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?
-
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 think you're seeking rationality where there is absolutely none.
-
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
Also, to be clear. Military projection and strip mining for rare earth metals are a part of it -
@futurebird breaking up NATO makes sense when you think that the EU will never be able to defend itself on its own - or if you think that European NATO countries get an unfair economic advantage by not spending so muchon their military (but get social security for that)
then you can put even more diplomatic pressure on them, to get security guarantees - but we know that's not how it works - IMO people at the helm have started to believe their own propaganda
But the US could just leave. No need to have a costly war over it. And why Greenland, when invading Canada is probably easier?
Or just do nothing. Silently decide to not support other countries when they get attacked. But keep on using the joint radar bases in the north and the logistical hubs in central Europe.
This being a distraction and/or Trump the Conqueror wishing to turn more regions on the map US colored seems most likely to me.
-
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 believe it is about oil and minerals, that would suddenly become "his". So he could transfer them to the US without having to pay for them.
It is the typical bully scenario. "Give me your sweets". "No". Takes them "They are mine now. If you want them back you will have to pay me".
Of course, should he try, he would be met with force, and dead US soldiers. Which he would then blame NATO for, not his own stupidity.
-
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 think a possible benign answer is they pressure NATO countries into footing more of the bill for Arctic defence. We're already seeing the Danes investing in more vessels as a result of this pressure.
But that's assuming the aim is something rational.
-
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 think there is more than one party involved here, as it is something multiple entities want.
The libertarian wants a place to make their no government city.
Some mineral magnate probably want some of the stuff there.
Some oil magnate probably want some of the oil that will become available over time with ice cap melting.
Some military people probbaly want that land because of how climate change might make Greenland useful.
Operationaly, its on the US doors steps and its a lot of land to grab. Lots of developers would see this s a big opportunity to get cheap/free land to build on.
Greenland is the weekest of the neighbourghs to annex, there wont be a fight to speak off.
It would put the US even more in charge of NATO that already are. What are european going to do:
* Nothing, win for the USA.
* Leave NATO big win for other "Super power".Ethno-nationalism: It is probably perceived as "White European", unlike say caribean islands/mexico.
Ego boost: Putin got to keep Crimea, he want something similar against his name for the hostory book.
"Foreign interference": It open the doors for China to do the same with Taiwan eventually, so that could be happening.
TL;DR:
Thinking about the number of people having Trump's ear, I can see how greenland fits the bill for many of his financier.
It has a lot to go for in the next escalation of american supremacy.
And he needs something to give them after getting power. -
@futurebird set up weird slave cities for american billionaires
"Wealthy tech investors including Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen have invested in a venture-capital firm that has launched a half dozen charter-city projects globally."
#CharterCities #Palantir #PeterThiel #Fascism #USPol #USPolitics
-
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
Its seems to be about big tech charter cities. -
@futurebird also port cities that can open up when the arctic ice retreats (yay! Climate change!)
@CatherineFlick @futurebird this is my understanding of it. An ice-free arctic is a potential major shipping lane, and Greenland is positioned to be able to control traffic into it.
-
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 think its a combination of a) mineral rights and b) the northern sea lanes opening up and new resources there.
a) is kinda bunk since no one is mining there.
b) if you squint sideways maybe. But we don't have new ice breakers (and that project has gone sideways recently). -
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
My theory is that Trump is a toddler who wants to colour in more countries with his "owned by me" colour of crayon. He's probably only seen the Mercator projection of the world map. See also: Canada -
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?
Kuannersuit, in southern Greenland, contains the second-largest uranium deposit, possibly the largest thorium deposit, and the third-largest rare earth's deposits in the world. All of this will be required for AI data centres. To control knowledge that will lead to a white planet
That's what it is all about.
-
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
Resources and it likely turning a lot more hospitable place to be with climate change.Also bigger dick to wave
-
@futurebird
Putin wants NATO gone. He's Donnie's puppeteer.@EugestShirley
Eeeh, Donald and Vlad are cut from the same cloth but Duck ain't a puppet per se. The Home Alone star has just acted in Moscow's interests for selfish reasons for the most part and not because they've got the KGB agent's hand up their ass.For more direct russian control I'd look at the weirdos under and around El Presidentte.
@futurebird -
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 think it boils down to him wanting his face on Mount Rushmore. Taking Greenland has no practical benefit. He might be able to enrich some of his people but not worth the cost.
He was raised on a pathetically simple story about American history that lionized national expansion. He thinks if he can push the borders out he will finally be universally recognized as a Great Man.
Same with Putin, who wants to be Peter the Great.
-
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 The petrofaction ("keep extracting fossil carbon no matter what") sees the Arctic Ocean as the Next Big Thing, it's practically an interior sea like the Med if it wasn't frozen over and there's decades of Russian "and soon it will not be frozen over and it is ours" positioning.
Thing is, the Bering Strait is epicratonic (=shallow, over continental crust), it's not really suitable for major trade. The only really deep water access is Fram Strait.
-
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 yes. Someone was explaining some of the problems that extraction would have. Climate etc plus that applies to shipping windows in the extremely short season.
-
@futurebird The petrofaction ("keep extracting fossil carbon no matter what") sees the Arctic Ocean as the Next Big Thing, it's practically an interior sea like the Med if it wasn't frozen over and there's decades of Russian "and soon it will not be frozen over and it is ours" positioning.
Thing is, the Bering Strait is epicratonic (=shallow, over continental crust), it's not really suitable for major trade. The only really deep water access is Fram Strait.
@futurebird Fram is next to Greenland. So there's this economic fantasy about control of Atlantic access to the Arctic Ocean which means needing a strong territorial claim to something along the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap.
There's a belief that melting glaciers will just leave masses and masses of rock flour that can be scooped up and refined at low cost; there's another belief that the US should exert territorial control over the entire Western Hemisphere.
-
@futurebird Fram is next to Greenland. So there's this economic fantasy about control of Atlantic access to the Arctic Ocean which means needing a strong territorial claim to something along the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap.
There's a belief that melting glaciers will just leave masses and masses of rock flour that can be scooped up and refined at low cost; there's another belief that the US should exert territorial control over the entire Western Hemisphere.
@futurebird There's a belief that NATO is a scam; the other NATO members are exploiting US defense funding so they don't have to spend, which is an economic advantage, and a huge fraction of (at least) Republicans feel like they're being ripped off and resent it bitterly. (Having to spend money instead of just stealing things is the worst thing that can happen to a mammonite.) They want to destroy NATO because they, personally, aren't getting money from it.
-
@futurebird There's a belief that NATO is a scam; the other NATO members are exploiting US defense funding so they don't have to spend, which is an economic advantage, and a huge fraction of (at least) Republicans feel like they're being ripped off and resent it bitterly. (Having to spend money instead of just stealing things is the worst thing that can happen to a mammonite.) They want to destroy NATO because they, personally, aren't getting money from it.
@futurebird Putin's legacy grand strategy is a safe Russia, which means no other nuclear powers and control of the ice-free Arctic. That means breaking up alliances and taking over the government of any other nuclear power and ideally crashing their economy so hard they cannot maintain a credible deterrent. (In the Time of Angry Weather, that is a simple ambition.) So Putin's an input, but not the only input; "why shouldn't we steal it?" is home grown.
