President Donald Trump's United States of America

[lenaitch]

Is there a benefit for US sovereign ownership of Greenland? Or is this a Trump bargaining tactic? (I am not convinced any intelligent answers will come forth in this forum...). But it is worth red teaming from a US perspective.

If you have such disdain for Forum members, we could be curious as to why you are here.

The US military has roughly 750 foreign military installations of one form or another in 80 countries. Should they annex all of those countries? The US already has military installations in Greenland and, unlike say Cuba, the host country is happy to have them. If they needed a greater presence, I'm sure they would be happy to negotiate one. I've yet to here a cogent 'national security' argument that justifies annexation.

 

[Full Metal Junkie]

Is there a benefit for US sovereign ownership of Greenland? Or is this a Trump bargaining tactic? (I am not convinced any intelligent answers will come forth in this forum...)

Well, you already seem to be determined to ignore plenty of "uninteligent" arguments that there is no military benefit for US sovereign ownership of Greenland, however sound those arguments may be.

Here is another one for you. Sure, there a huge benefit for US sovereign ownership of Greenland - money. Greenland has plenty of minerals locked under its fast-melting glaciers. It also has a minimum of 200 nautical miles (and up to 350 nautical miles) around its coastline as its sovereign Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Plenty of oil waiting to be extracted from that EEZ.

 

[Towered]

If you have such disdain for Forum members, we could be curious as to why you are here.

The US military has roughly 750 foreign military installations of one form or another in 80 countries. Should they annex all of those countries? The US already has military installations in Greenland and, unlike say Cuba, the host country is happy to have them. If they needed a greater presence, I'm sure they would be happy to negotiate one. I've yet to here a cogent 'national security' argument that justifies annexation.

Trump was directly asked that, and his response was something like "We can only robustly defend it if we own it outright."

 

[kEiThZ]

Is there a benefit for US sovereign ownership of Greenland? Or is this a Trump bargaining tactic? (I am not convinced any intelligent answers will come forth in this forum...). But it is worth red teaming from a US perspective.

Lucky for you. There are some of us here who have actually served. And know about defence issues. I've got a quarter century in the CAF. How much time did you do in defence, diplomacy or development? From your tone, I would assume you've got decades in.

As to the topic at hand, the calculation on Greenland is moronic. It's a NATO country that is not far from Europe. It was more than adequately covered during the the Cold War. What exactly would the Americans do in Greenland that the Europeans couldn't? It's not like the Brits or French couldnt airlift a brigade in tomorrow if needed. And the Europeans do just fine there today. Indeed, the Americans are so concerned apparently that they only have 600 personnel in Pittufik. This is down from the 19 posts they had in Greenland during the Cold War.

If Trump and co thinks "owning" Greenland is cheap. Wait till they find out what the end of NATO costs. American hard power is built on a massive network of bases that rely on friendly relationships. All their power projection into the Middle East for the last three decades went through European bases. Guess what happens to American power if those basing rights are gone? Bold bet to assume there will be absolutely zero consequences to American basing in Europe after something like this.

And we're literally seeing the limits of American hard power now. No carrier in the Middle East. No basing rights in the Gulf for an attack on Iran means no American ability to intervene decisively in Iran. They'll become even more impotent if they lose what they have in Europe.

You can tell who has served in some capacity and who hasn't by who thinks about logistics.

- Europe is not only struggling with its own defence, but also with significant social, political, and economic problems. They have sort of got the memo that the 90s have ended, but are having trouble coming to terms with the new world.

This is taking a kernel of truth and stretching it into Pinocchio's nose. Europe has two nuclear powers and total numbers of everything from troops to tanks to submarines to fighter jets that is about 60-80% of the US in every category. They have no issues defending themselves. Regardless of what some Americans tell themselves. What do they have is a lack of political will to deal with Russia in Ukraine. It's a real stretch to extrapolate from that, an inability for Europe to defend itself.

 

[PinkLucy]

Invocation of the Insurrection Act seems to be the goal of the ICE offensive

He’s been itching to use it

 

[afransen]

Sorry,
I guess it's a good thing that Russia doesn't have any ports facing the Arctic Ocean, or the ability to go under the ice.
But who knows, maybe in a third of a century they might be able too. Hopefully they won't figure out how to add nuclear weapons to the subs by then.

Russia occupying Greenland is not a thing that is going to happen.

 

[kEiThZ]

Russia occupying Greenland is not a thing that is going to happen.

New member. Claims to be on the left. Buys what Trump says hook, line and sinker.

 

[picard102]

Once an independent Greenland ceases to be under the Danish jackboot (sic), it would be a great candidate for Belt and Road.

the only jackboot here is American fascism.

 

[Lennox970]

a NATO country that is not far from Europe. It was more than adequately covered during the the Cold War. What exactly would the Americans do in Greenland that the Europeans couldn't? It's not like the Brits or French couldnt airlift a brigade in tomorrow if needed

I literally spat out my coffee reading this! Logistics, dear boy, logistics...

Great sense of humour on this forum though!

 

[Full Metal Junkie]

I literally spat out my coffee reading this! Logistics, dear boy, logistics...

Great sense of humour on this forum though!

the Facepalm of The Day award goes out to you, dear boy.

 

[Lennox970]

There are some of us here who have actually served. And know about defence issues. I've got a quarter century in the CAF. How much time did you do in defence, diplomacy or development? From your tone, I would assume you've got decades in.

I always respect those who serve and have served. Myself? 39 years. All three services, in two nations and ...one or two...operational tours, as you can imagine. Thanks for asking!

the calculation on Greenland is moronic. It's a NATO country that is not far from Europe. It was more than adequately covered during the the Cold War.

