

If you believe national figures owe it to the country to speak in scripted and uninteresting ways, Donald Trump is already a big disappointment. You also know where to point the finger: Joe Biden did everything right if his goal was to restore Mr. Trump to office.

But it’s easier to make sense of Mr. Trump’s rhetorical gambits, including threatening to control Panama and Greenland by force, than you might think.

• Razzle-dazzle. He inherits an economy rolling along fine, no pressing crisis and a burst of financial-market confidence now that Obama-Biden-style aggression against the private sector is in the rearview mirror. Mr. Trump’s unambiguous and nettlesome promise was to solve the Ukraine war in 24 hours. He may yet deliver a deal but it won’t be a glorious one. It will open new avenues of risk and controversy as Mr. Trump tries to hand over to the unwilling Europeans the job of arming Ukraine and deterring Russia.

Also in the cards: an early Beijing provocation in the South China Sea, aimed just below Mr. Trump’s threshold of irritability, to further erode U.S. deterrence in the region. In enlarging the geopolitical playing field to include areas where the U.S. is more advantageously placed, Mr. Trump not only distracts, he reminds us the playing field is bigger and more favorable than we might have remembered.

• Stating the obvious. He’s saying what more decorous and perhaps wiser presidents don’t feel the need to emphasize. The U.S. stands ready to exert control over the Panama Canal in any conflict with China. It stands ready, in one fashion or another, to assert control over Greenland to protect vital communications between the U.S. and Europe. The U.S. already has large forces based in Europe. They need to be supported. Also Greenland contains rare minerals that aren’t really rare: China’s power comes from controlling the processing, which it uses to favor sourcing that it also controls. The underpopulated Danish territory is one of the West’s best opportunities to flip this table.

• Ugly realism. In the early days of Russia’s invasion, Trump ally Mike Pompeo urged military support of Ukraine but also said if Russia prevails “we’ll live in that world.” If Taiwan succumbs to political or military pressure from China, the U.S. will live in that world too.

If Mr. Trump sometimes seems readily resigned to this version of the future, more pessimistic in line with his dog-eat-dog view of human nature, we were clearly anyway entering a period of geopolitical tumult. The world may be sliding toward a new era of armed and antagonistic regional blocs. It would be premature to assume so and also foolish not to consider the possibility.

But there’s an upbeat scenario too. Mr. Trump’s pessimism isn’t as radical as it seems. If he sees a chance of success, he’s actually quite ready to be swayed by, and ultimately eager for the favor of, conventional foreign-policy types who believe Ukraine and Taiwan should be upheld, who believe global alliances should be strengthened to protect an open global trading system. That’s why he keeps demanding Europe up its defense spending. NATO was on a path to snuff itself out without Mr. Trump’s help if it remained an alliance in which only one ally—the U.S.—was capable of deploying force in the common defense.

Delving into the weeds for a moment, it may be my view and not Mr. Trump’s, but if his threats curb Greenland’s rush for independence from Denmark, this would be a good outcome for the U.S.

The Danes have been responsible stewards. Denmark is a loyal NATO ally. Anathema ought to be handing over its giant, indefensible island hinterland to 56,000 local voters. Notice how the “resource curse” has turned the Mideast into a byword of stability and progress. The gap between present status and expectations is even vaster and more dislocating—on paper, every Greenlander is a multimillionaire given the wealth under their feet.

These are circumstances to undo almost any newly independent nation. In how many years might an outside military have to intervene if demagogues and kleptocrats come to power?

Mr. Trump has dominated the downtime between election and inauguration with his stink-bomb musings on age-old geopolitical questions. He successfully crowded other world leaders and their words off the stage, consolidating his astonishing gift for driving the global discussion. This alone is a useful demonstration. Russia and China would be instant sinkholes without U.S. stability and predictability upholding open markets and secure transit. We forget this but they don’t. Mr. Trump is throwing them curveballs. If he has a good game plan to go with it, it could pay off for America.

Appeared in the January 18, 2025, print edition as 'Trump Is a Realist on Greenland'.


​

 

creeping ever more closely to war with France

 

link will work for everyone

https://wapo.st/4jCaxyh

The curious momentum behind Trump’s quest for Greenland
In 2019, Trump’s bid for the Arctic territory was laughed off as a joke. Now, it’s gaining traction and provoking jitters in Europe.
Column by Ishaan Tharoor
January 29, 2025 at 12:00 a.m. EST

When President Donald Trump first floated acquiring Greenland in 2019, it seemed a joke. The idea was rebuffed by Denmark, to which the self-ruling island still belongs. At the time, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen described Trump’s hopes to purchase the territory as “absurd,” a reaction that the U.S. president said was “not nice,” and which led to him canceling a planned visit to Copenhagen. His quixotic quest faded away from the news cycle in a matter of weeks, one of many curious episodes within the general tumult of Trump’s first term.

But Trump’s covetousness of Greenland is back on the agenda now that he’s started his second term. And this time, it doesn’t look like he’s going to let go of his ambitions so easily.

Trump has been adamant that the United States should exert control over the territory, given both its strategic position in a melting Arctic region where China and Russia also have growing interests, as well as the wealth of natural resources that are thought to lie beneath Greenland’s seabeds and frozen wastes. When Donald Trump Jr. appeared in Greenland this month for a publicity stunt, his father promised to “Make Greenland Great Again” in a social media post. Trump has since cast American ownership of Greenland as “an absolute necessity” for Western security, and on Saturday, in a gaggle with reporters, said “I think we’re going to have it.”

Before his inauguration, Trump and Frederiksen conducted a lengthy phone call that shocked diplomats in Copenhagen. According to reports, Trump seemed to dismiss his Danish counterpart’s offers of greater security and economic cooperation. “It was horrendous,” a senior European official told the Financial Times. Another anonymous source speaking to the British newspaper said: “He was very firm. It was a cold shower. Before, it was hard to take it seriously. But I do think it is serious, and potentially very dangerous.”

Frederiksen is no longer treating Trump’s rhetoric as a joke.“We have never in my lifetime found ourselves in such a difficult time as now,” Frederiksen said, as reported by Danish media, speaking to the broader moment on the continent, given Russia’s war in Ukraine, but also to Trump’s disruptive return. “There is only one way through this, and that is ever closer and stronger European cooperation.”

This week, Denmark announced a military spending package of about 2 billion euros for its northern territories, including Greenland and the Faroe Islands, that provide for, among other things, three new Arctic ships and more long-range drones. And on Tuesday, Frederiksen conducted a whirlwind tour of European capitals, meeting with the leaders of France, Germany and NATO in a bid to shore up political support. The statements from these meetings studiously avoided calling out Trump or Greenland’s newly contested status, but the subtext was obvious.

“This is a very, very clear message … that of course there must be respect for territory and the sovereignty of states,” Frederiksen said after calling on French President Emmanuel Macron. “This is a crucial part of the international community, the international community that we have built together since World War II.”

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who met with Frederiksen earlier Tuesday, lamented to reporters that “the times we live in are challenging” and warned that “borders must not be moved by force.” To underscore the point, he added, in English: “To whom it may concern.”
​

more at the link

​

 

sled dogs in the news

free link

The West’s Arctic Defenses Rely On Some Sled Dogs and Aging Ships in Greenland
For years, Denmark scrimped on military spending for the strategic island. Now, Trump says America must own the territory.

https://www.wsj.com/world/the-wests...9?st=Sbu24i&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink