Should the US Invade Greenland (Denmark) & Panama

What makes you think the US will buy Greenland instead of annexing parts in a rather huge island almost entirely uninhabited? This isn't about India in the 17th century; the existent populations are highly artificial and extremely limited, making a claim to all of the territory impossible to stick if a major power has other wishes.
 
What makes you think the US will buy Greenland instead of annexing parts in a rather huge island almost entirely uninhabited? This isn't about India in the 17th century; the existent populations are highly artificial and extremely limited, making a claim to all of the territory impossible to stick if a major power has other wishes.
not sure who this is for.
 
I was asking Trump in the past, when he said it should be bought, while now he says it will be annexed :jesus:
there's a number of ways this can make sense to me by sarcastic implication to me, none of which i'll do the work for you over, if it's a response to someone else, i don't care, and it makes no sense by itself. you're better than this.
 
Now here's another question: Would an independent Greenland be interested in being a NATO member? I'm not sure if anyone has an answer from them.

Without Danish protection, with no native military there I know of, and with ice caps most likely receding into the future, certain belligerent powers might want to take more advantage of navigation lanes around the island opening up.
I could certainly see the US feeling some angst about a Russian fleet coming in over the pole uncontested by the European powers first. (Or vice versa)
 
Greenland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement, January 9

Statement of Naalakkersuisut regarding the latest comments from President-elect Donald Trump

Greenland's independence

Greenland belongs to the People of Greenland - and Greenland's development and future are decided solely by its people. The fight for independence is Greenland's own matter. Our future is ours and must be defined by us. We are aware of our rights as a People with the right to self-determination.

International cooperation
States and countries are welcome to have interests in increased cooperation with Greenland. On the road to an independent Greenland, we are open to more and constructive cooperation with our nearest neighbours. Greenland looks forward to discussing the possibilities for business cooperation, the development of Greenland's mineral sector, including critical minerals and other relevant areas with the US.

The Trump administration
Greenland has and will continue to cooperate with the US as one of our closest partners. Greenland has had more than 80 years of defense cooperation with the US for the benefit of the security of Greenland, the US and the rest of the western world. Naalakkersuisut looks forward to establishing contact with President-elect Donald Trump and his new administration.

Changing security dynamics in the Arctic
Greenland is aware of the changed security dynamics in the Arctic. We understand and recognize that Greenland plays a decisive and important role for the US's national security interests. This is the reason why Greenland is the host of an essential American base in North Greenland. Greenland looks forward to working with the incoming US administration and other NATO allies to ensure security and stability in the Arctic region.

The sender is: Minister for Statehood and Foreign Affairs, Vivian Motzfeldt
 
This is already off-topic from whether the US should invade, but.

Who would recognise Greenland's independence?

Most countries, most major powers at least, are dealing with some secession movements.
 
Who would recognise Greenland's independence?

Anyone who's concerned with sudden 100% spike in tariffs when they export their stuff to the USA!

^^ Joking. I think none of that will be necessary. USA leads an international coalition, so solidarity is generally expected in times like these.
 
This is already off-topic from whether the US should invade, but.

Who would recognise Greenland's independence?

Most countries, most major powers at least, are dealing with some secession movements.
States will recognise independence where it's by consent and not contested by the former claimant country. See also the independence of Timor Leste, Eritrea and South Sudan and the impending independence of Bougainville. All fully recognised.
 
What's funny I several posters punting for Putin and Trump's a pacifist are whataboutism Trump.

A full expansionistic USA an actual superpower would be funny to see in a way. Unlike your favorite crappy authoritarian dictator of choice they have a competent military who hasn't been defeated on the field of battle since the 1950s.

Trump's a pacifist though lol.

Trump is a pacifist. He'll terminate lost wars and just loot the vassals. Without any war because those vassals are helpless. Being pacifist doesn't mean being nice. It just means avoiding war. Marching into somewhere and taking it over without having to fire a shot isn't war. It has no risk.

