Trump taking over Greenland?

[Cantonet]

Will anyone stop him?
What will Nato do?
What will Denmark do?
Are there plans in motion to stop this other than friendly diplomacy & gentle words?

RTE News have a reporter in Greenland at the moment and he has been asking locals what they think about Trump. He is not getting many replies, and he is certainly not getting any positive feedback from anyone.

Worth a watch if interested.

This link should work. Article is about 1/3rd in.

RTÉ News: Nine O'Clock - RTE Player

I'm starting to think this is more about Epstein releases looking at the most recent findings. I'm not even going to say what they say until I've verified they are true.... Keep the media occupied

You could at least give us a hint

Im not a climate denier and I dont think the world is flat lol

I agree to an extent, it needs to be done in a way that doesn't bankrupt the country. We also need everyone else to go green or there is no point.

Part of the reason is because they wouldn't have enough natural resources to continue. Also they can afford to do it. The big thing holding the uk back is how much it costs to build things here.

I agree. China has the most emissions though so they still have a way to go

It's a balance- renewable
energy costs more than dirty coal fired plants.

Increasing energy costs through renewables will simply mean that UK industry will have to move to countries with cheaper (and dirtier) power eg China, India, Indonesia etc. The options are to place tariffs on imports from these countries , but this will increase costs (inflation) to UK consumers. Or row back on going green, or raise taxes to subsidise high energy industries in the UK (again not popular).

Way to go is an understatement.

They hope to hit peak carbon before 2030, and carbon neutrality before 2060

State media article here. We know how claims and targets work with the PRC.

China will steadfastly strive to peak carbon dioxide emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060: Chinese FM - Global Times

Apologies, I have posted that link here already.

The UK hit peak carbon in 1991, And along with the other countries that have peaked, we continue to decrease,

Turning Point: Which Countries’ GHG Emissions Have Peaked? Which Will in the Future? | World Resources Institute (wri.org)

China are still INCREASING, and have not even started to decrease. The green is in addition to carbon, not instead of.

Trump just can't help himself.

From that article, Trump said this:

"Greenland, basically, their defence is two dogsleds," he said.

Why does he constantly come out with such dumb stuff ?

Denmark is, of course an F35 buyer. They have 27 of them ( 15 in service, waiting for the others), AND just signed a deal in Oct to buy 16 more. That will take them to being the 10th largest operators of f35 in the world.

Is Trump not aware of this ?

Two dogsleds. FFS.

Trump wants a deal but insists US will acquire Greenland 'one way or the other' | World News | Sky News

There is a point, even if it's only to die saying "we did our bit to avoid the end of our existence"...

They wouldn't think about that...

No idea how many would but i'd imagine there would be a large number.

The bigger picture here is "What happens when Denmark triggers article 5?"

Trump orders US troops to fire on NATO soldiers...???

It should be remembered that despite decades of the Cold War, NATO and Russian troops never attacked each other....

Yet we could see the US and NATO soldiers fighting each other.... remarkable & v v scary.

They would not think about it for long, if at all. Although some would want to take it for sure.

RTE have a reporter there, and their news today has an interview with a local. Worth watching on RTE player.

The reporter also does a reminder. There are no roads between towns. It is 80% ice sheets.

It's not going to come to a shooting war between the US and the rest of NATO. That's not what this is about. This is about the destabilisation of NATO to the benefit of Russia. That can be achieved without a single shot being fired.

All it would take is Trump making enough threats and rattling enough sabres to cause political/economic push-back at which point he can claim that the rest of NATO has turned its back on the US and uses that as justification to withdraw the US from its NATO obligations. Trump can continue his slide into dementia while being jerked around like a puppet by those whispering in his ear, and Putin gets what he wants.

I totally see what you are saying, and I hit like on your post.

However, Trump is a lunatic. He is not playing 5D chess, I doubt he can even play draughts without cheating.

Him saying he wants Greenland has to be taken at face value.

I think it could quite easily result in a military stand-off between US troops and NATO troops...
If the Danes pull art 5, we have no choice or NATO ends... all of it.

