• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

True, but he's also talked about buying, too, so back to "what he says" vs. "what he means".
Here is a theory/claim about what is meant by "buying" Greenland - that the US would buy out Denmark's claim, leaving Greenland completely independent and free to enter into any kind of new association it chooses, if any.
 
Here is a theory/claim about what is meant by "buying" Greenland - that the US would buy out Denmark's claim, leaving Greenland completely independent and free to enter into any kind of new association it chooses, if any.
Cool - now, just like the details of America's viceroyship arrangement with Venezuela, it would be nice to hear details from either POTUS47 himself or one of his team. VEN I can wait a bit longer, given the recent & kinetic nature of events, but Greenland's been on their burner for a while.
 
Cool - now, just like the details of America's viceroyship arrangement with Venezuela, it would be nice to hear details from either POTUS47 himself or one of his team. VEN I can wait a bit longer, given the recent & kinetic nature of events, but Greenland's been on their burner for a while.
One would hope. But as I posited some long time ago, surely by now his team (if not Trump himself) has noticed that they can throw their political opponents off balance and into time- and other resource-wasting tantrums by being as explosively insultingly provocative as possible.
 
Here is a theory/claim about what is meant by "buying" Greenland - that the US would buy out Denmark's claim, leaving Greenland completely independent and free to enter into any kind of new association it chooses, if any.
And what if the Inuit of Greenland say they want to join Canada and be with their kin in the CDN Arctic, then what?
 
One would hope. But as I posited some long time ago, surely by now his team (if not Trump himself) has noticed that they can throw their political opponents off balance and into time- and other resource-wasting tantrums by being as explosively insultingly provocative as possible.
Waiting to hear from them that they must have St Pierre et Miquelon for their security and well being.
 
Waiting to hear from them that they must have St Pierre et Miquelon for their security and well being.
Of course. They dominate the lowest reaches of the St Lawrence Seaway. The US absolutely has to have them in case QC or one of the Atlantic provinces gets frisky.
 
Hard to say. Tongue-in-cheek, we'd look quite the fools if we say yes to a mostly-slab-of-ice after saying no to a tropical paradise.
I was reading an interesting take on that recently from someone who was invoked in the security assessment. Apparently bringing in T&C would have been an absolute nightmare from the standpoint of border and immigration security. Really changed my thinking on it.
 
It is difficult to operate in the Arctic but not impossible. The difficulty means that only people that want to operate there and are committed to operating there will devote the effort to prosecute a successful campaign.

People that want to drop in, declare victory and return home are going to be confronted by people that have no intention of leaving and have different appreciations of what comfort and survival require.

In those conditions a couple of locals can keep hundreds of freezing foreigners engaged for months as they watch bits and pieces turn black and drop off.

Arriving is the easy bit. Staying is difficult.

Better to make a deal and offer to keep other foreigners out.
 
I was reading an interesting take on that recently from someone who was invoked in the security assessment. Apparently bringing in T&C would have been an absolute nightmare from the standpoint of border and immigration security. Really changed my thinking on it.
Meh, just give it a charter to operate as a modern-day Tortuga without actual pirates.
 
Greenland is a weak spot.
For the US, for Canada, for the Scandinavians, for the Brits, and for the Europeans.

It has been a weak spot for a long time, just like our Arctic.

The US has devoted a lot of resources to infrastructure in Alaska. It has also spent a lot of money in Canada and in Greenland and Iceland. The Scandinavians for obvious reasons have devoted American levels of investment in their arctic infrastructure and defence.

The laggards are the Danes, the Icelanders and ourselves. The Danes and Icelanders have an excuse. There aren't many of them. The economic costs are high. And Denmark has the additional excuse of covering the cost of defendkng its strategically placed homeland.

I can't help but think a lot of what is happening is geared towards creating massive uncertainty here in Canada with a view to rewriting the relationship.

This year, before the mid-terms and with the renewal of the free trade agreement in mind, is likely to be a make or break year.

Things are going to look a lot different in '27.




 
Greenland is a weak spot.
For the US, for Canada, for the Scandinavians, for the Brits, and for the Europeans.

It has been a weak spot for a long time, just like our Arctic.

The US has devoted a lot of resources to infrastructure in Alaska. It has also spent a lot of money in Canada and in Greenland and Iceland. The Scandinavians for obvious reasons have devoted American levels of investment in their arctic infrastructure and defence.

The laggards are the Danes, the Icelanders and ourselves. The Danes and Icelanders have an excuse. There aren't many of them. The economic costs are high. And Denmark has the additional excuse of covering the cost of defendkng its strategically placed homeland.

I can't help but think a lot of what is happening is geared towards creating massive uncertainty here in Canada with a view to rewriting the relationship.

This year, before the mid-terms and with the renewal of the free trade agreement in mind, is likely to be a make or break year.

Things are going to look a lot different in '27.




Trump is worried about Impeachment- he’s openly talking about it to his base.
 
I think we are being kept hanging, allowed to observe the fates of others and given time to contemplate our own fate before being asked to rejoin the conversation.
 
Greenland is a weak spot.
For the US, for Canada, for the Scandinavians, for the Brits, and for the Europeans.

It has been a weak spot for a long time, just like our Arctic.

The US has devoted a lot of resources to infrastructure in Alaska. It has also spent a lot of money in Canada and in Greenland and Iceland. The Scandinavians for obvious reasons have devoted American levels of investment in their arctic infrastructure and defence.

The laggards are the Danes, the Icelanders and ourselves. The Danes and Icelanders have an excuse. There aren't many of them. The economic costs are high. And Denmark has the additional excuse of covering the cost of defendkng its strategically placed homeland.

I can't help but think a lot of what is happening is geared towards creating massive uncertainty here in Canada with a view to rewriting the relationship.

This year, before the mid-terms and with the renewal of the free trade agreement in mind, is likely to be a make or break year.

Things are going to look a lot different in '27.




It’s a good thing that we’ve got 6 AOPS active now, with a JSS and a CCGS AOPS about to come online in 2026 as well.
 
Back
Top