Kudos to The Line. This is the first analysis I've read that goes beyond "Orange Man is/isn't bad." As usual, there is a lot of nuance to the story that other media don't want known.
I think the author avoided choosing sides in regards to the "orange fog." They just presented a lot of background and left it to the readers to draw conclusions. Old school journalism. I wish I could give it more likes.
I haven't been following this really closely, but I wonder if, given the above analysis, if it would make sense for Greenland to be pitching joining NATO concurrently with seeking independence to negate the US's alarm at them falling into the wrong sphere of influence.
Does make sense as an option. But being in NATO by itself is no guarantee of not falling in the Chinese sphere of influence which is economic in addition to military. Look at Canada for instance.
I believe the original poster Mark was saying that Greenland would apply to NATO after it became independent. I’m assuming subject to correction that any NATO protection provided by Denmark would disappear if Greenland cut ties with Denmark.
As an Albertan I am indebted to you for your concise view of Upper/ Lower Canadian "intelligence" and concern that we have "appropriate " direction on what to think.
We all have opinions, Ken. I thought this was where we came to share them. I think you live in the most beautiful province in the country, although I admit to not having seen nearly enough of it. I think you're married to a dying resource ( in terms of long-term volume sales possibilities), I think you have massive fresh water issues that your government is ignoring. Where will it come from when the glaciers are gone in 30 years? I think anyone abandoning green energy projects is in denial of reality. I think if you go it alone, you become a landlocked microstate that has to deal with Native Canadians, which will take years and cost tens of millions in lawyers' fees, and you have no idea how much of the province you'll get to keep. You have no military. Cold Lake will move, and your ability to move anything to anywhere but the US will be compromised.
Those are just opinions. I feel exactly the same way about Quebec, where the parallels are identical, although I have far less affection for them.
I don't participate in Upper/Lower Canada debates. I look at Canada as a massive, incredibly complex system that needs to work together to function. I think the rich have to help the poor. I think it's fabulous that Carney got a deal that helps Western Farmers. I think the gun buyback is one of the dumbest ideas a government has had in decades.
I think we're facing a challenge as a country, unlike anything we've dealt with before. I think breaking up, or even talk of it, just makes us more vulnerable. My kids are already screwed by what we've left them. I'd prefer not to make it worse. I'm open to discussing any ideas you have for going forward.
David, I, also, am interested in discussion. Now, having said that, it seem abundantly clear that very few of the folk in Upper and Lower Canada are interested in discussing the problems that our governing structure causes us. Quite frankly, they seem to believe that the current power structure is just fine.
Given that perspective, sadly it seems that there is little point in further discussion. If one could actually expect that any discussion would actually see change in how power in this country is shared then there would be reason to talk. But ...
You say that you "don't participate in Upper/Lower Canada debates" but unless you or someone is willing to so discuss then why ever should we in Alberta believe that there is anything here for us?
You note that the rich should help the poor and I firmly agree. Now, having said that, it seems to me that the issue of equalization - just to pick on one issue - shows no real interest by those who collect in really, really being willing to consider very substantive change to assist in getting themselves out of their own poverty traps.
Just two examples. The Atlantic provinces do not wish to amalgamate to lower costs so they stay poor. Would amalgamation assist? I really don't know but why don't they raise the issue, consider unusual ways of trying to reduce government? Quebec absolutely insists that it will not exploit it's natural gas reserves but instead lives on equalization funded by Alberta's natural gas (and oil) and defames us by calling our resources "dirty" and they then wonder why we are resentful at sending money. Just two points but this country is much too large to be governed effectively so many of us want to reduce the size by leaving.
As for Cold Lake being closed, well that may be so but the next question is why? Does not Alberta have an interest in the military bases in Camp Borden or Esquimalt or Halifax? If so, please send us a cheque for our share. Or, perhaps we take over the Cold Lake base and you take the others. In other words, why does Canada get one hundred per cent of everything? That means, as well, that a certain share of the army "belongs" to us. Say, the soldiers at Cold Lake? Put differently, yet again, I keep hearing that Canada will remove or take stuff away but if that is so, then we will send folks to take our share of all the computers at CRA, our proportional share of all the printing presses at the Royal Canadian Mint, and so forth.
