Is Greenland the reward?

mindlight · Wednesday at 9:35 AM

Is Greenland America's reward for bringing peace between Russia and Ukraine and getting Ukraine to concede land to Russia.

Just speculating here, but it has always seemed to me to be quite ridiculous that the USA announces its intent to annex Greenland without actually doing anything but annoy its allies and the people of Greenland in the process. If they really want it then it would happen, its not as though anyone could stop them.

There are some good strategic reasons to do this:
1) America is better equipped to police this territory against Russian or Chinese incursions than are the Danes even despite recent Danish investment
2) America would gain control of the rare earth resources that global warming is exposing on the island.
3) It fits the Monroe (Donroe) doctrine version of American isolationism favored by Trumps Republicans, securing the continental USA against Great power incursions

There are also some really good reasons not to do this:
1) It would set the USA in direct conflict with another NATO member Denmark and with the wider EU and possibly split the alliance irreparably
2) It is not what the people of Greenland want and so the USA would be storing up trouble for the future as well as sabotaging its international reputation.
3) America could gain most of the military and economic benefits of Greenland's mines and location without annexation.

So why is Trump mouthing off about Greenland while not doing anything. If he loses the midterms I guess this policy gets benched forever but maybe he never thought he would have to wait this long for peace in Ukraine. His plan was make peace, stop excessive Russian advance into Europe, gain a whole bunch of rare earth concessions from the Ukrainians and then as his reward for helping Europe out to get Greenland. With Greenland secured and the Russians and Chinese driven out of Venezuela and Cuba bankrupt, He would have much of the Americas stabilized under USA dominance.

So why hasn't he got a peace deal yet? Is Putin dragging out the war until after the midterms when he thinks he can dictate terms to a weakened Trump and stop Trump taking Greenland also? Obviously this would suit Chinese interests also. Perhaps this would explain that 'hidden something' that Putin appeared to have on Trump that seemed to make Trump consistently pro-Russian and blind to war atrocities. If Greenland was the swap for Russia gaining Ukrainian territory then this explains Putin's apparent leverage over Trump in Alaska and throughout the negotiation process, along with some naughty pictures??!!.

It would also have extremely worrying implications for NATO. It would mean that Trump has always intended to split the alliance but was cool headed enough to understand that he had to secure peace in Ukraine first. He has a stronger negotiation position with Europe on board but after peace he no longer needs them.

This close to a deal in Ukraine is this all nonsense or an explanation why the deal might yet fall through. Just a theory - what do you think`?

PloverWing · Wednesday at 10:45 AM

I never know what's going on in President Trump's head, so I don't know what he's imagining about Greenland. But I can't see Greenland as a swap for Russia gaining Ukrainian territory, because who's doing the swapping? Neither Russia nor Ukraine owns Greenland, so Greenland isn't theirs to swap.

Laodicean60 · Wednesday at 11:53 AM

One possible reason is NATO minus the USA can not protect Greenland against Russia and China.
Finally after all this talk of annexation Denmark is spending money on defense, a little late. Just like NATO late in defense spending. When the threat is real.

seeking.IAM · Wednesday at 12:29 PM

Trump trying to out-Putin Putin. Greenland, Canada, Venezuela. Kingdom building. God help us all.

Laodicean60 · Wednesday at 12:43 PM

seeking.IAM said:
Trump trying to out-Putin Putin. Greenland, Canada, Venezuela. Kingdom building. God help us all.

Yep and it's a good thing. Trump did good in Venezuela if he removes Russia and China presence. I know it sent a clear message to China.

tz620q · Wednesday at 12:54 PM

mindlight said:
Is Greenland America's reward for bringing peace between Russia and Ukraine and getting Ukraine to concede land to Russia.

Just speculating here, but it has always seemed to me to be quite ridiculous that the USA announces its intent to annex Greenland without actually doing anything but annoy its allies and the people of Greenland in the process. If they really want it then it would happen, its not as though anyone could stop them.

