US threatens to annex Greenland - 2025/2026

[Inthedetails]

Apparently .... Denmark says it has "agreed to disagree" with the United States over the future of Greenland after a meeting with top White House officials, but repeated that a US takeover of the territory is "totally unacceptable".

"We have decided to form a high-level working group to explore if we can find a common way forward.
"The group, in our view, should focus on how to address the American security concerns, while at the same time respecting the red lines of the Kingdom of Denmark."

Mr Rasmussen would not say if the meeting led to any sort of compromise, saying it was not the "proper place to elaborate".

European nations send troops to Greenland as White House talks fail

The United States and Denmark continue to disagree over the future of Greenland after a meeting at the White House amid ongoing threats from President Donald Trump threatening to seize the semi-autonomous Danish territory for national security reasons.

www.abc.net.au

It looks like the USA administration is stringing them along, tbh.


jmo

 

[otto]

The thin line between war and peace in Greenland has been set. The US has two choices: war, or democracy.

"Denmark sets a military tripwire. It's a message to Trump more than Russia or China

In military deterrence lingo, what we're witnessing in Greenland is sometimes referred to as the "glass plate" or the "tripwire." It's a metaphor for breaking the glass — or crossing the threshold — between peace and war.
...

Tripwires are the kind of forces that NATO has deployed in Eastern Europe, including the Baltics where Canada leads the Latvia contingent, to counter any further aggression by Moscow.
...

The Danes are currently planning to host a military exercise in the region that could include Canadians, but a spokesperson for Defence Minister David McGuinty said no decision has been made. The political significance of joining the Danish initiative would be staggering, said a defence expert.
...

"Members of the alliance are putting together a tripwire to try to deter Donald Trump, and what that tells you is we are very much in unprecedented times where we could very much be facing tomorrow, next week, next month American troops pointing their guns at Danish troops," said Steve Saideman, a political scientist who holds the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University.

"It's to deter the United States from engaging in aggression. That's the only reason why they'd be there. And that sends a strong signal about the intense distrust and fear that these countries have of a country that's supposed to be their protector."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/denmark-greenland-trump-annexation-nato-9.7045838

~ in my humble opinion ~​

 

[otto]

It looks like the USA administration is stringing them along, tbh.


jmo

To what end?
Mindgames?
Surely the President of the United States is not a pycho-weirdo who plays mind games with NATO countries.

~ in my humble opinion ~​

 

[Summerliz03]

To what end?
Mindgames?
Surely the President of the United States is not a pycho-weirdo who plays mind games with NATO countries.

~ in my humble opinion ~​

IMO the ONLY thing that President Trump cares about is money - money for his own personal wealth and his family, and money that his billionaire friends can make. That’s literally all it comes down to, on almost every single issue facing this country. Trump is just here to make money. He doesn’t care honestly about Greenland in any capacity except how can the US taking it makes him more money (and power, as a secondary). He doesn’t care if the US is in or out of NATO. It just all boils down to him and the other billionaires in this country making more money. It’s really just that simple. All MOO.

 

[Inthedetails]

Nebraska Republican Don Bacon has blasted President Donald Trump’s talk of taking over Greenland, branding the idea "utter buffoonery" and warning it could spark bipartisan impeachment efforts—underscoring deepening GOP fractures over Trump’s foreign policy brinkmanship.

Republican signals support for Trump impeachment

Don Bacon’s remarks highlight deepening rifts within the Republican Party over Trump’s foreign policy suggestions.

www.newsweek.com

 

[otto]

IMO the ONLY thing that President Trump cares about is money - money for his own personal wealth and his family, and money that his billionaire friends can make. That’s literally all it comes down to, on almost every single issue facing this country. Trump is just here to make money. He doesn’t care honestly about Greenland in any capacity except how can the US taking it makes him more money (and power, as a secondary). He doesn’t care if the US is in or out of NATO. It just all boils down to him and the other billionaires in this country making more money. It’s really just that simple. All MOO.

I would agree with that. The role of Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal play in that get-rich-quick scheme is future trade routes. The US is a null-player in the Arctic region (Alaska doesn't count), but I believe that the US wants an authoritarian role in Arctic Shipping lanes for the sole purpose of charging a tax on every ship that uses the route for global trade.

