Summary

Trump renewed calls for the US to annex Greenland for “national security” reasons during an Oval Office briefing, claiming “I think it will happen.”

Greenland’s outgoing Prime Minister Múte Egede responded on Facebook: “Enough is enough,” and planned to summon all Greenland’s political parties for a joint rejection.

Likely incoming Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen also called Trump’s statement “inappropriate.”

Trump also undermined Denmark’s claim to Greenland, saying it was “very far away and really has nothing to do” with the island.

Danish Defense Committee Chairman Rasmus Jarlov warned that US annexation “would mean war between two NATO countries.”

  • halyk.the.red@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    34 minutes ago

    Well I recall reading about what happened the last time vikings tried to land on American shores, and I say bring em on!

    I just need to check my notes real quick.

    Okay so it turns out we may have genocided the people who defended their homeland against some of the most feared warfighters of that time, so perhaps trump just drops this whole thing before unnecessary blood is shed.

    Seriously, anyone who gets so much as a papercut as a direct result of one of trump’s orders is regretful and unfortunate.

  • HerrVorragend@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    3 hours ago

    The incoming prime minister should challenge Trump to a one on one fight for Greenland. If he refuses, all state heads should just make chicken noises every time they meet him.

  • Hikuro-93@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Inb4 Trump starts invading because 2-3 MAGA nuts from greenland said they wanted to be part of US, so that’s plenty of reason for the whole Greenland to need it as well - “they’ll see why it’s good for them once they’re ours, trust me”.

  • lka1988@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    4 hours ago

    So I got curious and decided to pay a visit to my favorite site to see this… Greenland is about the size of the US Midwest. I did not know that until today.

    I’m reasonably certain that Trump thinks Greenland is much larger. He is stupid, after all.

  • Freshparsnip@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    5 hours ago

    For what “national security reasons”? I’d like him to elaborate. Is Greenland somehow threatening the US? the only country threatening other countries in the area is the US.

    • ehholly@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 hours ago

      He has americans convinced that they need to annex greenland to protect them from Russia and China. For some reason they think China is closer to greenland than to Hawaii …

    • Hikuro-93@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      If anything it’s cause for national insecurity, given that if they invade, per NATO rules, an attack on one is an attack on all.

      But Trump is used to getting what he wants by breaking the rules and facing no consequences, so I guess it’ll be a FAFO thing.

      I must admit, I do fear that if it comes to that NATO will fight the usual way - strong worded letter. For a buffoon who can’t even read and only responds to a fat stick to the face.

      • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 hours ago

        This is going to be interesting because Article 5 assumes an attack on a member state by a non-member state.

        By attacking Greenland, Trump would violate Articles 1 and 2 (pledging to use peaceful means to settle a dispute and contribute to friendly relations though you could argue he’s violating the latter right now).

        I think the whole point of this act is to force NATO to kick the US out of NATO, which is exactly what Russia (and by extension Trump) wants.

      • floofloof@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        61
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        Also strategic control of the melting and ever more passable Arctic, along with Russia. This also partly explains why Trump wants Canada.

        Google Earth screenshot

        • officermike@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          ·
          4 hours ago

          A sane president who values geopolitical allies would just work out a deal with the host country to install more military bases in the region of concern, rather than burning every partnership we have by being aggressively expansionist.

          • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 hours ago

            A sane president who values geopolitical allies would just work out a deal with the host country to install more military bases in the region of concern, rather than burning every partnership we have by being aggressively expansionist.

            Dismissing it as insanity undermines the culpability of what Trump is doing.

            The point isn’t whatever ‘national security!’ bullshit they’re putching it as, the point is to piss of Greenland to the point of severing our relationship with them. Same with the shit he’s doing to Canada, Panama, etc.

            Trump’s goal is to weaken the US, and he’s accomplishing that in part by cutting us off from our allies.

          • toadjones79@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            3 hours ago

            But an insane president will bluster about things he doesn’t want to actually do (like Canada and Greenland) as a distraction to keep us focused on this nonsense while he raids the government coffers for all the retirement money he can get his grubbly diseased hands on.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            I’m betting he wants to charge fees for ships traversing the northwest passage, and he wants that revenue to go to the US, not Canada or Greenland/Denmark.

        • Mandrilleren@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          They already have strategic control over Greenland. Denmark would let the USA do almost whatever they want on greenland.

