cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/50658798

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/29934421

Trump offered to buy the vast Danish territory during his first term in office – receiving an abrupt refusal – and he revived his push over the weekend when naming his ambassador to Copenhagen for his incoming administration.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Mute Egede quickly sought to quash any chance of a deal. “Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom,” Mute Egede said in a statement.

Greenland, the world’s largest island, is an autonomous Danish territory with its own parliament, about 55,000 inhabitants, and a small pro-independence movement. It relies on Denmark to fund more than half of its public budget.

Trump on Sunday posted that “for purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.”

  • @[email protected]English
    10•2 days ago

    Greenland, the world’s largest island, is an autonomous Danish territory with its own parliament, about 55,000 inhabitants, and a small pro-independence movement. It relies on Denmark to fund more than half of its public budget.

    I think every community should have the autonomy to decide which team they want to join or none at all. But given this piece of information independence seems like a rather bad idea.

    • @WoodScientistEnglish
      5•1 day ago

      I mean, its population is small enough, that realistically, if we really decided we wanted it for geopolitical purposes, really wacky solutions do become possible. For example, you could cut a $2 million check to every man, woman, and child in Greenland, and the cost would be a $110 billion. That’s nothing to the US federal budget, and it would be a solid long term investment. You give every resident of Greenland enough cash to just straight up move to and retire in the US if they want to. And the cost would be minor compared to trying to seize it by military force, if such a conflict spawned a war with the EU. Even if us seizing by force just resulted in the EU applying a bunch of trade sanctions, straight up buying out the entire population would likely be far cheaper than doing it by force.

      • SkeezixEnglish
        1•17 hours ago

        You mean that?

        • @WoodScientistEnglish
          1•10 hours ago

          Mean what? It’s simple math. Whether it’s a good idea or not is a separate question. But the actual mechanics make it not as ridiculous as it sounds. Remember, Americans at the time thought buying Alaska was a mad folley as well.

          As far as whether I think it’s a good idea, for $110 billion? Yeah, that would be a fantastic long term investment for the US. There’s the mineral and other resources on the island currently. And as the planet continues to earn, owning more northernly land is never a bad thing. I don’t support some colonial invasion to take Greenland by force. But its population is so tiny that just writing everyone a big check is possible.

          I actually see the “buy Greenland” as the most practical of the territorial expansion claims Trump has floated. You’re not annexing big chunks of Canada or Mexico without committing some horrible crime. They’re unlikely to want to join willingly, and not even even the US is wealthy enough to offer some massive life-changing bribe to millions of Canadian or Mexican citizens in exchange for voting for annexation. So any expansion into Canada or Mexico would be a hostile invasion, and I do not support such a thing. I’m perfectly fine expanding the US if it makes sense for us and if the people want to actually join the US.