Life is complicated, David, and this is what happens when folks simply think that the existing arrangement wherein Upper and Lower Canada have a God given right to exercise power in a relatively unfettered way and rule over the outer provinces and territories.
As I said, life is complicated but what is there for we in Alberta to discuss when we have no interlocutors with whom to discuss who are truly interested in finding solutions. No, I see no particular prospect for resolution that is advantageous for all short of we in Alberta leaving and allowing the bankrupt rump of a country to become literally bankrupt.
Now, it gets fun. Is our structure not based on population numbers? Quebec has 4 million more people than Alberta. Or are you suggesting power based on economic output? That would put Ontario in the driver's seat. That would likely be only marginally more satisfying. What would you like to see?
As forwhat there is for, there's the shared cost of operating Cold Lake and Wainwright....you'd get the bases if you left, and the 2 serviceable CF18's that are your share. You'd also get 100% of the cost of keeping them operating. Feel free to keep all of Alberta's members in the CAF. You get the full cost of that too.
Look, it will take decades to recover from the disasters that were the Trudeau years. He was the worst....and it's not close. But as I've said before, it's not his fault he won. It's not the media's either. Andrew Scheer is an idiot. The CPC turned on Erin, and Pierre is the most detestable politician to lead a party in Canadian history ( I say that based on his 20-point lead evaporating the second the name "Trudeau" wasn't on the ballot. Yes, if Trudeau had stayed, I would have voted for him, but was relieved the second a reasonable alternative was presented. I don't regret my choice ). So yes, lawyers will sit down for decades to figure out who owes whom what....Then everyone will sit down with Native Canadians to see who gets what.
I think the industries that supported the Maritimes have died. We caught all the fish, the coal mines died out, so they're having to learn to adapt and diversify. That is Alberta's future too, IMHO. And what's with the idea of coal mines on the eastern slopes? For what? For whom, and at what cost to the entire Prairies tenuois water supply?
When I become PM...no, that will never happen, Irving will refine Alberta oil that gets there by train. I'd rather move products today than wait for the processes to build a pipeline. I reject the Lac Megantic argument. I don't care what Quebec's opinion is about the product. They don't get a say in what goes on trains. There will be huge dollars available for research into high-volume ocean water desalination. I could ramble on about the other ideas that business won't like, but will do if they want to make money extracting.... and there is money to be made extracting.
Climate change is real. The impact it will have on our kids will be massive. It can't be ignored. But you can make steel without coal. I believe that technology will come that will make electric vehicles an alternative across the entire country, once the supporting infrastructure is in place (massive Trudeau failure). I'm very curious about hydrogen as well, where, if the small-scale successes lead to wider alternatives, transportation could be in for a massive evolution in the near term. But it has to be green.
China and the US are tectonic plates that are going to collide. Little consideration will be given to the collateral damage as the world changes. As for ownership of the land, "sovereignty", the best description is "Two fleas fighting over who owns the dog". (Crocodile Dundee).
I was just following up on your last line about snooty elitists.
Both Hillary Clinton who ran and lost against Trump in 2016 and Kamala Harris who ran and lost in 2024 were arrogant elitists who underestimated Trump’s support with the working class . Especially Hillary who famously called Trump supporters “deplorables”.
True, but there are, no doubt, geopolitical analysts in the US gov't/military that do see the issues laid out in this piece and are encouraging him to take the line that he has.
I'm sure he couldn't even have found Greenland on a map, much less had its real estate potential on his radar without them.
This is also not a new issue for Trump/his geopolitical analysts. Recall he was talking about buying Greenland in his first term in order to stop Chinese investment there.
Excellent commentary that provides context that I have not seen elsewhere.
