He wants Greenland because he wants its resources at best, potentially just his ego and he saw it on a map. I dont seem him playing that may steps ahead.
Rafael Behr in the graun today suggests that he also wants it because it will make the USA bigger than Canada, and that it will be the biggest increase in the size of the USA ever, bigger than when they added Louisiana in 1803. Both of which are depressingly believable.
Anyhoo...
Carney's speech was excellent.
What's really refreshing is that he understands his countries place in the world and doesn't seek to pretend otherwise. Canada is a "Middle Power" and its only through acting with other countries of a similar mindset that it can achieve what it wants to see in the world.
If only we'd had similar clarity of thought a few years ago.
So Canada have clearly had enough, The "Taking the sign out of the window" analogy and the allusion to the end of communist hegemony was quite powerful. I wonder who will be next, I would have said France, but Macron's recent "Please Donald let me buy you dinner in Paris" schtick seems a but weak. It sure as hell won't be the UK though
Back to Greenland. Trump has to realise a simple truth: you can't buy something that isn't for sale. Denmark and the people of Greenland aren't going to fold over tariffs. So the remaining option is military force, and that's genuinely too stupid even for Trump.
If we see a slew of senior military figures in the US resigning or being retired, I'll start to believe it. If we see a carrier battle group sailing up the Labrador Sea or the Denmark Strait then I really believe it, but until then its just a Trump and his enablers bumping their gums.
He wants Greenland because his handlers have pointed it at him and given him a load of self serving ego massaging reasons for him to have it. They want to disrupt the world and implement project 2025 internationally, build a new empire of fiefdoms with them at the top, destroying the european project that despite all its flaws is the antithesis of what they stand for.
Carney's speech was excellent.
On the other hand, I sort of doubt that Trump's speech will be referencing Thucydides and Vaclav Havel.
Despite my general disgust for Starmer, he did actually make some principled noises at PMQ today.
Denmark and the people of Greenland aren't going to fold over tariffs. So the remaining option is military force, and that's genuinely too stupid even for Trump.
This does seem to be the position more informed analysts come to, see also the APN link I posted on the previous page.
I sort of agree, but with a couple of nagging doubts. I'm not entirely convinced it is too stupid for Trump. With the sacking of principled senior officers in the Pentagon and DoD, I worry he could bully/coerce the military into invading Greenland. Sure congress and others would be screaming from the roof tops but he's already shown he doesn't GAS about the constitution, checks & balances or due process.
I also worry that if he is stopped, either buying or stealing Greenland the economic fall out from his spiteful toddler tantrum will be like nothing seen so far.
If anyone wants a kind of reassuring couple of videos to watch...
Finnish President
Bernie
Obvs they can both be wrong
The idiot king is now ranting about a “big piece of ice” and how the USA “won the war”, and that the people of Denmark are “ungrateful” after the USA “gave Greenland back” after the Second World War.
^^ Love a bit of Bernie. Thanks for that! 👍
The idiot king is now ranting about a “big piece of ice” and how the USA “won the war”, and that the people of Denmark are “ungrateful” after the USA “gave Greenland back” after the Second World War.
Danes in my experience are quite sensitive about the suffering endured in WW2 and the aid given to fleeing Jews and resistance in general. I can't see this playing very well in Denmark.
Another excellent TV appearance by Naaja Nathanielsen.
He wants Greenland because his handlers have pointed it at him and given him a load of self serving ego massaging reasons for him to have it.
The fact that every social media channel is now being flooded with Russian bots desperately pushing the line that Trump should go into Greenland and thereby destroy NATO overnight should also be noted. It's definitely skewing some figure's view of the level of public support that's out there for this insanity.
If (a very big "if" granted) he means what he says about not using force, that scuppers his ownership plans surely? Because there is absolutely no way Greenland, Denmark or anyone else is going to agree to handing total sovereignty of the islands to the US. I can however see some kind of half-arsed territorial concession, where a base or two is declared as US territory within the wire that surrounds it. A bit like embassies are nominally the territory of the country they represent or a similar status to the British sovereign base areas on Cyprus. Although even that kind of concession sticks in the throat. I wouldn't give him the steam off my shit.
The fact that every social media channel is now being flooded with Russian bots
What makes you think they are russian bots on US platforms owned by US oligarchs? Honestly the US is at least as big a spreader of misinformation and propaganda as Russia, Russia has been used as a convenient bogey man to excuse the actions of the US and now we can see it in front of our very eyes who is responsible and what they are trying to do.
Most of the bot action takes place from Southeast Asia, but pretends to be from a USA perspective, often aimed at getting engagement in Europe (Ireland & Germany being the biggest targets last year IIRC). Russia and Belarus have fallen way behind… not because they have been scaling back, but because the scale internationally has gone through the roof in recent years… yes because of choices made by USA based tech billionaires to allow it.
