by liberal japonicus
I read the news today, oh boy…
We are left with Kremlinology, but I assume this indicates the ascendance of the Rubio/Vance faction, though I don’t think there are any people who might have suggested restraint.
"This is the Voice of Moderation. I wouldn't go so far as to say we've actually SEIZED the radio station . . . "
I think you give Trump too much credit, bc. I see your line of reasoning. I think it’s beyond him.
bc: a lot of people here said “he”, and I had always tried before to say s/he, so it was a move against assumptions. Thank you for confirming.
“Danish longer than the United States has existed,” that was true at the time of WWII and the geopolitical reality required its occupation militarily.
Denmark was at the time occupied by an enemy nation. There is no possible current geopolitical reality which could require its military occupation.
Why is that not enough?
It is enough for security, so why is there still talk about the US “needing” Greenland? Could it be that the real reason is more to do with, for example, rare earths, and/or Trump’s desire to be a POTUS who “acquired” a territory larger than Louisiana and Alaska?
You would think Russian aggression would prompt more concern about Greenland.
If you think Trump (and much of the current GOP) is more aware of the threat from Russia than the Europeans are, it’s hard to know what to say to you. And further to which, pretty much everyone I know and read agrees that the other NATO countries were far too slow to ramp up their funding, albeit they are doing so now.
If you think the belts and roads initiative is entirely benign, well, I don’t.
I don’t, and I rather doubt anyone here does either. Are you by any chance falling into what I will call the “McKinney Trap” of assuming that the commentariat here are supporters of the CCP?
And maybe, just maybe, all this rhetoric is meant to get Denmark and the EU to care enough to do something about it.
I’m tempted to say “oh you sweet summer child”. It’s almost as if you haven’t been observing the Trump administration in action, and not only in their foreign adventures. Is there any innocent explanation for their behaviour that you would consider meets the definition of “sane-washing”, and how it enables normalisation of morally, legally and practically unwise and unacceptable behaviour?
Deleted when I found out how to edit!
bc, can you really believe that Trump and his henchmen are capable of that level of sophistication? Because everything I’ve seen leads me to believe that they have only three modes:
Counter examples of where he threatened, but merely as a wake up call, would be welcome.**
** Note that his threats over NATO members 2% were in pursuit of an excuse (per option 1) to, if not exit NATO altogether, drop any kind to commitment to live up to the treaty. (Yes, I know the treaty only requires consultations if a member is attacked. But I’d be astounded if Trump grasps that.) See option 1 above — he could care less what they actually spend.
Are there any instances in which Denmark has refused to co-operate with the USA over collective security in Greenland? Other than by declining to hand over the whole island.
The US has military bases on Greenland. Greenland wants to continue that practice, even if it were to become independent. They’ve specifically pointed to the Compacts of Free Association that the US has with the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Micronesia. That would likely take care of any strategic concerns.
What Greenland does not want, and what it seems Trump does really want, is a 19th C. imperial resource extraction scheme. Trump’s comments point entirely to him thinking like a real estate developer, treating the Greenlanders not as a sovereign people with a right of self-determination, but as tenants on a desirable piece of property that has extensive mineral rights.
All the strategic concerns are true, but none of them ring true as motivations for Trump. He wants his name in the history books as having expanded US territory and acquiring valuable mineral rights that can be exploited to allow the US to dominate the rest of the Western Hemisphere. Anything beyond that is too much detail for the hamster wheel in his head.
Whether it’s “sanewashing” or “Trumpologetics”, bc‘s lawyerly brief argues that the interests of the United States require some sort of action on Greenland. In context, his brief implies that He, Trump’s motivation for the bluster and the threats is to serve the interests of the United States. I refer him to Pro Bono’s diagnosis of He, Trump’s motivations for … well, everything … and beg leave to doubt that implication.
