Greenland. China, Russia, USA, and Denmark

[Tim the Tank Nut]

For what it is worth I don't care if the USA or Denmark controls Greenland.  At their population level someone is going to have to be the parent because they don't have enough people to make it work.  If they became independent the only income is to sell/lease the very resources they want to protect and the market isn't there to make it a long term viable INDEPENDENT nation at sub 100,000 people.

My only concern is that in their desire for independence (read that as greed) they will end up being a satrapy of China or a vassal state of Russia.

They simply don't have the wherewithal to defend themselves and if they are independent then no one else is obligated to defend them in the long run.  They want their cake and they intend to eat it too by having NATO defend their interests without any cost to them.

The more I look at it the more this is all Trump's way of saying to China that they aren't going to get a foothold in Greenland while he is in office.  Same, same in Panama.  Dry up the Chinese money by obvious threats and the locals will lose interest in China without any additional actions taken.

[glenn239]

5 hours ago, Rick said:

Why does Denmark still "have" Greenland?

I've noticed a pattern with the American posters on this subject in the past day that they're asking questions and engaging in discussions, but not one of them has said that the USA should not take over Greenland.  Tim the Tank Nut just bravely opinioned that he "doesn't care" whether Trump annexes Greenland or not.  

I'm starting to gain the impression that Americans might actually be for annexing Greenland, even if Europe is non-cooperative.  Is that a fair impression?

Edited January 11 by glenn239

[Stefan Kotsch]

22 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

I doubt they would have kept the lease had UK not recognized PRC and established diplomatic relations with them, which they did pretty much immediately (1950 or so).

Well, Russia is also recognized by all states and maintains diplomatic relations?

Edited January 11 by Stefan Kotsch

[Stefan Kotsch]

23 minutes ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

The more I look at it the more this is all Trump's way of saying to China that they aren't going to get a foothold in Greenland while he is in office.  Same, same in Panama.

As part of Denmark, Greenland is under NATO protection. But ok, that seems to become  a shaky construction.

 

[Rick]

17 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

I've noticed a pattern with the American posters on this subject in the past day that they're asking questions and engaging in discussions, but not one of them has said that the USA should not take over Greenland.  Tim the Tank Nut just bravely opinioned that he "doesn't care" whether Trump annexes Greenland or not.  

I'm starting to gain the impression that Americans might actually be for annexing Greenland, even if Europe is non-cooperative.  Is that a fair impression?

Well, this U.S. poster does not have an opinion one way or the other.  I do not keep up with foreign affairs -other than the illegal immigration  problem - as this is not a big problem for the U.S. 

The U.S. is not going to invade and conquer Greenland. After a quick online search I now know Greenland has valuable mineral resources so beneficial trade agreements with Greenland, Denmark, the U.S., and the rest of the world are in order. 

Prior to Trump mentioning Greenland, no one gave the island a thought. I believe Trump has done a great service in highlighting the benefits of such trade agreements with countries in opposition to China. 

[Tim the Tank Nut]

permit me to clarify as a person who supports Trump very much.

If Denmark wishes to retain control of Greenland and can manage to do so then I would not support a forced annexation.  It would be wrong on a series of levels and do unspeakable damage to the image of the USA in the world (essentially showing that what Russia says about US is true).

Having said that if the option comes down to US annexation or China control then US control is preferable to me even at the cost of offending sensibilities.

Having re-read my earlier posts I feel like I had made this clear.  Hopefully this will reduce in confusion on what I think about the issue.

I very strongly maintain that the population of Greenland is wildly inadequate for any form of independence.  They simply can't take care of themselves at those numbers.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

replying to Stefan:

As part of Denmark, Greenland is under NATO protection but there's ne certainty that Greenland will remain part of Denmark.  They do have an independence movement which does have ties to Chinese resources.

Further, NATO provides military protection rather than protection from economic infiltration.  China's Belt and Road initiatives gave them control of a fair number of areas that would've been better off under other control.  You can sell your way into Chinese control but they aren't likely to let you shoot your way out of it.  Many areas of Africa are under direct Chinese economic control now due to Belt and Road.  It's loan sharking on a national or international scale.  The local power brokers get a huge payoff and the country is on the hook for the loan that it can't possibly pay off.  Then it defaults to Chinese control.

This isn't a new occurrence and it is pretty common knowledge.  I'm surprised that the effect isn't obvious to all including the native Greenlanders pestering for independence (unless they just want they're payoff).

 

[Stefan Kotsch]

11 minutes ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

As part of Denmark, Greenland is under NATO protection but there's ne certainty that Greenland will remain part of Denmark.

Ok, I definitely recognize that as a problem. The solution will become a fundamentally larger problem. So you see me at a bit of a loss.
So we are throwing Ukraine under the bus and secure Greenland as a result. Something like this could it be?

Edited January 11 by Stefan Kotsch

[Rick]

13 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Ok, I definitely recognize that as a problem. The solution will become a fundamentally larger problem. So you see me at a bit of a loss.
So we are throwing Ukraine under the bus and secure Greenland as a result. Something like this could it be?

Second paragraph, who is "we?"

[Tim the Tank Nut]

Stefan, 

It remains to be seen how far under the bus the incoming Trump administration is willing to throw the Ukraine.  It may not be as far as your media is telling you.  For Trump it's partly map math.  Greenland is much closer to DC than Kiev.

[Stefan Kotsch]

23 minutes ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

For Trump it's partly map math.  Greenland is much closer to DC than Kiev.

That will certainly be the case. But the signal to Putin is, Look, we're all just crooks and we're going to negotiate a good deal because of it. In the end, the only thing that matters to us is money. And we let a few players jump over the edge.

