2026 US-Denmark Tensions/End of NATO

[QV]

And the response to the purchase offer was a decisive ‘no’. That should end that on the spot.

Your response is simply an emotional response to Trump's involvement recently. Here are the past times US purchase of Greenland has come up in American circles:


1867: Following the purchase of Alaska, Secretary of State William H. Seward showed interest in buying Greenland, although no official offer was made at the time.

1910:The US ambassador to Denmark suggested a three-way deal involving a land swap involving the Philippines and the Danish West Indies (now US Virgin Islands) to acquire Greenland.

1946: Under President Harry Truman, the US secretly offered to buy Greenland for $100 million in cash and potentially trading a portion of Alaska, which Denmark rejected.

1955: The Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended that President Dwight D. Eisenhower explore acquiring the island again, though no formal offer was made.

2019/2020s: President Donald Trump formally expressed interest in purchasing the island, reigniting discussion and causing diplomatic tension after Denmark refused.


The US clearly views Greenland as very important in terms of strategic defence. I doubt this issue will ever just be totally dropped.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Your response is simply an emotional response to Trump's involvement recently. Here are the past times US purchase of Greenland has come up in American circles:


1867: Following the purchase of Alaska, Secretary of State William H. Seward showed interest in buying Greenland, although no official offer was made at the time.

1910:The US ambassador to Denmark suggested a three-way deal involving a land swap involving the Philippines and the Danish West Indies (now US Virgin Islands) to acquire Greenland.

1946: Under President Harry Truman, the US secretly offered to buy Greenland for $100 million in cash and potentially trading a portion of Alaska, which Denmark rejected.

1955: The Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended that President Dwight D. Eisenhower explore acquiring the island again, though no formal offer was made.

2019/2020s: President Donald Trump formally expressed interest in purchasing the island, reigniting discussion and causing diplomatic tension after Denmark refused.


The US clearly views Greenland as very important in terms of strategic defence. I doubt this issue will ever just be totally dropped.

Strategic defence or empire building expansion?

Explain how in 1867 or 1910 it would have been 'strategic defence'? In 1946, acquiring it in exchange for trading part of Alaska would have been 'strategic defence' how?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Strategic defence or empire building expansion?

Explain how in 1867 or 1910 it would have been 'strategic defence'? In 1946, acquiring it in exchange for trading part of Alaska would have been 'strategic defence' how?

Really you need to ask that of US Administrations in 1867 and 1910. But one can make a safe assumption that that landmass has had some sort of strategic value to the USA for more than a hundred years now.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Really you need to ask that of US Administrations in 1867 and 1910. But one can make a safe assumption that that landmass has had some sort of strategic value to the USA for more than a hundred years now.

Yes, its called Manifest Destiny.

 

[lenaitch]

With today's reach of surveillance and weapons, I am hard pressed to understand why the US would need Greenland, or any other off-continent territory, for its strategic defence. If it wants to stop being the 'world's policeman' and retrat to Fortress America, why does it need military bases all over the world?

I think the lack of resolve by many NATO countries in allowing the US to use their airspace over this Iran shindig is going to be a major factor in determining who with and how the US decides future defence agreements with.

NATO countries are part of a mutual defence alliance, not branch plants of the US military and foreign policy. Maybe if the US had involved them in the planning they might have received a better reception.

 

[brihard]

Your response is simply an emotional response to Trump's involvement recently. Here are the past times US purchase of Greenland has come up in American circles:


1867: Following the purchase of Alaska, Secretary of State William H. Seward showed interest in buying Greenland, although no official offer was made at the time.

1910:The US ambassador to Denmark suggested a three-way deal involving a land swap involving the Philippines and the Danish West Indies (now US Virgin Islands) to acquire Greenland.

1946: Under President Harry Truman, the US secretly offered to buy Greenland for $100 million in cash and potentially trading a portion of Alaska, which Denmark rejected.