That context does not justify the US position but it does explain their interest and provide some idea as to whether the US might change it's position - seems unlikely!
Nice article and somewhat valid, but it is only one side.
Lets start by admitting that Trump is bombastic and abrasive. Not many like him. And move on.
BUT! Lets look at it from the United States perspective. If you have watched the Netflix movie A House of Dynamite you would have seen how poor the United States Missile defense system is. It has a 50% chance of hitting an ICBM.
That is horrifying. Your best defense is 50/50? Your standing there with a shield that MIGHT stop 50% of the bullets being shot at you? How long would you stand there holding that shield?
So "Orange man bad" is looking at this and saying - "After 90 years of keeping Europe safe, they owe us a boon". We (the US) need to create the Golden Dome to protect ourselves. We need better than a 50/50 chance of keeping Americans safe.
And to my view, he's right.
It's nice to say, well the US can build whatever they'd like on the island. Our NATO defense agreement says it. And that is true. TODAY.
What happens in 5-10-25 years when an anti-American government is electing in Greenland, and tells them to get out? It has happened before.
Would you build a house on someone else's land?
More importantly, would you trust your mainland's populations safety and security to a government that is "looking around"?
The Americans have an agreement in Diego Garcia with the UK government, a strategic partner. Even then, I know there is talks to get Diego Garcia moved to a US Territory. But that is not part of the Western Hemisphere!
The Americans seeks stability before investing billions in bases in Greenland.
The National Security Strategy is a very real document. They mean every poorly written word in it.
Is there money here? There is oil and gas in Greenland, and minerals. But if you have ever been to the Artic, and most people reading this are summers children, you would know that nothing is easy in the north. You can freeze in minutes. You can get frostbite if your gloves are off for more than a couple of minutes. Every animal in the artic is always hungry, it's the last frontier when wildlife will eat you.
I can't even fathom how you could mine under a mile of ice.
And the ports all freeze shut for 6 months, and the summer is not a guarantee that the ice flows won't stop shipping.
Ice free shipping will always be conditional on ice flow movements.
In short the Artic is beautiful, but hard, dangerous and unfriendly.
The people saying this is about money should know that money is hard to come by in the artic. It is not easy to exploite resources there.
I've defended Donald Trump here and there before or tried to convince others that the sky isn't falling due to his latest crazy-sounding pronouncement.
But you can't seriously attempt to rationalize this deranged Greenland nonsense. This is batshit from every angle. You can't just go, "I think that big piece of land my ally owns would look good on the map as part of my country, and besides my country paid for stuff in the past so I am entitled to just take it!".
I'm struggling to think of any past precedent, anywhere, of a country economically sanctioning and threatening to invade its longtime allies. Edit: There are just better and easier and less destructive ways to get what you want from willing partners, even if the bigger country wants to be kind of an asshole!
My only hope is it's hot air to distract from the Epstein thing or if the SCOTUS is about to reverse his tariffs.
And the idea that the US needs “stability“ in Greenland is a joke. When does Greenland not have a stable government? It is a country of 60,000 people.
The idea that Greenland MAY declare independence and MAY then tell the US to get their bases out is also so speculative iaa to be ridiculous. Firstly, the majority do not want to separate from Denmark, and I would hazard a guess that those who traditionally wanted to separate, no longer do.
In any event, if maybe possibly sometime in the future, Greenland became independent and kicked out the US, then you might want to talk about taking it , if at all.
It's either nonsense puffery/ distraction (at enormous diplomatic and geopolitical cost) or complete literal lunacy. The fact that we can't tell which is itself concerning. My patience has run out. Donald Trump needs to go.
I don’t know, this sounds like kind of an underhanded defense of what the US is doing. The US used to have numerous bases in Greenland and removed them. They have a right to put in more bases so why don’t they just do that if they’re so worried about defending Greenland? Maybe because they wouldn’t get access to the countries minerals?
Greenland has never given any indication that it would not be fully cooperative of the US. This is insanity.
