Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Greenland: Nice Place You Have Here…
I can understand some of the reasons for Trump’s tariffs here and there, even though some of the language around them seems more belligerent than necessary, particularly when it involves traditional allies.
I understand the joke of Canada as the 51st state, which would be a horrible idea, and if I were Canadian I would be insulted.
Usha Vance is visiting Greenland, along with a group of officials, including Mike “Signal” Waltz, and J.D. announced he’s going with her. The visit has the feel of a mafia shakedown, with the President insisting, “We need it.”
If I were a Greenlander, I would take it as a threat. As an American supporter of the President (mostly), I take it as a threat.
Seems to me a partnership, increased investment and a stronger military presence in Greenland would be a pretty easy bargain to make, without threatening a takeover. Why not reach out to the Prime Minister and schedule some security discussions? Heck, invite him to the White House for dinner. He’s probably tired of eating blubber anyway.
Am I wrong? Seems like this one would be easy to handle.
Published in General
Trump hasn’t been specific. It sounds to me like Greenland isn’t that happy with the arrangement with Denmark.
Greenland wants more autonomy than it has. That doesn’t mean it favors being under the control of the United States as a better alternative. Trump and Vance are driving the people of Greenland closer to Denmark, which they view as a better alternative. And who wouldn’t, given the noises coming out of Trump and Vance?
How do you know all of that? They haven’t been given a formal pitch and they haven’t voted. Denmark doesn’t give them very much.
Whether they’re happy with Denmark isn’t the issue, it’s whether they support Greenland becoming part of the US, and they don’t:
The idea is also opposed by a majority of Americans:
With big majorities in both countries in opposition, I suppose the next step is for the US to invade and annex Greenland. Trumpists will turn on a dime and support this plan even though one of the reasons they voted for him was because of his supposed isolationism.
Fair enough. Pity on everybody. lol
I am brought near to tears with the thought of the selfless United States voluntarily offering assistance to what Trump once termed “****hole countries.” That we “offer them much more” could be said of most nations, but for some reason I don’t hear Trumpists calling for US ownership of Equatorial Guinea or Haiti. Give it time, I suppose.
First of all, there are “****hole countries” and they suck. They are all but worthless. I don’t recall him saying that about Greenland.
You really think we can’t offer them a decent deal?
I do and suggested one earlier in this thread.
Along the lines of Trump’s Gold Card plan, we should pay each Greenlander $5 million to become a US citizen. Greenland would be ours for a mere $285 billion, a sum that according to the DOGEbags they save us every day, or something like it.
What is your position on “getting” Greenland?
The numbers for American support of the Greenland takeover are 49% against, a far cry from 70 percent. There is not great support for it, either, but this is the latest. My source for the Fox Poll was Fox, what was yours?
I linked to it in my comment.
More than one poll there and the other is the same poll referenced at Fox, the Yahoo News one. That’s sort of interesting. I wonder why Fox didn’t mention the Fox Poll in their story. The story I looked at is here and dated two days ago, your link is from today. Well, with such disparate results it’s hard to validate either of those.
It’s important to know what the specific questions were, how the participants were selected…
“Dogebags?” How mature.
We should do nothing and let Denmark and the Greenlanders either make a proposal or tell us to bugger off.
Yes, because if there’s one thing Trumpists abhor, it’s giving insulting nicknames to your political opponents. Thank heaven their love object has never engaged in such deplorable behavior.
But why the belligerence? Why push them away? Why does our “no new wars” President threaten them?
Need I say it again? I support a LOT of the Trump agenda. But some will defend anything Trump says and does.
The behavior of the administration towards Greenland, and Denmark, is inexplicable.
I know it the same way you know that Denmark doesn’t give them very much, except that I’ve heard it from Danish people and others on YouTube who’ve reported on various votes, polls, and election results. I have not based it on any information from the Trump administration, which lies nonstop on foreign policy. But why would the U.S. want to take on another group of people to treat as welfare queens, when we could get all the benefits and have none of the drawbacks by treating it as an autonomous region under the protection of our NATO ally, Denmark? We can’t even afford to help ourselves against our enemies by helping Ukraine, so how do we expect to do more by treating Denmark as an American colony that contains a hostile population and with new American enemies on its border?