Alternatively, bc may be simply pointing out that He, Trump’s sinister buffoonery might have the unintended consequence of promoting the interests of the United States, as bc perceives them. He, Trump as useful idiot, IOW. Whether more serious, more diplomatic, more discreet efforts, by a saner and less bombastic president would better serve whatever actual interests the United States has w.r.t. Greenland is a question only an anti-MAGAt would bother with.
Lawyers gonna lawyer, so watch this space when He, Trump actually declares Himself eligible for a 3rd term. Meanwhile, a non-lawyer like me can’t resist pointing out that by His own proclamations He, Trump has already been elected president 3 times, so the 22nd Amendment is already moot.
–TP
Are there any instances in which Denmark has refused to co-operate with the USA over collective security in Greenland?
They did not invite any US units to participate in the 2025 annual Greenland military exercise, just units from France and Germany. Total 550 personnel, two F-16s, one helicopter, one frigate. Write-ups on the exercise also emphasized the difficulties Denmark and France had getting two planes and one helicopter to Greenland.
Worth noting that a single US Wasp-class amphibious assault ship carries more Marines and much heavier weaponry than took part in the exercise. Standard compliment for an AAS is 1900 Marines with six F-35Bs, four attack helicopters, a dozen supply helicopters, three air-cushion landing craft, five tanks, eight howitzers, lots of trucks, plus fuel and ammunition. And a hospital. On the Navy side there’s 1200 crew with anti-air and anti-ship missiles, multiple sorts of air and surface radar, and a long list of defensive stuff. The US has seven Wasp-class ships. Range is 9,500 nautical miles. The trip from their Atlantic Coast home port to Greenland and back is about half that.
“Worth noting that a single US Wasp-class amphibious assault ship…”
I don’t think the question on the table is whether the US could prevail in a military takeover of Greenland.
As Stephen Miller notes, rule by brute force and hegemonic domination by the strong has been the way things worked since the beginning of time. Among other things, this led to several centuries of almost continuous warfare in Europe and elsewhere, culminating in the two world wars of the 20th C.
After WWII we – “we” being most nations on the planet – attempted to establish a regime under which we would do things differently. It was imperfect and imperfectly successful. But we’ve had about 80 years of sort-of peace, at least relative to historical standards. In general, and with the exception of the Soviet Union, we haven’t had a lot of wars that were based on “we want your stuff, we’re bigger than you, so we’re taking it”.
Which has been a pretty good thing.
Trump is ripping that up.
I’m pretty sure that, were he to stop threatening to take Greenland by force of arms, folks there would be happy to discuss our security needs and accommodate them to a sufficient degree.
Trump is incapable of dealing with counterparties other than by threats and attempts at domination. With, of course, the notable exception of Russia under Putin. Other nations are not obliged to accept that.
I’ve heard war historians refer to WWI and WWII as “The Second Thirty Years War,” and while the postwar period did mark the start of the effort to create international agreements governed by consensus and law, it also marked the beginnings of hyperglobalism, and soon after of networked societies. Some historians mark those last two developments as the beginning of the end for the Westphalian Peace that was instituted as a system in the first Thirty Years War.
(I did think a bit while writing my earlier post if I should describe Trump’s worldview as 19th C. or 17th. C. for this very reason.)
Gift link from today’s NYT about their interview with Trump
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/trump-interview-power-morality.html?unlocked_article_code=1.C1A.Jn36.S3vByKtmLaG4&smid=url-share
President Trump declared on Wednesday evening that his power as commander in chief is constrained only by his “own morality,” brushing aside international law and other checks on his ability to use military might to strike, invade or coerce nations around the world.
Asked in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times if there were any limits on his global powers, Mr. Trump said: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
I don’t know whether it’s utter spinelessness or extreme political correctness on the part of those 4 NYT reporters that prevented any of them from asking: “Mr. President, are you saying l’etat c’est moi?” Not that I think He, Trump would understand that question, of course.
