Not a post I expected to make, but fwiw, my personal opinion but informed by being a career national security professional, the US seizing Greenland from an ally by force would be unnecessary for practical military use, create blowback greater than any gains, and be downright immoral.
Reposted from
Farrukh
JD Vance, "Denmark is not being a good ally"
"If we need to take Greenland that is what President Trump will do because he doesn't care about what Europeans scream at us"
"If we need to take Greenland that is what President Trump will do because he doesn't care about what Europeans scream at us"
Comments
They know this right?
@brendannyhan.bsky.social
for noting the post I RT'd changes "take more territorial interest in Greenland" in the original interview to "take Greenland" in the caption. While "take territorial interest" doesn't rule out force, it doesn't rule it *in* as clearly as "take"
PoliSci 101 students should be tasked with writing these op-eds to refute this nonsense.
(I do have one project I continue to work on, though, and should get to it.)
Been trying to understand Trump ‘thinking’ since we’ve had defense access with no issues since ‘51. The only thing I can come up with is that in Trump 1, admin was talking about how to get exclusive access to Greenland’s minerals. Someone told Trump ‘not possible due to Greenland’s home rule and
desire to be open to China and EU, plus strong enviro resistance. Rather than seeing it as an opportunity to negotiate, Trump said ‘Let’s buy it’ and started saying so publicly. Of course, Greenland and Den said no way. Fast forward to this self-destructive idea of taking Greenland, which will
be significantly more costly (to your point) than simply accepting that we can’t get exclusive access to Greenland’s mineral rights, and negotiating for favored status. Instead, they’re setting up to take and administer Greenland, on top of the counter-insurgency that will likely be necessary,
all because his ego and stubbornness painted us into a corner, of sorts, because the national security needs related to their minerals is real—unless it isn’t?
It's simple misdirection.
So there will be a war, an utterly senseless, unnecessary, gratuitous war, framed as needed for the nation's security.
Heard that anywhere recently?
If its economic, theyre an ally and capitalism is trumps preferred religion.
Either way, wheres the art to this deal?
Ewwwww
2. "Taking Greenland" would be a crime and could quite easily be constituted as an act of international terrorism.
3. This is a distraction, because they are wrecking our government and committing crimes against human rights.
https://nypost.com/2025/03/23/us-news/second-lady-usha-vance-to-visit-greenland-as-part-of-trump-push-to-acquire-territory/