I know elements of this have been discussed on the Venezuela and Donald Trump threads, but it seems to be growing legs and I think it perhaps merits a thread of its own. Although I dearly hope it fades into obscurity rather than turning into an epic like the Ukraine thread. For obvious reasons.
A few months ago, I might have written off Trump's comments about Greenland, as him just vocalising the random thoughts in his head. More recently, other members of his cabinet are joining in the rhetoric and Stephen Miller said it was "the formal position of the US government that Greenland should be part of the US". There is more and more chatter from the MAGA loons about this every day and it seems to me, to be gaining momentum.
It seems incredible that we are even having this conversation. It would have been unthinkable a year or two ago, but such is the descent into chaos and lunacy radiating from the White House that it now seems possible. Where do you see this going? Sadly, I CAN see the current US administration occupying and annexing Greenland as part of the US. Against the will of Denmark, Greenlanders and most of the rest of the democratic world. No one can realistically stop them, but it will be the final nail in NATO's coffin, US - European cooperation and any residual international reputation the US was clinging on to. Putin will be massively encouraged by the collapse of NATO and Europe and the World will become even more dangerous and unstable.
I really, really hope my pessimism proves unfounded.
Do we really need a separate thread about every country or region which Donald Trump would like to include in his new American empire? Perhaps just one thread would be sufficient (ie the original one)? Or how about we combine the Trump, Ukraine, Venezuala, Greenland, various threads about nuclear war etc into one geopolitics thread where all the STW armchair generals, diplomats and doom-mongers (like myself) can do their work in bringing about world peace?
Do we really need a separate thread about every country or region which Donald Trump would like to include in his new American empire? Perhaps just one thread would be sufficient (ie the original one)? Or how about we combine the Trump, Ukraine, Venezuala, Greenland, various threads about nuclear war etc into one geopolitics thread where all the STW armchair generals, diplomats and doom-mongers (like myself) can do their work in bringing about world peace?
If you are being serious (it's hard to tell), I think we do. The DT thread has over 32K posts and the Ukraine thread over 22K. Those combined with all the others would be a pretty humongous and difficult to navigate thread. Just my view, more than happy for this to be shut if no one sees any value in it 😊
I think the press is going ham on this one because its the most exciting, not the most likely. OFC the US *could* take greenland, but the price would be huge. It's nothing like the venezuela situation where most of the world just looked at its shoes. I think it's hot air and attention farming.
The only motive can I can think of is from a geopolitical / economic (exploitative) perspective because I can’t think of any military objective that can’t already be achieved through NATO. Our only hope is there’s enough non-hawkish generals and admirals in the DoD(DoW) to stall this long enough that Trump is further incapacitated by his physical and mental impairments, which frankly can’t come quickly enough.
The only motive can I can think of is from a geopolitical / economic (exploitative) perspective because I can’t think of any military objective that can’t already be achieved through NATO.
I doubt Trumps motives extend much beyond colouring in a map in a way that's more visually appealing to him.
If you are being serious (it's hard to tell), I think we do.
I'm never serious on here, you should know that by now. 😉
Honestly though, other forums I'm on manage to discuss this stuff on just one thread, it's only STW where we feel the need to separate discussions into ever smaller sub-topics.
Yep, it wouldn't be for strategic reasons, the US already has a base there and previously had several more. They've been given pretty much free reign to deploy assets and build bases there in the past and I'm sure this would have continued with little controversy if they'd been less hawkish. So why do they need to take it over?
Greenland has huge mineral reserves. I think Trump just sees dollar signs and hears "kerching" when Greenland is mentioned. Plenty of pickings for him and the rest of the US oligarchy if they did wade in.
I think the press is going ham on this one because its the most exciting, not the most likely. OFC the US *could* take greenland, but the price would be huge. It's nothing like the venezuela situation where most of the world just looked at its shoes. I think it's hot air and attention farming.
Columbia / Cuba / Panama on the other hand...
Realistically what would the "World" do if Trump annexed Greenland? Militarily there is really nothing to stop the US doing it. Would trade or diplomatic sanctions do anything other than harm the countries carrying out the sanctions?
I guess living in the "west" we are kind of used to the US being the good guy. The so called "Pax Americana" where the worlds only superpower largely followed the rule of international law and used restraint in how its power was deployed.