36 minutes ago, Rick said:

Second paragraph, who is "we?"

A good question. Is the USA outside the Western values? How consistently is the EU committed to this? Maybe all the talk about Western values (of which the USA is so endlessly proud) is just empty talk?

[Tim the Tank Nut]

I don't think Trump will end up there but I don't know.  Here is what I think Trump has in mind:

To Putin:  take the deal I offer or I will arm Ukraine to the point where they take Moscow.

To Zelensky: Take the deal I offer or I will cut off even the Obama blankets and spoons in addition to weapons.

To Denmark: You can keep it if you keep the Chinese out and let us purchase the mineral rights.  Any Chinese dealings and we'll stir up enough independence movement that you won't be able to keep it.

It's all very high stakes, brash, and in your face but that's how Trump rolls.  It's just who he is.  We tried it the other way and it didn't work.  Now we are going to try this.  I hope it works.  Since Trump won the election he has not called me for advice so I am not certain but I am pretty confident that this is where he is headed.

[seahawk]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I've noticed a pattern with the American posters on this subject in the past day that they're asking questions and engaging in discussions, but not one of them has said that the USA should not take over Greenland.  Tim the Tank Nut just bravely opinioned that he "doesn't care" whether Trump annexes Greenland or not.  

I'm starting to gain the impression that Americans might actually be for annexing Greenland, even if Europe is non-cooperative.  Is that a fair impression?

Simple. If US security needs Greenland, Greenland needs to be taken.

[Roman Alymov]

Greenland-centric world map

[sunday]

2 hours ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

Many areas of Africa are under direct Chinese economic control now due to Belt and Road.

Not only Africa. Montenegro is in the hook to China because of a motorway that will not be profitable ever, and some Greek ports are already in Chinese hands.

[Roman Alymov]

3 minutes ago, sunday said:

Not only Africa. Montenegro is in the hook to China because of a motorway that will not be profitable ever, and some Greek ports are already in Chinese hands.

Economic control is not control at all. Investors/owners could be kicked out at any moment, if enough local political will for it.

[sunday]

12 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Economic control is not control at all. Investors/owners could be kicked out at any moment, if enough local political will for it.

You mean, if the relevant local politicos are insufficiently bought...

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

Stefan, 

It remains to be seen how far under the bus the incoming Trump administration is willing to throw the Ukraine.  It may not be as far as your media is telling you.  For Trump it's partly map math.  Greenland is much closer to DC than Kiev.

It doesn't make any difference to the ICBMs...

[RETAC21]

3 hours ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

China's Belt and Road initiatives gave them control of a fair number of areas that would've been better off under other control. 

This isn't the case, the belt and road initiative has been a complete failure in leveraging Chinese influence.

They have spent by the trillion and in exchange they got nothing of value, main investment target (Pakistan) is a continuing economic mess. Sri Lanka? another mess. They got a pier in Djibouti to base a couple of frigates. Other initiatives have been incredibly unsuccessful in creating leverage (see Indonesia, which still buys its weapons elsewhere).

The inroads in central Asia were facilitated by Russia being busy in Ukraine, but this war cut the road initiative forever, so only the belt remains, and as the Houthis demonstrate, China is unable to keep it open.

[Stefan Kotsch]

25 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Investors/owners could be kicked out at any moment, if enough local political will for it.

So one & jump? Unfortunately, in countries with a functioning legal system, this is not so easy.

[RETAC21]

30 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Economic control is not control at all. Investors/owners could be kicked out at any moment, if enough local political will for it.

Depends, it's cheaper to buy a US President than it is to build military power. 

[Roman Alymov]

31 minutes ago, sunday said:

You mean, if the relevant local politicos are insufficiently bought...

Politicians can't be bought, they could only be rented for unpredictable time.

[Roman Alymov]

15 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

So one & jump? Unfortunately, in countries with a functioning legal system, this is not so easy.

Have functional legal system saved investments in NS?   The same way local gang with AKs may enter "China-owned" port in, say, Afrika, and say they are now in control....

[rmgill]

20 hours ago, Yama said:

Wouldn't Russian base on Moon or Mars advance science? Or would they just corrupt the locals? 

I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the advanced countries in Asia are those which weren't colonized by Europeans.

Singapore? 

Korea was most CERTAINLY colonized by Japan. 

Does Japan having been occupied for 10 years following WWII Count? What of the modest colonization during the Sengoku Jidai period? 

What other "advanced countries in Asia " do you have in mind? 

20 hours ago, Yama said:

I have made this point before, but perception of the British Empire is overly positive due to so much of our popular history having been written by Anglosphere writers.

One could ALSO look at the current state of such nations to see. India has a great deal of corruption but is an exporter of goods. How's Belgian Congo doing? 

[rmgill]

4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I've noticed a pattern with the American posters on this subject in the past day that they're asking questions and engaging in discussions, but not one of them has said that the USA should not take over Greenland.  Tim the Tank Nut just bravely opinioned that he "doesn't care" whether Trump annexes Greenland or not.  

I don't see us simply annexing it. One it's not our style. Same as invading Canada to make it one state. 

A purchase would be interesting. 

A series of treaties for leases also seems likely based on the negotiations and the needs. A more substantive treaty also seems likely. 

Again, you seem to be taking the haggling as what everyone wants for final prices based on what's stated from the start. Trump doesn't want to invade Canada or deploy all our Marines to annex Greenland NOR does he have a dying grandmother . 

'ere, don't you lot Haggle any more? 

4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I'm starting to gain the impression that Americans might actually be for annexing Greenland, even if Europe is non-cooperative.  Is that a fair impression?

If we could arrange a purchase and congress approves it, sure!

 

Edited January 11 by rmgill