US Influence over "Europe" depended not so much on bribed politicians as on buy-in by much of the population there into the narrative of american invincibility. That is shattered. European countries will be having to make new security and diplomatic arrangements in a very differenet environment. It is a cardinal rule of diplomacy that a country seeks alliance with the most dangerous regional power, the most powerful one, so as to reduce the likelyhood of a damaging conflict. The US lost that place in Europe after the very much open war it involved itself, and its vassals, in Ukraine is visibly lost.

The problem for the US security estabelishment is that Greenland, which is just off North America, is a territory of Europe. Trump is just saying out loud what others are shying in restricted circles: they feel threatened by the idea of a rival alliance having that territory. The US will steal Greenland from Denmark not because Trump is talking about it but because the security estabelishment is set on it. That is a direct result of their calculus that Europe will be "lost" to the US in short order. And that is a direct result of defeat in Ukraine and the end of the myth of US invincibility.

Currently US American support in case of invasion is far from sure.

De Gaulle noticed that back when the Cold War was a thing.

No politician who actually read the so often talked about article 5 would hold any delusion of the US coming to assistance on the event of war because of said treaty. The basis for any belief that the US would fight in Europe were the american soldiers stationed there so that they would certainly be among the fist casualties if fighting started. It was a weak enough belief that the most capable countries in Europe never relied on it.

NATO only commits member states do do what their governments deem appropriate to "support" any state under attack in its own territory within the georgraphic area delineated by the treaty. A diplomatic protest may be deemed appropriate. Each government is entirely free to choose what kind of support is appropriate. The treaty also does not cover overseas possessions outside (apart from one added by France) nor does it cover claims to be attacked outside one's own terrytory, say any "peacekeepers" stationed somewhere else. Or undersdeas cables btw, who what were teh swedes wasting their saliva about a few weeks ago?

Being a citizen of a NATO "ally" that was attacked by US pet terrorists and had to pay the danegeld (hand over the oil to US corporations), I might be more simpathetic to the danes. I'm not beause back in 1961 that came as a surprise and shock to many people. In the 2020s ignorance is inexcusable. The belgians had similar experience, the french likewise, etc. If people in Europe don't know about it, it's because history is no longer taught.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is very much about Ukraine. US Influence over "Europe" depended not so much on bribed politicians as on buy-in by much of the population there into the narrative of american invincibility. That is shattered. European countries will be having to make new security and diplomatic arrangements in a very differenet environment. It is a cardinal rule of diplomacy that a country seeks alliance with the most dangerous regional power, the most powerful one, so as to reduce the likelyhood of a damaging conflict.
That sounds like a losing strategy, in European history we traditionally ally against the strongest, since they are considered a threat.
 
That's not european history. Nazi Germany had half of the current Eu countries as its allies.
As it's about Denmark, one can also mention the fate of their fleet when they were trying to stay neutral - that one may have a parallel to Greenland, which is considered dangerous to lose to another serious side so can't stay under a vassal (this isn't a post against Denmark, imo all Eu countries are vassals to the US).
 
Joining as a state or overseas territory? (Or Greenlanders will not be able to tell the difference until it's too late?)
 
Wow this thread went much farther than I thought it would, just like the original news story!

It really warms my cockles to see national and international news and pundits and politicians - even in 2025 - still treating indigenous populations like baseball cards to be traded and bought and sold and not as people with their own agency. America is really #1 when it comes to bloodthirsty psychopathy.
 
Look harder!
 
Patriot Polling surveyed 416 people residing across the Danish territory of Greenland on their support for joining the United States.
57.3% approve

from what i understand of the situation, this is incredibly surprising. it was not the majority position of greenlanders last time trump rambled about this. like, far from it.

i'm glad we finally have a poll, but i wish i could better get a hands-on as to what patriot polling is (i always background check); they're really obscure and most hits on them i found are literally this poll or people on reddit being confused as to why they're on 538.

so i'm skeptical. but if it's true, it's up to the greenlanders, even if i think the idea is, well, bad. also just presume i'm relisting my other concerns as to what a "yes" actually entails here; @sylvanllewelyn 's question is on point here. i can't see them wanting to be arctic puerto rico from this situation. that they've wanted independence from denmark is what i've consistently seen in the stats for as long as i've been alive, and it does not translate to becoming part of another colonial overlord.
 
Back
Top Bottom