State of the Discussion

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.

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.

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.

I have to think the administration is betting on cleek's step #3 happening soon and will do everything they can to ensure it happens or at least find a way to convince people that it has.

(Sorry if I'm stating the obvious.)

there's a way these things work:

1) law enforcement (or some kind) does something abhorrent
2) people get angry about #1, Democrats benefit
3) somebody does something abhorrent in response
4) the conversation changes to #3, Republicans benefit

we're at step #2 right now.

What cleek, russell, hsh and wj said. And coincidentally I've been listening to Phil Ochs for the first time in a long time, but I'd never heard this, which seems appropriate to the times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgrehW44g5s

My own point of view is that ICE and the CBP in their current form need to be disbanded. They are a public menace. We need to manage immigration, but not like this. Shut it down and start over from a clean slate.

My inclination would be to shut them down and lay off everybody working at either. Those who worked there pre-Trump are welcome to reapply. But no promises. Those hired under a Trump administration? Don't even bother to apply, because that's an automatic reject.

"The killing of Renee Good is truly shocking – could this be a tipping point?"

I second cleek's "nah".

Based on the reaction so far, folks are generally responding to Good's killing exactly as you might predict.

MAGAs and right-leaning people in general respond with some mixture of "she tried to kill the cop", "she should have complied", "she had no business being there in the first place". Or just that old favorite, FAFO.

Folks holding, for lack of a better term, a progressive point of view see it as further evidence of an autocratic regime gone out of bounds.

Folks who, for whatever reason, don't want to line up on one side or the other generally think it's terrible, a shame that such things "happen".

Most news sources stick to a neutral stance. Either "this happened' with no further comment, or some version of "both sides".

I don't think this will move the needle, in any direction.

My own point of view is that ICE and the CBP in their current form need to be disbanded. They are a public menace. We need to manage immigration, but not like this. Shut it down and start over from a clean slate.

This is funny
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-08/us-spy-chief-gabbard-excluded-from-maduro-plan-over-past-views

The move to cut Gabbard out of the meetings was so well-known that some White House aides joked that the acronym of her title, DNI, stood for “Do Not Invite,” according to three of the people. They asked not to be identified discussing private conversations. A White House official denied there was any such joke.

Thanks, nous. I just thought it was ironic that they want to ban an author whose central work literally could be used as a blueprint for what they are aiming for as a nation.

But then it has always been risible how conservatives try to claim ancient Greece for themselves and the "West" when upon closer inspection it turns out they were a pretty colourful bunch to put it mildly. The same goes for authors like e.g. Goethe.

On the evidence of now 5 years of Trump administration(s), there seems no way to guess in advance what, if anything, will turn out to be a tipping point. One only notes that numerous events which might reasonably be expected to be a tipping point have turned out not to be.

No doubt 20/20 hindsight will allow future historians to write "Obviously...." But us living thru events? No way to make a meaningful prediction.

Well, the "Republic" - at least when taken literally - is actually a blueprint for a totalitarian state, so I don't really know what they're on about.

"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.

I've always thought that Plato's arguments by analogy are tosh. But it never occurred to me that they could be censored for not being sufficiently fascist.

he was told on Tuesday that he needed to excise some teachings of Plato from his syllabus.

I wonder if I could win a sucker bet here. I'd bet most** of those exercised by Plato have never actually read any of it. Beyond, perhaps, whatever quotes out of context an AI might include in response to a query about possible "woke" material in the college curriculum. Any takers?

** Actually, if any have I would be surprised. But there are always a few college students who, for whatever reason, have had occasion to read with utter incomprehension.

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

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.)

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.

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.

Maybe it’s prodding to wake Denmark and the EU up. 

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:

1. Threat and bluster, to get exactly what they are demanding. With maybe the occasional demand to give an excuse for something else. E.g. demanding that Maduro resign to set up an excuse to seize Venezuelan oil. (See #2 below)
2. Straight up violence, to get what they want (with or without threats first)
3. If push back is hard (i.e. threatening) enough, pretend the threats never happened. TACO Because being seen to try (as opposed to merely demanding) and fail would be intolerable.

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.

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?