But maybe that was all a lie. If you lived in Afghanistan, northern ****stan, Syria, or countless places in Africa that have been subject to multiple drone strikes you'd probably think the notion the the US were the good guys holding up freedom and international law was a sick joke. Maybe now that countries like Greenland are in the frame everyone now starts to realise that the US, certainly in its current form, are not the good guys.
I think Iran is most likely as the next strike. You can see how much Trump has enjoyed this, I bet he has been shaking his button mushroom franticly at the thought of his next attack.
It will be worth observing how much traffic comes and goes from US air bases in the IUK and Europe, how much "hardware" is being moved aroundover the next weeks.
Realistically what would the "World" do if Trump annexed Greenland? Militarily there is really nothing to stop the US doing it. Would trade or diplomatic sanctions do anything other than harm the countries carrying out the sanctions?
It'd be the end of NATO and European arms sales for a start. There would be a huge diplomatic cost, which you wouldnt get for the other items on the list.
Honestly though, other forums I'm on manage to discuss this stuff on just one thread, it's only STW where we feel the need to separate discussions into ever smaller sub-topics.
Personally I think its useful - I've long given up on paying regular attention to the mega threads, but a Venezuela and Greenland thread are useful for those of us who are interested in the geopolitical situation but not obsessed with everything that happens in trumpland or the specific tactics of the Ukrainian conflict. I don't use any other fora where politics is welcome, but most fora don't just have 2 categories: bike / chat.
What’s the price for Trump or anyone else at the heart of the current administration? Losing influence, cooperation and trade elsewhere doesn’t worry them if they really are focussed on the idea of a bigger USA, with subdued/controlled neighbours that can turn its back on Europe, Africa, Asia etc. They can make themselves a bigger pond, where they are still the big fish. If they can also destabilise everyone outside their new bigger USA they can look like the protectors and stabilisers back home. Just like Putin.
The diplomatic cost of regime change in Venezuela is nothing/penny change. The diplomatic cost of invading Greenland would be onerous, even for the US.
What remains of the sensible wing of the Republican party needs to hang on either till May when the Democrats will win enough seats to become relevant again, or when the effects of Trumps advancing dementia/heart disease/TIA/Stroke becomes so much more obvious, he either carks it, or 25th amendment, whichever is the sooner, and all of this shit goes away.
Every outcome results in them being a slightly bigger fish in a smaller pond though. Being one of the biggest fish in an open world is very different to being a slightly bigger fish that is cut off or has limited access to everything else.
It would be an idiotic move by the us but i would not be surprised if it happened
The diplomatic cost of regime change in Venezuela is nothing/penny change. The diplomatic cost of invading Greenland would be onerous, even for the US.
Do they still care about diplomacy, or what the rest of the world thinks? They're antagonistic to and demeaning about Europe, Canada etc. Trump has openly said he thinks NATO is past it's use by date so wouldn't care if a Greenland invasion ended it. I honestly can't think of a single country in the world who has any influence over them, or who they wouldn't walk all over to get something they wanted.
Being one of the biggest fish in an open world is very different to being a slightly bigger fish that is cut off or has limited access to everything else.
If they have most of the Americas either part of the USA, or controlled by them, they have the resources they need to hold all small countries elsewhere to heel… and other than Russia and China the idea is to divide and destroy all other trading blocks. Their influence is different rather than diminished if they can more easily threaten all the little countries with embargos and aircraft carriers without as much self inflicted harm by doing so (as they are much more self sufficient in resources).
It will be worth observing how much traffic comes and goes from US air bases in the IUK and Europe, how much "hardware" is being moved aroundover the next weeks.
Already some chatter about extra flights in and out the US bases in the last week or two, but may be just fishing for clicks
It would have immense costs to the US, likely they would have zero military bases in Europe anymore. No access to allied airspace or intelligence.
I can't see it, but then with that lunatic who knows
He's been very clear about plans for a western hemisphere area of US control. He could very well do something daft with Greenland. If he does, we have to take the Maga US* out of NATO and close their European bases. That leaves us exposed "if" Putin opens a second front, but I'm not sure he has capacity.
Can Canada isolate Alaska and close the land borders? Trump really doesn't want to underestimate the crazy Canucks.