The US press corps seems to be composed exclusively of invertebrates. My impression is that British reporters, once upon a time at least, might have asked “Mr. President, are you nuts, or what?” But for all I know even they are too politically correct, nowadays.
–TP
JD Vance is supporting some dangerous and fucked up shit. He’s saying that federal agents have “absolute immunity” in pursuit of their orders, and he’s also claiming that we should have sympathy for the officer who executed Good because that officer had been injured in a previous action where he was drug along by a moving car.
If the second point is true, then that officer had no business being cleared for duty like this because he is clearly psychologically unsuited for his job.
And if the first point is allowed to stand and be put into practice…
The second point looks implausible, given that he walked round her car and stood in front of it. But it would be a tiny lie compared with all the others.
“The second point looks implausible”
Actually, Ross (the officer who shot Good) had been dragged alongside a car during a previous attempr to arrest an alleged illegal immigrant.
He ended up in front of Good’s car because he was walking around it while recording the incident.
This is not a guy who should be walking around with a badge and a gun.
A bit late with this reply and a bit out of order
bc wrote
And while I am reluctant to respond to what appears to be another litmus test of some sort,
This is a bit off. The reason we are asking these questions of you isn’t to ‘test’ your TrumPh, it’s to try and understand what is going on outside this bubble. I’m not sure why you think you aren’t going to get questions.
Setting that aside, saying that Noriega had all his arguments knocked down is not what I was interested in. If we are entering an era of show trials, it matters not one bit what arguments are given. I’m wondering how parallel Noriega and Maduro are.
Refreshing my memory, Noriega was captured after a full-scale invasion (Reminding us that shit rises to the top, it was Bill Barr who wrote the legal justifcation for the invasion) The US did not recognize the election of Noriega and the Panamanian government declared a state of war between the US and Panama, so Noriega was technically a POW. It was also in the middle of the 20 year process of returning the Panama Canal to Panama, with a huge US military presence and a neutrality treaty that allowed the US to intervene militarily if the Canal was closed or transit was interfered with. I don’t know how much I would agree with that, but that was negotiated during the Carter admin,
I also note this comment by bc
Denmark has historically been way behind on NATO commitments.
Using the word ‘historically’ is pretty interesting, especially since Denmark is one of the top bilateral donors to Ukraine, last year agreed to 2% and will reach 3% this year. But if your gripes are ‘historical’, like Maduro, it doesn’t matter for shit what you do now, the administration can simply resurrect something they didn’t like from the past and use it to justify whatever.
Denmark was at the time occupied by an enemy nation.
And that European problem became a world war.
If you think Trump (and much of the current GOP) is more aware of the threat from Russia than the Europeans are . . .
Using the word ‘historically’ is pretty interesting, especially since Denmark is one of the top bilateral donors to Ukraine . . .
Actions speak louder than words (well, unless its Trump, lol). Yes, Europe is finally getting serious and starting to put its money where its mouth is, rather than relying on the US taxpayers. It’s nice to see. And yes, Denmark is one of the top donors to Ukraine. I think it might actually be right at the top as a percentage of GDP. “Historically”, however, meaning as recently as 2023, Denmark was below the NATO 2% standard. And a low of 1.11% in 2015. Slid below 2% in 1990 down to that low in 2015. So yes, historically.
Are you by any chance falling into what I will call the “McKinney Trap” . . .
In my own way, I may consider many here to be a different version of summer children on some issues, but I don’t think anyone actually supports the CCP. Unless you voted for Bernie, Zohran, Waltz et.al. Then I might have a few questions.
It’s almost as if you haven’t been observing the Trump administration in action,
I’ve been observing the results achieved, the rhetoric and the resistance. IMO, many are falling for the rhetoric. If this isn’t prodding, it’s the Art of the Deal, trying to get a better bargaining position IMO for a minerals deal. Not only do I not like the rhetoric and the disrespect, I think it backfires here. We shall see.
Are there any instances in which Denmark has refused to co-operate with the USA over collective security in Greenland?
