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?
-
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.
@futurebird There is an old isolationist idea of Fortress America, that if you can control and dominate the entirety of the North American continent, an invasion becomes extremely difficult or even impossible, and adding a "Star Wars"-esque missile defense system on top of that would allow the US to completely isolate itself from the world. NATO is seen as superfluous in this sort of situation.
Now, there is an Imperialist variant of this idea that believes that once the homeland is secure like this, wars of imperialism can be waged with impunity to acquire both acquire resources and weaken the other imperial powers.
Now as for Greenland, I think this [page]((https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=4650) makes it clear what is likely Trump's major interest.
On top of that, taking Greenland would give the US a major substantial claim on the arctic region.
-
@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
> By 2100 the Arctic could be the new Mediterranean.In the first approximation, it cannot. The most catastrophic scenarios are warming by 4 or 5 degrees, and while such a rapid warming will totally destroy or decimate ecosystems, Greenland is nowhere near being just 4 or 5 degrees colder than Mediterranean.
In the second approximation, it can but not in the way you're implying. One of the possible consequences of global warming is Gulfstream stopping, which means Europe freezing to temperatures warranted by its latitude (e.g. the Azure coast is on the similar latitude to Halifax, Nova Scotia), even as the planet overall is getting hotter and less inhabitable.
But nobody knows what exactly the local consequences are going to be, so it makes no sense to plan for them and expect some good consequences in some specific regions. The only thing we know for sure is that the planet is rapidly getting hotter, and that the rapid change results in large amounts of extraordinary catastrophic local weather events and in changes of the current weather patterns. -
@futurebird I guess it's a bit of everything. Little Donni wants to be known as Donald the conqueror. Greenland has resources. Military presence even after the US breaks up with NATO. And also the end of NATO.
In practice, the US doesn't need Nato to run bases in Greenland. They did so before without consent.
During WW2, US got permission to build bases in Greenland from a Danish diplomat. After the war, Denmark wanted the US to leave, but they simply didn't. 1951 Denmark joining Nato and these becoming Nato bases was a solution that saved face. And even then the US did build secret bases with Danish consent.
-
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 two things come to mind that I didn’t see in the comments, but maybe I missed them. 1) Spheres of Influence and 2) Every atrocity is a distraction from every other atrocity to overwhelm us, and perhaps to distract us from a complete takeover
-
@futurebird There is an old isolationist idea of Fortress America, that if you can control and dominate the entirety of the North American continent, an invasion becomes extremely difficult or even impossible, and adding a "Star Wars"-esque missile defense system on top of that would allow the US to completely isolate itself from the world. NATO is seen as superfluous in this sort of situation.
Now, there is an Imperialist variant of this idea that believes that once the homeland is secure like this, wars of imperialism can be waged with impunity to acquire both acquire resources and weaken the other imperial powers.
Now as for Greenland, I think this [page]((https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=4650) makes it clear what is likely Trump's major interest.
On top of that, taking Greenland would give the US a major substantial claim on the arctic region.
@futurebird Further, it would continue the envelopment of Canada, which makes it easier to cut Canada off from external support from the other NATO powers, and give the US greater leverage over trade and shared resources like fisheries.
Now Trump isn't this strategic, but this is the sort of imperialist wetdream that you would expect from someone who played too many 4X games and got a policy position in the Trump regime.
-
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 he's a real estate developer. With the receding ice caps, he sees an opportunity to develop real estate
-
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.
@futurebird I'm pretty sure he's on-record about wanting to leave NATO. Presumably due to Putin whispering in his ear, and before that the Soviets. He's been a Russian asset since the 80s.
-
Probably extraction of minerals in a very harmful manner for the environment. Denmark and the EU does not give extractive industries free reign. @futurebird
@Oyvindbs @futurebird Bingo!
-
I share your view of Trump.
Just not that last part.
Secessions shouldn't be done lightly, and never under push from an outside power.
This was done in preparation of the wars in Georgia and Ukraine. I think we should have learned our lessons by now.
Just like we might dream of the US coastal states leaving the US and joining Canada. But such a thing happening in reality? The potential for chaos and violence is huge.
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.
-
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
