They can, but they made abundantly clear that they don't want have anything to do with the US

Countries can be sold?

Greenlanders could vote to be completely independent, yes. That is the situation right now.

However, Trump has done everything to turn Greenlanders away, and not done anything to convince them of independence would be good for them, so a vote for independence will likely fail catastrophically right now. Independence is many decades away, as they would really have to build a stronger economy to make it happen, but that is the direction Greenlanders would like to go, at least if you asked them 2 years ago.

I am happy that some Hacker News commenters are not running countries. One wacko is more than enough.

The risks are totally not worth it and there are a million better ways to increase pressure (like the trade bazooka).

Sadly we, the "good guys", created a dangerous precedent in the balkans when Kosovo unilaterally split from Serbia, under foreign (NATO) occupation moreover.

International law does not promote nor support unilateral secessions. If a region or autonomous republic wants to secede it should only do so in accordance to the host country laws. E.g. the Quebec and Scotland referendums were made in accordance to the host countries of Canada and UK.

But then we created that dangerous case where now every region can secede from their host one unilaterally, even if it's occupied by foreign forces. And in practice, the "legality" of it, really depends on international recognition and the undergoing narratives.

International laws have always been pleasantries, as there's no real ways to enforce them, but there were powerful incentives for everybody to play by the rules.

You can even become your own kingdom (see california, Hawaii, texas, ...) before becoming part of another kingdom.

It may not be straightforward, however; as Linebarger states:

> Formally, war may be defined as the "reciprocal application of violence by public, armed bodies."

> If it is not reciprocal, it is not war, the killing of persons who do not defend themselves is not war, but slaughter, massacre, or punishment.

> If the bodies involved are not public, their violence is not war. Even our enemies in World War II were relatively careful about this distinction, because they did not know how soon or easily a violation of the rules might be scored against them. To be public, the combatants need not be legal—that is, constitutionally set up; it suffices, according to international usage, for the fighters to have a reasonable minimum of numbers, some kind of identification, and a purpose which is political. If you shoot your neighbor, you will be committing mere murder; but if you gather twenty or thirty friends, together, tie a red handkerchief around the left arm of each man, announce that you are out to overthrow the government of the United States, and then shoot your neighbor as a counterrevolutionary impediment to the new order of things, you can have the satisfaction of having waged war. (In practical terms, this means that you will be put to death for treason and rebellion, not merely for murder.)

> ...

Note that this advice was from the mid-XX; in the XXI not all kingdoms seem to recognise the Geneva Conventions anymore!

These days it's probably a case of conjugating irregular verbs?

    I am a (dissident turned) freedom fighter
    You are a (perfidious) combatant
    They are (drug-running) terrorists

> So yes while it technically has self-rule it’s still effectively a colony

Being self sufficient or not isn't part of the definition of a colony

I’m just trying to explain how absurd the proposition is seen from a Danish perspective, and why we from Danish side will continue to say no, as and refer to the same thing as our PM’s have said again and again: this is for Greenlandic people to decide. They would have to vote for it, but all the parties in Greenland are against joining the US.

So whatever proposal or threat of breaking down NATO that Trump will come up with will be met with a no from Danish politicians. It is simply not for them to decide. His only option seen from a Danish perspective is to use the military.

I will correct that, but my point stands that we in Denmark just can’t sell Greenland. It is not for us to decide the future of Greenland.