Should the US Invade Greenland (Denmark) & Panama

The way I see it it is about territorial consolidation in a multi-polar world.

Russia wishes to take over the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine.

China wishes to take over Taiwan.

And so similarly the USA aims for Greenland as its consolation prize.
 
Russia wishes to take over the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine.
No it doesn't. It wants political control of all of Ukraine. The rest are just means.

You are engaging in a the "if I were a horse fallacy". You make up a motivation for the Putin government that kind of makes sense to you. Which is a mistake.
 
After all, Greenland would then become another border zone.
i want to stress it already is.

the us has a military presence on the island, which danes/greenlanders have amiably allowed; this whole affair may turn it into a cautious tolerance instead, and if they outright annex some part of the glacier (like, whatever that means), they'll literally plummet the trust they have with their whole sphere of influence. rep hawks would be furious.

i'm bluntly unsure of how much this is trump being an idiot, how much it's him trying to hardball to secure some strange deal down the line/project power, etc, and how much it's a shroud of actual important and possible stuff going on (they're already investigating parties to rut out potential dissidents as a preliminary for project 2025). bluntly, with the amount of attention this absurd affair has been given, my guess is that it's d) all of the above.
 
Considering buying Greenland is in the news: here's a video on the previous two times the US tried to buy Greenland:


TL;DW: the guy who bought Alaska tried to convince Congress to also buy Greenland afterwards, but was considered a laughingstock because of the Alaskan purchase. It was considered because he wanted to put the squeeze on then British Canada.

The second time was right after WWII as the Cold War was starting up as to use for defensive purposes. Denmark said no because the US agreed to not try to buy it when they purchased the Virgin Islands.
 
No it doesn't. It wants political control of all of Ukraine. The rest are just means.

You are engaging in a the "if I were a horse fallacy". You make up a motivation for the Putin government that kind of makes sense to you. Which is a mistake.
There is a distinction between Russia and the Putin government.
 
Since Verbose's comment is creating discussion, I think it should be noted that it's pretty dangerous to believe that "Russia's actual goal is political control of all of Ukraine", since it may allow people to then argue Ukraine did not lose this war despite ending up maimed. Wargoals change with time and the reality on the ground; while when it started they could have taken over politically (in case of a fall of Kiev in 2022), it's been literally years now that their stated goal is to annex specific territories. They aren't dumb, they do realize we will be in (at least) a cold war for the foreseeable future.
The US openly speaking of taking over Greenland, implies that the US takes seriously into account a future (doesn't mean it will happen) where Greenland is a border in the Atlantic (for the time being a border in the Arctic is obviously less important) and thus cannot be left to some european side nor remain independent.
 
Last edited:
The United States population is expanding.

And countries with expanding populations like to expand.

And it is easiest to expand into areas of low population of which Greenland is a good example.
 
^At the congress of Berlin :)
And Denmark losing territory played a role there too, since Leopold II of Belgium (wasn't he the king at that time? Wiki says yes) had previously tried to negotiate for an end to the second Schleswig-Holstein war in which Denmark would become a substate of Prussia, I suppose retaining some autonomy. Bismark declined, instead stealing the territory he wanted.
 
Last edited:
The United States population is expanding.

And countries with expanding populations like to expand.

And it is easiest to expand into areas of low population of which Greenland is a good example.
If A then B, I agree, except the premise A might not be true. The US, and many developed economies, have birth rates below replacement, global fertility is falling, and may see population decrease. Of course, Greenland has resources and that's always useful.

Also, if not A, maybe also B. Russia's the biggest country, the population is declining, and the government still wants to expand.

I used to like that theory, but it doesn't really match the data.

China's loaded with people and Siberia's kind of empty...
 
People in the US opted to immigrate from less hostile-to-humans states, to Alaska. So they can do the same in Greenland. When you have hundreds of millions of people, there is also an abundance of the type of personality which is attracted to such places.

As for China and Siberia, you should realize that the population density in China isn't high. For example it is around 1/3 of that in Holland (which is densely populated but still only 32nd globally - 22nd if you don't count dependencies).
 
Last edited:
People in the US opted to immigrate from less hostile-to-humans states, to Alaska.
Yeah, and they do such weird things as two weeks on, flying to some other state with the sun turned on for two weeks, then fly back to Alaska for two weeks and so on.
 
More fundamental. One, are total population and population density are not strongly correlated with expansionism in the 21st century? Two, is the US population set to keep increasing?

Plenty of reason to take Greenland but population might not be one of them.
 
That sounds like a losing strategy, in European history we traditionally ally against the strongest, since they are considered a threat.

