So...I kept wondering why Trump wants to grab Greenland. Random.

[WaltonWanderer]

Today I saw a headline in a paper (OK the Guardian) saying his very rich mate Ronald Lauder suggested it to him (because he has been buying everything he can there). Am I alone in being fed up with rich white billionaires risking war (end of NATO) and a further world mess, just because they just want to fill their pockets and the rest of us can go........Seriously these men! I'm personally not going to buy any more Estee Lauder products. Just be happy with the billions you inherited Ronald. AIBU to be fed up with this behaviour?

I think it's mainly a dick waving thing.

They don't need it for national security (they are already permitted to have a military presence).

They don't need it for rare earth minerals (Denmark and Greenland have already expressed openness to discussing allowing the US access to minerals, but the US won't even have the discussion).

Trump wants to be the guy that added a ginormous area of land to the US (it would increase the US's size by a quarter).

The world is being upended for one man's ego.

A couple of reasons, firstly, they have concerns that it isn't defended well enough, calling out the Europeans again for not participating and paying enough for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation target of 2% of GDP. Greenland is right in the centre of the area NATO purports to protect. The concern the USA expresses is that Greenland is undefended by Europe and as an attractive piece of land is vulnerable to the Russians and Chinese (if you don't look after it, we will because they will come after us next sort of position).
Secondly, space stations in the arctic are crucial to satellites and space research, obviously the closer to the equator you are the faster the world spins, but there are good reasons to establish them where the Earth spins the least, Svalbard for example has a very important one.
When the USA expands it usually doesn't via war but purchases, like the Louisiana and Alaska purchase. The purchase of Greenland has been floated before. They have purchased the US Virgin Islands from the Danes previously. I expect the Danes will do a lot of harrumphing and then sell it, but to be fair, they were a little lax when the Danes negotiated the Self-Government Act with the Greenlandics. I'm sure it's ridiculously more complicated but I believe Denmark has veto but the locals do have a right to be considered if, for example, they held a referendum on self-determination and decided to accept and offer from the USA.

Taiwan produces most of the worlds microchips, it is constantly under threat from China. Greenalnd has enough mineral resources to provide at least 30% of what you need to build a microchip. It is also from a military view strategically important. Europe has consistently failed to demonstrate a commitment to its own security imo. I’m not surprised the American's take a dim view.

YABVU because whilst I don’t like a lot of American behaviour under Trump I can see the rationale and it’s not as nonsensical as a lot of what I hear.

It’s ego and nothing more.

Greenland is very rich in minerals and oil deposits. Trump doesn’t want China and Russia to get their hands on them. The US also needs land and a cool climate for the massive infrastructure required for AI.

It’s all about money and pressure from tech firms. He’s acting as though 3 countries have claim when actually Denmark is owned by the Danes.

There's a really simple answer. He's a massive dick and wants to rule the world

Denmark needs to announce that the Epstein files are in Greenland.

They'd never be able to find it...

For the first time I heard a plausible sounding reason today, though the source was a random Youtube video. It said he wants to put nuclear weapons there so that they are that much closer to Russia if they have to be launched.

This makes more sense to me, because if it were just about having military bases, then as everyone has been saying all along, USA has always been able to put as many military bases as it likes in Greenland, so that's obviously bullshit. But launching USA nuclear weapons from Greenland, it makes sense why USA would want full control to ensure local people or Denmark can't throw any spanners in the works.

This being the reason would also explain why they are not actually saying the reason, and spouting bullshit-sounding ones instead.

People on here are obsessed with Trump. It's Trump Derangment Syndrome.

When I said the nuclear weapons reason sounded plausible, I just meant more plausible than what else I've heard. I haven't actually thought about it. Not sure what options USA might have for launching from Europe, which is much closer to Moscow than Greenland is.

But. It's. Not. Theirs.

It is mind blowing how the colonialist mindset has remained ingrained in the British and American psyche all these hundreds of years. You can disagree with how a country is run. But it's not just yours to take. And bullying it out of the rightful people's hands through scheming, schmoozing or intimidation makes them no better than a mugger on a street corner.

