Greenland. China, Russia, USA, and Denmark

[Tim the Tank Nut]

did you really send F-16s to Argentine?  How are you expecting to get paid?

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

You arent keeping an eye on Argentina, most sources indicate that its very rapidly improving due to austerity measures.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/10/business/milei-argentina-economy-impact-intl/index.html

[mandeb48]

 

don't worry. There is a pro-American government. Argentine will borrow what it needs from IMF.

Edited January 13 by mandeb48

[Tim the Tank Nut]

I did know that Argentina was on a rebound but I assumed they'd pay their bills in order of overdue first so it'll be a while before those F-16s get paid for and if a Leftist government returns before then...

Given the success of the austerity measures in Argentina perhaps the UK could implement similar measures.

The more I think about Greenland the more I think it is a negotiating ploy for President Elect Trump.  Not sure on his endgame but I bet he's sure.

[Pavel Novak]

1 hour ago, mandeb48 said:

What surprises me most about this situation is the lack of reaction in the world. It is not the first time that a strong country wants to take something of value from a weaker one. but at least they tried to invent some excuse so that the theft would not be so obscene. But hey, if Uncle Sam wants the resources of Greenland, the resources of Greenland will have

 

and those from Canada, and those from Panama and those from......

Usual world reaction is proposing concessions to the aggressor. See Ukraine before invasion.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

I did know that Argentina was on a rebound but I assumed they'd pay their bills in order of overdue first so it'll be a while before those F-16s get paid for and if a Leftist government returns before then...

Given the success of the austerity measures in Argentina perhaps the UK could implement similar measures.

The more I think about Greenland the more I think it is a negotiating ploy for President Elect Trump.  Not sure on his endgame but I bet he's sure.

Tim, we have been doing Austerity for over 14 years now. Its why our Armed Forces and Police are in such a mess.

Austerity works, if its targeted and delivered results you can then invest. It doesnt work if its embarked upon as an ideological principle, doesnt target the things that should be cut, and is placed hand in hand with cutting tax breaks. Which is essentially how we did it.

 

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

The more I think about Greenland the more I think it is a negotiating ploy for President Elect Trump.  Not sure on his endgame but I bet he's sure.

It's precisely a negotiating ploy. I expect we want and need more bases in the area for sea control and honestly regular maritime patrol. We and the Canadians probably could stand to use a number of more permanent bases along the route of the northwest passage AND our ability to respond to any aviation/maritime emergencies up there is probably very lacking. 

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, Tim the Tank Nut said:

The more I think about Greenland the more I think it is a negotiating ploy for President Elect Trump.  Not sure on his endgame but I bet he's sure.

I think he wants both Greenland and out of NATO. 

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

 We and the Canadians probably could stand to use a number of more permanent bases along the route of the northwest passage AND our ability to respond to any aviation/maritime emergencies up there is probably very lacking. 

I'd be all for a border more like the EU, and more cooperation in the Artic.  But the threat of sanctions and trolling about the 51st state isn't playing well up here.

[rmgill]

4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

I think he wants both Greenland and out of NATO. 

I suppose it's a step up from he just wants those places so he can put a Trump Hotel in for free...
😕

 

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

I suppose it's a step up from he just wants those places so he can put a Trump Hotel in for free...
😕

The arguments here are about force structure and spending, but I don't think either are the core issue.   Trump I think senses that NATO doesn't make sense for the United States anymore.  It's that simple.  There is no threat to NATO that NATO didn't manufacture itself, there is no threat to NATO that the EU can't resolve on their own.  Maintaining military ties with Europe makes sense, but NATO itself needs to be put to pasture.  That's what I think 5% spending and Greenland is all about.

 

[mandeb48]

19 hours ago, rmgill said:

It's precisely a negotiating ploy. I expect we want and need more bases in the area for sea control and honestly regular maritime patrol. We and the Canadians probably could stand to use a number of more permanent bases along the route of the northwest passage AND our ability to respond to any aviation/maritime emergencies up there is probably very lacking. 

To have more military presence in Greenland you do not need to threaten Denmark. All it took was a call to Copenhagen and that's it, he would have what he wants, this is different, he threatens a subordinate, I mean, a NATO ally for free.

[Soren Ras]

Well, the whole Greenland kerfuffle is certainly entertaining. To what degree the whole thing is a negotiation ploy or an actual first step towards  replacing Denmark in Greenland, at the very least it manages to get everyone to look away from the confirmation of Trump's various position picks. 

The US certainly has a number of entirely legitimate security concerns that have not been adequately addressed by Denmark in recent years. Back in 2019, when the matter was raised during the first Trump term, after the initial exchange of nasty words, there was a meting during which our PM made a number of promises to Trump to increase the Greenland security posture. But as it turned out, for various reasons, not all of them derived from Trump no longer being President after the 2020 election, none of these promises were honored.

