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
Natural resources, Greenland has some oil and lots of uranium and rare earths.Strategic value, it would give the regime a military foothold in the north oceans.
Willy-waving, he'd be The Big Man who conquered the Vikings.
Real estate, he likes the idea of owning land.
And finally, he's butthurt that he had a whim ("I want Greenland!") but people didn't fall all.over themselves to make it happen for him. He wants to.punish the nonbelievers.
-
I think we're extremely lucky that the people who'd rather immolate the world simply do not have the self-control to not broadcast their intentions and seem to be able to only hamfistedly pursue their antisocial goals.
@johnzajac @futurebird Well, to a degree, but note that when they made that decision back in the 80s fossil carbon use started going up and is still going up; society is as much as possible organized to force you to buy gas.
The only reason we're in as hopeful a position as we are comes down to some Chinese engineers presenting a smog mitigation plan to the Central Committee back around 2000. (Thus a major economy decided to put money into Solar PV.)
-
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 point is that it's so obviously outrageous it helps keep the #EpsteinFiles out of the news
-
Your CW ate into my character limit, so I've rewritten my response and posted it here.
https://mastodon.world/@ApostateEnglishman/115888012566269860
@ApostateEnglishman @futurebird
and the US already did this to Hawai'i
Hawai'i IS a slave colony. Its indigenous people, the rightful owners of ALL of it, are shoved into slums and exploited as "local flavor" for tourist consumers and colonizing devourers.
-
@johnzajac @futurebird Well, to a degree, but note that when they made that decision back in the 80s fossil carbon use started going up and is still going up; society is as much as possible organized to force you to buy gas.
The only reason we're in as hopeful a position as we are comes down to some Chinese engineers presenting a smog mitigation plan to the Central Committee back around 2000. (Thus a major economy decided to put money into Solar PV.)
That, and the hubris of a US neofascism that had already written off certain parts of the world as either worthless except for labor OR as good only for extractive purposes, and by the 90s were high on their own overwhelming victories.
Had the neofascists been capable of seeing China become the threat to them it currently is, we'd be in a very different world 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 i think its a couple things, there is at least one faction, maybe just one person, who put the idea in his ear because they think they will profit from it and Donnie is very stupid, he probably thinks Greenland is green and that it is huge because of the errors in Mercator projection. Whether there is someone(s) who want the mineral rights i dont know, but i believe that the Russian government (such as it is) has amplified this obsession with Greenland as important real-estate which Donnie has been talking about consistently for 10y. For Russia the upside is obvious, trying to conquor Greenland throws chaos into our relationship with Europe and weakens us both, plus is good trolling, and all they seem to heat their homes with over there is hate, pain and vodka.
-
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 think a lot of it has to do that Mercator projection makes Greenland look big on the map. The Don would like to add some new territory to be known as somebody who increased the USA landmass.As far as NATO goes he doesn’t really care. If they bought some of his crypto coins he would be happy to keep it. The fact that Putin doesn’t like NATO is of course a strike against it.
The military base argument is bogus. The US has closed all but one bases that were previously there. As part of NATO I don’t see how it would be a problem to reopen them if needed.
Minerals. The US already has some mineral rights, and could possibly buy more. But, the minerals are under a thick sheet of ice, and nobody has so far found a way of profitably extract it. On top of that, rare earth minerals are not rare. They are just difficult and time consuming to extract. China has mastered the extraction process which is why they are the world leader.
If the issue was really getting access to minerals in a shorter timespan than waiting for Greenland’s ice to melt, the better option would be to go in an throw Russia out of Ukraine, since The Don already persuaded Ukraine into signing an agreement to let US mine for minerals there.
The only logic behind anything is the raccoons running around in Donny’s head. He wants to be remembered forever, and he will. Just not for the reasons he thinks.
-
@futurebird I think you're seeking rationality where there is absolutely none.
@darkling @futurebird bingo. nobody else in MAGA world was pushing for this, it's just a toddler obsession. Denmark will already let the US put up all the military bases they want.
-
@futurebird
The us wants to be able to be a free agent and so donald trump is cashing out all the us based international structure possible. I mean, its about a lot of stuff but also, Sometimes i think these idiots literally think like a big map game and want to get the continent bonus or some shit@DebbieDoomer @futurebird Sadly, this is close to Trump’s own answer.
-
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 as someone who was hanging around with trumpies in 2016, it absolutely is this -
Everyone wants to be a little big man instead of actually doing amazing big things. The lack of imagination depresses me.
@futurebird @EugestShirley this dovetails with another convo this morning: https://brain.worm.pink/notice/B2FXMKWWaJuiO45v8K -
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.
