US threatens to annex Greenland - 2025/2026

[Inthedetails]

I think that NATO members will support Greenland from everything that I've been reading tonight online. I don't think they counted on one of their members threatening to invade another member though, so that wasn't covered in their rules. Let's just hope it doesn't come to that. Getting late though so g'night all!

I think the tension and threats will go down to the wire, putting the world into stress, and then there will be a "deal."

"Nice snowy island you got there. Would be a shame if something happened to it. Be sure to say thank you that nothing does."

jmopinion

 

[Cryptic]

But USA is part of NATO. Are there provisions if a NATO country attacks another NATO country??

I don't know. But, I do know that it has almost happened maybe 2-3 times over the decades.

Greece and Turkey have not been on good terms for centuries. Both are NATO members. Since NATO was formed, there have been several military confrontations between the two, including one in which a jet was shot down.

A Greek friend's brother got called up for the last one. He was assigned to the river that serves as the border. Both countries had long lines of soldiers standing on their respective sides every so many feet, just watching each other.

He said that whatever serious stuff was happening in Athens and Ankara, he and the Turkish soldier opposite him spent days making funny faces at each other. Then, each country agreed to send their soldiers home.

 

[otto]

NATO Secretary General Rutte is taking the US government concerns about Arctic security seriously, and developing a NATO mission to increase security in the region. The US position of increased security is taken seriously, and the ulterior motive of taking (rather than buying) Greenland's natural resources is not addressed (for obvious reasons).

The US government cannot reasonably state that they want Greenland based on "psychological" reasons, or to bypass fair compensation for goods.

"NATO member states must work together to protect Greenland from countries like Russia and China, NATO Secretary General Rutte said.

According to Rutte, all member states, including the United States, agree on the importance of the Arctic island. The alliance would therefore be working on "new steps" to strengthen security.
...

Discussions are reportedly underway regarding a new NATO mission in the area. ... Rutte says he believes Trump is doing "the right thing" for NATO. "Collective defense is crucial."​

Rutte: NAVO-landen moeten Groenland beschermen

Het bondgenootschap zou werken aan 'stappen' om de veiligheid van Groenland te versterken. Volgens ingewijden gaat het mogelijk om een nieuwe militaire missie.

nos.nl

“Ownership is very important,” Mr. Trump said as he discussed, with a real estate mogul’s eye, the landmass of Greenland — three times the size of Texas but with a population of less than 60,000. He seemed to dismiss the value of having Greenland under the control of a close NATO ally.

When asked why he needed to possess the territory, he said: “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success"​

Trump Lays Out a Vision of Power Restrained Only by ‘My Own Morality’

On topic after topic, President Trump made clear that he would be the arbiter of any limits to his authorities, not international law or treaties.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Inthedetails]

Is the desire for Greenland because it could be a huge place for data centers?

Wants Greenland to Invest in Data Centers | High North News

www.highnorthnews.com

 

[otto]

Is the desire for Greenland because it could be a huge place for data centers?

Wants Greenland to Invest in Data Centers | High North News

www.highnorthnews.com

Data centers appear to be a good option for short term income, but risk consuming limited freshwater resources.

"Data centers have a thirst for water, and their rapid expansion threatens freshwater supplies. Only 3% of Earth’s water is freshwater, and only 0.5% of all water is accessible and safe for human consumption. Freshwater is critical for survival. On average, a human being can live without water for only three days. Increasing drought and water shortages are reducing water availability. Meanwhile, data center developers are increasingly tapping into surface and underground aquifers to cool their facilities.

Data center water usage closely parallels energy usage and carbon emissions. As data centers use more energy for their typical data center operations and to meet AI requests, they consume larger amounts of water to cool their processor chips, so as to avoid overheating and potential damage. Similarly, as energy use increases in data centers, so do carbon emissions."

Data Centers and Water Consumption | Article | EESI

www.eesi.org

"Seawater can also be used for data center cooling – a practice that Google has adopted in at least one of its facilities. A major challenge, however, is that salt water will cause mineral buildup and corrosion in the evaporative cooling systems used by most data centers."

Beyond Municipal Water: Data Center Cooling Solutions

Data centers rely heavily on water for cooling, but alternative sources can reduce strain on municipal systems and support sustainability.

www.datacenterknowledge.com

 

[SouthAussie]

"Denmark's prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, says her country faces a "decisive moment" in its diplomatic battle with the United States over Greenland, after President Donald Trump again suggested using force to seize the Arctic territory.