That is, the US wants a $$ percentage of all international trade between Canada and points East. China wants to use Arctic Shipping Lanes for trade too, and the US wants to stop that entirely.

The ruse of Arctic security is just that: a ruse, and nobody is fooled by it - other than, perhaps, US people who believe everything said by the current US government.

~ in my humble opinion ~​

 

[Gators North]

Apparently .... Denmark says it has "agreed to disagree" with the United States over the future of Greenland after a meeting with top White House officials, but repeated that a US takeover of the territory is "totally unacceptable".

"We have decided to form a high-level working group to explore if we can find a common way forward.
"The group, in our view, should focus on how to address the American security concerns, while at the same time respecting the red lines of the Kingdom of Denmark."

Mr Rasmussen would not say if the meeting led to any sort of compromise, saying it was not the "proper place to elaborate".

European nations send troops to Greenland as White House talks fail

The United States and Denmark continue to disagree over the future of Greenland after a meeting at the White House amid ongoing threats from President Donald Trump threatening to seize the semi-autonomous Danish territory for national security reasons.

www.abc.net.au

Let's go back to the beginning when the US government demanded ownership of the Panama Canal in 2025. Trade Routes. Then the US demanded ownership of Canada in 2025. Future Trade Routes: Arctic Shipping Lanes. Next, the US demanded ownership of Greenland in 2026. The Arctic represents trade routes of the future.

The problem for the US is that their country is too far South to be a major player in Arctic trade routes. The US has a little piece of the Arctic next to Russia (Alaska), but most land is waaay down South. The US appears to be upset that it is not a major player in future Arctic Shipping Lanes. The US can control Arctic trade routes to the West (Alaska), but has no control over routes from Canada to points East.

That appears to have made the US government really mad - mad enough to wage Economic War against Canada, and to threaten military aggression against the Kingdom of Denmark and Greenland. Given the aggression from the US against NATO countries, especially Canada, Denmark and Greenland, it's possible that the US wants full authoritarian control of Arctic Shipping Lanes to impose tax, or tariff (get RICH RICH RICH), on any country using the Arctic Shipping Lanes.

In the first exercise, the following countries will have military representation in Greenland before the weekend (info from various articles):

France
Germany
Norway
UK
the Netherlands
Finland
Estonia

"A 15-strong French military contingent has arrived in Greenland's capital Nuuk, as several European states send soldiers there as part of a so-called reconnaissance mission.

The deployment, which will also include personnel from Germany, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and the UK, comes as US President Donald Trump continues to press his claim to the Arctic island, which is a semi-autonomous part of Denmark.

French President Emmanuel Macron said the initial contingent would be reinforced soon with "land, air, and sea assets".
...

"The president's ambition is on the table," the Danish diplomat told Fox News. "Of course we have our red lines. This is 2026, you trade with people but you don't trade people."
...

"Greenland does not want to be owned by the United States. Greenland does not want to be governed by the United States. Greenland does not want to be part of the United States," he stressed."

European military personnel arrive in Greenland as Trump says US needs island

France says a small military contingent has arrived and more forces will be there in the coming days.

www.bbc.com

View attachment 637427

~ in my humble opinion ~​

Otto, from your article:

“
In the first exercise, the following countries will have military representation in Greenland before the weekend (info from various articles):

France
Germany
Norway
UK
the Netherlands
Finland
Estonia”

To this I say: GO EUROPE!

MOO

 

[Gators North]

The thin line between war and peace in Greenland has been set. The US has two choices: war, or democracy.

"Denmark sets a military tripwire. It's a message to Trump more than Russia or China

In military deterrence lingo, what we're witnessing in Greenland is sometimes referred to as the "glass plate" or the "tripwire." It's a metaphor for breaking the glass — or crossing the threshold — between peace and war.
...

Tripwires are the kind of forces that NATO has deployed in Eastern Europe, including the Baltics where Canada leads the Latvia contingent, to counter any further aggression by Moscow.
...

The Danes are currently planning to host a military exercise in the region that could include Canadians, but a spokesperson for Defence Minister David McGuinty said no decision has been made. The political significance of joining the Danish initiative would be staggering, said a defence expert.
...