The point I make is that securing the Western Hemisphere is the priority - GL is Homeland defence, not defence of a third-party nation overseas. And what if a future administration withdraws from NATO (I think unlikely)? Then even that link is gone. Personally, I think the US will increasingly reduce its multilateral commitments and seek greater numbers of bilats, tailored to specific US requirements and interests.

American hard power is built on a massive network of bases that rely on friendly relationships. All their power projection into the Middle East for the last three decades went through European bases.

True. But the US has drawn down overseas bases before, and if it is no longer the world's policeman, then power projection is not basing 130,000 troops in the Middle East that requires lots of overseas infrastructure. I suspect the US will want to draw down but not leave Europe entirely. (And plenty of eastward power projection via Diego, and from the Pacific).

Europe has two nuclear powers

Off the top of my head, 500 European warheads, to Russia's 5,500. Interesting.

and total numbers of everything from troops to tanks to submarines to fighter jets that is about 60-80% of the US in every category.

On paper, you are absolutely correct. However. How did the Libya intervention in 2011 - a comparatively small operation by any standards - go for the Euro powers? Obama intended to "lead from behind" but unfortunately, it wasn't nearly that easy. Enablers, dear boy, enablers.

As I said, I don't endorse Trump's actions or behaviour, but I think I can discern why.

 

[Lennox970]

Here is another one for you. Sure, there a huge benefit for US sovereign ownership of Greenland - money. Greenland has plenty of minerals locked under its fast-melting glaciers. It also has a minimum of 200 nautical miles (and up to 350 nautical miles) around its coastline as its sovereign Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Plenty of oil waiting to be extracted from that EEZ.

I think back in the 90s it would have been hands down about resources. But in this New World, it is predominantly about China (or China and Russia - the "DragonBear") and securing the Western Hemisphere - wider Homeland defence. Key priorities and measures of relative power will include (as written by Velina Tchakarova):
- Security of supply chains;
- Control of choke points
- Security of trade routes
- Access to critical resources (N.B., rare earth metals are really not that rare; having the refining capability and capacity is, and is currently dominated by China) (oil, maybe, but long, long way downstream, and Trump is probably banking on releasing Russian oil opportunities as quickly as possible)
- Control of data, satellites, and space
- Securing undersea infrastructure

Well, you already seem to be determined to ignore plenty of "uninteligent" arguments that there is no military benefit for US sovereign ownership of Greenland, however sound those arguments may be.

Sorry for any hurty feelings. I obviously read too many hyperbolic posts that liken Trump's America to Nazi Germany.
There are plenty of intelligent people and arguments on this forum. ;-)

 

[kEiThZ]

I always respect those who serve and have served. Myself? 39 years. All three services, in two nations and ...one or two...operational tours, as you can imagine. Thanks for asking!

Quite frankly, if you did that much time, it doesn't show in your knowledge.

The point I make is that securing the Western Hemisphere is the priority - GL is Homeland defence, not defence of a third-party nation overseas.

What exactly about Greenland is Homeland Defence? Trump's own justification has gone from needing its resource wealth to vague notions of national security he can't articulate himself which apologists (like yourself) and sycophants are trying to fill in for him. And if we're going to say it's the GIUK gap, that's really stretching the definition of "Homeland Defence".

If your want to have this discussion, I'm all for it. Let's start with an actual definition of what constitutes defending the homeland and how far from the actual homeland that definition goes.

And what if a future administration withdraws from NATO (I think unlikely)? Then even that link is gone. Personally, I think the US will increasingly reduce its multilateral commitments and seek greater numbers of bilats, tailored to specific US requirements and interests.

True. But the US has drawn down overseas bases before, and if it is no longer the world's policeman, then power projection is not basing 130,000 troops in the Middle East that requires lots of overseas infrastructure. I suspect the US will want to draw down but not leave Europe entirely.

Then they need Greenland even less. After all, they aren't the global cop anymore.

Off the top of my head, 500 European warheads, to Russia's 5,500. Interesting.

You said you served and you don't know why this tired talking point is irrelevant?

As I said, I don't endorse Trump's actions or behaviour, but I think I can discern why.

I'd say it's damning that he needs randos on the internet to discern what he means.

 

[kEiThZ]

I think back in the 90s it would have been hands down about resources. But in this New World, it is predominantly about China (or China and Russia - the "DragonBear") and securing the Western Hemisphere - wider Homeland defence. Key priorities and measures of relative power will include (as written by Velina Tchakarova):
- Security of supply chains;
- Control of choke points
- Security of trade routes
- Access to critical resources (N.B., rare earth metals are really not that rare; having the refining capability and capacity is, and is currently dominated by China) (oil, maybe, but long, long way downstream, and Trump is probably banking on releasing Russian oil opportunities as quickly as possible)
- Control of data, satellites, and space
- Securing undersea infrastructure

I've read her work. And none of it is justification for taking over Greenland.

But going beyond that, an America that sees no need to trade with anybody doesn't really have to worry much about choke points. Rather contradictory to insist on going full North Korea Juche and then securing trade routes matters.

But also, the US NSS and Trump basically eschew any concern about Dragonbear. It concedes spheres of influence to both of them. They increasingly argue for ideological kinship with Putin. The NSS basically didn't mention China or Russia or much. Instead argued that Europe was facing civilizational collapse. So where is their professed worry about Dragonbear?

 

[kEiThZ]

Next up @Lennox970 will be telling us how the US needs Iceland for "Homeland Defence":

https://twitter.com/x/status/2011827698352468092

And after that the UK. Cause you know controlling the GIUK gap is important. And aft that, they'll need Gibraltar, then South Africa, then Argentina and Panama. Gotta control all the entry points into the Atlantic.