To suspect the "deal" between the US and Russia Greenland for Ukraine?

[FancyRedRobin]

The way things are shaping up I'm beginning to think the USAs negotiations with Putin were for USA to stand aside and let Putin have part of Ukraine and for Russia to support the US to take Greenland.

Interesting...

Oh, so now capitalism is the answer? That’s rich, considering Europe’s regulatory stranglehold on markets and Canada’s protectionist tendencies.
Buying resources works when the seller has the power to negotiate freely. But what happens when China buys up Greenland’s infrastructure? What happens when they use debt traps like they have in Africa and South America? Suddenly, “just buy it” doesn’t seem so simple.

And let’s be honest nobody is innocent in global politics. You act like America’s expansion of influence is uniquely evil, while Europe built its wealth off colonialism, and China is playing the long game. If you don’t like American power, fine—but don’t pretend anyone else plays by cleaner rules.

No it’s not a frozen rock; I never thought that, it’s a place where people live and they should get a say in who rules them.

If America was truly the enemy, Europe wouldn’t be begging for U.S. defense commitments every time trouble starts. Let’s be honest—European nations want protection, but only on their terms. They want America to stay strong but not act in its own interests. That’s wishful thinking, not strategy.

As for “boots on the ground,” nobody’s invading Denmark or Canada. But let’s flip the question: If America doesn’t secure Greenland, and China or Russia move in, what’s the alternative? Will Canada fight them? Will the EU? No they’ll come running to Washington, as always.

I get it Canada likes to believe it’s morally superior to the U.S. But the reality is, Canada relies on American power for its security while criticizing American strategy from a safe distance.

Canada doesn’t have the military strength to defend the Arctic alone. It barely meets NATO’s defense spending commitments. So when China starts showing interest in Greenland, or Russia increases Arctic military operations, guess who Canada will expect to handle it?

That’s right—the big bad U.S. The difference is, I’d rather act now than wait for a crisis. That’s called thinking ahead.

In theory, sure cooperation sounds great. But in practice, Europe has proven time and again that it won’t act decisively until it’s too late. Look at defense spending. Look at Ukraine—America put in more money and weapons than the entire EU combined.

If America and Europe could align, that’d be ideal. But let’s not pretend Europe is willing to step up. They like to moralize from the sidelines while expecting the U.S. to do the dirty work. If they want a seat at the table, let’s see real commitment, not just lectures.

It’s telling that people think debating U.S. strategy is unacceptable, but criticizing America from every angle is fair game. If people can argue against America’s actions, why shouldn’t we argue in favor of them?

If “expansionism” is automatically evil, why is China’s Belt and Road Initiative tolerated? Why is Russia’s Arctic militarization ignored? The real issue here isn’t expansion it’s who is doing the expanding. And that’s exactly why the U.S. needs to stay ahead because the world doesn’t care about fairness, only power.

People love to criticize America until they need America. The reality is, influence and control matter more than ideology. You don’t secure dominance by waiting for permission. You act. And when history is written, it’s not the ones who hesitated that shaped the future it’s the ones who took charge.

That’s just how the world works. You don’t have to like it, but you’d be foolish to ignore it.

I don't believe this is true any longer.
The world order has changed. Disruptor Trump has moved in and tried to shake everything up. He has no claim on Greenland or Panama or Canada, and he knows it.
There is no vacuum to fill with these countries.
I don't believe anybody was eyeing them up before he started shouting his stupid orange mouth off about them.
But now everybody is talking like they always were up for grabs.
It's gaslighting or just pure garbage being spouted.

You can influence without ruling etc

You say the world order has changed, but that’s exactly why Greenland matters. The balance of power is shifting, and pretending otherwise is naïve at best, reckless at worst.

Let’s get real. The U.S. didn’t suddenly decide Greenland was important because Trump made noise about it. It was always critical for military positioning, Arctic dominance, and resource control. The only difference is, now people are forced to talk about it.

And let’s not kid ourselves China and Russia have always been eyeing the Arctic. You think China has been investing in Greenland’s infrastructure out of kindness? You think Russia’s Arctic military buildup is just for show? Trump didn’t create these threats he just stopped pretending they weren’t happening.

