2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[QV]

How wild is it really?

Buying Greenland Isn’t a New Idea | Department of History

Denmark wanted to sell it a century ago. The U.S. didn’t bite but did acquire the Virgin Islands.Critics are sharpening their pens to excoriate President Trump for again proposing to purchase Greenland. The real-estate baron wants to buy not only the land but also Greenland’s political...

history.stanford.edu

 

[brihard]

How wild is it really?

Buying Greenland Isn’t a New Idea | Department of History

Denmark wanted to sell it a century ago. The U.S. didn’t bite but did acquire the Virgin Islands.Critics are sharpening their pens to excoriate President Trump for again proposing to purchase Greenland. The real-estate baron wants to buy not only the land but also Greenland’s political...

history.stanford.edu

If Trump was just talking about buying it that would be one thing. But members of his administration explicitly refuse to rule out military conquest, and they rhetoric seems to be escalating. That’s very, very different.

Also Denmark seems much less inclined to sell it now than they did five generations ago.

 

[Furniture]

It makes sense for the US to acquire Greenland - legally and diplomatically of course. Everything and everyone has a price, they just need to get there.

In today's world I'd rather the US control Greenland then a small European country that won't have North America's interests at top of mind.

The rhetoric from the White House essentially makes that impossible.

Overt hostility might be fine in private negotiations at the corporate level, but it doesn't work in international politics.

 

[Altair]

The fact that the EU hasn't placed several thousand troops in Greenland and a nuclear armed French jet or two is beyond me.

 

[Brad Sallows]

We don't need to buy they're jets, but they're the best on the market and I'd rather not cut off our nose to spite our face to end up with crappy Gripens no matter how many lies Saab sells.

A few people seem to enjoy this theme:

• trade less with the US
• trade more with China

Not a theme I can take seriously.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Depending on how seriously Denmark takes UNDRIP and the general right of self-determination, Trump could just keep making cash offers to the indigenous inhabitants until he finds their price. Make US territorial status part of the offer.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I think the quicker Canada wakes up and realizes the world has changed and the old version is not coming back, the better.

And what does that mean to you, for Canada? Does that mean that we should be initializing a Tiger team to discuss the pro's and con's of Canada developing and acquiring tactical nuclear weapons?

Because if the world has changed, then we need to throw out the old beliefs and start looking at accepting some new ones.

 

[Czech_pivo]

A few people seem to enjoy this theme:

• trade less with the US
• trade more with China

Not a theme I can take seriously.

Trade less with the US
Trade more with everyone else
It pretty straight forward

 

[Czech_pivo]

Depending on how seriously Denmark takes UNDRIP and the general right of self-determination, Trump could just keep making cash offers to the indigenous inhabitants until he finds their price. Make US territorial status part of the offer.

As someone who has family (by law) from Puerto Rico (and family still there), its not really a situation that would be better for them - not by a long shot.

 

[Kirkhill]

I find the most disconcerting thing about Trump is his casual attitude.

He invites Xi to supper and casually excuses himself to deal with a missile attack on Syria, one of Xi's clients.
He casually discusses taking over allies, destroying their economies, making friends with their enemies.
He regularly throws tantrums, so regularly that they are casually dismissed.
He acts and retracts. Was that a probe, or a feint, or a forced retreat?
Intentionally or otherwise he has created uncertainty, with many believing that he may try to match deeds to words.
As in Venezela.

In a transparent world where technology has reduced everything to the ability to surprise, and surprise is hard to generate, he continues to surprise.

Does he have a workable plan or does he just enjoy being surprising?
Some of his advisors have published plans.

Hilary wanted a Reset.



Her diplomacy, like that of Obama and Biden, didn't achieve the desired effect.

Trump is achieving effects. A lot of them. And while there is a planet full of angry, nervous, unhappy people, people forced out of their comfort zones, and forced to take actions comparable to actions they might have taken after a war, there has been no war. At least not of the red button type.

Can he have the impact of Roosevelt-Truman-Eisenhower without the casualties?

 

[Brad Sallows]

As someone who has family (by law) from Puerto Rico (and family still there), its not really a situation that would be better for them - not by a long shot.

Is there someone with family in Greenland and Puerto Rico both, to make a meaningful (if still anecdotal) comparison?

US citizenship and the freedom to live and work in the US is worth a lot.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Is there someone with family in Greenland and Puerto Rico both, to make a meaningful (if still anecdotal) comparison?

US citizenship and the freedom to live and work in the US is worth a lot.

Only for those who would want to move there.

Do you not understand that all 57,000 Greenlanders have the ability to live/work anywhere in the EU?

Also, have a read about the US and its former policies in PR. Not a shining beacon of light on a hill.

U.S. sterilization policies in Puerto Rico - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Following Puerto Rico's annexation by the United States in 1898, American officials increasingly viewed the island's growing population as both an economic and racial concern.

This marked the beginning of a colonial relationship that would shape Puerto Rican society and its people for decades to come. As a territory, Puerto Rico had no full political representation in the U.S. government, yet its population became subject to U.S. policies, including those aimed at managing its economy and controlling its social structures.