Denmark tried to get the US to leave after WWII, leading to the 1951 treaty (US refused to leave due to the Soviet threat). But I think this is more about rare earths, strategic positioning and what it is going to cost to do what is necessary to keep China and Russia at bay. And a concern that Greenland has, I understand, toyed with deals involving the Chinese in infrastructure and mining. Denmark has vetoed the projects. With the Chinese trying to monopolize rare earths, having the Chinese involved in mining is obviously a huge concern, and one that could be dealt with by getting a minerals agreement with the US. It makes sense to have some sort of economic deal to offset US defense costs. Threats of invasion are unhelpful, to say the least.
“Historically”, however, meaning as recently as 2023, Denmark was below the NATO 2% standard. And a low of 1.11% in 2015. Slid below 2% in 1990 down to that low in 2015. So yes, historically.
Yes, 2015 was when Trump was in the GOP debate and praising Putin’s intelligence and desire for a stable world. My point is that it’s cherry picking of the first order and doing that to argue for Orange shitstain’s latest fantasy is pretty weak.
It is well to remember that “rare earths” are not, in point of fact, rare. Certainly there are places with greater amounts (bits of Greenland among them). But the reason they are rare is just that it is extremely difficult (and, with current technology, highly polluting) to separate them from each other.
If you don’t care about the pollution, you could refine them in Wyoming, Missouri, or California — all of which have significant deposits. As it is, mines in those places do minimal processing, and then ship the concentrate to Chnia for refining. That’s why China dominates rare earths — they’re indifferent to the pollution caused by refining them.
If Trump annexes Greenland, the real risk is the high pollution refining which he (or those he sells it to) will cheerfully site where US (or European) pollution restrictions suddenly don’t reach.
‘I don’t think anyone actually supports the CCP. Unless you voted for Bernie, Zohran, Waltz et.al”
I voted for Walz as VP.
Go ahead and try to claim I support thee CCP. Or that I’m a summer child, in any way, shape or from.
“If this isn’t prodding, it’s the Art of the Deal”
You realize, I hope, that The Art Of The Deal was a ghost written piece of Trump fluffing bullshit.
Right? Just ask the guy that wrote it. Who now regrets it.
Regarding Greenland, Trump has already won. Namely because ‘serious’ people are seriously discussing the scenario of an annexation. Trump saw Greenland on a map once, decided that it would be ‘nice to have it’ and now op-eds are being written about the history of Greenland, its relationship to Denmark and how a US takeover might go down.
There is nothing to discuss whatsoever, this should not even be thought about, it’s completely ridiculous. And yet, we are talking about it…
We are on the same page, novakant. One more way that the media continues to normalize the caprice of Clementine Caligula.
Gerardus Mercator has a lot to answer for…
“If you take it, we take every single base of the Americans from Aviano to Ramstein, from Romania, to all the other military bases will be confiscated, and you will lose it, and the whole position of American power since World War II, if you take Greenland, you have to leave,”
Gunther Fehlinger, chair of Austria’s NATO Enlargement Committee
So, there’s that.
Good to be reminded that there is an agreement in place between the US and Denmark from 1916, when Denmark sold their Virgin Islands to the US, in which the US recognises Danish sovereignty over Greenland. However, in fairness to bc, the following interviews do give an interesting (and not Trump-positive) view of the world geo-political issues:
Freddie Sayers speaks with author and Cambridge professor Helen Thompson, economist Pippa Malmgren, and Danish MEP Henrik Dahl about the Trump administration’s escalating rhetoric and strategic moves to acquire Greenland. Covering the historical legal underpinnings of Danish sovereignty while analysing modern geopolitical drivers such as the Monroe Doctrine, Arctic militarisation, and the essential role of the region in a new space race for strategic security dominance, they explore how the Greenland situation is symptomatic of a profound breakdown in trust between Washington and Western Europe, with the administration increasingly viewing European leadership as obstructive political rivals in a shifting global order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IuCswB2RLI&t=3s
However, where bc is concerned, I do think his Sweet Summer Child (SSC) status is utterly confirmed by any suggestion that Trump’s approach to this or any other issue is anything to do with mastery of the art of the deal. Quite apart from what russell correctly says about the book of that title, one should never forget that regarding Trump as such a master of deal-making is pretty deluded given his financial history (until, that is, the advent of enthusiastically embraced presidential corruption), not to mention his absurd claims to have ended several wars which make him, understandably, an international laughing stock. The laugh may well be on the rest of the world, however; that’s a risk when you elect a Caligula-type figure.