Maybe not, if it gets them to beef up their own defenses.
Decades ago I figured out that “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Was I wrong?
Greenland or Denmark?
There were good ways to do that which would have worked to our advantage. Why Trump didn’t try to pick one of those methods is hard to understand. My latest suspicion is that his main problem is listening too much to Shady Vance, as the guy pronounces his own name. I don’t have any solid evidence of that, but nobody could come up with so much bad foreign policy on his own unless he had help. Not even Trump could.
Maybe. But what happened when Trump warned Germany not to rely on Russia for energy?
What’s the connection to thinly-veiled threats of military aggression to a harmless, peaceful and friendly country?
They laughed at him. But he didn’t even try to leverage Nordstream into increased defense spending. Not clear how he would have done it, anyway.
Trump v2.0 could have held Ukraine military funding hostage to European contributions to defense. He could have offered to match their weapons assistance to Ukraine on a dollar for dollar basis, but to give no more than that. One difference is that it would have been an honorable sort of pressure, because it’s only right that Europe stops its freeloading.
BTW, Shady Vance was lying when he said Denmark hasn’t been doing what it should to defend Greenland. The main battle for the defense of Greenland is in Ukraine at the moment, and on a per capita basis Denmark ranks near the top of all countries providing aid . On the matter of total military+humanitarian aid for Ukraine, Denmark is the 2nd highest contributor on a per GDP basis, after Estonia at #1. I haven’t been able to find figures for military assistance for Ukraine (not including humanitarian aid) on a per GDP basis, but when you count just the raw amount of military assistance, Denmark is 4th highest, after the U.S., Germany, and the U.K.
It seems to me that DOGE ought to recommend some cuts to the Vice Presidential budget, since the guy obviously isn’t using his staff to do any research before he talks.
I’m with you. The Trump administration had an incredible first month with some of the most sweeping reforms ever put in place by a new administration (albeit with the specter of many questionable or abominable cabinet picks lurking in the background). Things were looking fantastic. But then the abhorrent Oval Office spectacle occurred when Vance and Trump berated Zelensky and started making it clear that the administration is aligning with Russia, one of the most disturbing foreign policy actions ever taken by a Republican President. This seems to have emboldened Trump to play-out his fantasies on tariffs against all the friendliest countries to the U.S., and for him and the VP to berate these same countries on other matters in public.
Then the House of Representatives didn’t help matters by passing a continuing resolution that raised the spending compared to the Biden years despite the fact that the much touted DOGE was supposedly going to cause them to cut spending. The latest “Signal” message debacle confirmed very early on that several of his cabinet picks had little accountability or backbone to own up to their mistakes, and they weren’t even the poorer picks! I can’t wait to see the trouble and scandal that RFK Loonier will bring.
I would say the wheels started coming off the administration as early as the start of the second month. It is a great disappointment. Most of the people who voted and supported him are still clinging to the hope that this stuff is not damaging and will blow over but I fear the trouble is just getting started. The public will not tolerate continuing or rising inflation for many more months, and Trump seems to be guaranteeing that this will happen.
My guess all along is that Trump had been restrained by competent people in his first administration that kept him away from his worst instincts, for instance, Mike Pence, Larry Kudlow, Mike Pompeo, Bill Barr, etc…. Now that he has pretty much surrounded himself with “yes men,” there is nobody to act as guard rails.
I would say it’s purpose was instantly renewed when Russia invaded Ukraine, nes pas?
I don’t see how we know any of this.
Really? How many days? no, how many hours would the Danish military be able to hold back the Chinese or the Russians if they decided to take Greenland? What’s the Danish plan? It’s to call us. Wouldn’t it be a significant deterrent to such an action if we were there already? Doing anything on the move is inherently risky. Shouldn’t we have forces prepositioned there if there is a real threat?
Such a thing becomes much more feasible if there is a significant economic incentive for us to be there. The Europeans aren’t used to thinking in those terms. Why would they? Uncle Sugar is always there to defend them.
You do know that the Ukraine was on the other side, right?
You should also know that our involvement with the Ukraine stems from their corrupt association with the Biden criminal family. The Ukraine has nothing to do with us.