This puts the PM in a pretty poor light, since at the moment it is abundantly clear that Denmark at the moment cannot defend its own soil, let alone the rather larger territory occupied by Greenland. The recent defense increases will eventually (we hope) address these, but procurement and force building is a longterm thing and as such Denmark only has itself to blame for any security concerns raised vis a vis the defense of the Arctic.

The Greenlanders themselves are in a novel position. On the one hand, there is a significant part of their politicians (and to a lesser degree among their constituents) who would really, really like to be fully independent. And partially due to revelations of the formerly shameful and shabby treatment often accorded the locals by Danes in the past, the agreement in the Danish parliament is that the moment the Greenlanders wish to hold a referendum and vote for independence, it will be granted. The trouble for the independently minded is that currently the economy of Greenland is not only very dependent for a significant part of their economy on direct monetary transfers from Denmark, but worse than that, despite decades of trying, the Greenlanders have not yet managed to train and staff the professionals who are needed to actually run the society. Meaning that doctors, nurses, policemen, teachers, judges, lawyers, bureaucrats, IT specialists etc. (especially the higher levels) are overwhelmingly ethnic Danes to this day.

An independent Greenland would not only have to manage without appx 33% of their current budget, but also risks having to replace a large and key part of the professional classes (or find money to entice most of them to stay voluntarily). This is aside from defense related costs, but since Denmark has screwed that pooch so thoroughly, let's leave that.

Staying totally independent has so far been a pretty hard sell to the ordinary Greenlander, who might like the idea in theory, but are wary of what it would mean in practice.

Switching one overlord for another (and becoming a much, much smaller and less important entity relatively compared to that overlord) is probably also going to be a worry. I suppose if you simply promise to pay each Greenlander enough money personally, that will work on some, but my guess is that enough of them are also concerned about the preservation of their culture and language and some of their traditional way of life.

In any case, I guess my biggest question is what it is that the US wants out of Greenland that it does not already have today?

Exclusive military base access?   Already in place. About the only limitation currently is an old agreement that the US will not base nuclear weapons in Greenland. (or at least not do so openly, see no evil, hear no evil and all that).

Free access to enter contracts for mining and use of the minerals? Already there. Of course, you need to get accept from the local Greenlanders when you negotiate a new contract do so, but presumably outright annexation and abolition of any and all rights of the locals is not planned.

Maybe it is more a matter of preventing the Chinese from luring Greenlanders with their filthy lucre?  But that is already effectively in place, since in practice both Denmark and the US would get a say and neither party would be amenable to Chinese encroachment. The US might object from a national security POV and the Danes (and Greenlanders) might be more concerned about the environmental impact, though it is safe to say that if Washington lets Copenhagen know that they *really* don't like X, then Copenhagen tends to do quite a bit to make X go away. 

In any case, from a pure showmanship POV, Trump is playing a pretty strong hand. He is quite likely to get concessions if that is what he wants, such as additional assurances against Chinese activity, possibly even greater freedom in the use of or expansion of US base rights, and of course Denmark is currently scrambling to pick up and repair its pathetic military capabilities, which Trump has also demanded, though of course no small part of that is due to some dude sitting in Moscow.

Losing Greenland would be a blow to the national self image of Denmark to some degree, but well, we have been in that spot before.

Edited January 14 by Soren Ras
editing needed

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, mandeb48 said:

To have more military presence in Greenland you do not need to threaten Denmark. All it took was a call to Copenhagen and that's it, he would have what he wants, this is different, he threatens a subordinate, I mean, a NATO ally for free.

He's probably operating on the very clear lesson learned that NATO doesn't respond to diplomatic conversations on things like security, they only respond to threats.

Remember, Trump made LOTS of noise about the issue with Russia, NATO member spending AND other issues. They laughed, didn't do what was needed and only AFTER Russia invaded Ukraine after Biden took over the Oval Office in 2022 did the the NATO members really start to address their spending.

The casual war between Canada and Denmark over Han Island is amusing, but the reality is that the North West passage IS now clear for navigation at least part of the year and people need to start looking at the issues with that and other parts of global commerce. Since that falls to the US, we're doing what we have to do. 

Want a seat at the table, start paying for more chairs. 

(And I note that Soren notes that what actually happened was what I Intuited happened.)

Edited January 14 by rmgill

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just now, rmgill said:

He's probably operating on the very clear lesson learned that NATO doesn't respond to diplomatic conversations on things like security, they only respond to threats. 

Remember, Trump made LOTS of noise about the issue with Russia, NATO member spending AND other issues. They laughed, didn't do what was needed and only AFTER Russia invaded Ukraine after Biden took over the Oval Office in 2022 did the the NATO members really start to address their spending.



