Greenland Crisis
en.wikipedia.orgToday I had some fun digging into the Greenland tech startup ecosystem, or lack thereof https://www.siliconsnark.com/the-first-ever-deep-dive-into-g...
soon he will be dead and the slow, painful, halting recovery will begin
His mother lived to 88
It's strange how Trump wants to be pally with Russia but attack America's closest allies like Canada and Denmark.
It would be the largest welfare state in the union.
> The US Geological Survey estimates that onshore northeast Greenland (including ice-covered areas) contains around 31 billion barrels of oil-equivalent in hydrocarbons
https://theconversation.com/greenland-is-rich-in-natural-res...
The US doesn't need oil, it's the world's largest producer and has enormous estimated recoverable oil reserves comparable to Venezuela or Russia.
Greenland is either about Trump intentionally causing chaos with NATO for the benefit of Russia (depending on your politics), or it's the Pentagon & Co. looking to lock down strategic territory for the near future superpower stand-off with China, which will be a global conflict (and may involve China and Russia on one side). Controlling Greenland and Alaska would provide the US with enormous Arctic Ocean positioning. Now what does that have to do with China you may ask? Trade, transit and military asset positioning. The US is looking to secure what it regards as its hemisphere, while China is about to massively push outward globally with a projection navy. The US has less than ~20 years to lock down its hemisphere (again, what the US believes to be its hemisphere) before China starts showing up with its navy everywhere. There will be constant navy-navy challenges everywhere. China will constantly probe the US points of control, for all the obvious reasons. The US will want to keep China as far away as possible.
What Arctic access is provided by Greenland that isn't already provided by Alaska and control of the Bering strait? US naval ambitions in the Arctic are limited by the US' weak shipbuilding capacity, which it's relied on Canada and Europe to compensate for. Those are also the nations most pissed off by the US' nonsense.
Several things: 1) the US will deploy substantial military assets to Greenland. Far beyond what it has now. That will include building massive radar arrays and missile defense systems. By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does. 2) The US will aggressively claim water territory around Greenland and use it to restrict transit by foreign military powers. Svalbard is on the table for invasion and annexation if the US goes the route of fascism or empire. If not, then the US will just push its water territory claims to absurd lines in the style of the South China Sea and use it for denial as much as possible. 3) Greenland puts the US drastically closer to the most important regions of Russia, the US will station nuclear weapons on Greenland. Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to Moscow.
The US only recognizes two threatening competitor powers in the world today: China and Russia. Russia is of course not what it was during the Soviet era. However a long-term partnership with China would change the dynamic a lot. Russian territory may come to host major Chinese ports in time. For the right price it's extremely likely that China can buy a multi port deal in the Arctic Ocean region from Russia. It'd be invaluable access & projection potential for China. Any superpower would want that realistically.
So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission? And these new missile defense systems would presumably be integrated under NORAD, where Canada would have a say anyway. I don't find this a particularly convincing argument.By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does
Moscow has been in range of US ICBMs since the cold war. The US also has an agreement with Canada allowing use of their airspace for nuclear weapons as well.Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to Moscow.
Welfare perhaps. State, almost certainly not. If this did come to pass, I wonder if the inhabitants would be US citizens or non-citizen nationals, like the population of American Samoa.
Not sure about the US citizens versus non-citizen nationals (I had always thought American Samoans were citizens), but you're spot on that it would certainly not be a state. The people living in Greenland would almost certainly lean blue, and the republicans would never allow the Dems to gain more de facto seats in the house and senate.
I don't think any of the Trump crowd thought as far as these legal ramifications. Send in the Little Green Men, annex, and figure things out as they happen.
Greenland is unbelievably, stupendously critical to US security. Consider what former SACEURs Breedlove <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtGh1kFqIoc> and Stavridis <https://thehill.com/policy/international/5081040-stavridis-s...> said about it a year ago.
The US has militarily defended Greenland since 1941. As of 2020 Denmark's Arctic Command has one aircraft, four helicopters, four ships, and six dog sleds to patrol the entire island, three times the size of Texas.
Greenland claims to welcome outside investment. In practice, however, Nuuk never approves anything related to resource development. More on this below.
Denmark no longer "owns" Greenland in the way the US owns Alaska, or even Puerto Rico; Greenland can declare independence on its own at any time, unlike the latter. What the Danish parliament allowed in 2009 it can in theory undo, but Greenland can also declare independence at any time.
While Greenland has stated its willingness to continue to host US troops after independence, there is always an uncertainty from having to depend on a foreign government.
Annexation would also simplify US access to Greenland's natural resources, which (the SACEURs above also mention) are as vital to the US as its location is. For all of Greenland's claims that it seeks outside investment, in practice it leeches €600 million from Copenhagen annually (only for domestic use; Denmark handles all foreign/military affairs) for its 50,000 people and turns down almost every attempt to develop mines and oilfields, allegedly because of environmental concerns. And why should it allow such attempts, when it has the best of all worlds now, with Denmark and the US paying for everything?
Greenland a) is inevitably going to gain independence—every single poll for decades has shown this—but b) is completely unable to function on its own as a bona fide independent country. Pacific islands (barely) function as independent countries because their tiny populations are commensurate with their small areas. Greenland's 50,000 people live on an island that is, as noted, three times the size of Texas. Denmark is completely unable to defend Greenland militarily (thus the US presence there in the first place); Greenland certainly cannot, given that it can't function today without the aforementioned €600 million for just domestic affairs. Given this, US annexation or affiliation is inevitable.
