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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
An interesting perspective! The anti Trump press seems to have only regurgitated that which is useful to them but left the bits and pieces that caused the news tornado is the first place.
Even if Greenland separated however the simplest relationship may be as a member of the
EU and NATO. Greenland's population, I note, is about the same as Lichtenstein's. PEI dwarfs them.
I have no idea why so many countries tolerate 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.
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.
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.
Certain portions of this essay sound the same as Alberta’s relationship to Canada.
Or Quebec’s.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just yesterday: "Dispatch from the Front Lines: At least China isn't gunning for Greenland. Yet."
😆😆😆. Awesome expression!
Thanks for this. A welcome "hear's why".
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.
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."
An interesting perspective! The anti Trump press seems to have only regurgitated that which is useful to them but left the bits and pieces that caused the news tornado is the first place.
Even if Greenland separated however the simplest relationship may be as a member of the
EU and NATO. Greenland's population, I note, is about the same as Lichtenstein's. PEI dwarfs them.
I have no idea why so many countries tolerate 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.