If this background feeds into the strategy of the Trump administration, it's not through Donald Trump. It's all too obvious that Trump has some psychological need to add territory to the US, and he's fixated on Greenland. As one of Trump's 1st term advisors noted, "people think Trump is playing three dimensional chess when we're just trying to keep him from eating the pieces."
I have no idea why so many countries indulge performative pseudo-independence movements by regions that would be totally non economically viable without support from the rest of the nation, or give these areas constant concessions. It should be: great, you get to keep your rich and distinctive culture, if you can. You get treated like everyone else though. Nobody gave a shit when my rich and distinctive culture as a British Canadian was essentially phased out.
Changed "tolerate" to "indulge". You can say and do whatever you want, you just shouldn't be able to effectively hold countries hostage with a constant threat of succession if the resulting separate state would be immediately bankrupt. That is a choice by the national government to indulge such nonsense. This goes 10X for Indigenous "nations" which would have the per capita GDP of Somalia.
Of course, a country CAN absolutely prohibit any discussion of secession and absolutely prohibit any attempt to secede and can send the army [cough! cough!] after secessionists. You know like the US civil war.
A "constant threat of secession" ..... Okay, you shut down the Quebecers and you can deal with whatever is the modern equivalent of the FLQ; I lived through the 1970 "excitement" and even walked/drove down the streets of Montreal in October, 1970 when the soldiers were out in full force, wearing full battle rattle. If that is your way, fill your boots.
As for we in Alberta, we have never actually tested the idea of separation in a referendum, unlike Quebec which has had two previously. So, I make the evaluation that your "constant" does not refer to us.
As for the natives and their "nations", well, "frankly, my dear, [Miss Scarlet] ...." You know, Rhett Butler.
Oh, and don't forget that the federal government has explicitly allowed this and the Supremes blessed that approach. On the other had, who believes that Parliament is a) sensible and b) not corrupt? As for the Supremes, absolute fools, all. Cue Rhett Butler once more.
If you don't want secession even discussed, let alone promoted, let alone subject of a vote, what is your suggestion to avoid discussion and/or vote? Further, what is your suggestion for punishment in the event that someone violates your prohibition?
I will offer my own answer to the above queries: a Parliament and Supremes that are actually a) sensible and b) honest and, above all, c) willing to consider the will of the regions outside Upper and Lower Canada. Because we do not have any of these things and we absolutely do not have ANY prospect of EVER getting those things, I am an Alberta separatist.
I conclude with noting that you are quite free to have your own opinion as I am free to have mine. Or do you wish to remove that freedom from me?
I've been struggling to understand why the fixation, even after trying to ignore the bombast and bluster. This article does present a plausible explanation. I also suspect there is some misdirection here, while Democrats and Liberals are focusing on this as well as the rioting against ICE (doing their job), the Administration is preparing to announcements on completely unrelated topics.
Kudos to The Line. This is the first analysis I've read that goes beyond "Orange Man is/isn't bad." As usual, there is a lot of nuance to the story that other media don't want known.
Yes a terrific analysis. For a change an analysis that isn’t blinded by orange fog. 🙏🙏🙏
I think the author avoided choosing sides in regards to the "orange fog." They just presented a lot of background and left it to the readers to draw conclusions. Old school journalism. I wish I could give it more likes.
Okay you made a good point. Maybe I should reconsider my comments.
It doesn't change the reality that he is a disaster.
"Wait, do I see a reasonable conversation going on? I must barge in and let them know my opinion of Trump."
You mentioned him......and seem to be suggesting he's not bad.
There’s always nuance in almost every political or military conflict. There is still no justification for what the US is doing.
Certain portions of this essay sound the same as Alberta’s relationship to Canada.
Or Quebec’s.
Very much so. The same "bad marriage" dynamic.
I haven't been following this really closely, but I wonder if, given the above analysis, if it would make sense for Greenland to be pitching joining NATO concurrently with seeking independence to negate the US's alarm at them falling into the wrong sphere of influence.
Surely someone has thought of this already?
Does make sense as an option. But being in NATO by itself is no guarantee of not falling in the Chinese sphere of influence which is economic in addition to military. Look at Canada for instance.
Am I wrong or isn’t Greenland already a part of NATO by virtue of being owned by Denmark?
Isn’t that one of the biggest issues right now? That you could have countries within the NATO alliance fighting each other?
I believe the original poster Mark was saying that Greenland would apply to NATO after it became independent. I’m assuming subject to correction that any NATO protection provided by Denmark would disappear if Greenland cut ties with Denmark.
They can figure out on their own who they want to govern them. If they want security, they will join NATO, even though the cost may be an eye-opener.
There are similarities to Alberta and Quebec, although those minority provincial aspirations strike me as shortsighted to the point of stupidity.
As an Albertan I am indebted to you for your concise view of Upper/ Lower Canadian "intelligence" and concern that we have "appropriate " direction on what to think.
We all have opinions, Ken. I thought this was where we came to share them. I think you live in the most beautiful province in the country, although I admit to not having seen nearly enough of it. I think you're married to a dying resource ( in terms of long-term volume sales possibilities), I think you have massive fresh water issues that your government is ignoring. Where will it come from when the glaciers are gone in 30 years? I think anyone abandoning green energy projects is in denial of reality. I think if you go it alone, you become a landlocked microstate that has to deal with Native Canadians, which will take years and cost tens of millions in lawyers' fees, and you have no idea how much of the province you'll get to keep. You have no military. Cold Lake will move, and your ability to move anything to anywhere but the US will be compromised.
Those are just opinions. I feel exactly the same way about Quebec, where the parallels are identical, although I have far less affection for them.
I don't participate in Upper/Lower Canada debates. I look at Canada as a massive, incredibly complex system that needs to work together to function. I think the rich have to help the poor. I think it's fabulous that Carney got a deal that helps Western Farmers. I think the gun buyback is one of the dumbest ideas a government has had in decades.
I think we're facing a challenge as a country, unlike anything we've dealt with before. I think breaking up, or even talk of it, just makes us more vulnerable. My kids are already screwed by what we've left them. I'd prefer not to make it worse. I'm open to discussing any ideas you have for going forward.
David, I, also, am interested in discussion. Now, having said that, it seem abundantly clear that very few of the folk in Upper and Lower Canada are interested in discussing the problems that our governing structure causes us. Quite frankly, they seem to believe that the current power structure is just fine.
Given that perspective, sadly it seems that there is little point in further discussion. If one could actually expect that any discussion would actually see change in how power in this country is shared then there would be reason to talk. But ...
You say that you "don't participate in Upper/Lower Canada debates" but unless you or someone is willing to so discuss then why ever should we in Alberta believe that there is anything here for us?
You note that the rich should help the poor and I firmly agree. Now, having said that, it seems to me that the issue of equalization - just to pick on one issue - shows no real interest by those who collect in really, really being willing to consider very substantive change to assist in getting themselves out of their own poverty traps.
Just two examples. The Atlantic provinces do not wish to amalgamate to lower costs so they stay poor. Would amalgamation assist? I really don't know but why don't they raise the issue, consider unusual ways of trying to reduce government? Quebec absolutely insists that it will not exploit it's natural gas reserves but instead lives on equalization funded by Alberta's natural gas (and oil) and defames us by calling our resources "dirty" and they then wonder why we are resentful at sending money. Just two points but this country is much too large to be governed effectively so many of us want to reduce the size by leaving.
As for Cold Lake being closed, well that may be so but the next question is why? Does not Alberta have an interest in the military bases in Camp Borden or Esquimalt or Halifax? If so, please send us a cheque for our share. Or, perhaps we take over the Cold Lake base and you take the others. In other words, why does Canada get one hundred per cent of everything? That means, as well, that a certain share of the army "belongs" to us. Say, the soldiers at Cold Lake? Put differently, yet again, I keep hearing that Canada will remove or take stuff away but if that is so, then we will send folks to take our share of all the computers at CRA, our proportional share of all the printing presses at the Royal Canadian Mint, and so forth.