There are some good strategic reasons to do this:
1) America is better equipped to police this territory against Russian or Chinese incursions than are the Danes even despite recent Danish investment
2) America would gain control of the rare earth resources that global warming is exposing on the island.
3) It fits the Monroe (Donroe) doctrine version of American isolationism favored by Trumps Republicans, securing the continental USA against Great power incursions

There are also some really good reasons not to do this:
1) It would set the USA in direct conflict with another NATO member Denmark and with the wider EU and possibly split the alliance irreparably
2) It is not what the people of Greenland want and so the USA would be storing up trouble for the future as well as sabotaging its international reputation.
3) America could gain most of the military and economic benefits of Greenland's mines and location without annexation.

So why is Trump mouthing off about Greenland while not doing anything. If he loses the midterms I guess this policy gets benched forever but maybe he never thought he would have to wait this long for peace in Ukraine. His plan was make peace, stop excessive Russian advance into Europe, gain a whole bunch of rare earth concessions from the Ukrainians and then as his reward for helping Europe out to get Greenland. With Greenland secured and the Russians and Chinese driven out of Venezuela and Cuba bankrupt, He would have much of the Americas stabilized under USA dominance.

So why hasn't he got a peace deal yet? Is Putin dragging out the war until after the midterms when he thinks he can dictate terms to a weakened Trump and stop Trump taking Greenland also? Obviously this would suit Chinese interests also. Perhaps this would explain that 'hidden something' that Putin appeared to have on Trump that seemed to make Trump consistently pro-Russian and blind to war atrocities. If Greenland was the swap for Russia gaining Ukrainian territory then this explains Putin's apparent leverage over Trump in Alaska and throughout the negotiation process, along with some naughty pictures??!!.

It would also have extremely worrying implications for NATO. It would mean that Trump has always intended to split the alliance but was cool headed enough to understand that he had to secure peace in Ukraine first. He has a stronger negotiation position with Europe on board but after peace he no longer needs them.

This close to a deal in Ukraine is this all nonsense or an explanation why the deal might yet fall through. Just a theory - what do you think`?

There is an interesting historical parallel here. Greenland was originally colonized by Vikings that probably came from the Scandanavian countries including Denmark. That colonization failed when the Inuit tribes from Northern Canada and Alaska migrated into Greenland. Much better equipped to live in the harsh Greenland climate, the Inuits put pressure on the Vikings and they eventually all packed up and headed back to Europe. This led to over 5 centuries where there was no permanent European presence in Greenland until the Danes sent in a missionary in 1721. So lets start a liberal land acknowledgement for the early Native American settlers and restore their right to rule Greenland!

Nithavela · Wednesday at 1:01 PM

There is no more rewards. No more exchange. Just take what you can and punch everyone in the face that stands in your way.

mindlight · Wednesday at 10:51 PM

PloverWing said:
I never know what's going on in President Trump's head, so I don't know what he's imagining about Greenland. But I can't see Greenland as a swap for Russia gaining Ukrainian territory, because who's doing the swapping? Neither Russia nor Ukraine owns Greenland, so Greenland isn't theirs to swap.

The swap thesis was on the lines of maximalist concessions to Putin = A free hand in Greenland with Russia doing nothing about it. But the US UK are already taking out spy ships and sanctions buster oil tankers so you are right it is not a real swap, Russian incursions in the Americas can be policed without annexation.

The real sequence is to do with EU NATO. European NATO gives leverage in a Ukraine peace deal which Trump wants. But once he has peace he can break the alliance with old Europe to annex Greenland.

mindlight · Wednesday at 10:57 PM

tz620q said:
There is an interesting historical parallel here. Greenland was originally colonized by Vikings that probably came from the Scandanavian countries including Denmark. That colonization failed when the Inuit tribes from Northern Canada and Alaska migrated into Greenland. Much better equipped to live in the harsh Greenland climate, the Inuits put pressure on the Vikings and they eventually all packed up and headed back to Europe. This led to over 5 centuries where there was no permanent European presence in Greenland until the Danes sent in a missionary in 1721. So lets start a liberal land acknowledgement for the early Native American settlers and restore their right to rule Greenland!