The strongest military and industrial power in Europe, the largest and most populous state, is Russia. It's also the neighbour to many european countries. The US is an ocean away. Need I say more?
But I will, because the amount of stupid on show in these past few years is too much to be quiet.

NATO was supposed to protect Ukraine, according to the old narrative. Instead it caused it to commit national suicide in a war that it cinevibaly would lose. Ukraine is collapsing, NATO's weapons burned quite well indeed, and the armouries are empty. Where's the danish artillery? The tanks? How's the stock of missiles in France and the UK? About to quickly improvise some new ones out of washing machines? No, I think not. Washing machine production was outsourced to Turkey anyway. "European" militaries are a joke. The french are the only ones with a national military industry worth that name, but is is residual in size. Turkey is building one, but then Turkey isn't "europe" according to our rulers.

No government actually takes a "russian threat" seriously anyway, as is demonstrated by the fact that there was no form of mobilization in all this time, no rebuilding of state capabilities. The onl NATO armies of the Cold War era have been disbanded and remain disbanded. They cannot be rebuilt under the prevailing economic system, which is one of oligarchic pillaging of state resources. Their rulers don't want to change that, they're the executime comittee of the oligarchy. Mass armies require conscription in small countries, and also a state-owned military industry able to produce with low cost.
1, conscription. That shifts political power to common people. They have weapons, and training and can't be pissed off too much, or they can do a military coup. NCOs do military coups. Populist coups, that really scares the oligarchic crust. They're not reintroducing conscription on a permanent basis again.
2. military industry. Existing industries would have to be nationalised to bring costs down and make them more responsive to politicla priorities. And a larger civilian industry that is diversified and can respond quickly do demand from the military for resources would also be necessary. Nationalization (without compensation - militaries are expensive!) is a forbidden word for the oligarchs of Europe, they wrote into the EU treaties thou shalt not do that. In many many words. Civilian industry keeps being shut down since the self-imposed harm of the sanctions on cheap russian energy. Going to build a miliary without steel?

The US can pick wherever is cheap to invade and annex, any piece of land without a large population that might mount an unseemly resistance is free for the taking. But the mere threat of it will make the resources be handed over to US corporations. Old, old story. "Europe" is defenseless. The US has a "nuclear deterrent" that failed what, 6 tests in a row? Does any missle on those subs work? And can they even try to fire one without US authorization?

Traditionally, "we" might ally with another power to block pressure from a side. Ally with Russia to block the US if it got too greedy. But that may be a bit hard to pull off after spending several years insulting, demonizing and outright killing russians. Plenty of unarmed civilians included, in plain terrorist attacks. Which failed at terrorising and breaking their will, btw. They might hold a grudge though, don't you think?

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.

Hint: the US government controls several polling companies. They're "company" firms. Who did you think did the polls that the Guaido clown had support within Venezuela? The one who kept being kicked out after staging "coups" where no one shoed up, if you recall.
How did Cheney put it? We are a super power, we create our own reality, something like that.
 
This is complete Orwellian nonsense...pacifism requires renouncing any violence, not just war. For you to spin aggressive foreign policy against defenseless victims as "pacifist" is actually a great illustration of how Trump corrupts everyone around him, because the only way to defend his actions is to lie like he does.

You are wrong. Trump is a pacifist. The most pacifist US president in my living memory. Name one war he started. And male the last presidents who didn't start one.
Genocide Biden is out, the cease-fire in Gaza that Blinken - I feel an israeli citizen Blinken - keep sabotaging immediately materializes.
Trump dislikes wars. They're destrtuctive, bloody, bad for business... attribute it to whatever you will. What is is clear, from actions and from a long history of past statements before he went into politics, that he dislikes wars.

Imo his posturing about Greenland, etc, is meant to get economic concessions. Though the US can invade and annex Greenland without a war because there won't be any resistance. But I think it won't come to that. If Denmark signs over land (and sovereign rights) for military bases, and gives all the resources american corporations find there, Trump gets the goods for the US. Only vanity, and he has plenty, might drive him to order an annexation. And then it will go through the usual route of creating a secessionist group and intervening. The Hawaii playbook. Greenland won't get to be a state either.
 
1, conscription. That shifts political power to common people. They have weapons, and training
We actually still have conscription here, it was just suspended at the end of the Cold War, not abolished,
I am the class of ‘93, stand to attention private 😊

But really we can’t call up the militia before the enemy appears in Germany or France, the Russian army can’t even cross the Dnjepr.

They might hold a grudge though, don't you think ?

I sure hope they do, imperialist bstrds.

If they want to live in a permanent re-enactment of the 19th century that is their problem, not mine.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom