Should the US Invade Greenland (Denmark) & Panama

[innonimatu]

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

No you don't Neither there nor here. It's a paper army, "recruits" gone all of one day through the motions as in here?
And there is no materiel to equip armies. No doctrine about how to use them. No grand strategy either. Much of the stock from the demobilization was sold off for pennies to poorer countries. What remained in 2022 in stock was shipped to Ukraine and blown there.

Funny anecdote: the sinle party in parliament here that two decades ago opposed the end of conscription and downsizing of the army were the communists. Who pointed out that it compromised national soverenty. They were now the sible party pointing out that a country without armed forces cannot posture about participaning in wars or "supporting" anyone. All the others, the ones who reduced the armed forces to an expedicionay force for helping to shoot shepherds, acted the chickenhawk now, great vocal support for the liberal anti-slav crusade. hey are now very wuiet about it though. Perhaps they do have half a working brain left.

 

[Snowygerry]

That post is in dire need of a fact check, in the 90s, it was 12 months in Belgium or 10 in Germany, we kept a force of all arms of about 40 k there, we could do it again.

But the Russian army is unlikely to come anywhere near before the turn of the century, they have been trying to take the same small city for a year now.

 

[EvaDK]

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...

That's not how it works.

The Danish Government can't 'sign over land' in Greenland to another state; Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders.

Greenland has had self-governance for decades; there is a protocol and procedure established, should a majority of Greenlanders wish to vote for independence. When and if independence from the Kingdom of Denmark becomes a reality, only then can the Greenlanders (not the Danes) decide what to do with their own territory.

If we ignore the independence question and question how increased American involvement in Greenland might come about in the near future, then both Greenlands and Denmark government would have to agree to, say a new US military base in Greenland. Which they are likely to come to terms about, with the Trump administration.

I agree that Trump's main interests in Greenland are commercial. So, he's exploiting the ongoing political debate in Greenland, to gain concessions towards his real interests. Just as he has always suckered other people into doing business with him, only to pull the rug away under them later.

 

[Yeekim]

Greenland has had self-governance for decades; there is a protocol and procedure established, should a majority of Greenlanders wish to vote for independence. When and if independence from the Kingdom of Denmark becomes a reality, only then can the Greenlanders (not the Danes) decide what to do with their own territory.

Ostensibly Trump could bribe/convince sufficient number of Greenlanders to trigger the vote and subsequently sell whatever rights he desires.

Out of ~60k Greenlanders maybe 2/3 are adults? Just in excess of 20k needed to support this then.

A deal like this could be mutually beneficial... unless he resorts to simple bullying due being too cheap.

 

[EvaDK]

Ostensibly Trump could bribe/convince sufficient number of Greenlanders to trigger the vote and subsequently sell whatever rights he desires.

Assuming that he thinks that independence will actually facilitate his interests in Greenland better.
Up until now, he is simply weaponizing the independence debate to serve his own interests.

A Greenland that is under 'US control' (Trump's own words) doesn't sound like independence to me.

 

[Yeekim]

A Greenland that is under 'US control' (Trump's own words) doesn't sound like independence to me.

Clearly not - but this is a rare case where I agree with @Kyriakos - a 60k population can in practice neither defend nor efficiently exploit/utilize 2M sq km of territory anyway.

Their independece would in fact always be predicated on the willingness of the rest of the world to leave them alone or offer them protection.

While this is largely true also for Estonia or Denmark (with 20x and 100x the population respectively) it is even more pronounced for Greenland.

 

[Angst]

Ostensibly Trump could bribe/convince sufficient number of Greenlanders to trigger the vote and subsequently sell whatever rights he desires.

Out of ~60k Greenlanders maybe 2/3 are adults? Just in excess of 20k needed to support this then.

A deal like this could be mutually beneficial... unless he resorts to simple bullying due being too cheap.

two things for this, as i noted before:
1) bribing 20k people isn't even feasibly possible. sure, say you have the money, but are you aware of how much work that entails? as in, it takes time; think of how much work it'd take you, yourself, to bribe another person for doing something like that. bribes and deals like that usually caps out at much lower number, like, idk, you may be lucky to ensure a few hundred on a systematic level. now, bribes still function in a way where you can bribe gatekeepers, bottlenecks of information, administrators, etc, where you can then easily affect 20k+ people, but the involved points and people is still far, far less.
1a) just a subnote on this; same holds if we're talking offering a big fat pile of subsidies money to the greenlandic government. because, y'know, they're already in that situation.
2) i'm unsure what rights trump actually desires here. i think it's just bombastic rhetoric to look awesome. i could see him wanting to buy greenland to have something to his name in itself, but the land's (potential) rare minerals are still below the glacier.

 

[Yeekim]

bribing 20k people isn't even feasibly possible. sure, say you have the money, but are you aware of how much work that entails?

I was using the word "bribe" because selling off one's country feels ... immoral?

However, it would be neither illegal nor especially difficult to publicly propose a deal where every Greenlander gets paid a lump some of money, if their government agrees to XYZ.

but the land's (potential) rare minerals are still below the glacier.

He has plans to burn enough fossil fuels to "fix" that.

EDIT: Typing this I was reminded of two pieces of cinema:
"Killers of Flower Moon", showing the mixed blessing of oil royalties to Osage people, and "American Primeval", showing Mormon negotiations to buy Fort Bridger.
Both highly recommended.

 

[EnglishEdward]

two things for this, as i noted before:
1) bribing 20k people isn't even feasibly possible. sure, say you have the money, but are you aware of how much work that entails?

Donald Trump meed merely have Elon Musk get hold of the Greenland voter list
and create a web site that offers US nationality to each adult Greenland voter.