Who would have though a US POTUS would support a US agent killing a US citizen? with full immunity BEFORE the facts known..

The US backing Russia over Europe?

100% plus tariffs placed on allies....

Trump may or may not be insane but he is far more likely to be under the influence of the Russians.

I see everyday papers like the Telegraph have articles written by people in support of the US annexing Greenland...

Trump says all sorts of things, many of which very quickly get forgotten about.

He's infinitely transactional. It's no coincidence that his interest in Venezuela only hit top gear after Machado got the Nobel Peace Prize and she stroked his ego when she accepted it. He's furious that Obama's got a Nobel and he hasn't but no-one's going to give his bollocks a tickle like Machado did over Venezuela if he stages a military invasion of Greenland.

Even the most rabid of the MAGA base couldn't give a shiny shit about Greenland and with the mid-terms coming up the rest of the party are more interested in what's happening inside the border rather than outside. Sabre-rattling about Greenland is simply a short-term distraction and a lever for a longer-term goal, neither of which require there to be actual boots on the ground.

Russia has nothing to gain by the US invading Greenland. If anything that would be a bigger threat to Russia's short-term and long-term goals than it being owned by Denmark.

Russia gains by the destabilisation of NATO and that just needs Trump to be given an excuse to withdraw. And that can be achieved with threats and economic sanctions.

He is onto Iran now. The past weeks it's been Greenland. VZ, now Iran.

Not much USA.

Oh, I forgot Columbia.

Iran's long been an irritant for the US. More importantly, if Trump can claim some credit for regime change in Iran then that might conceivably net him a Nobel.

Not even FIFA's going to put his name in the Peace Prize hat for invading Greenland.

Greenland is totally protected by NATO and art 5, so there is zero danger of Russia or China gaining a foothold there.

But Trump invading, even threatening too, will or could utterly destroy NATO, a brilliant result for Russia, they would then, in time, look at the Baltic states, safe in the knowledge the US will stand by.

Trump doesn't need excuses for anything, he just does or he doesn't, like a toddler really.

Yes maybe its all bluff and bluster but i also think it would be wise to plan for what Europe does if he did take Greenland by force.

Russia doesn't particularly want to own Greenland itself as that would just lengthen its border somewhere it can't readily defend. Its navy is rusting to pieces and its long-range airlift capabilities are very limited. But Putin is aware that the pack ice is shrinking and so the polar sea routes are going to be of increasing strategic importance in the future. It wouldn't be to Russia's benefit to have Greenland bristling with US bases, right on the edge of those sea routes.

So while it's to Russia's benefit for the US to pull out of NATO, it's not in Russia's best interests for there to be a US military invasion of Greenland. It would make Putin a very happy bunny if the political arguing and posturing over Greenland can be used as an excuse for the US to withdraw NATO without there being a single extra US solider landing on Greenland soil.

I think that rather than planning for an invasion that isn't going to happen we should be planning for a) what we'll do if/when the US withdraws from NATO, and b) what diplomacy we can bring to bear to try to persuade the US to stay in.

I follow Chinese news ( no I am not a Tankie), and it is the North East Arctic route China want. From the Pacific to the Atlantic across the top of Russia. The North West passage gives them nothing really.

What China worry about is the Malacca straight, and the Canals of course. They fear the US will close these to Chinese shipping, in the event of Taiwan stuff. That is, when they invade it.

Article here from Chinese State media, about the China-Europe route. The Americas are just straight across the Pacific. It is a route to Europe they want. Nowhere near Greenland. But of course, if Malacca was closed to them, I doubt the EU would be buying stuff from China. but hey ho.

China-Europe Arctic route to enter regular summer operation in 2026 - Global Times

Well, the USA used to have 10s of 1000s of troops in Greenland....

It doesn't matter, international waters are just that.

Russia nor anyone else can take Greenland, regardless of wants, its a NATO member via Denmark and as long as NATO is functioning, no one can do a thing about about.

I see Trump has backed down, he says the USA must control Greenland.. NOT own it...

Well. Its off to a good start... not.

Trump latest: US president says anything less than ownership of Greenland is 'unacceptable' | World News | Sky News