Is anyone uncertain about the cost of invading a military ally to acquire more "vital" space?
The only language Trump and Putin speak is blunt power. (Except Trump also responds well to flattery. I doubt you'd get very far with Putin speaking that language.)
So it allows US to sap the resources of the adversary, making it even more expensive to hold Denmark. And that is ultimately the goal, because the more pain in the ass and expensive it is for Denmark to hold Greenland, the quicker there will be for pressure for Greenland to become independent.
And independence is only a hop, skip, and jump away from foreign influence; given that Greenland is indefensible without alliance and economically heavily subsidized.
That's valid for like 99% of countries on the planet so I'm not sure what signals it sends.
They could use the same logic to invade Germany tomorrow if they wanted, who's going to stop them anyways ?
And no, 99% of countries on the planet do not get 10-15k of outside subsidies per resident.
Also I think you are ignoring nuance on the importance of alliance; the population density and population is incredibly low and they are situated quite close to the US. The US has disproportionately strong-armed virtually every nation around it of similar size/strength; that's why central America and the Caribbean are chalk full of stories of US meddling. It's not similar to places like Brazil where an invasion of a world power would still cost an adversary a lot more than they bargain for in ground losses even without alliance even if the adversary would doubtlessly win a clear victory. They are far weaker at the negotiation table than, say, Germany, when in comes to foreign influence.
When you create a bluff pretending to be an enemy, do you still count as an ally?
The broad advantage of having a "felt of society" —mutually overlapping circles— as opposed to a "fabric of society", is that the latter is much easier to tear.
(b) I'm more optimistic. Indeed, on the scale of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46510437 I'm currently on "practise speaking Cantonese".
Why? Because even if Oceania, Rasia, and Eastasia want to play 1984 sphere of influence games, we can probably position ourselves neutrally, to trade freely with all of them — and whenever one has designs on us, then the other two would naturally be forced to counter.
The US have the ability to do everything up to and including basing troops and missiles there, today, under treaty so it's unclear what is meant by the US need for "security."
We're trashing that relationship not just with Denmark but with NATO. What gains do we see that can offset that?
I guess this is not just a rhetorical question, but what is more secure than stable relationships with existing allies?
After you militarily threaten multiple allies, do they still count as allies? Or at least, are you still seen as an ally by them?
It's probably a more realistic outcome however is that no one really trusts the US any more and trump has just hastened the decline as the EU looks inward more, and other areas move more quickly to get support from china.
I don't think that Bush II threatened to invade Europe, and that Europe responded by preparing for an invasion, though.
I think someone has shown Trump the Project Iceworm documents and he decided that it would be a great addition to the Golden Dome repertoire.
The reason Trump wants Denmark is for vanity purposes.
If Denmark actually can shitcan the place while making it look like a victory they would definitely do it. Although the only way I think they can pull that off is by convincing Greenland to become independent and then the US swooping in when Greenland realizes their free money hydrant has turned off and they need a new sugar daddy because all those minerals they're sitting on aren't actually worth a dime unless someone is dumb enough to try and use them in one of the most hostile inhabited environments on earth to mine them.
Correction: This is more than Trump not being Presidential!
But the US already had excellent relations with Denmark and could probably have gotten mining rights or whatever they wanted without this weird display of power.
The huge downside to that would be it would quickly demonstrate how incredibly expensive, slow and uncertain such mining operations would be.
I must conclude the annexation of Greenland is mostly a play for the US domestic audience. Very similar to Russia - Ukraine. Maybe a way to put pressure on Canada too.
A number of my Canadian friends are of the opinion that if the US takes Greenland, Canada will be the next acquisition target. I really, really wish I could argue against that notion.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/denmark-greenland-face-...
Indeed, there would likely be a great deal of backlash in the military itself.
This is not what Americans want. It cannot even be said that those who voted for Our National Embarrassment want this, because He Who Shall Not Be Named ran on an isolationist, xenophobic platform that pledged "no new wars" and that he would be the "president of peace".
It's clear that Stephen Miller in all of his fascist eggheaded brain thinks that he can just do a real quick annexation and is one of the key people pushing for this. But I don't think any of them are prepared for the fallout.
It's clear that Trump acts alone in foreign policy - formal channels and structures can barely check him. However, informal resistance still appears to exist. Trump apparently still takes into account the vibes of the people he surrounds himself with into account. In a haphazard way yes, but it's clear that Trump can be swayed to some degree by those around him.
The Trump administration is not a unified bloc, and there are likely many elements that see annexing Greenland as ridiculous. However, if they lost access, then they would be forced to concede that there was something actually valuable to gain.
Months ago, the US was an ally of Denmark and Greenland. Greenland allowed an ally to have their military stationed there, because it served both (through NATO).
From one day to the other, the US behave like an enemy. And the US behave erratically. So NATO still exists on the paper because the US haven't invaded anyone yet, but the US are behaving like enemies and threaten to invade.
Seems more than rational, from the point of view of the rest of NATO, to prepare for an invasion, but at the same time hope that NATO still exists and that the US are not actually an enemy (probably not an ally anymore, but "partner" is better than "enemy").
Or am I missing something?
Censorship in HN came to a point that can't be ignored anymore.
It is ok to post an article saying Trump will send troops to Greenland, but a post saying Denmark will send troops defend Greenland is flagged?
It's ridiculous.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
There’s not really a shortage of other places to discuss this story; a lot of political stories that are well-covered in the mainstream media get flagged not because of censorship but because you can find that story everywhere else.
A military intervention in Greenland by the US is a total distraction, and is not going to happen. The native people of Greenland need to however be surveyed to determine the minimum amount of money that they will be willing to accept to voluntarily align with the US -- there is a number, and it ought to be determined. The survey would have to be structured such that there is a proportionate penalty in reward for quoting above the median value, as this is the way to arrive at the minimum. For example, if the median were to be $10K, but someone had quoted $15K, they could receive `max(0, 10 - log(15-10))` which is $8K, with the remaining $2K going as an extra reward to those who quoted under the median.
The majority of Greenlanders want independence. That percentage would possibly increase if they knew that they had solid support for statehood with good security agreements and trade agreements from the US.
Strong pressure on Denmark from the US would likely get Greenland their independence. If Greenlanders want it, then many Danes would feel obligated to give it to them. US pressure would help turn that into reality.
Once Greenland is independent, then those trade & security agreements mentioned would provide the US with the minerals or whatever it's truly after.
mooreds•1h ago