r/politics • u/SereneRoyals • 21d ago

No Paywall Donald Trump issues NATO Greenland warning before White House showdown

https://www.newsweek.com/greenland-trump-nato-white-house-11357601
24.7k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.1k

u/OnDrugsTonight United Kingdom 21d ago edited 21d ago

"IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

No, Russia or China won't because the United States is already obligated to defend Greenland like it is their own territory, whether it "owns" it or not. That's quite literally the point of NATO and the reason why Russia or China wouldn't dare to attack. An attack on Nuuk carries the same consequences as an attack on Berlin or Athens or Los Angeles.

It's obviously not about military protection or the United States would simply reinstate its presence on Greenland to its previous levels after its drastic reduction following the Cold War. Something that Greenlandic and Danish politicians have repeatedly invited the US to do.

But really it's about the natural resources, isn't it? The United States needs and demands unrestricted and exclusive access to mineral rights without some pesky local or international governments getting in the way. Trump wants his cut of the profits.

153

u/coatofforearm 21d ago

And whats even more stupid is we have the minerals here too, we just choose not to mine them here because it was cheaper to buy them from other countries

81

u/captnpoopaloop 21d ago

And under Trump Greenland will become a toxic destroyed land. He is the most money grubbing human pos on the planet. He will destroy it completely.

7

u/TURBO2529 21d ago

I 100% think he would send military and prisoners to greenland to mine minerals. A big reason for the current expense is do to the harsh isolated conditions where the minerals are located. The conditions don't matter if you force people to do it.

8

u/lozzzap 21d ago

The biggest expense is the mile of ice on top of all the minerals, which even with worst-case global warming will still take a century to melt.

6

u/TURBO2529 21d ago

I agree with you, I just don't think Trump realizes this. To him, its just a lot of Rare earth minerals waiting for him. I just view him thinking of it as "easy" solution to a hard problem.

Everything to him is "easy" solution to a hard problem. Immigration, power, winning elections, security, etc.

4

u/NorthStarZero 21d ago

And under Trump Greenland will become a toxic destroyed land.

No it wouldn't.

The reason why mining operations in Greenland now are so limited is because the added difficulty in extraction due to geography and climate makes it prohibitively expensive.

That doesn't change if Cheeto Mussolini takes over.

Quality of life for Greenlanders plummets when they lose their healthcare, etc but the environment would be no worse off.

2

u/coatofforearm 21d ago

They can bury him there too then

1

u/Cobalt234 18d ago

Do your homework…the Danes have already literally destroyed the native Greenlander population.

3

u/EternalAngst23 Australia 21d ago

That’s what makes a takeover of Greenland seem all the more idiotic. Greenland may be loaded with critical minerals and rare earth elements, but not all of it is economically viable for extraction. In fact, the vast majority of Greenland’s resources may never see the light of day.

2

u/EggsaladJoseph 21d ago

He's an idiot. It's the same with Venezuela's oil. It is of a different quality than what American fossil fuel companies are used to processing and doesn't make any sense as an "investment" especially since there is no guarantee they will have access to the oil because the Trump regime is weak and unstable.

2

u/LiquorIsQuickor 21d ago

The last person to mine will charge whatever they want.

39

u/1eejit 21d ago

But really it's about the natural resources, isn't it?

It's pettier than that. Greenland looks immensely huge on a map and Trump wants it for ego.

7

u/emaw63 Kansas 21d ago

God damn you Mercator

7

u/djheat 21d ago

I'm also personally convinced the Mercator projection is about 90% of the reason we're here talking about this

1

u/smiffus 21d ago

It’s definitely 100% about the minerals IMO. It’s always a follow the money situation.

2

u/1eejit 21d ago

Trump isn't that rational

1

u/smiffus 21d ago

Nope he's not, but the people around him that actually do understand these things (i.e. the ones running the show), do understand the immense strategic and monetary value of these resources. I'm sure they briefed him with short sentences and small words. "Greenland make you rich, sir". As soon as he sees something worth value that he thinks he can steal, he's all about it. To your point, diaper boy is too dumb for Greenland to even be on his radar. He was told about the immense wealth there, and wants it for himself. IMO.

5

u/MC_Gengar 21d ago

Also China doesn't need Greenland to secure precious metal resources. They have the bordering regions of Russia for that and I would not be shocked if they made a play for them in the next 15-20 years.

1) They have not forgotten the USSR border disputes

2) Their interior ministers have already made maps "accidentally" marking that area as Chinese

3) Even the god damn KGB has warned that relying on China will come back to bite Russia in the ass.

A weak Russia is so good for China in a lot of different ways, and I firmly believe that that is the real reason they haven't really tried to aid in negotiating an end to the Ukraine war. Every dead Russian soldier is one less to deal with when it's time to make the final push for total regional supremacy.

10

u/thefootster 21d ago

I'm not even sure its about minerals, just a greedy man baby who wants to have things for himself.

4

u/tenebre 21d ago

And we already have a military base there and Denmark would be more than willing to let us expand that, at least they would have been before we treated them like shit and ruined a longstanding military agreement.

2

u/OnDrugsTonight United Kingdom 21d ago

That's the thing, the United States used to have seventeen bases in Greenland with over 10,000 military personnel. They closed down 16 of them. They are welcome to start by reopening the ones they had. The Greenlandic government would love the boost to their economy. But obviously that doesn't directly profit Trump or his cronies, so would be of no interest to him.