          Denmark probably were the USAs biggests bitch in Europe until they started threatening Greenlands sovereignity.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The most direct route from Russia to the US is North though the Arctic - so during the cold war there was a lot of first strike detection stuff setup in Arctic areas.

    • Beldarofremulak@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Probably that “economic freedom safe space” thing he’s been talking about? The one with no rules to follow so the “hard decisions” “rugged individual” “pat’rats” don’t have to put in effort. Isn’t Greenland mostly natives? Yeah that’s probably it.

      • FatCrab@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Greenland is one of the only (the only?) largely indigenous governed country (ish) in the world and one of its official languages alongside Danish is Greenlandic, an inuit language. So, yea, for some shitty old white American dude to continue to demand annexing this country is some fucking wild bullshit.

  • venotic@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Danish Defense Committee Chairman Rasmus Jarlov warned that US annexation “would mean war between two NATO countries.”

    It’s going to be one NATO country soon if the US really goes through of leaving NATO.

  • Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Thanks to Greenland, a voice of sanity, in response to the muttered burblings of a demented turnip. In me you will find yet another US citizen that agrees with you, and respects your soveriegnty. The turnip is using this distraction to rob us blind, I fear.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I don’t think they’re that clever. Seriously. I think that all the “distractions” are crazy things their major supporters want (less regulation on putting raw sewage in drinking water), crazy things their policy architects want for stupid or awful reasons (ending birthright citizenship because you think America should be a white Christian nation), naked adoration for dictators because they’re what running a country like a business looks like, or just the most transparent “negotiation” that burns good will because you don’t understand that getting an agreement is good, and getting an agreement where the other side is happy too is better.

      Threaten tariffs and wait a while to let the other side offer something to get you to not do it. Threaten to annex Greenland, and then compromise on guaranteed transit rights in their territorial waters and maybe some resource extraction agreements. Same for the Panama canal.

      • unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I wouldn’t say it’s clever either but it’s the gish gallop, it’s like a sportsball play where they Flood The Zone and called their little brothers from the JV team and now those guys are milling about on the field

  • My_IFAKs___gone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    I have a hard time believing the public, much less military members, have the stomach to do something like this. There’s zero moral standing in it and it seems like all modern overt military actions by the US needed to have something its participants and supporters could hold up to say “I’m doing this to make the world, and my country, a better and safer place,” even if that publicized nobility turned out to be a farce coughIraqcough (although I am glad Saddam got to experience what it feels like to die). Unless you’re the demigod of a highly programmed autocracy like North Korea, it takes significant buy-in to wage an invasion, war, and occupation. With Greenland being a benign and peace-loving gem of nature, it would absolutely blow my mind if Trump said “CHARGE!” and military members did anything but a limp soulless salute and slow shuffle to mill about stupidly in passive protest.

    • N0t_5ure@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      5 hours ago

      “Naturally, the common people don’t want war. Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

      • Hermann Goering
      • My_IFAKs___gone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I feel like Goering, may his shredded soul exist in agony forever, was being optimistically naive and arrogant, trying to curry favor with his fuhrer…but hey, they got a war, so maybe I’m the naive one. Here’s an argument from The Dictator’s Handbook by Bueno de Mesquita and Smith:

        Two thousand five hundred years ago, Sun Tzu literaly wrote the book on how to wage war. Although his advice has been influential to leaders down through the centuries, leading American foreign policy advisers have contradicted his war-fighting doctrines. Ronald Reagan’s secretary of defense, Caspar Weinberger, George W. Bush’s first secretary of state, Colin Powel, and, with slight modifications, Bill Clinton’s second secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, all prescribe a doctrine of when and how the United States should fight. And it differs radicaly from the time-tested advice of Sun Tzu. The reason Sun Tzu has served so many leaders so well over twenty-five centuries is that his is the right advice for kings, chieftains, and autocrats of every shape to folow. Until recently, and with very few exceptions, small-coalition systems have been the dominant form of government. But these are the wrong policies for a leader beholden to many. Democratic war fighting emphasizes public welfare, exactly as should be the case when advising a leader who relies on a large coalition. Sun Tzu’s advice is exactly right for a small-coalition leader. To see this, let’s have a look at the ideas expressed by Sun Tzu and Caspar Weinberger. Sun Tzu contended to his king, Ho Lu of Wu, that: The skillful general does not raise a second levy, neither are his supply wagons loaded more than twice. Once war is declared, he will not waste precious time in waiting for reinforcements, nor will he turn his army back for fresh supplies, but crosses the enemy’s frontier without delay. The value of time—that is, being a little ahead of your opponent—has counted for more than either numerical superiority or the nicest calculations with regard to commissariat… Now, in order to kill the enemy, our men must be roused to anger. For them to perceive the advantage of defeating the enemy, they must also have their rewards. Thus, when you capture spoils from the enemy, they must be used as rewards, so that all your men may have a keen desire to fight, each on his own account.