I don’t think bc actually supports the Nazi Party. Unless he voted for Donald, JD, Lindsey, et.al. Then I might have a few questions.
One of them is: can He, Trump pay for Greenland out of His own pocket? Or get His soon-to-be-trillionaire frenemy to buy it and present it to Him gift-wrapped?
If bc wants the United States to buy Greenland, he must be advocating for Congress to pass an appropriations bill for the money. Good luck with that.
The perennial MAGAt line that NATO countries owe it to “us” to spend more on “defense” would make some sense if the implication was that “we” could spend less as a result. But the MAGAt-in-Chief wants a $600B increase (to $1.5T) next year. NYT gift link.
–TP
I don’t think bc actually supports the Nazi Party. Unless he voted for Donald, JD, Lindsey, et.al. Then I might have a few questions.
Tony P, I love you. You do make me laugh.
I give up. I can’t keep up with the straw men. Frex:
However, where bc is concerned, I do think his Sweet Summer Child (SSC) status is utterly confirmed by any suggestion that Trump’s approach to this or any other issue is anything to do with mastery of the art of the deal.
What did I actually say about Trump’s negotiation strategy (that I shorthanded “Art of the Deal”)?
“Not only do I not like the rhetoric and the disrespect, I think it backfires here.”
Good grief people. Shorter me:
1) Greenland is strategically very important whatever Trump says. (sidenote, wjca, you could be right, but what I read says the rare earth situation is much more important national security wise, and Greenland is important. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1802/a/pp1802a.pdf)
2) Trump is going about it stupidly re Greenland. My read is he is setting up the next negotiations, or prompting the EU to take further action, but I could be wrong.
3) It’s never right, absent an imminent threat (e.g. WWII) to occupy over objection. Or to threaten to. And no, I don’t think we buy Greenland. Get a minerals deal. Satisfy the Inuit (that will be hard).
4) I’m glad Maduro is gone, the operation was done amazingly well, but I’m really worried about the future of Venezuela.
I could go on, but I don’t have the time or inclination.
P.S. Tony P, touche.
P.P.S. And I hope you wrote that with the same seriousness I did, lol.
It’s interesting that the pdf link from bc doesn’t mention Greenland at all and does not mention China in terms of geography, merely in production. It also fails to mention that the USGS, which maps mineral deposits (my dad worked for it before he went into the Navy Oceanographic department) was subject to the DOGE cuts, with about 20% being let go or taking early retirement.
While there is supposed to be a pivot, investigations into bioextraction, because they were linked to ecosystem research, have been halted, despite the fact that they are already proven, From Gemini
Proven Success: It is already used for roughly 15–20% of global gold and copper production.
Current Efficiency: For Rare Earth Elements (REEs), bioleaching (using microbes like Gluconobacter) now reaches extraction efficiencies of 65–80% in controlled environments.
Specific Mineral Focus: As of early 2026, researchers have successfully used biological systems to selectively capture Cobalt and Neodymium from complex mixtures like old EV batteries and coal tailings.
This suggests that looking at this as geography might be Sweet Summer Child status if I understood what that meant.
I thought this NYT daily podcast on rare earths and how they are extracted was good, and the part that discusses the difference in Japanese and US industrial policy quite interesting to me.