@MumOryLaneWhy only mention British or American colonists?
People lived in Greenland for thousands of years before Denmark's claim. Danish-Norwegian missionary Hans Egede arrived in 1721, establishing Danish claims and beginning colonization, a process solidified when Greenland was incorporated into Denmark in 1953.

Europeans settled on Greenland before the Thule people settled there. Of course they went away and came back later with an 18th century colonial mindset. But if it's about "I was here first" or some idea of "rightful" presence it's not so straightforward, and the argument is open for white nationalists to undermine. More interesting is who the majority population is now, how they were treated recently by the Danes and how they want to identify and govern themselves.

Edit in case it looks like I meant Europeans arrived there first, other peoples moved from North America earlier.

The US has wanted Greenland for a century or so and it would be a big win for any President that can secure it. Trump is pushing the matter now as Denmark and the EU are currently too weak to resist.

Because it's Americans doing it and Brits on here sharing their whataboutery to justify it.

I'm well aware of the history but it's 2026 so leaning back on conquering nations in the 1700s to validate the argument is a nonsense.

No, this is wrong. The raw materials to build a microchip is the relatively easy bit (note 'relatively'). The skills, machinery and complex supply lines are the really hard bit, and that is why Taiwan is so important. Getting Greenland is irrelevant for microchip production.

Are you maybe thinking of batteries, not microchips?

If Trump thinks Greenland is insufficiently defended and wants to do it better, he could do so today without needing to buy/invade/own the place. The US has had a military presence there for decades. It can build that out simply by asking for some land to put it on.

More to the point, what exactly is Greenland to be defended against? Russia has no interest in invading Greenland and even if it did, it doesn't have the long-range military lift capability to do so. Greenland would be a liability for Russia, not an asset worth risking a major NATO response. China's the other side of the planet and has got even less interest in it.

The strategic benefit of Greenland from the US's point of view is as a site for early warning radar to detect ballistic missiles from Russia. Which is, of course, why the US already operates Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) there. It's also potentially going to be a bit more important in the future for its proximity to polar waters as the ice cap recedes and shipping routes become more established.

I think like a lot of Trump’s “strategies” there is a germ of genuine geopolitical need but it’s been seized on as an excuse for him to act out what a Big Boy he is.

There is a strategic rationale to strengthen defences in Greenland against Russia and China and there are also valuable resources there.

But as I understand it its totally unnecessary for the US to seize it. The Danes have made clear that the US will be given access to whatever it wants without the need to own it.

It is vital strategically
Russia has committed 2 sabotage attacks on Poland
At a meeting online the European nations made it clear they did not want any response despite the fact that a NATO nation has been attacked
USA does not trust Nato to defend Greenland
Nato is weak and useless and is giving an open door for a Russian attack
US does not act without intelligence info

Why should Europe just expect US taxpayers to foot the bill for our defence altruistically

The strategic value of nuclear missiles is partly down to how well you can move and hide the launchers. This is why submarine-based missiles have become so important - submarines are very good at hiding. Fixed land bases might as well have a bullseye painted around them. This is why the US has way more submarine-launched Trident missiles than land-based Minutemans.

Mobile land-based launchers are a thing that the Russians in particular are quite keen on (not least because they're cheaper and easier to maintain than submarines) but they've got vast forests to hide the launchers in. Greenland... hasn't.

The US is nato. It doesnt trust itself to defend Greenland? Despite being offered unlimited military basis there. It can legitimised its defence with a handful of reps from other European nations.

Maybe europe intelligence was dont escalate re Poland and it worked?

This only makes sense if Trump has only ever looked at a flat map (plausible).

Alaska is closer to Moscow than Greenland is.

What has that got to do with Trump wanting to invade Greenland or increase military presence there? No-one in Europe is asking him to do that. Quite the opposite in fact.

Please explain the strategic importance of Greenland that would require US ownership to counter.