Sure that explains the ethnic composition of the islands and the fragility of European cultural control over a population that is barely larger than a village. But Greenland's problem now is that it has economic and strategic value and the competition for control is all over their heads between powers they cannot oppose or compete with.

mindlight · Wednesday at 11:05 PM

Laodicean60 said:
One possible reason is NATO minus the USA can not protect Greenland against Russia and China.
Finally after all this talk of annexation Denmark is spending money on defense, a little late. Just like NATO late in defense spending. When the threat is real.

China is unlikely to physically invade the place and Russia would struggle to fabricate an historical claim. Invasion would be a logistical nightmare for both. Denmark with British/ French support could probably thwart an attack without US support or at least make it prohibitively costly. Mining concessions to China or Russia by Greenlanders asserting independence from USA is more likely threat

mindlight · Wednesday at 11:09 PM

Nithavela said:
There is no more rewards. No more exchange. Just take what you can and punch everyone in the face that stands in your way.

Its about where you think you can punch and grab and where not. Trump does not punch in Moscow or Beijing but will do so in Americas back yard. Real Politik is about spheres of influence and the art of the possible rather than rules/values based order.

Laodicean60 · Thursday at 6:57 AM

mindlight said:
China is unlikely to physically invade the place and Russia would struggle to fabricate an historical claim.

I also find it unlikely that they will invade individually but they are joined at the hip now who can stop them. Survival of the fittest.

High Fidelity · Thursday at 7:51 AM

Strategically it makes sense, until you realise that American military presence in Greenland has massively scaled back to a single base compared to the dozen or so in the past.

China and Russia are no more of a threat now than they were then.

Sadly it appears to be about minerals. If they wish to 'buy' the territory then fine, so long as that's what the majority there want, but to use military force for minerals under the guise of strategic geographical importance is no different than Russia's actions in annexing Eastern Ukraine.

Nithavela · Thursday at 8:02 AM

Laodicean60 said:
I also find it unlikely that they will invade individually but they are joined at the hip now who can stop them. Survival of the fittest.

Russia and China are eyeing each other suspiciously all the time.

Laodicean60 · Thursday at 8:05 AM

Nithavela said:
Russia and China are eyeing each other suspiciously all the time.

Don't worry they'll deal with each other once they're done with the USA.

tz620q · Thursday at 4:58 PM

mindlight said:
Sure that explains the ethnic composition of the islands and the fragility of European cultural control over a population that is barely larger than a village. But Greenland's problem now is that it has economic and strategic value and the competition for control is all over their heads between powers they cannot oppose or compete with.

Mike Pence, our former VP, made an interesting comment on CNN last night. In 1867 when William Seward bought Alaska off of Russia (a purchase that got him ridiculed and was named, "Seward's Folly"), he also tried to buy Greenland from Denmark. The Danes refused to sell, even though it was just a claimed territory at that time and not a formal part of Denmark (which didn't happen until 1953). In 1867, Greenland had little strategic importance, even as a shipping stop in Trans-Atlantic routes. So now that the Russians and Chinese are making super-icebreakers that can circumnavigate Greenland while searching for minerals and oil fields, Greenland is no longer just a frozen wasteland with little importance.

This reminds me of the Hawaiian Islands in the mid-1860's. The British, Russians, and Americans were all vying for a shipping stop on the long Pacific crossing and Hawaii, which had just been unified under Kamehameha in 1810, realized that it was only a matter of time before might made right and they were taken over by one country or another. So their leaders were trying to arrange treaties with countries for their defense. During the US Civil War in the early 1860's, West Indies sugar had been blockaded by the South forces from reaching the North. So Hawaii had stripped a lot of their arable land and planted sugar cane and started exporting to the US. When the war ended, the US put a large tariff on the Hawaiian sugar, The Hawaiians negotiated to remove the tariff in exchange for granting the US the right to use Pearl Harbor as a shipping base. The Hawaiians thought that this base would stop other incursions on their islands. The Russians had already established a port and fort on the island of Kauai, which they abandoned in the 1850's, so there was ample evidence that an eventual takeover would happen.