My suggested news items popped this opinion piece up.
https://news.sky.com/story/the-truth-behind-trumps-greenland-deal-13497401
Not all that much in there I disagree with the facts in mind hardly anybody l, including the Trumpet, knows what's going on. There's obviously no deal and the framework can only possibly be agreeing to talk to each other.
Does mention sovereign bases but it's just opinion rather than stated option from Greenland.
It's how it all fits back together now - however, I think too many pieces have been broken or lost forever.
Trump has overplayed his cards. It's easy to see how his narcissistic and bullying nature has resulted in so many of his businesses folding.
Also - it's astonishing that he can mix up one country with it's neighbour; insult closest allies; blatantly lie, and demonstrate the intelligence and reasoning of an old pub drunk .. and people can still view him as Trump being Trump and acceptable.
Trying to take some positives from this, other than the obvious disaster averted.
In some ways he's done Europe a huge favour. Shown that faced with a bit of unity and resolve he'll get back in his box. If leaders (looking at you Starmer) can hold that thought going forward, we might curb some more of his nonsense in future.
Also, maybe this might show a few of the less brainwashed Brexit voters that a closer relationship with the rest of Europe is now essential. And bonus - damage our own pound shop Trump, the MP for Clacton due to association with the toddler in chief.
Even though this particular tantrum seems to have passed, we need to be working flat out to build the capability and mechanisms to replace a former ally we can never trust or rely on ever again.
Starmer has already indicated that he prefers the US to EU.
Then he is a fool and, I believe, out of touch with the rest of his party.
Starmer has already indicated that he prefers the US to EU.
I'll be honest in admitting I've missed that. I've only seen the standard issue UK fence sitting, which pre-dates Starmer.
Starmer has already indicated that he prefers the US to EU.
really I thought Labour have done more than the conservatives did to recreate links with Europe
Starmer also grew half a ball yesterday in a speech starting to stand up to Trump
“ Starmer has already indicated that he prefers the US to EU.”
When did he say that
I'll be honest in admitting I've missed that. I've only seen the standard issue UK fence sitting, which pre-dates Starmer.
Very much this.
Re Trump's framework of a deal. He's got nowhere with his bluff and bluster and this is his way of trying to save face.
I thought Starmer saw himself as the bridge between Europe and the USA?
Just looking what the Danish press are saying this morning - basically that they obviously won’t be negotiating over sovereignty and underlining that Rutte does not negotiate for Denmark.
Mette Frederiksen: Vi afgiver selvfølgelig ikke suveræniteten
Vi afgiver selvfølgelig ikke suverænitet,« siger Mette Frederiksen på et kort pressemøde, der netop er slut.
Hun siger, at spørgsmål og Grønland og Danmark er noget, der skal forhandles et andet sted, og at NATOs generalsekretær, Mark Rutte, ikke har mandat til forhandlinger på Danmarks og Grønlands vegne.
Thread's broken, I can't either select or reply to anything before the formatting error - reported.
Thread's broken, I can't either select or reply to anything before the formatting error - reported.
Just about works for me, but the thread also still looks broken.
I'm actually have issues at work running SQL queries so maybe I should head out for coffee.
A bit of long hand copy/paste
"In some ways he's done Europe a huge favour. Shown that faced with a bit of unity and resolve he'll get back in his box. If leaders (looking at you Starmer) can hold that thought going forward, we might curb some more of his nonsense in future."
"Even though this particular tantrum seems to have passed, we need to be working flat out to build the capability and mechanisms to replace a former ally we can never trust or rely on ever again."
There's a bit of respect for unity and resolve, but President Trump's position at home is decidedly dodgy.
It only takes 3 republicans to cross the floor and the republican majority on a vote has gone (218 rep v213 dem). He started a year ago on 220:215 (there are four vacancies), which is why he's had to use so much emergency legislation.
He can't afford to throw universally reviled demands around (4% popularity for using military force in Greenland), but he does and that's where Europe's strength lies.
Re Trump's framework of a deal. He's got nowhere with his bluff and bluster and this is his way of trying to save face.
Offer him a face-saving deal so that he doesn't turn on Ukraine and it's a win-win while Europe gets it's act in gear, because the next demand might be more popular in the US
Thread sorted thanks for reporting it.
"Starmer has already indicated that he prefers the US to EU."
"Starmer also grew half a ball yesterday in a speech starting to stand up to Trump"
I'd be interested to see the source for that US preference.
I think that there's a context to it, we have an historical preference for US security, weapons, our nuclear capability, etc, but that hasn't been true across the board, e.g. on trade.
I'm not a supporter of Starmer, I think that he's made some incredible, foreseeable, mess-ups here leading to U-turns that needn't have happened, but I think that he's trodden the US-EU tightrope pretty well.
He kept quiet about Venezuela because that was building for weeks and was always going to happen. Objecting would have led to the possibility of problems in Ukraine, which is more important to Europeans and less important to the US population, without benefit.