"Members of the alliance are putting together a tripwire to try to deter Donald Trump, and what that tells you is we are very much in unprecedented times where we could very much be facing tomorrow, next week, next month American troops pointing their guns at Danish troops," said Steve Saideman, a political scientist who holds the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University.

"It's to deter the United States from engaging in aggression. That's the only reason why they'd be there. And that sends a strong signal about the intense distrust and fear that these countries have of a country that's supposed to be their protector."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/denmark-greenland-trump-annexation-nato-9.7045838

~ in my humble opinion ~​

You know the choice is going to be war, because the POTUS has the mindset of a stubborn toddler and won’t back down. MOO

 

[Inthedetails]

Otto, from your article:

“
In the first exercise, the following countries will have military representation in Greenland before the weekend (info from various articles):

France
Germany
Norway
UK
the Netherlands
Finland
Estonia”

To this I say: GO EUROPE!

MOO

I was curious about Germany's military, given post-WWII restrictions, and learned about Bundeswehr, which was established in the 1950s in Germany. Interesting history for those who want to delve (or dip) into it.

jmopinion

 

[Stunned]

To what end?
Mindgames?
Surely the President of the United States is not a pycho-weirdo who plays mind games with NATO countries.

~ in my humble opinion ~​

Yeah, he is. IMO

 

[Inthedetails]

You know the choice is going to be war, because the POTUS has the mindset of a stubborn toddler and won’t back down. MOO

I don't know. I think he will bring world tensions to the absolute brink and then make some sort of deal and make everyone say thank you.

I realize I could be wrong, especially in wake of what is happening in other places under this administration's direction. But I'm thinking this will be a slide into an uneven compromise.

But, it's next to impossible to predict, imo.

jmopinion

 

[CrimeDawg123]

I was curious about Germany's military, given post-WWII restrictions, and learned about Bundeswehr, which was established in the 1950s in Germany. Interesting history for those who want to delve (or dip) into it.

jmopinion

Very ironic Germany is now an anti-fascist fighting force against the US.

 

[otto]

I don't know. I think he will bring world tensions to the absolute brink and then make some sort of deal and make everyone say thank you.

I realize I could be wrong, especially in wake of what is happening in other places under this administration's direction. But I'm thinking this will be a slide into an uneven compromise.

But, it's next to impossible to predict, imo.

jmopinion

Europe is very aware of their failings prior to WW2, and the mistake of appeasing aggressive authoritarian governments. Those lessons are not forgotten.

The EU knows from experience that conceding anything in relation to sovereign nations will enable and entitle the aggressor. The aggressive United States cannot continue to be treated as some sort of psychologically warbled nation where flattery of the president is the solution to absurd notions.

"On September 29–30, 1938, an international conference took place in Munich. The attendees were Chamberlain, Hitler, French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier, and Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. The Czechoslovak government was not included in the negotiations. In Munich, Chamberlain and the others agreed to the cession of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia to Germany, effective October 1. In exchange for the Sudeten concessions, Hitler renounced any claims to the rest of Czechoslovakia. War was averted for the time being. The British, French, and Italians blatantly disregarded Czechoslovakia’s sovereignty in the name of avoiding war.

The Munich Agreement was Britain’s most significant act of appeasement to date.

Churchill claimed that the British policy of appeasement had “deeply compromised, and perhaps fatally endangered, the safety and even the independence of Great Britain and France.”

The Munich Agreement failed to stop Nazi Germany’s territorial aggression. In March 1939, Nazi Germany dismantled Czechoslovakia and occupied the Czech lands, including Prague. Based on Hitler’s rhetoric, it was clear that the Nazis’ next target was Poland, Germany’s neighbor to the east.

The British Policy of Appeasement toward Hitler and Nazi Germany | Holocaust Encyclopedia

In the 1930s, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and the British government pursued a policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany to avoid war. Learn more.

encyclopedia.ushmm.org

~ in my humble opinion ~​

 

[seasideForest]

I don't know. I think he will bring world tensions to the absolute brink and then make some sort of deal and make everyone say thank you.

jmo

I fear that or all out war, ww3. MOO

 

[otto]

I fear that or all out war, ww3. MOO

Merely an opinion, but we've seen a hard black & white divide within the US for a few year. Both political sides refuse a centrist position, both are determined to "win" at all cost.