Nithavela · Thursday at 8:50 PM

tz620q said:
Mike Pence, our former VP, made an interesting comment on CNN last night. In 1867 when William Seward bought Alaska off of Russia (a purchase that got him ridiculed and was named, "Seward's Folly"), he also tried to buy Greenland from Denmark. The Danes refused to sell, even though it was just a claimed territory at that time and not a formal part of Denmark (which didn't happen until 1953). In 1867, Greenland had little strategic importance, even as a shipping stop in Trans-Atlantic routes. So now that the Russians and Chinese are making super-icebreakers that can circumnavigate Greenland while searching for minerals and oil fields, Greenland is no longer just a frozen wasteland with little importance.

This reminds me of the Hawaiian Islands in the mid-1860's. The British, Russians, and Americans were all vying for a shipping stop on the long Pacific crossing and Hawaii, which had just been unified under Kamehameha in 1810, realized that it was only a matter of time before might made right and they were taken over by one country or another. So their leaders were trying to arrange treaties with countries for their defense. During the US Civil War in the early 1860's, West Indies sugar had been blockaded by the South forces from reaching the North. So Hawaii had stripped a lot of their arable land and planted sugar cane and started exporting to the US. When the war ended, the US put a large tariff on the Hawaiian sugar, The Hawaiians negotiated to remove the tariff in exchange for granting the US the right to use Pearl Harbor as a shipping base. The Hawaiians thought that this base would stop other incursions on their islands. The Russians had already established a port and fort on the island of Kauai, which they abandoned in the 1850's, so there was ample evidence that an eventual takeover would happen.

And a few decades later the US seized control of Hawaii after deposing their queen and forcing her to abdicate under threat of execution.

Yeah, nothing new here.

mindlight · Friday at 2:36 PM

Nithavela said:
And a few decades later the US seized control of Hawaii after deposing their queen and forcing her to abdicate under threat of execution.

Yeah, nothing new here.

We do seem to have returned to the age of Great Power Nation States and spheres of influence. This is the way China (Tributary state foreign policy) and the USA (Monroe Doctrine) and Russia (reestablishing imperial boundaries) think.

Europe is the hold out for the old rules/value based order but it does not have the power/wealth to insist others follow its ways, its woke diversity agenda does not export and it does not have the religious passion to persuade others. Its time for Europe to wake up to the New World. I suspect though the European political and media elites still do not get it.

We can protect Ukraine but I wonder if we could stop Greenland.

mindlight · Friday at 3:03 PM

tz620q said:
Mike Pence, our former VP, made an interesting comment on CNN last night. In 1867 when William Seward bought Alaska off of Russia (a purchase that got him ridiculed and was named, "Seward's Folly"), he also tried to buy Greenland from Denmark. The Danes refused to sell, even though it was just a claimed territory at that time and not a formal part of Denmark (which didn't happen until 1953). In 1867, Greenland had little strategic importance, even as a shipping stop in Trans-Atlantic routes. So now that the Russians and Chinese are making super-icebreakers that can circumnavigate Greenland while searching for minerals and oil fields, Greenland is no longer just a frozen wasteland with little importance.

This reminds me of the Hawaiian Islands in the mid-1860's. The British, Russians, and Americans were all vying for a shipping stop on the long Pacific crossing and Hawaii, which had just been unified under Kamehameha in 1810, realized that it was only a matter of time before might made right and they were taken over by one country or another. So their leaders were trying to arrange treaties with countries for their defense. During the US Civil War in the early 1860's, West Indies sugar had been blockaded by the South forces from reaching the North. So Hawaii had stripped a lot of their arable land and planted sugar cane and started exporting to the US. When the war ended, the US put a large tariff on the Hawaiian sugar, The Hawaiians negotiated to remove the tariff in exchange for granting the US the right to use Pearl Harbor as a shipping base. The Hawaiians thought that this base would stop other incursions on their islands. The Russians had already established a port and fort on the island of Kauai, which they abandoned in the 1850's, so there was ample evidence that an eventual takeover would happen.