 

Did he? Because I dont remember him saying other than the barest essentials during the Chemical attack in Salisbury. He certainly didnt put Russia on a warning all through his period in office about Ukraine. And we know he didnt, because Ukraine was under attack by Russian backed insurgents (and Russia itself) nearly every damn day for the 4 years he was in office.

In short, this is pure mythmaking, Biden weak, Trump stronk. Well he sure didnt look strong when he came out of that meeting Putin.

[Roman Alymov]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Did he? Because I dont remember him saying other than the barest essentials during the Chemical attack in Salisbury.

May be he know "Chemical attack in Salisbury" story is of the same kind of reliability as "Trump the Russian agent" story?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, you would love to believe so, wouldnt you? You didnt even believe the Russian Army was in Ukraine prior to 2022, so spare me your incredulity please.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

Soren's post is a perfect example of why TankNet is great.  A refined analysis by someone on scene.

Thank you very much.

[Roman Alymov]

21 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, you would love to believe so, wouldnt you? 

There is no need for me to believe or not believe so  - what matters here is tens of millions, may be even majority* of US voters took "Trump the Russian agent" story with big grain of salt, so it is quite logically they also took another stories your Media (and Gov) have created with the same degree of scepticism, resulting in influence on political decisions.

* we have learned so much about, let's say, specific of US electoral system over last few years that nobody could really be sure.....

26 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 You didnt even believe the Russian Army was in Ukraine prior to 2022, so spare me your incredulity please.

Excelent example of doublethink. You have claimed "Russian Army is in Ukraine" since 2014, with stories of entire RusArmy divisions wiped out etc.  -and at the same time mention Y2022, the year when nothing new happened, if we follow your logic. If Russian Army was in Ukraine ever since 2014 - then what happened in 2022?

[Stefan Kotsch]

45 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

If Russian Army was in Ukraine ever since 2014 - then what happened in 2022?

A war. Two campaigns.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Roman Alymov said:

There is no need for me to believe or not believe so  - what matters here is tens of millions, may be even majority* of US voters took "Trump the Russian agent" story with big grain of salt, so it is quite logically they also took another stories your Media (and Gov) have created with the same degree of scepticism, resulting in influence on political decisions.

* we have learned so much about, let's say, specific of US electoral system over last few years that nobody could really be sure.....

Excelent example of doublethink. You have claimed "Russian Army is in Ukraine" since 2014, with stories of entire RusArmy divisions wiped out etc.  -and at the same time mention Y2022, the year when nothing new happened, if we follow your logic. If Russian Army was in Ukraine ever since 2014 - then what happened in 2022?

Nope, fabrication. I said they were present, and damn near every battlegroup in the Russian Army is alleged by Galeotti to have rotated through there once. Remarkably they seem to have learned relatively little whilst they were there.

[Yama]

On 1/11/2025 at 10:55 PM, rmgill said:

Singapore? 

Korea was most CERTAINLY colonized by Japan. 

Not by Europeans, though. Colonization period was also relatively short compared to most others.

On 1/11/2025 at 10:55 PM, rmgill said:

 
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? 

Japan was already very advanced country by the time of US occupation. Thailand was never colonized either.

Of course, it's possible that already well developed countries were able to resist colonization better.

 

On 1/11/2025 at 10:55 PM, rmgill said:

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? 

But India was exporter of goods even before British takeover, and actually British period made it relatively much poorer (although that might have happened anyway, who knows). Congo, by contrast, was quite undeveloped. And it'll forever stay a powerful argument against colonization.

[Roman Alymov]

15 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

A war. Two campaigns.

The war is on since 2014. Russian Civil war.

[Roman Alymov]

16 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Nope, fabrication. I said they were present, and damn near every battlegroup in the Russian Army is alleged by Galeotti to have rotated through there once. 

That was debated numerous times in "Kiev" thread, no need for me to repeat my arguments here. Score is on the table: when Russian Army really came. it was quite remarkable change of events. The same way the story of "Trump the Russian agent", created to influemce US voters, failed to convince them.

16 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 Remarkably they seem to have learned relatively little whilst they were there.

What they were supposed to have learned -how to push territory and people back into where they do not want to belong to, under agreements with "respected partners" that were later acknowleged to be fake right from the start?

[Stuart Galbraith]

19 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

That was debated numerous times in "Kiev" thread, no need for me to repeat my arguments here. Score is on the table: when Russian Army really came. it was quite remarkable change of events. The same way the story of "Trump the Russian agent", created to influemce US voters, failed to convince them.

What they were supposed to have learned -how to push territory and people back into where they do not want to belong to, under agreements with "respected partners" that were later acknowleged to be fake right from the start?

Learning how to fight? Because judging by what happened in 2022, they surely didnt.