Life is complicated, David, and this is what happens when folks simply think that the existing arrangement wherein Upper and Lower Canada have a God given right to exercise power in a relatively unfettered way and rule over the outer provinces and territories.
As I said, life is complicated but what is there for we in Alberta to discuss when we have no interlocutors with whom to discuss who are truly interested in finding solutions. No, I see no particular prospect for resolution that is advantageous for all short of we in Alberta leaving and allowing the bankrupt rump of a country to become literally bankrupt.
Now, it gets fun. Is our structure not based on population numbers? Quebec has 4 million more people than Alberta. Or are you suggesting power based on economic output? That would put Ontario in the driver's seat. That would likely be only marginally more satisfying. What would you like to see?
As forwhat there is for, there's the shared cost of operating Cold Lake and Wainwright....you'd get the bases if you left, and the 2 serviceable CF18's that are your share. You'd also get 100% of the cost of keeping them operating. Feel free to keep all of Alberta's members in the CAF. You get the full cost of that too.
Look, it will take decades to recover from the disasters that were the Trudeau years. He was the worst....and it's not close. But as I've said before, it's not his fault he won. It's not the media's either. Andrew Scheer is an idiot. The CPC turned on Erin, and Pierre is the most detestable politician to lead a party in Canadian history ( I say that based on his 20-point lead evaporating the second the name "Trudeau" wasn't on the ballot. Yes, if Trudeau had stayed, I would have voted for him, but was relieved the second a reasonable alternative was presented. I don't regret my choice ). So yes, lawyers will sit down for decades to figure out who owes whom what....Then everyone will sit down with Native Canadians to see who gets what.
I think the industries that supported the Maritimes have died. We caught all the fish, the coal mines died out, so they're having to learn to adapt and diversify. That is Alberta's future too, IMHO. And what's with the idea of coal mines on the eastern slopes? For what? For whom, and at what cost to the entire Prairies tenuois water supply?
When I become PM...no, that will never happen, Irving will refine Alberta oil that gets there by train. I'd rather move products today than wait for the processes to build a pipeline. I reject the Lac Megantic argument. I don't care what Quebec's opinion is about the product. They don't get a say in what goes on trains. There will be huge dollars available for research into high-volume ocean water desalination. I could ramble on about the other ideas that business won't like, but will do if they want to make money extracting.... and there is money to be made extracting.
Climate change is real. The impact it will have on our kids will be massive. It can't be ignored. But you can make steel without coal. I believe that technology will come that will make electric vehicles an alternative across the entire country, once the supporting infrastructure is in place (massive Trudeau failure). I'm very curious about hydrogen as well, where, if the small-scale successes lead to wider alternatives, transportation could be in for a massive evolution in the near term. But it has to be green.
What would you like to see hypothetically?
China and the US are tectonic plates that are going to collide. Little consideration will be given to the collateral damage as the world changes. As for ownership of the land, "sovereignty", the best description is "Two fleas fighting over who owns the dog". (Crocodile Dundee).
Oh horseshit he has. Why continue to assign rationality to this man?
Continue to think that Trump is an unsophisticated, irrational and dumb oaf at your own peril.
Y'all are falling for the old divide and conquer and it works every time.
Being consistently underestimated by snooty elitists is his superpower.
Like Hillary and Kamala.
I don't get it?
I was just following up on your last line about snooty elitists.
Both Hillary Clinton who ran and lost against Trump in 2016 and Kamala Harris who ran and lost in 2024 were arrogant elitists who underestimated Trump’s support with the working class . Especially Hillary who famously called Trump supporters “deplorables”.
Right, yes 100%. Now it's Mark "Carnage" Carney's turn.