        In contrast to Sun Tzu’s perspective, Caspar Weinberger maintained that: First, the United States should not commit forces to combat overseas unless the particular engagement or occasion is deemed vital to our national interest or that of our allies… Second, if we decide it is necessary to put combat troops into a given situation, we should do so wholeheartedly, and with the clear intention of winning. If we are unwilling to commit the forces or resources necessary to achieve our objectives, we should not commit them at all… Third, if we do decide to commit forces to combat overseas, we should have clearly defined political and military objectives. And we should know precisely how our forces can accomplish those clearly defined objectives. And we should have and send the forces needed to do just that… Fourth, the relationship between our objectives and the forces we have committed—their size, composition, and disposition—must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary. Conditions and objectives invariably change during the course of a conflict. When they do change, then so must our combat requirements… Fifth, before the United States commits combat forces abroad, there must be some reasonable assurance we will have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress… Finally, the commitment of US forces to combat should be a last resort.

        Sun Tzu’s ideas can coarsely be summarized as folows: (1) an advantage in capabilities is not as important as quick action in war; (2) the resources mobilized to fight should be sufficient for a short campaign that does not require reinforcement or significant additional provisions from home; and (3) the provision of private goods is essential to motivate soldiers to fight. Sun Tzu says that if the army initially raised proves insufficient or if new supplies are required more than once, then the commanders lack sufficient skill to carry the day. In that case, he advises that it is best to give up the fight rather than risk exhausting the state’s treasure. Weinberger’s doctrine does not emphasize swift victory, but rather a willingness to spend however much is needed to achieve victory, a point made even more emphatically in the Powell Doctrine. Weinberger and Powell argue that the United States should not get involved in any war in which it is not prepared to commit enough resources to win. They, and Madeleine Albright too, argue for being very cautious about risking war. Once a decision is made to take that risk, then, as Weinberger (and Powell) recognize, the United States must be prepared to raise a larger army and to spend more treasure if necessitated by developments on the ground. War should only be fought with confidence that victory will folow and that victory serves the interests of the American people. Sun Tzu emphasizes the benefits of spoils to motivate combatants (“when you capture spoils from the enemy, they must be used as rewards, so that all your men may have a keen desire to fight, each on his own account”). Weinberger emphasizes the public good of protecting vital national interests. For Sun Tzu, the interest soldiers have in the political objectives behind a fight or their concern for the common good is of no consequence in determining their motivation to wage war. That is why he emphasizes that soldiers fight, “each on his own account.” Sun Tzu’s attentiveness to private rewards and Weinberger’s concentration on the public good of protecting the national interest (however that may be understood) represent the great divide between small-coalition and large-coalition regimes. Our view of politics instructs us to anticipate that leaders who depend on lots of essential backers only fight when they believe victory is nearly certain. Otherwise, they look for ways to resolve their international differences peacefully. Leaders who rely only on a few essential supporters, in contrast, are prepared to fight even when the odds of winning are not particularly good. Democratic leaders try hard to win if the going gets tough. Autocrats make a good initial effort and if that proves wanting they quit.

      • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        He’s not wrong, but I don’t think pacifist is the word that should be used to describe the opposition to invading Greenland or Canada, or Panama.

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 hours ago

      If the right-wing media start inventing stories about Greenland, Canada and Panama being threats to the USA, I don’t trust the US public to see through them. Many will, of course, but then many saw through the Iraq stuff too, just not enough.

    • Albbi@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      The worst part about him winning the election is that you can’t escape his bullshit.

  • hmonkey@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    I have had it with these muthafuckin calls for muthafuckin annexation

  • meco03211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Foreign leaders need to stop responding as if a serious response will have any effect. They need to throw that shit back in his face. Tell him you’ll accept, only if he discards the shithole states. Then list red states. Or tell him if he can find Greenland on the map, you’ll consider it. Or direct the message at blue states and welcoming them if they decide to secede.

  • einkorn@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Trump also undermined Denmark’s claim to Greenland, saying it was “very far away and really has nothing to do” with the island.

    Well, except, you know … the whole Nordic/Viking settlements thing?