Ms Frederiksen said that "there is a conflict over Greenland", in a debate with other Danish political leaders."

Danish PM says Greenland feud at a 'decisive moment' after new Trump threats

Donald Trump says controlling Greenland is crucial for US national security and he has suggested using force to seize the Arctic territory.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Andreee]

Dbm

 

[Andreee]

dbm

 

[otto]

Similar to the US government giving political reasons to assert authority in Venezuela and then targeting oil, the same rhetoric is used to acquire Greenland's mineral wealth. Greenland has passed legislation that prevents extraction of mineral wealth that damages the environment. I think that the US government wants to annex Greenland in order to bypass environmental law.

"There were reports over the weekend that a group of countries — led by the U.K. and Germany — are discussing a military presence on the Arctic island as a hedge against American annexation.
...

Rutte ... [discussions] are simply an extension of talks which began midway through last year at the request of seven allied Arctic nations, including the United States. ... The idea appears to be to convince Trump that NATO is as interested as he is in beefing up the defences of the island territory.
...

The online U.S. publication Defence News reported last fall that the radar site at the Americans' Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) in Greenland is vulnerable to attack by hypersonic missiles, which can neither be detected nor shot down.
...

During a meeting with oil executives over Venezuela last week, Trump played up the importance of Greenland's mineral wealth in his grand scheme.
...

What Trump has failed to acknowledge is that Greenland has for a long time been trying to attract U.S. and Western investment in its critical minerals sector without much success. Last spring, Greenland's minister for business and mineral resources warned Western disinterest may force the territory to seek partnerships with China.
...

Rare earth deposits ... has led to fierce political opposition, including the passage of legislation by the territory that obstructed further mine licensing by banning the development of deposits with a uranium concentration over 100 parts per million."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/arctic-nato-us-denmark-greenland-defence-9.7042833

~ in my humble opinion ~​

 

[otto]

$100M for a country with endless valuable mineral wealth sounds like a ridiculous offer.

"Rasmussen announced today that he and his Greenland counterpart, Motzfeld, will travel to the US to discuss the situation. "US Vice President JD Vance wanted to participate in the talks and will chair the meeting in the White House. In the conference room, we can see each other face to face." Like Trump, Vance wants to take over Greenland.
...

Trump's idea of annexing Greenland isn't entirely new. In 2019, during his first term, he suggested buying the island, something the US also attempted in 1946. A $100 million offer was rejected at that time."

https://twitter.com/x/status/2010902536757162398

 

[Herat]

The offer of $100 Million rejected in 1946 would be more like $1.66 Billion today.

 

[otto]

The offer of $100 Million rejected in 1946 would be more like $1.66 Billion today.

Good point. I mistakenly understood that the $100M was the current offer. That was the Truman offer.

 

[Herat]

Good point. I mistakenly understood that the $100M was the current offer. That was the Truman offer.

Well, it's certainly not all about money for Greenlanders, or for Denmark or NATO.

 

[SouthAussie]

What Trump has failed to acknowledge is that Greenland has for a long time been trying to attract U.S. and Western investment in its critical minerals sector without much success. Last spring, Greenland's minister for business and mineral resources warned Western disinterest may force the territory to seek partnerships with China.

So the US can't invest? They have to own?

 

[Herat]

So the US can't invest? They have to own?

dbm

 

[Kaley Smith]

Well, it's certainly not all about money for Greenlanders, or for Denmark or NATO.

I trust there are Americans who realize that there are some things so valuable that money can't buy. You can't buy my love for my country. You can't buy my health card. You can't but my citizenship. Trump can put all the security on Greenland that he wants, but that's not his goal. He wants to expand US territory. Much of the world will resist him. but it would be a lot easier if he was stopped from within. This is stirring up so much hostility against the USA and even innocent Americans, that I can't even put it into words. Keep your greedy hands off other countries! (Even discussing buying other countries who want to be left alone is wrong.)

 

[otto]

So the US can't invest? They have to own?

Investment from the US has been an option for a long time. China has invested, but environmental law has placed restrictions on mineral wealth extraction.

"What Trump has failed to acknowledge is that Greenland has for a long time been trying to attract U.S. and Western investment in its critical minerals sector without much success.