Each person who signs up thereby:

(a) accepts the offer of US nationality,
(b) votes for Greenland to becomes US territory; and
(c) receives the specified incentive payment into their bank account.

Once more than half the electoral role has signed up and been paid,
the USA government declares that Greenland is now a US territory.

 

[Snowygerry]

Would you accept such an offer ? The disdain for the people of Greenland here is surprising...

Also why not take the money and vote for independence ?

 

[EnglishEdward]

I think that there are too many people in England for it to be readily affordable.

A lot would depend upon the size of the cash offered, and whether my family
has enough to eat. Still It wouldn't surprise me if the UK ended up being taken
over by the USA as a logical consequence of its governments' bankrupt policies.

But I suspect that, if Leopoldo Galtieri had accepted the hints, and offered
each adult Falklander a million pounds to buy them out, they'd have agreed.

 

[Yeekim]

Donald Trump need merely

Not quite. A deal like this could not bypass Greenland government - making the endeavor both more complex and more simple simultaneously.
US could make a public promise/offer.
If enough people are persuaded by the offer, they shall elect a government to formalize the deal for them.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Once the majority has voted and been duly paid, the Greenland government becomes
a historical irrelevancy. The POTUS could merely send a carrier group and raise the US flag.

But I don't think this will happen because I regard Donald Trump as, like Leopoldo
Galtieri, a bit of a cheapskate who thinks he can get it all without paying for any of it.

 

[Snowygerry]

I did some quick research into the psychology of bribery - it seems that people are likely to offer a bribe if they have a low opinion of the bribee, national stereotypes play an important role here apparently...

In total, the citizens had to decide 18 times whether to bribe or not – once for each nation in the sample. They were then asked to estimate how likely it was that the officials would accept the bribe. If that estimate was largely correct, they were paid a bonus. In the next stage, participants decided whether they would accept bribes. It turns out that citizens from all nations offered more bribes to public officials from countries with a reputation for corruption. Indian officials, for example, were almost twice as likely to be offered bribes as Canadian ones. “Our study shows that the nationality of one’s interaction partner and the expectations it gives rise to has a greater influence on the offering of bribes than one’s own nationality,” said Bernd Irlenbusch, Professor of Corporate Development and Business Ethics at the University of Cologne. He is a member of the ECONtribute Cluster of Excellence, which conducts research on markets at the intersection of economics, policy and society.

Biases about bribery in certain countries facilitate corruption

For transnational bribery, the decision to offer bribes strongly depends on the national background of one’s partner. One's own nationality, on the other hand, plays only a secondary role. This is shown by a large-scale experiment conducted by researchers from the University of Cologne, the...

www.mpg.de

But..

However, the participants tended to over- or underestimate the acceptance rates: For countries with a reputation for corruption, people overestimated how likely public officials were to accept bribes. At the same time, for nations with a reputation to be non-corrupt citizens underestimated how often public officials accepted bribes.

Maybe they should try to buy Monaco

 

[EnglishEdward]

There is also the opinion of those being bribed of those offering the bribe.
The former might turn down an offer if they don't trust those offering the money.

Ah found it:

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/24/781598549/greenland-is-not-for-sale-but-it-has-the-rare-earth-minerals-america-wants

 

[Snowygerry]

That would seem to be the case here yes, I wouldn't trust Trump and his crew to hold my cat if my house was on fire

 

[Snowygerry]

Rare materials yes, but you can just buy those, don't need to own the place, much less bribe the entire populace.

Access to Greenland's resources could help break U.S. dependency on China for rare earths. But already a Chinese state-owned company has more than a 12% stake in the Kvanefjeld deposit.

Kvanefjeld is owned by Greenland Minerals, an Australian company, and China's Shenghe Resources is its largest shareholder and strategic partner.

The Kvanefjeld project is a mineral deposit nestled in the Kuannersuit Plateau in southern Greenland.

The other major deposit in Greenland is owned by another Australian company, Tanbreez. Both firms are waiting for Greenland's government to give them the go-ahead to start mining.

 

[EnglishEdward]

China is going round the world signing agreements to buy up rare minerals.

It is understandable that the USA does not want to pay the very high
prices that China, if successful in its endeavours, would dictate.

And there is the "it is our hemisphere", "Monroe doctrine" approach.

 

[Snowygerry]

Well in this case it seems to be the Australians, Greenland Minerals ltd. is an Australian company, the Chinese are just minority shareholders, although this fellow has a seat on the board of directors :

Xiaolei Guo: Positions, Relations and Network - MarketScreener

Bourse : Cours de bourse en temps réel sur Actions, Indices, Forex, Matieres Premieres - Zonebourse.com

www.marketscreener.com

Greenland Minerals and Energy Limited announced the appointment of Mr. Xiaolei Guo, a representative of Shenghe Resources Holding Limited (Shenghe), to the board of GMEL as a non-executive director. Mr. Guo is the manager of the investment and development department of Shenghe, focusing on selecting, evaluation and acquisition of rare earth projects. Mr. Guo is also a Shenghe's Assistant General Manager. Prior to joining Shenghe, Mr. Guo was with the global law firm, King & Wood Mallesons, working with clients in Initial Public Offerings (IPOs), Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A), capital market transactions, insolvency and other corporate matters. Ms. Wenting Chen, the previous nominee director of Shenghe on the board of the Company has stepped down from the role due to her other growing commitments.

One suspects nationality is a foreign concept to these people

 

[Yeekim]

Once the majority has voted and been duly paid, the Greenland government becomes
a historical irrelevancy. The POTUS could merely send a carrier group and raise the US flag.

If they wished to do it like this, they could do it without any vote and without paying a cent to anyone.

Would be massively stupid thing though... unfortunately I'm not sure whether anything is too stupid for Trump