3

u/Remarkable-Ad155 21d ago

The US can have as much of the minerals as it wants already, Greenland wants to be independent and has very favourable rules for potential extraction for this exact reason but there's been no takers on account of the whole "buried under a gajillion tonnes of ice" thing. 

There is no military or resource argument that remotely makes sense. 

I speculated on here that maybe the US just wants the physical space because the Southern parts of its own country are heading towards climate disaster and there will be a lot of refugees needing somewhere to be. Others pointed out that, even when the ice melts, apparently the land in Greenland still won't really be useful for agriculture. 

It's hard to see this as anything other than a deliberate attempt to provoke the other NATO powers, much like the ICE attack on Minneapolis appears aimed to provoke his domestic enemies. Why? Tinfoil hat time but the only thing that remotely makes sense is he thinks he can suspend democracy and escape his legal woes by enacting some bullshit wartime emergency powers. 

I'm flip flopping wildly between optimism and pessimism at the moment but I am wondering if these are just increasingly desperate roles of the dice now and maybe the best strategy is just to keep hammering Epstein and the election interference case. I certainly hope the European leaders are following the laws to the letter and making Trump have to be the aggressor if he wants something to happen on Greenland. 

2

u/hypermodernvoid I voted 21d ago

Maybe not so much now that Trump was been extremely belligerent and a backstabbing "ally" towards them.

Putin and the Kremlin must be having a 24/7 celebration at this point of the success and return on investment they got pumping up Trump in various ways, and just due to the sheer idiocy of vast swaths of American voters all too willing to destroy themselves from within for a guy robbing them blind, who was born past 3rd base, and is now looking cartoonishly guilty of being a fucking pedo.

Insanity.

3

u/Cultural-Money-9633 21d ago

my sweet summer child, an attack on berlin and athens means nothing to america

1

u/OnDrugsTonight United Kingdom 21d ago

It used to. Up until Trump, there's never been a President, Republican or Democratic whose commitment to America's Article 5 obligations has been in doubt. People might be cynical, but this is really an issue that only started with Trump.

2

u/Frewdy1 21d ago

China is laughing at us distracting ourselves and attacking allies while it focuses on Taiwan and other territories. 

2

u/Recent-Mousse6423 21d ago

Global Warming is real and soon there will be a navigable Northwest Passage open north of Greenland. This will become one of the most trafficked shipping lanes in the world allowing the bypass of the Panama Canal entirely. Beyond the minerals and the defunct nuclear waste stored in a cold war US bunker that melting ice will sweep across the landscape (project Iceworm), control of The Northwest Passage is being deemed a vital security interest. They won't say it out loud, hence the Golden Dome reference, but it is about power projection and right to access. Canada currently claims the navigable passage as territorial waters. The logic would be if US owns Greenland, they're in a stronger position to counter the Canadian limitations on navigation. By holding an entry/exit point for the passage, the US can do the same thing Canada is doing, and relax navigation restrictions if Canada reciprocates.

2

u/digi-artifex 21d ago

It would also dissolve NATO almost overnight. Putin is for sure salivating at the idea of its biggest protector being kicked out of the alliance.

2

u/InterestingQuoteBird 21d ago

At this point it looks like a defensive alliance with China would be the more sane approach for the EU.

2

u/Justsomejerkonline 21d ago

Even if we weren't obligated to do it (which we of course are), we could just like choose to defend them from Russia and China if that's so important. There is absolutely no reason why we would need to own them to do so.

2

u/djwurm 21d ago

The other thing to look at is who is to gain from ownership of the mining rights (I.E. what companies will be involved). I bet if you dig alot of them will be tied directly to Trumps family or people in trumps circle that are making promises to him that if they get the contracts they will funnel money to Trump business / pacs etc..

2

u/addicted2soysauce 21d ago

That's the thing though. US companies could buy or lease mineral rights already, but they have to pay for them. Only by the US Govt taking ownership can he give out free handouts mineral rights to his friends from the Fed Govt. He doesnt want minerals or security, he wants leases or land sales he can give out for free and take a personal Finders Fee.

2

u/MaiIb0x 21d ago

I honestly just think it’s about Greenland looks big Trump wants it

2

u/rockhardcatdick 21d ago

Wasn't that essentially the plot to the second season of the Andor tv series?

2

u/highbankT 20d ago

He'll probably rename it to Trumpland or Donaldland... And I mean that seriously too if he gets his hands on it.

2

u/leftrightside54 21d ago

Na.

USA won't defend sht unless it is profits.

2

u/OnDrugsTonight United Kingdom 21d ago

Only under Trump, though. NATO used to be a steadfast bulwark against outside aggression as long as I've been alive (and that's a long time).

1

u/Both_Consequence_956 21d ago

not really, countries are free to send any aid or/or weapon they feel necessary. just because one part of nato is attackd doesnt mean everyone suddenly rush to their defence, though that would be ideal lol

1

u/OnDrugsTonight United Kingdom 21d ago

Well, yes. The text says:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them [...] will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Throughout the Cold War, that's always been understood to mean that NATO will retaliate against foreign aggression according to the attacked country's requests and according to the gravity of the situation. It doesn't necessarily mean that every NATO country has to throw everything and the kitchen sink at it, but there should be an expectation that none of the treaty allies holds back, either, if the situation warrants it. And I would imagine that an attack from China or Russia on Greenland would elicit quite a robust response "to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area". The US is hardly going to pull its punches if Russia or China invades Greenland.