Last spring, Naaja Nathanielsen, Greenland's minister for business and mineral resources, warned Western disinterest may force the territory to seek partnerships with China. A Chinese company did establish a large rare earths mine on the island, but it is largely idle because of environmental concerns.
...

Rare earth deposits are commonly found alongside uranium and that has led to fierce political opposition, including the passage of legislation by the territory that obstructed further mine licensing by banning the development of deposits with a uranium concentration over 100 parts per million."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/arctic-nato-us-denmark-greenland-defence-9.7042833

 

[otto]

This is what US government wants to bypass, and it cannot be done unless the United States steals Greenland from its' people.

The US government wants to go in fast, grab what they want, and leave a heaping environmental disaster behind.

"The Greenlandic Environmental Protection Act (2010)

The Environmental Protection Act is the primary legislation governing environmental protection in Greenland. It is designed to ensure sustainable development while safeguarding Greenland's natural resources and the health of its ecosystems.

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA): The Act mandates that all major development projects undergo an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to assess their potential environmental effects before approval. This applies to projects such as mining, oil exploration, and infrastructure development.

Pollution Control: The Act sets out standards for controlling pollution, including emissions into the air, discharges into water bodies, and the management of waste.

Biodiversity Protection: It includes provisions for the protection of Greenland's flora and fauna, with particular emphasis on endangered species and sensitive ecosystems.


The Mineral Resources Act (2009)

Greenland has significant mineral resources, and the Mineral Resources Act governs the exploration, extraction, and management of these resources.

Sustainable Mining: The Act is designed to ensure that the extraction of minerals, including rare earth metals, is done in an environmentally responsible manner, balancing economic development with environmental protection.

Environmental Impact: It requires companies to conduct environmental assessments for mining operations and implement mitigation measures to minimize environmental damage.

Regulation of Chemical Use: The Act also addresses the safe use and disposal of chemicals in mining processes to reduce pollution and ecosystem degradation."

more info regarding environmental law in Greenland:

Environmental laws at Greenland (Denmark)

Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, is known for its unique environmental characteristics, including vast ice sheets, glaciers, a...

www.lawgratis.com

~ in my humble opinion ~​

 

[SouthAussie]

This is what US government wants to bypass, and it cannot be done unless the United States steals Greenland from its' people.

The US government wants to go in fast, grab what they want, and leave a heaping environmental disaster behind.

"The Greenlandic Environmental Protection Act (2010)

The Environmental Protection Act is the primary legislation governing environmental protection in Greenland. It is designed to ensure sustainable development while safeguarding Greenland's natural resources and the health of its ecosystems.

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA): The Act mandates that all major development projects undergo an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to assess their potential environmental effects before approval. This applies to projects such as mining, oil exploration, and infrastructure development.

Pollution Control: The Act sets out standards for controlling pollution, including emissions into the air, discharges into water bodies, and the management of waste.

Biodiversity Protection: It includes provisions for the protection of Greenland's flora and fauna, with particular emphasis on endangered species and sensitive ecosystems.


The Mineral Resources Act (2009)

Greenland has significant mineral resources, and the Mineral Resources Act governs the exploration, extraction, and management of these resources.

Sustainable Mining: The Act is designed to ensure that the extraction of minerals, including rare earth metals, is done in an environmentally responsible manner, balancing economic development with environmental protection.

Environmental Impact: It requires companies to conduct environmental assessments for mining operations and implement mitigation measures to minimize environmental damage.

Regulation of Chemical Use: The Act also addresses the safe use and disposal of chemicals in mining processes to reduce pollution and ecosystem degradation."

more info regarding environmental law in Greenland:

Environmental laws at Greenland (Denmark)

Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, is known for its unique environmental characteristics, including vast ice sheets, glaciers, a...

www.lawgratis.com

~ in my humble opinion ~​

That makes sense. Considering all of the environmental controls that the US has rolled back this year in their own country.

And the world doesn't need the ice caps to melt any faster than they already are.

imo

 

[otto]

That makes sense. Considering all of the environmental controls that the US has rolled back this year in their own country.

And the world doesn't need the ice caps to melt any faster than they already are.

imo

The people of Greenland need to protect their land and environment from the United States and China. At this time, I think that China will be more respectful of environment damage than the US.

The US government does not acknowledge climate change, and is rolling back guard rails meant to ensure a healthy planet for future generations.

~ in my humble opinion ~​