There are strong historical parallels here but modern Europeans have different reasons to oppose American expansionism today than in the Imperial era when we were far worse than the Americans.

Trump may think that his help "ending" the Ukraine war is enough to bring Europe on his side for his plans, but the cultural gap is considerable. Europeans will interpret the annexation of Greenland as an ending of the NATO alliance.

Trump's problem is that he is running out of time. He does not have the job security of Putin or Xi Jinping and both of them know it as do the Europeans. Barring true miracles the kind of changes needed for a European revival are unlikely to happen in a mere two years. So he either breaks NATO leaving that mess for the next administration and fundamentally weakening Americas strategic position in the world as a result. Or he backs off and keeps the pressure for change ongoing. Maybe his successors will see a stronger and more self-confident Europe as a result and more importantly for the USA one which remains on the side of the USA. In the meantime China and Russia can easily be excluded from Greenland by joint NATO pressure.

Elongated · Saturday at 9:42 AM

mindlight said:
Is Greenland America's reward for bringing peace between Russia and Ukraine and getting Ukraine to concede land to Russia.

Just speculating here, but it has always seemed to me to be quite ridiculous that the USA announces its intent to annex Greenland without actually doing anything but annoy its allies and the people of Greenland in the process. If they really want it then it would happen, its not as though anyone could stop them.

There are some good strategic reasons to do this:
1) America is better equipped to police this territory against Russian or Chinese incursions than are the Danes even despite recent Danish investment
2) America would gain control of the rare earth resources that global warming is exposing on the island.
3) It fits the Monroe (Donroe) doctrine version of American isolationism favored by Trumps Republicans, securing the continental USA against Great power incursions

There are also some really good reasons not to do this:
1) It would set the USA in direct conflict with another NATO member Denmark and with the wider EU and possibly split the alliance irreparably
2) It is not what the people of Greenland want and so the USA would be storing up trouble for the future as well as sabotaging its international reputation.
3) America could gain most of the military and economic benefits of Greenland's mines and location without annexation.

So why is Trump mouthing off about Greenland while not doing anything. If he loses the midterms I guess this policy gets benched forever but maybe he never thought he would have to wait this long for peace in Ukraine. His plan was make peace, stop excessive Russian advance into Europe, gain a whole bunch of rare earth concessions from the Ukrainians and then as his reward for helping Europe out to get Greenland. With Greenland secured and the Russians and Chinese driven out of Venezuela and Cuba bankrupt, He would have much of the Americas stabilized under USA dominance.

So why hasn't he got a peace deal yet? Is Putin dragging out the war until after the midterms when he thinks he can dictate terms to a weakened Trump and stop Trump taking Greenland also? Obviously this would suit Chinese interests also. Perhaps this would explain that 'hidden something' that Putin appeared to have on Trump that seemed to make Trump consistently pro-Russian and blind to war atrocities. If Greenland was the swap for Russia gaining Ukrainian territory then this explains Putin's apparent leverage over Trump in Alaska and throughout the negotiation process, along with some naughty pictures??!!.

It would also have extremely worrying implications for NATO. It would mean that Trump has always intended to split the alliance but was cool headed enough to understand that he had to secure peace in Ukraine first. He has a stronger negotiation position with Europe on board but after peace he no longer needs them.

This close to a deal in Ukraine is this all nonsense or an explanation why the deal might yet fall through. Just a theory - what do you think`?

Mr. Trump thrives on attention (worship) and control. He will never gain enough power to fill what seems to be an emptiness inside him. He seems such a sad case I almost pity him. But the darkness he creates reminds me of Matthew 24:24 and others. So no pity today.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Is Greenland the reward?

See in the dark

Episcopalian

Well-Known Member

A View From The Pew

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

See in the dark

See in the dark

See in the dark

See in the dark

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

See in the dark

See in the dark

Member

Similar threads