He could then legitimately support the seizure of Russian "shadow fleet" ships (e.g. Bella-1/Marinera - link below) by the US in respect of their Venezuela blockade, while indirectly supporting Ukraine by taking Russian oil revenue and Iranian weapons off the board
The obvious downside is that silence on Venezuela may have tacitly encouraged other "excursions", but he's handled that without obvious ill effects although it's early days
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr57v650380o
Rutte talking about the meeting with Trumpet (covers Ukraine as well)
Looks like Rutte was authorised by DK to offer up 1951 deal for renegotiation.
DK saying minerals are for GL to decide, but that's BS, as they will pressure GL to accept.
Looks like Rutte was authorised by DK to offer up 1951 deal for renegotiation.
That goes without saying. The 1951 agreement is with the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark, but technically Greenland could become fully independent under legislation passed since then.
It's highly unlikely that Greenland would become independent, simply because 57,000 people couldn't possibly finance the necessary infrastructure to run an independent country. President Trump has walked away with something to dress up for the folks back home. He's also used his classic, “We’ll have something in two weeks" to avoid the question of ownership.
Deflecting the press from the difference between now and the future agreement he said, "Much different, much more detail, much more generous to the United States. It’s a much more generous deal. It has to be. And we’re building a Golden Dome. And you see the way it works. That is so much better for us and for Europe to have that piece of ice covered by the Golden Dome."
The "Golden Dome" doesn't exist and probably never will; all previous attempts at similar projects have ended in failure, while politically it removes the concept of MAD thus making the world a more, rather than less, dangerous place.
The original agreement is here, it's pretty open already; negotiate plans with Denmark as agreed with NATO https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp
DK saying minerals are for GL to decide, but that's BS, as they will pressure GL to accept.
The assumption here is that mining is technically possible. It's an harsh environment where infrastructure, e.g. roads, doesn't last. The only big bone of contention is uranium mining. Assuming REMs don't exist near to uranium then it's currently quite open.
The US could always look for the H-bomb components that they "lost" in 1968 when a B52 crashed. The conventional explosives scattered material around, although the nuclear bit wasn't initiated
His other problem is that China is about the only place where REMs are processed. US-based Molycorp declared bankcruptcy in 2015 and was bought by a Canadian company that doesn't have REM processing facilities
First, China holds unmatched technical expertise in rare earth processing, especially in solvent extraction—a critical and complex step in REE separation—whereas Western companies have struggled due to limited workforce capabilities, research and development, and environmental regulations. Second, while several REE separation and processing facilities are under construction in other countries, these projects require substantial time to complete and fully operationalize, leaving a prolonged gap in global capacity outside of China. https://www.csis.org/analysis/developing-rare-earth-processing-hubs-analytical-approach
It all sounds a bit like Venezuela; lots of potential, but he's already walked into problems with debt owed to China that was being paid in Venezuelan oil.
He's got a rainy day fund with Venezuelan oil money in accounts in Qatar, which he'll need when the US is closed down again at the end of January by Congress
His comments on Fox Business came as lawmakers are once again scrambling to reach an agreement that would keep the U.S. federal government up and running beyond January 31. https://www.newsweek.com/federal-government-shutdown-january-2026-deadline-senate-trump-11388782
In a delicious irony Denmark's APM Terminals (part of Maersk) have offered to run the Panama Canal terminals. Panama's Supreme Court ruled that the Panama Canal port contract held by Hong Kong company CK Hutchison was unconstitutional. APM's offer would be an interim agreement until a new deal is worked out.
President Trump will be happy that China's influence in the Americas is waning, but less happy that a European company from Denmark has offered to run the Panama Canal. APM already runs the Panama Canal Railway Company that moves cargo by land from one end of the canal to the other.
APM, if you get the temporary contract, please form an interim subsidiary company called "Greenland"
A top court in Panama ruled on Thursday that a lucrative port contract held by a Hong Kong company was unconstitutional, a decision that will most likely deepen tensions between the United States and China in Latin America.
The decision against the company, CK Hutchison, could eventually clear the way for U.S. and European companies to operate the strategically important ports. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/business/panama-canal-ck-hutchison.html
--
Following the recent announcement from the President of the Republic of Panama Jose Raul Mulino regarding the Balboa (Pacific) and Cristobal (Atlantic) terminals, APM Terminals confirms its willingness to assume the temporary operation of both terminals. This aims to mitigate any risks that could impact essential services for regional and global trade and provide support to Panama’s logistics hub. https://www.apmterminals.com/en/news/news-releases/2026/260130-APM-Terminals-willing-to-operate-Balboa-and-Cristobal-ports-to-support-operational-continuity
--
APM Terminals has acquired the Panama Canal Railway Company (PCRC) from Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited and the Lanco Group/Mi‑Jack. PCRC operates a 76-km (47-mile) single-line railway adjacent to the Panama Canal that mainly facilitates cargo movement between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. In 2024, the PCRC generated revenue of USD 77 million and USD 36 million in EBITDA. https://www.apmterminals.com/en/news/news-releases/2025/250402-apm-terminals-acquires-panama-canal-railway-co