*I guess a future US may return to sanity, but it's more likely to splinter.
I wonder how many in the US are starting to think this?
Although it's a very mixed bag overall, there's a chunk that seem to be repeatedly "nudged" further and further along an ever more extreme path, whilst still thinking the world they see is just the same as it was.
Each time something happens, they find a way to justify it and take one step further.
There's at least one greenlander who has his gun primed and cocked for the American invasion, on a hifi forum I'm a member of he posted his collection of rifles with a hand written note - "Just try it you yankee ****s - we look forward to burying you in ice"
Needless to say his pic was quickly deleted by the moderator (its an American based forum) but apparently its got his town rather riled up
Only under Trump could an absolute loon like Stephen Miller and up as the White House deputy chief of staff.
He's absolutely unhinged! Completely and utterly mental! He was literally rubbing his hands with glee talking about the prospect of annexing Greenland.
They really, really want to do this, don’t they? 😳
But where is Obama etc in all this? why arent they more vocal on USA apparently going rogue?
The democrats are a busted flush, especially with the way they supported Israel and their breaking of international law so trump is merely carrying on regardless
Honestly, It's silly to suggest they don't. The deafening silence internationally - and most importantly from inside Venezuela itself tells the US that everyone is totally fine with what's just happened. Hell, even Maduro had Cuban bodyguards so it's not like he couldn't guess what was going to happen to him. This is miles and miles and miles away from invading Greenland or Canada, or anything like it Despite what Trump thinks
Did you see the reaction from his administration after Trump said they going to 'run' Venezuela? they were clearly all ad-libbing, Trump is going to become more and more of a liability as what remains of his brain confabulates shit from thin air. At some point in the near future, he's either going to shit/piss himself live on TV or keel over. Trumps days are numbered, I will bet 50p and a fondle that all this crap stops sooner then he's gone cold.
Que the TV in the morning saying that the US have indeed; invaded Greenland... 🤣
Trump makes a play for Greenland, likely part carrot and part stick... the carrot simply to give the illusion of choice to Greenland. Denmark will be included in the negotiations about as much as Europe is over Ukraine's fate. Ie. not much at all.
I think that this whole annexation business is going to be a real sticking point for the US. The assumption is that the military will go along with it, but Senator Mark Kelly has already demonstrated that calls for prosecution for "sedition" are empty threats. SecWar is going after his pension administratively, rather than prosecution for a crime. He's naturally going to fight that https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/05/politics/pentagon-cuts-mark-kellys-retirement-pay-punishment
Greenland isn't Venezuela and the grounds for any kind of invasion are tenuous at best and military leaders can't pretend otherwise. Prosecution for sedition? Nope. Drug trafficking? Nope. Mass migration to the US? Nope. Russian advanced weapons? Nope. Necessary for the defence of the US? Nope, we already have bases there. Rare earth minerals? Nope, they've already offered to sell us minerals, etc.
Canada. Do we want a massive collection of "liberal" states that won't vote Republican? Nope
The only one that is a possibility is the Panama canal zone.
I'd agree that imperialism rather than rules leads to war, just look at the last two world wars. The possiblity of China taking cues from the US on Taiwan, leading to a confrontation between the US and China is a scary thought.
EDIT War also leads to mass migration, exactly what the US administration is dead set against.
"silly" or not, when they are openly turning their backs on alliances, talking of a new Monroe Doctrine, mocking and deriding Europe and Canada etc. I see no evidence that they GAS of what anyone else thinks of them. Yes it would cause turmoil and a huge diplomatic upheaval if they invaded Greenland, I just don't think they care if it gets them the natural and strategic resources they want.
I enjoy your posts and normally get a lot from them. Hope the condescension was a one off! 😋 😉
What remains of the sensible wing of the Republican party needs to hang on either till May when the Democrats will win enough seats to become relevant again, or when the effects of Trumps advancing dementia/heart disease/TIA/Stroke becomes so much more obvious, he either carks it, or 25th amendment, whichever is the sooner, and all of this shit goes away.
I dont think all of this goes away with trump unless the democrats manage to sort themselves out and win the presidency back but even then the damage Trump has done means things are different now , possibly for ever . Plus I dont think Trump is the ideas guy , it's the people behind him that are really dangerous. Trump was just the face and personality that allowed them to get into power .