1955: The Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended that President Dwight D. Eisenhower explore acquiring the island again, though no formal offer was made.

2019/2020s: President Donald Trump formally expressed interest in purchasing the island, reigniting discussion and causing diplomatic tension after Denmark refused.


The US clearly views Greenland as very important in terms of strategic defence. I doubt this issue will ever just be totally dropped.

There’s a difference between floating an idea every few years and respecting the decision, and pushing an issue over and over, pestering more and more to the pointed threats and belligerence.

Trump struggles to take ‘no’ for an answer and thinks he can just grab ‘em by the Pituffik.

Greenland and Denmark have both said “no”. Trump doesn’t have to like that answer, but he does have to abide by it.

 

[QV]

With today's reach of surveillance and weapons, I am hard pressed to understand why the US would need Greenland, or any other off-continent territory, for its strategic defence. If it wants to stop being the 'world's policeman' and retrat to Fortress America, why does it need military bases all over the world?


NATO countries are part of a mutual defence alliance, not branch plants of the US military and foreign policy. Maybe if the US had involved them in the planning they might have received a better reception.

Others have written about the strategic importance of Greenland from a space force perspective. You could start your search there and it may assist in your understanding.

The US believed that informing allies prior to their launch would have compromised surprise. I suspect they are correct.

There’s a difference between floating an idea every few years and respecting the decision, and pushing an issue over and over, pestering more and more to the pointed threats and belligerence.

Trump struggles to take ‘no’ for an answer and thinks he can just grab ‘em by the Pituffik.

Greenland and Denmark have both said “no”. Trump doesn’t have to like that answer, but he does have to abide by it.

All I read in this is "Trump sucks"... So what. The point is acquiring Greenland is not a new Trump idea.

 

[quadrapiper]

With today's reach of surveillance and weapons, I am hard pressed to understand why the US would need Greenland, or any other off-continent territory, for its strategic defence. If it wants to stop being the 'world's policeman' and retrat to Fortress America, why does it need military bases all over the world?

NATO countries are part of a mutual defence alliance, not branch plants of the US military and foreign policy. Maybe if the US had involved them in the planning they might have received a better reception.

Sitting back with two oceans* and two okay-to-fantastic neighbours** between you and any hostilities and being the for-profit Arsenal of Freedom for NATO seems much more consistent with the stated Fortress America stuff than whatever the current FLAILEX thinks it's doing.

* Yes, Alaska, but who's invading that and hoping to get anywhere?
** Most, possibly all, of the things that the US has issues with Mexico about are driven by US markets for cheap illicit labour and expensive illicit narcotics.

 

[brihard]

Others have written about the strategic importance of Greenland from a space force perspective. You could start your search there and it may assist in your understanding.

The US believed that informing allies prior to their launch would have compromised surprise. I suspect they are correct.



All I read in this is "Trump sucks"... So what. The point is acquiring Greenland is not a new Trump idea.

Your struggle with reading comprehension is a ‘you’ problem, not a ‘me’ problem. Yes, I believe Trump sucks, but I would feel that way about anyone trying to blatantly bully past the sovereignty of a fellow NATO member.

Trump is just slower than his predecessors to grasp that it ain’t happening.

 

[Kirkhill]

That is the sense of "have to" in your statement:

So again, Trump may be the first time where the world took notice when he proposed buying Greenland while the US had an obligation to defend it, but Trump has been the only president to propose buying Greenland while the US has an obligation to defend ... but his proposal included the caveat of maybe the US would just take it instead. Other world leaders have gained world attention when they decided to just take Czechoslovakia or Kuwait. It is not a pattern of normal, defensible behaviour.

It may not be normal but it should not be surprising in that it is not impossible. As to defensibility...that depends on which side of the table you sit.

 

[Kirkhill]

Strategic defence or empire building expansion?

Same same.
Fish and poison.

Empires occur when defences must be expanded to embrace interests.