"The US invading Greenland would destroy NATO!", you say. I don't believe that the US would invade Greenland militarily; it will likely buy it, affiliate with it through a Compact of Free Association à la Palau, or obtain some sort of ironclad investment rights not dependent on whether Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark or independent. But let's say that the US does, and NATO dissolves.
It comes down to net benefits. Would owning Greenland be more valuable for American national security, than the current NATO status quo of the US being willing to to accept its own cities being nuked if Russia invades Western Europe?
The calculus made more sense (if it ever did) during the Cold War, when NATO ended at Germany's eastern border. Does it make sense now, when Montenegro is a NATO member? I strongly suspect that the answer is not one that the rest of NATO would want to hear, regardless of the Ukraine War.
>Greenland is unbelievably, stupendously critical to US security.
I think the US may just remain secure without owning Greenland. I mean it's done ok so far.
Shrinking of the ice caps is opening up a whole new theatre for trade, natural resource extraction, and more importantly conflict.
How about if China buys Greenland or otherwise acquires a massive port on Greenland. Maybe China builds one of the world's largest military bases on Greenland with a century deal.
China is going to end up being every bit as powerful as the US ever was, both economically and militarily. Nothing will be off the table in what's coming. Russia has never had a true global projection navy, China will have a navy that is plausibly going to be both larger and more powerful than the US navy with full global reach. That global reach will include the entire North and South American region.
If you're the US you look to lock down Greenland and Panama, for starters.
NATO is unbelievably, stupendously critical to US security.
Even more so, _Trust_ is unbelievably, stupendously critical to US security.
We now live in a world that knows for a fact a deal with the US is worth nothing and can not even be relied upon to last more than six months.
Countries and allies that made trade deals with Trump after he destroyed existing deals are now seeing further petty tariffs being applied by what appears to be a giant baby.
All the movements of plastic ships and little horses on a Risk map aside, the steady undercurrent of reliable trade and markets is headed out the window in an act of self defenestration.
> Greenland is unbelievably, stupendously critical to US security.
And the US has had full access to it for defense purposes since 1951:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp
At the end of WWII, the US had 17 military facilities on Greenland. By its own choice, it is now down to 1:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_in_Greenland
> As of 2020 Denmark's Arctic Command has one aircraft, four helicopters, four ships, and six dog sleds to patrol the entire island
Maybe you didn't notice, but it's 2026 now. Here's an update for you:
https://nordicdefencesector.com/en/article/denmark-invests-2...
> Greenland can declare independence on its own at any time
And wants to keep it that way. Considering what happened the last time secession was attempted in the US, and the legal aftermath which ruled it unconstitutional,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White#Majority_opinio...
that alone is enough to make joining the US a non-starter for them:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3kw5ezepo
> there is always an uncertainty from having to depend on a foreign government
So "uncertainty" is now a valid reason to invade allies? Because maybe some day they might no longer want to be allied? Put it that way and it seems more like a "psychological need". Oh, wait...
https://people.com/donald-trump-wants-ownership-greenland-ps...
> Annexation would also simplify US access to Greenland's natural resources
Implied in that statement is that it would allow mining companies to ignore what the natives want. We've seen that movie before (and so have the Greenlanders):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act#Legacy
> it leeches €600 million from Copenhagen annually
And this is a problem for the US?
> with Denmark and the US paying for everything
What is this "everything" that the US is supposedly paying for, other than the upkeep of the single military base it's kept there?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituffik_Space_Base
Personnel: 150. That is the measure of how important the US actually thinks Greenland is for its security. Needless to say, those 150 Americans are not there to defend Greenland; they are there to operate a US Space Force remote tracking station which provides early warning if something bad heads toward the continental US over the North Pole. You want the Greenlanders to pay for that?
> Greenland a) is inevitably going to gain independence—every single poll for decades has shown this
What the polls show is that the Greenlanders would like to become independent. They've had the option to do so since 2009, and they have not, because they know that Greenland
> b) is completely unable to function on its own as a bona fide independent country
Exactly. Now explain how you reconcile your (a) with your (b). Don't forget to explain why they would want to do so if they have "the best of all worlds now", which you claimed just before enunciating (a).
> I don't believe that the US would invade Greenland militarily; it will likely buy it
Which part of "no" don't you understand?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c338rm41y88o
https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idRW556309012026RP1/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/18/trump-consider...
> But let's say that the US does, and NATO dissolves.
Thus ending the security architecture which has kept Europe from blowing up the world a third time for nearly eight decades. In place of which you propose to put what?
> It comes down to net benefits. Would owning Greenland be more valuable for American national security, than the current NATO status quo of the US being willing to to accept its own cities being nuked if Russia invades Western Europe?
Quite obviously not. Let's say the US takes Greenland by force. First, this will happen:
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/19/politics/video/donald-tru...
Second, Russia would immediately follow the example and seize Svalbard while the West is busy tearing itself apart. And of course create a security zone around Murmansk; as you surely know, the Russian Northern Fleet's main base is less than 30 miles from the (current) Norwegian border:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapadnaya_Litsa_(naval_base)
Another little thing which would be taken care of quickly would be that corridor to Kaliningrad which they've been wanting since their latest imperial collapse:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suwa%C5%82ki_Gap
The Baltics would then be easy pickings.
At this point you have Denmark in a shooting war with the US; and Norway, Poland, the three Baltic states and most likely Finland + Sweden in a shooting war with Russia; the perfect moment for China to make its move on Taiwan, and for North Korea to "help" by attacking South Korea (incidentally seizing or destroying 90% of the world's compute production capacity).
Congratulations, you just started WW III.
And all because of a "psychological need" which could only be satisfied by turning half a billion friends into enemies who will never forget, let alone forgive, your betrayal.
Brilliant strategy.