It feels dramatic to say it but the world is changing and not for the better . Trumps America feels like it's military power allows it to project its will across the world without consequence and Greenland is part of that .I took stephen millers comments to mean that they dont need to invade as such as they are now so powerful that they can just make demands and will expect them to be met in a way similar to a big kid demanding a little kids lunch money.
What remains of the sensible wing of the Republican party needs to hang on
Sensible wing? That ship sailed a long time ago. There’s nobody left in the Republican Party that isn’t part of the cult. They’re all just varying degrees of insane
What remains of the sensible wing of the Republican party needs to hang on either till May when the Democrats will win enough seats to become relevant again,
3rd November, unfortunately. Could all be smoking rubble by then
Despite UK and European governments not saying anything - it's very much out there now with pretty much all UK news saying the obvious; USA can't be trusted and UK need to develop their own independent defense.
As Sky News point out. The UK, as are many European countries, are highly dependent on USA for every aspect of defence from nuclear deterrent to guidance for missiles.
How long realistically would it take for UK & Europe to develop their own defense?
Not just defence. Modern infrastructure is completely dependent on US companies. The latest being the rush to put everything in the cloud that has entrenched our status as digital vassal states. What would be left working if they pulled the plug on our access to their tech?
But where is Obama etc in all this? why arent they more vocal on USA apparently going rogue?
Obama threatened Germany when they considered opening prosecutions for the CIA agents who kidnaped a German citizen from the streets of Munich and renditioned him to the middle east because he had the same name as a wanted terrorist.
The US has long been an imperialistic bully, the fact that European leaders have spent decades decades submitting to their export of neoliberal economic fascism has left us all worse off. Trump is going further but he is still playing the same game as the US has done for decades.
The difference is that Trump and Co don't care for diplomacy or soft power, they could genuinely wake up in the morning and just go all-in on Greenland with no warning whatsoever. They could just as easily forget all about it and go after another target for no apparent reason too. Until Trump is out of the White House, his team are disbanded and someone is in there who is sensible enough to start unpicking the damage the world is a much more dangerous place. Not imminent danger but a gradual erosion of any sense of stability.
PArt of me sort of hopes he does try and go for Greenland as it may well be the final straw for the rest of the world to go 'Enough' and actually do something about it.
PArt of me sort of hopes he does try and go for Greenland as it may well be the final straw for the rest of the world to go 'Enough' and actually do something about it.
i genuinely don't see what though
America could shut down our military and the internet that our country runs on tomorrow
I think its pretty obvious what's going to happen.
The US will take Greenland.
Then, they will utter an ultimatum to Europe: You are either with us or against us.
Countries that fall in line will get some kind of 'protection', those that don't will be actively harassed.
Anyone thinking there will be free and fair elections in the US going forward is deluded - I doubt even the mid terms will happen and if they do I suspect they will favour Trump.
Of course, how useful both Venezuela and Greenland will actually be as strategic assets is another story but by then the damage will have been done to Nato which is another win for Trump anyway.
Nope, We need a 4th season of Designated Survivor but this time make it only one episode with nothing left standing, and while we’re at it can we blow up mar a largo
Not just defence. Modern infrastructure is completely dependent on US companies. The latest being the rush to put everything in the cloud that has entrenched our status as digital vassal states. What would be left working if they pulled the plug on our access to their tech?
Politicians in both Greenland and Denmark would be happy with an independent Greenland. What they don't want is to be told what to do.
An independent Greenland would continue existing agreements on US military and mining operations and develop them as needed. Denmark only signed some of those agreements in 2024.
Independence would be the cheapest option for the world's greatest deal maker, and for Denmark, which wouldn't need to finance a remote state.
None of the talk of invasion, compact of free association or anything similar is needed, but for some reason the US won't rule any of it out. None of it makes sense on any level
Honestly though, other forums I'm on manage to discuss this stuff on just one thread, it's only STW where we feel the need to separate discussions into ever smaller sub-topics.
Well, the Ukraine thread is largely Russia/Ukraine, with Dozy Don as an add-on, Trump, covers a shit-ton of stuff, a Greenland thread would cover as much European/NATO as Dozy Don, so unless readers suffer from a restricted attention span, I don’t see an issue with having a separate thread for Greenland, especially when it’s already running. 🤷🏼♂️
I think having a dedicated thread is ok. The number of threads about world issues is currently manageable.