Sterilization in Puerto Rico was not only a social issue but also a legal and institutionalized policy. In the 1930s, the U.S. government, in collaboration with Puerto Rican officials, began promoting sterilization as part of broader population control efforts. Early policies encouraged women to undergo sterilization voluntarily, but the practice soon became more coercive. By the 1940s, sterilization programs were explicitly endorsed by both the Puerto Rican government and U.S. health agencies as a public health measure to address what was perceived as an overpopulation crisis.

Sterilization rates soared through the 1950s and 1960s, with Harriet Presser reporting that by the late 1960s, nearly a third of Puerto Rican mothers aged 20 to 49 had been sterilized. This practice became a key part of U.S. public health policy on the island, with sterilization often promoted as a solution to both poverty and population control.

 

[McG]

US citizenship and the freedom to live and work in the US is worth a lot.

Maybe that was true when the country was a still functioning democracy without an authoritarian oligarchy at the helm. Of course, back then the country would not threaten an ally with annexation (militarily or otherwise).

Imposing a union on a people is evil. Forcibly annexing land is evil. Don't rationalize/justify/minimize evil.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Maybe that was true when the country was a still functioning democracy without an authoritarian oligarchy at the helm. Of course, back then the country would not threaten an ally with annexation (militarily or otherwise).

Your evidence that American citizens can't move and work and vote freely in the US is...?

Imposing a union on a people is evil. Forcibly annexing land is evil. Don't rationalize/justify/minimize evil.

Invasion would be forcible annexation. People choosing to exercise self-determination or a change of sovereignty would not be, irrespective of whether what amounts to a bribe is offered. I'm writing about the latter.

 

[Kirkhill]

Only for those who would want to move there.

Do you not understand that all 57,000 Greenlanders have the ability to live/work anywhere in the EU?

Maybe that was true when the country was a still functioning democracy without an authoritarian oligarchy at the helm. Of course, back then the country would not threaten an ally with annexation (militarily or otherwise).

Imposing a union on a people is evil. Forcibly annexing land is evil. Don't rationalize/justify/minimize evil.

I have to say, I would find it easier today to take a chance on going back to that little hole in the wall Greenland pub in Copenhagen than crossing the border into the US.

And that is despite having to fend off a queer Eskimo who only backed off when a one-eyed maritime insurance appraiser from Iceland declared that I was with him.....

 

[Czech_pivo]

Your evidence that American citizens can't move and work and vote freely in the US is...?

Invasion would be forcible annexation. People choosing to exercise self-determination or a change of sovereignty would not be, irrespective of whether what amounts to a bribe is offered. I'm writing about the latter.

Yes - here is your evidence, specifically about Puerto Rico. They ARE US Citizens, but they CANNOT vote in US Presidential elections.

No, residents of Puerto Rico, as U.S. citizens living on the island, cannot vote for the U.S. President in the general election because Puerto Rico is a territory, not a state, and only states and D.C. have Electoral College votes. However, they can participate in the presidential primaries and can vote in the general election if they move to one of the 50 states or Washington, D.C

 

[Brad Sallows]

Yes - here is your evidence, specifically about Puerto Rico. They ARE US Citizens, but they CANNOT vote in US Presidential elections.

No, residents of Puerto Rico, as U.S. citizens living on the island, cannot vote for the U.S. President in the general election because Puerto Rico is a territory, not a state, and only states and D.C. have Electoral College votes. However, they can participate in the presidential primaries and can vote in the general election if they move to one of the 50 states or Washington, D.C

As you quoted, I wrote about US citizens moving and working and voting in the US.

 

[CBH99]

NATO is only finished if the European members and Canada lack the will to simply expel the US. I can't see any practical way to reconcile, except that politicians are often capable of gross inconsistencies and hypocrisies in pursuit of political exigencies. There might have to be a divorce; it isn't in the same universe as the kinds of tensions that exist between some European members and lead to rare transgressions. But there doesn't have to be a dissolution. Some Europeans would undoubtedly welcome the opportunity to replace NATO with a purely EU-focused alliance.

Not much point getting worked up about this hypothetical until it happens. Trump is easily distracted, especially by someone willing to soothe and stroke his ego. A small price to pay, but almost everyone insists on meeting his combative bluster with equal combativeness. They are all proud peoples, you see.

NATO already is an EU-focused alliance though...

The US sells arms to all EU members at some level, garrisons thousands of troops and multiple fighter squadrons in various EU countries, and even has a dedicated naval fleet that solely exists & trains to fight in the North Atlantic on behalf of it's EU allies.

Canada also pre-positions some warfighting equipment & troops in a EU country, and has contingency plans in place to deploy additional ground & air assets to the European theatre



The EU couldn't replace NATO with a more EU focus if they tried. NATO's very existence is solely focused on the defence of the EU.

Like what could NATO do to be more EU focused?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Like what could NATO do to be more EU focused?

As I wrote: "purely" rather than "mostly".

One of the annoying fictions advanced by some political writers is that Europe owes its last few decades of mostly peace to the EU. I maintain it's owed to NATO. If the US abandons or betrays NATO, Europe can step up and fulfill their wishes, and the wishes of those working toward "ever closer union".

 

[brihard]

So a White House press announcement just explicitly said that the use of the military is an option for the ‘important policy objective’ of acquiring Greenland. So, I mean, there’s that.

US discussing options to acquire Greenland, including use of military - White House

It came as European allies rallied behind Denmark after renewed US insistence it must have Greenland.

www.bbc.com