Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?
-
Why can't they just do that now?
@futurebird @depereo i think they need to re-normalize the act of just violently taking things without regard for any existing laws, in a really open way that you can't cover up (since these will be places the rich will be living in and showing off their wealth in, rather than some pit mine somewhere where they can just leave everything to rot and poison and die) -
@futurebird
If the global warming that MAGA don't believe in turns out to be true after all then Greenland becomes a lot more attractive. By 2100 the Arctic could be the new Mediterranean. Though why this would interest a toddler who can't think beyond the next meal remains a mystery.@pthane @futurebird it's warmer but it won't be sunnier -
Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?
Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?
Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?
It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.
What do you get?
@futurebird
I see two reasons, one logical one and one demented/fascist one.The logical reason is mineral rights and possibly other natural resources. Supposedly there are rare earth minerals there (I haven't tried to verify this). These are needed in tech manufacturing and we're currently buying most of ours from China.
The demented reason is the "Spheres of Influence" doctrine that the trump regime is really into, where the superpowers divide the world among themselves and the US gets everything in the Western Hemisphere. trump loves this idea of acquiring more new territory just for its own sake. They're calling it the "Donroe Doctrine" 🤮
-
Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?
Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?
Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?
It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.
What do you get?
> @futurebird
> What do you get?Things you can't get, that's why this is basically a useless question, but of course not a stupid one.
-
Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?
Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?
Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?
It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.
What do you get?
@futurebird It may be as simple as, he said he would get it, and if he doesn't, he feels like he'd look weak. He doesn't care how stupid he looks (see also: sharpie weather report, or the whole orange-face thing for that matter) as long as he never admits he had a bad idea or did anything that wasn't big, beautiful, perfect, and above all, powerful.
-
Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?
Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?
Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?
It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.
What do you get?
@futurebird tescreal bunker
-
Can someone explain to me what Trump and the US Government or companies would be able to do if they "had Greenland" that they can't do right now?
Like, what are we talking about? It's going to be cold Puerto Rico? I'd say "well they could set up a military base" ... but we have that already?
Is this about mineral or drilling rights or something?
It's of course offensive nonsense, but I don't even get the point. And no one asks them.
What do you get?
I'd say the idea and demand comes from Putin. Trump is not aware of USA's extensive abilities to use bases in Greenland.
Putin recommended to "his pal" Trump that this should be done. He presented it as a _price,_ for ending weapons supplies to Ukraine, and Trump thinks USA is getting Greenland from Russian SOI as a _compensation_ that is a part of a *deal*.
That's all there is to it. Further background does not exist. Rest of Trump's reasoning is retroactive.
-
S suneauken@mastodon.world shared this topic
-
Greenland has had the right to declare independence by a simple referendum since 2009, and it's been the stated goal of many Greenlandic governments since.
It would have to be formally accepted by the Danish parliament, but it would be just a rubber stamp provided that the referendum is legitimate and fair.
The main issue is facing an independent Greenland is economic - right now the nation gets about 40% of the state budget from Denmark.
The big question is if true independence is attainable, given the harsh conditions, the huge distances, and the small population. Whoever brings the money will have some sort of disproportionate influence, and the question is whether it's better to have this influence wielded by Denmark, the US, or some other power.
It's ultimately up to the Greenlanders what they want to do, but so far 85% say they don't want to associate with the US.
@EvilCartyen @billiglarper @futurebird Getting hung up on logic does not solve a Trump conundrum. Trolling him back is highly effective, as with Gavin Newsom and the, "pedophile protector," heckler yesterday. Greenland should have a referendum and change the name to Epstein.
-
There is a theory that this move is designed to break up NATO.
I thought that was a little far fetched at first, NATO is really good for the US, it's like the birthday boy throwing a tantrum.
But some conservatives have a deep seated fear of "world government." So maybe that's it? Basically these are the guys who find it galling that there are notions like "international law" or "human rights" however unevenly applied.
I generally consider myself well-informed on the national security space and I struggle to see any rational benefit or strategic interest even if you assume the US is a rogue state.
That said, the 2025 NSS completely steps away from the rules-based international order and transitions to spheres of influence in which the US gets the Americas, Russia gets Europe, and China gets the Pacific (so long as they don't impact free trade). I'm paraphrasing a bit but my interpretation isn't unique. Anne Applebaum has a very good piece on this: https://anneapplebaum.substack.com/p/the-longest-suicide-note-in-american).
In that context, the Greenland action only makes sense if you see it as the first of many democracies within the region that the US will seek to subjugate completely, suggesting a full abandonment of liberal democracy itself.
-
@EvilCartyen @billiglarper @futurebird Getting hung up on logic does not solve a Trump conundrum. Trolling him back is highly effective, as with Gavin Newsom and the, "pedophile protector," heckler yesterday. Greenland should have a referendum and change the name to Epstein.
@lukeryanps @EvilCartyen @billiglarper @futurebird This is funny, but in a sad way, because its true.