Call it gaslighting if you want, but the real deception is acting like global powers aren’t constantly maneuvering for advantage. The only question is whether the U.S. leads that game or gets played.

Just because Trump/America want Greenland it doesn’t mean he doesn’t s going to get it. All the polls show that that isn’t what the Greenlanders want. Only their opinion matters.

If Trump tries to take it by force, it would breach NATO and he’d find himself in bigger trouble.
The world doesn’t revolve around America.

The world doesn’t revolve around America? Maybe not but history proves it pivots around those who act, not those who sit back and hope for the best. Greenland’s opinion matters, sure, but so does geopolitical reality.

Smaller nations throughout history have had to make hard choices when caught between global powers, and the idea that Greenland’s stance is set in stone ignores how influence actually works.

Economic leverage, security guarantees, and political pressure shift conversations over time China’s already making moves, and if the U.S. doesn’t counter that, someone else will.

If Greenlanders don’t want U.S. control today, what happens when China owns their infrastructure or Russia expands its Arctic presence? The goal isn’t immediate takeover it’s shaping the future before adversaries do.

As for NATO, it’s not some sacred contract preventing nations from acting in their own strategic interest. If securing Greenland is framed as a necessary counter to Russian and Chinese influence, is Europe really going to risk a major rift over it?

The world may not “revolve” around America, but it certainly feels every move it makes. The real question isn’t whether the U.S. should pursue Greenland it’s whether it can afford not to.

It’s the Gulf of Mexico.
Canada is not a US state.
Gaza is not a real estate trade.
Greenland is not for sale.
The world is not American.

Of course we wouldn't be happy for someone to take over the US. That's why we spend $1trillion on defense. That's why we're withdrawing from policing the world. It's too damn expensive. The Europeans seem happy to fight to the last Ukrainian man and the last US dollar, so something needs to give.

Ask yourselves how far you would go to keep Crimea and Donbas in Ukraine, because my educated (I've got a master's degree in this bullshit.) guess is that there is very little Putin would not do to keep it. If Putin gives up Crimea and Donbas, his life expectancy can be counted in hours, and probably also the life expectancies of everyone he cares about. Keeping Crimea and Donbas in Russia is the hill he is likely willing to die on, literally. So how far are you willing to go?

Greenland isn’t “for sale” in the traditional sense, but that’s an oversimplification of how geopolitical influence works. The U.S. doesn’t need outright ownership to secure its strategic interests economic investment, security agreements, and political leverage shape outcomes just as effectively.

China understands this, which is why it's already making economic inroads in Greenland, and Russia’s Arctic militarization only underscores the stakes. As for the idea that “the world is not American,” that’s true in theory, but in practice, global stability has long depended on U.S. power whether through military alliances, economic systems, or strategic deterrence.

The question isn’t whether America should have influence over Greenland; it’s whether that influence will be shaped by Washington or left open for its adversaries.

What happens to Greenland is for Greenland and to a certain extent Denmark to decide not Trump.

I think America should join us in Canada as a province - much better quality of life.

In theory, yes Greenland and Denmark hold the formal decision-making power. But in reality, geopolitics doesn’t operate in a vacuum. Greenland’s vast resources, strategic location, and growing interest from major powers mean that its future will be shaped by more than just internal decisions.

Honestly, the more I read these disturbing comments from Americans, the more I'd like to see us ally with China against them in the short term (while investing heavily in nuclear detetents).

The USA is skint with the biggest external debt of any country. Things need to change if they can start making inroads into reducing their debt. Obviously they’ve got MadMan Musk slashing and burning but I guess the natural assets of Greenland would help. Follow the money. It always boils down to that.

The US is a threat to various countries sovereignty and freedom because we have allowed them to be. We trusted that they would remain committed to Western ideals and that has proven a terrible folly.

Work with China against the US, to ensure our sovereignty and protection in the short term. Invest heavily in defence to ensure our protection if/when that alliance breaks down.

I would suspect in 100 years, maybe sooner, that China will be the world’s super power. They’re estimated to have the world’s largest economy by 2035.

Don't forget Gaza.

Aligning with China out of spite toward the U.S. would be short-sighted, given China’s track record of economic coercion, territorial expansionism, and disregard for democratic norms.