If the US did attack Greenland and the latter invoked NATO's article 5 then in theory all NATO members would have to come to it's aid. It is very unlikely that military force would be used but there could be closing of US bases in NATO countries and closure of airspace which would have a significant impact on the US's ability to project power although the likes of Israel may offer base facilities.
Trump has encouraged the far right in several European countries and his crony Musk has done some egregious shit interfering with politics in those countries.
I wish I had faith in the US military and populace to change this but for every sensible officer in the former there will be several unscrupulous, ambitious arseholes willing to do anything for advancement and the latter may be bought off with short term gimmicks before the mid-terms if they even run.
I think the MAGA architects plan to secure power and destroy democracy before Trump shuffles off to hell and they may well be able to do it before the end of his term.
I feel that I should be doing something to oppose it but don't know what that could be.
Of course he isn't ruling out military action, to do so when a negotiation is about to be had about Greenland removes one of his key bargaining chips (if we don't find a solution I can take it anyway)
And a discussion is needed. Greenland is more strategically important in this new world order than it has been in the last 50 years, and old norms no longer apply. Ideally it's for the people of Greenland (and Denmark) to decide but they need to be fully aware of the options and implications. A strong united NATO with a bigger presence, would be my opinion, but that's falling by the wayside currently and whether NATO-US is strong enough, I'm not the military expert. At the other end, Denmark alone maintaining the security doesn't seem tenable. There needs to be a supportive military power beyond Denmark and right now a vaguely friendly US remains an alternative. And there would need to be some nose holding to enable that for sure.
Lastly, anyone that equates what he says he will / will not do with what he actually does needs to be kept away from the planning discussions because they're clearly delusional. If he'd come out overnight and said that he had no intention to invade Greenland, would anyone sensible say that was that then? On past form, I'd send a load of reinforcements to the border!
he looks at a map and thinks that he could be the president that doubles the size of America
a lot of this is the fault of the Mercator projection, perhaps if he was shown a more realistic map his senile mind would move on to something else
In social media posts, Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego, a Democrat, vowed to introduce a resolution “to block Trump from invading Greenland,” saying the 79-year-old Republican simply “wants a giant island with his name on it. He wouldn’t think twice about putting our troops in danger if it makes him feel big and strong.”
In a sharp departure from the party’s typical partisanship, Republicans also pushed back against Trump’s military-backed expansionism.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican, told reporters Tuesday night that he didn’t think it was “appropriate” for Washington to take military action on Greenland, Politico reported.
Republican Senator Jerry Moran of the midwestern state of Kansas, who serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told HuffPost “it’s none of our business” and warned that the move would lead to “the demise of NATO.”
Nebraska Republican Congressman Don Bacon put it even more bluntly in a post on X: “This is really dumb. Greenland and Denmark are our allies.” https://www.kyivpost.com/post/67562
I believe the tariff shenanigans was a test exercise. Firstly to see how countries responded, and secondly to show that the US can effectively cripple any country's economy at a moment's notice, and to ultimately serve as a warning that if anyone interferes with the US' plans, they can crush them economically and there's no defense
BRICS is actively seeking to challenge the US dollar as the preeminent currency for oil trading. If that takes off it will significantly impact the strength of the US economy. Whether it would be a good thing for Western Europe is dubious.
Greenland isn’t about security. If it was there are agreements allowing the US to build new bases etc. indeed the US has massively reduced its presence in Greenland from 10,000 men to 200 and just one base.
It’s about Trumps ego and resources. Trump wants to expand the US territory and create a legacy (much like Putin) and great all those resources. The Greenlanders want to keep their pristine wilderness just that.
Denmark cannot prevent the annexation if US wants Greenland. Nothing Denmark can do to stop it. Denmark will just have to take it with a thankful gesture. The rest of the NATO members cannot prevent that too but look the other way if US decides to annex. Using Russia as a bogie man works well for US as an excuse to extort from the members or alliance.
I did say strategically because it includes both security and economic aspects, and of course, no use 'owning' the assets if someone else can just walk in and steal them :cough: Venezuala :cough:
By the way Venezuela and Greenland are a weird dangerous distraction from the Epstein files.