True, but there are, no doubt, geopolitical analysts in the US gov't/military that do see the issues laid out in this piece and are encouraging him to take the line that he has.
I'm sure he couldn't even have found Greenland on a map, much less had its real estate potential on his radar without them.
This is also not a new issue for Trump/his geopolitical analysts. Recall he was talking about buying Greenland in his first term in order to stop Chinese investment there.
If Trump is irrational, then statistics suggest he is right half the time.
I believe you're conflating irrationality with randomness. They're not the same behaviour.
While you may be conflating irrationality with perniciousness.
Trump does rationalize his decisions. We can argue about how he rationalizes his decisions.
Excellent commentary that provides context that I have not seen elsewhere.
That context does not justify the US position but it does explain their interest and provide some idea as to whether the US might change it's position - seems unlikely!
Nice article and somewhat valid, but it is only one side.
Lets start by admitting that Trump is bombastic and abrasive. Not many like him. And move on.
BUT! Lets look at it from the United States perspective. If you have watched the Netflix movie A House of Dynamite you would have seen how poor the United States Missile defense system is. It has a 50% chance of hitting an ICBM.
That is horrifying. Your best defense is 50/50? Your standing there with a shield that MIGHT stop 50% of the bullets being shot at you? How long would you stand there holding that shield?
So "Orange man bad" is looking at this and saying - "After 90 years of keeping Europe safe, they owe us a boon". We (the US) need to create the Golden Dome to protect ourselves. We need better than a 50/50 chance of keeping Americans safe.
And to my view, he's right.
It's nice to say, well the US can build whatever they'd like on the island. Our NATO defense agreement says it. And that is true. TODAY.
What happens in 5-10-25 years when an anti-American government is electing in Greenland, and tells them to get out? It has happened before.
Would you build a house on someone else's land?
More importantly, would you trust your mainland's populations safety and security to a government that is "looking around"?
The Americans have an agreement in Diego Garcia with the UK government, a strategic partner. Even then, I know there is talks to get Diego Garcia moved to a US Territory. But that is not part of the Western Hemisphere!
The Americans seeks stability before investing billions in bases in Greenland.
The National Security Strategy is a very real document. They mean every poorly written word in it.
Is there money here? There is oil and gas in Greenland, and minerals. But if you have ever been to the Artic, and most people reading this are summers children, you would know that nothing is easy in the north. You can freeze in minutes. You can get frostbite if your gloves are off for more than a couple of minutes. Every animal in the artic is always hungry, it's the last frontier when wildlife will eat you.
I can't even fathom how you could mine under a mile of ice.
And the ports all freeze shut for 6 months, and the summer is not a guarantee that the ice flows won't stop shipping.
Ice free shipping will always be conditional on ice flow movements.
In short the Artic is beautiful, but hard, dangerous and unfriendly.
The people saying this is about money should know that money is hard to come by in the artic. It is not easy to exploite resources there.
I've defended Donald Trump here and there before or tried to convince others that the sky isn't falling due to his latest crazy-sounding pronouncement.
But you can't seriously attempt to rationalize this deranged Greenland nonsense. This is batshit from every angle. You can't just go, "I think that big piece of land my ally owns would look good on the map as part of my country, and besides my country paid for stuff in the past so I am entitled to just take it!".
I'm struggling to think of any past precedent, anywhere, of a country economically sanctioning and threatening to invade its longtime allies. Edit: There are just better and easier and less destructive ways to get what you want from willing partners, even if the bigger country wants to be kind of an asshole!
My only hope is it's hot air to distract from the Epstein thing or if the SCOTUS is about to reverse his tariffs.
And the idea that the US needs “stability“ in Greenland is a joke. When does Greenland not have a stable government? It is a country of 60,000 people.
The idea that Greenland MAY declare independence and MAY then tell the US to get their bases out is also so speculative iaa to be ridiculous. Firstly, the majority do not want to separate from Denmark, and I would hazard a guess that those who traditionally wanted to separate, no longer do.