It started with Republicans wanting to conquer Democrats. Then it became Republicans wanting to conquer migrants. Next, South America. The US took a run at Canada and failed. Now it's Greenland. Within the US, one side is "get 'em", meaning many targets, and the other is "get 'em", meaning the elected political party. Everyone wants to win.

I was listening to CBC news recently and heard this: Trump was elected because that is who the people of the US are today. People in the US want to believe that they are who they are today because Trump was elected.

War sounds exciting to many in the US. It's great evening entertainment with live-stream protests and endless fighting, taunting, ridicule, name-calling, the usual oneupmanship with the occasional death. Everyone learns to chant with swearing every third word. That's what people outside the US see.

~ in my humble opinion ~​

 

[303gmf]

To what end?
Mindgames?
Surely the President of the United States is not a pycho-weirdo who plays mind games with NATO countries.

~ in my humble opinion ~​

Surely he is, an idiot at that

 

[Gators North]

Merely an opinion, but we've seen a hard black & white divide within the US for a few year. Both political sides refuse a centrist position, both are determined to "win" at all cost.

It started with Republicans wanting to conquer Democrats. Then it became Republicans wanting to conquer migrants. Next, South America. The US took a run at Canada and failed. Now it's Greenland. Within the US, one side is "get 'em", meaning many targets, and the other is "get 'em", meaning the elected political party. Everyone wants to win.

I was listening to CBC news recently and heard this: Trump was elected because that is who the people of the US are today. People in the US want to believe that they are who they are today because Trump was elected.

War sounds exciting to many in the US. It's great evening entertainment with live-stream protests and endless fighting, taunting, ridicule, name-calling, the usual oneupmanship with the occasional death. Everyone learns to chant with swearing every third word. That's what people outside the US see.

~ in my humble opinion ~​

I didn’t vote for Trump and I don’t want this. And many of the people I know feel the same way. Not all Americans are bad; there’s a good percentage of us who are downright decent people, not ignoramuses with one brain cell (if that). MOO

 

[crcap]

Merely an opinion, but we've seen a hard black & white divide within the US for a few year. Both political sides refuse a centrist position, both are determined to "win" at all cost.

It started with Republicans wanting to conquer Democrats. Then it became Republicans wanting to conquer migrants. Next, South America. The US took a run at Canada and failed. Now it's Greenland. Within the US, one side is "get 'em", meaning many targets, and the other is "get 'em", meaning the elected political party. Everyone wants to win.

I was listening to CBC news recently and heard this: Trump was elected because that is who the people of the US are today. People in the US want to believe that they are who they are today because Trump was elected.

War sounds exciting to many in the US. It's great evening entertainment with live-stream protests and endless fighting, taunting, ridicule, name-calling, the usual oneupmanship with the occasional death. Everyone learns to chant with swearing every third word. That's what people outside the US see.

~ in my humble opinion ~​

Merely an opinion indeed. Many of us did not vote for this.

 

[keek]

Merely an opinion indeed. Many of us did not vote for this.

It's a TYPE of person that's described. t was not voted 'in' by the majority of voters. There was a 3rd party unfortunately that took votes that may of been not for him but for their person and don't know if those people would of voted for Harris if there were the two parties only. I forget who that was somehow. There is a bad, to me, process, called electoral voting.. (something) so it's not exact votes that automatically go to either party. He did not get those, the electoral college (?) made it work that way. Plus, the alleged interference with the voting again, Musk's laughing little vid, to me, showed he was well aware of that and enjoyed his little inside joke on that matter. Musk was all for pushing t due to the power and money to be had for HIM as well. I guess on the outside, in general, quick viewing, hearing, outside the U.S would think this, as I read and see articles about other countries when they make the news regarding their presidents or such and I would never e able to honestly say I am informed on it all as I do not live there and participate. I think Macron is excellent, but I find my G B friends do NOT think so, see? I thought bREXIT was a terrible idea and I don't live there, but it made it seem, from my readings around, that it would not be in GB's best interest. IMO

 

[Inthedetails]

Let's not re-hash the election and opinions on voters (and I'm sitting on my hands to type that, which isn't easy).

The issue at hand is an administration that wants to take over Greenland. There is little productive to be had in tallying up who voted for whom a year ago. We have reality in front of us now.

jmopinion