There are many examples of US presidents struggling in office who decide that a war is great idea to save their own skin. Reagan, Bush I & II, etc. Thatcher did it with the Falklands too
Really? I could have sworn Falklands was a defensive, rather than offensive, move. Did we just imagine the Argentinians invading and occupying a British Overseas Territory then?
Of course he isn't ruling out military action, to do so when a negotiation is about to be had about Greenland removes one of his key bargaining chips (if we don't find a solution I can take it anyway)
What "negotiation"? What is this insanity? Has someone been watching too many Sopranos reruns?
Clumsy wording but UK Govt didn't care for Falklands leading up to the invasion so the opportunity arose to defend the Islands and also use the war as political capital
Only under Trump could an absolute loon like Stephen Miller and up as the White House deputy chief of staff.
He's absolutely unhinged! Completely and utterly mental! He was literally rubbing his hands with glee talking about the prospect of annexing Greenland.
They really, really want to do this, don’t they? 😳
This is the problem now. Cut the head off the snake and it'd just grow another head. US government is now full of so many MAGA lunatics being supported by large parts of the lunatic public they'll just carry on Trump's "legacy" when he's gone.
Clumsy wording but UK Govt didn't care for Falklands leading up to the invasion so the opportunity arose to defend the Islands and also use the war as political capital
No bugger in the UK had ever heard of the Falklands and I doubt many politicians at the time were even aware of them!
Not sure Reagan started any wars either - and went a long way to ending the cold war. The US was involved in various world troubles at the time but that's always been the case.
Feels like the US is as big a threat to European security as Russia. NATO is bust and Europe needs to restore something to fill the role of European protection. Defence spending needs to increase dramatically and fast.
Those saying it'll get better if or when an aging Trump succumbs to ailments or fragility of age, will it? A sworn in Vance is an unknown and scary thought.
There are many examples of US presidents struggling in office who decide that a war is great idea to save their own skin. Reagan, Bush I & II, etc. Thatcher Galtieri did it with the Falklands too
FTFY. There were negotiations under way about the status of the islands. Galtieri was a brutal military dictator who was struggling. He thought he could bolster his support by invading the islands, assuming that the U.K. couldn't or wouldn't fight for them. Thatcher basically had a choice of fight for them or face electoral defeat - no leader of any country can just allow another country to invade their territory without facing electoral consequences. It was a stupid war, but the blame for that one is on Galtieri, not Thatcher.
No bugger in the UK had ever heard of the Falklands and I doubt many politicians at the time were even aware of them!
I suspect the same of Greenland until Trump and a few MAGA beat that drum... and I also agree that vast majority of 'mericans and their politicians can find Greenland on a map, let alone explain why they cannot just expand military bases (Which they have agreements to do) rather than invade the place..
It's the cabal of lunatics behind the scenes that are driving this
Agreed 110%, Trump is being played like a fiddle by people who've been trying (and failing) to get this level of power/influence since Ronald Reagan was president
They haven't been failing, they have been slowly chipping away and eroding democracy now they have done enough to accelerate the process and take control completely.
The same has been happening in the UK and Europe, we are just a few years behind on the same path. What has been marketed as centrism is just the first line of the right wing ideology, the "acceptable face" of the erosion of democracy to the interests of the oligarchs and capital, it has only been moving in one direction since the Thatcher Regan years, and it has happened in plain sight.
There are many examples of US presidents struggling in office who decide that a war is great idea to save their own skin. Reagan, Bush I & II, etc. Thatcher Galtieri did it with the Falklands too
FTFY. There were negotiations under way about the status of the islands. Galtieri was a brutal military dictator who was struggling. He thought he could bolster his support by invading the islands, assuming that the U.K. couldn't or wouldn't fight for them. Thatcher basically had a choice of fight for them or face electoral defeat - no leader of any country can just allow another country to invade their territory without facing electoral consequences. It was a stupid war, but the blame for that one is on Galtieri, not Thatcher.
A bit of rewriting of history there? Thatcher pulled the military support ships out of the area did she not leaving the door open for the takeover of the islands and also sunk the Belgrano while it was heading home during peace talks to scupper any chance of peaceful rewsolution