 

[Kirkhill]

With today's reach of surveillance and weapons, I am hard pressed to understand why the US would need Greenland, or any other off-continent territory, for its strategic defence. If it wants to stop being the 'world's policeman' and retrat to Fortress America, why does it need military bases all over the world?

For the same reason the Spanish want Gibraltar, Cyprus is still a contentious issue, Kennedy wanted the Russians out of Cuba (and the Russians wanted to be there), and the Vikings chose to establish themselves on islands.

An island is still a hard nut to crack.

....

It is foolish to rely on laws for your protection.

Better by far to possess the means of breaking the law and choosing not to employ them than not having access to them when the other guy breaks the law.

The difference between can not and may not, between couldn't and shouldn't.

 

[MrWhyt]

All I read in this is "Trump sucks"... So what. The point is acquiring Greenland is not a new Trump idea.

no but refusing to understand that "No means no" is a trump thing.

 

[Kirkhill]

no but refusing to understand that "No means no" is a trump thing.

Really?

Nobody else has ever refused to accept "no" for an answer?

 

[brihard]

Really?

Nobody else has ever refused to accept "no" for an answer?

View attachment 99671

Except the roles are reversed. This is more like a mafia enforcer ‘urging’ someone to sell a profitable business or a parcel of land they expect to increase in value.

 

[GR66]

Those on here posting that of course what Trump is saying/doing is logical and what any great power/empire in history has said/done are 100% correct. There is nothing here that should shock any student of history.

For those of us that despair at what he's doing to the "World Order" it's because we held the hope that as a species we were slowly evolving away from the "might makes right" mentality and edging toward a world that is much more collaborative and peaceful in its interactions between nations. While it was never even close to perfect, the "Western World", lead in great part by the United States, was in general a solid step in that direction. Certainly an improvement over the "every man for himself" model that Trump is espousing.

 

[MrWhyt]

Really?

Nobody else has ever refused to accept "no" for an answer?

I shall rephrase:

but refusing to understand that "No means no", in regards to the acquisition of Greenland, is a trump thing

 

[Kirkhill]

Those on here posting that of course what Trump is saying/doing is logical and what any great power/empire in history has said/done are 100% correct. There is nothing here that should shock any student of history.

For those of us that despair at what he's doing to the "World Order" it's because we held the hope that as a species we were slowly evolving away from the "might makes right" mentality and edging toward a world that is much more collaborative and peaceful in its interactions between nations. While it was never even close to perfect, the "Western World", lead in great part by the United States, was in general a solid step in that direction. Certainly an improvement over the "every man for himself" model that Trump is espousing.

The issue is one of coercion.

Can the state coerce the individual to be good?

The enlightened hope was that individuals, having the means to do evil, would choose to do good.

Regardless of the best intentions of the state coercion is counter-productive.
After a century of religious wars a small portion of society decided to adopt a model of voluntary co-operation.
Not coercion.

Yes, Trump is demonstrating an every man for himself course,
Perhaps that can be taken as a reminder of the value of voluntary co-operation.
Our own recent ventures into state coercion have been singularly unsuccessful in generating unity of response.

 

[Kirkhill]

I shall rephrase:

but refusing to understand that "No means no", in regards to the acquisition of Greenland, is a trump thing

You do yourself no favours by your focus on Trump while ignoring 400 years of American and European history and the lasting support of 40% of Americans.

The constraints of a regulated state do not sit comfortably with everybody. They are quite happy to see somebody bolt and rip down the fences.

 

[Kirkhill]

Except the roles are reversed. This is more like a mafia enforcer ‘urging’ someone to sell a profitable business or a parcel of land they expect to increase in value.

Salesfolk use both carrots and sticks. They both discomfit their potential client by pointing out the disadvantages of their current situation, and offer hope of a better future if their solution is purchased.

The Mafia are salesfolk after a fashion.

As are the Chinese and the Russians.