In any event, if maybe possibly sometime in the future, Greenland became independent and kicked out the US, then you might want to talk about taking it , if at all.
It's either nonsense puffery/ distraction (at enormous diplomatic and geopolitical cost) or complete literal lunacy. The fact that we can't tell which is itself concerning. My patience has run out. Donald Trump needs to go.
Thank you for the very valuable analysis that provides information that is lacking elsewhere. Excellent work.
I don’t know, this sounds like kind of an underhanded defense of what the US is doing. The US used to have numerous bases in Greenland and removed them. They have a right to put in more bases so why don’t they just do that if they’re so worried about defending Greenland? Maybe because they wouldn’t get access to the countries minerals?
Greenland has never given any indication that it would not be fully cooperative of the US. This is insanity.
Thanks for this. A welcome "hear's why".
If this background feeds into the strategy of the Trump administration, it's not through Donald Trump. It's all too obvious that Trump has some psychological need to add territory to the US, and he's fixated on Greenland. As one of Trump's 1st term advisors noted, "people think Trump is playing three dimensional chess when we're just trying to keep him from eating the pieces."
I have no idea why so many countries indulge performative pseudo-independence movements by regions that would be totally non economically viable without support from the rest of the nation, or give these areas constant concessions. It should be: great, you get to keep your rich and distinctive culture, if you can. You get treated like everyone else though. Nobody gave a shit when my rich and distinctive culture as a British Canadian was essentially phased out.
Ahhhh .....
So, you are against freedom of speech and freedom to have political opinions! Thanks for the clarification.
Changed "tolerate" to "indulge". You can say and do whatever you want, you just shouldn't be able to effectively hold countries hostage with a constant threat of succession if the resulting separate state would be immediately bankrupt. That is a choice by the national government to indulge such nonsense. This goes 10X for Indigenous "nations" which would have the per capita GDP of Somalia.
Of course, a country CAN absolutely prohibit any discussion of secession and absolutely prohibit any attempt to secede and can send the army [cough! cough!] after secessionists. You know like the US civil war.
A "constant threat of secession" ..... Okay, you shut down the Quebecers and you can deal with whatever is the modern equivalent of the FLQ; I lived through the 1970 "excitement" and even walked/drove down the streets of Montreal in October, 1970 when the soldiers were out in full force, wearing full battle rattle. If that is your way, fill your boots.
As for we in Alberta, we have never actually tested the idea of separation in a referendum, unlike Quebec which has had two previously. So, I make the evaluation that your "constant" does not refer to us.
As for the natives and their "nations", well, "frankly, my dear, [Miss Scarlet] ...." You know, Rhett Butler.
Oh, and don't forget that the federal government has explicitly allowed this and the Supremes blessed that approach. On the other had, who believes that Parliament is a) sensible and b) not corrupt? As for the Supremes, absolute fools, all. Cue Rhett Butler once more.
If you don't want secession even discussed, let alone promoted, let alone subject of a vote, what is your suggestion to avoid discussion and/or vote? Further, what is your suggestion for punishment in the event that someone violates your prohibition?
I will offer my own answer to the above queries: a Parliament and Supremes that are actually a) sensible and b) honest and, above all, c) willing to consider the will of the regions outside Upper and Lower Canada. Because we do not have any of these things and we absolutely do not have ANY prospect of EVER getting those things, I am an Alberta separatist.
I conclude with noting that you are quite free to have your own opinion as I am free to have mine. Or do you wish to remove that freedom from me?
Just yesterday: "Dispatch from the Front Lines: At least China isn't gunning for Greenland. Yet."
No? Then why the investment there?
😆😆😆. Awesome expression!
I've been struggling to understand why the fixation, even after trying to ignore the bombast and bluster. This article does present a plausible explanation. I also suspect there is some misdirection here, while Democrats and Liberals are focusing on this as well as the rioting against ICE (doing their job), the Administration is preparing to announcements on completely unrelated topics.