It’s also lose-lose for the US. There isn’t a positive outcome. If it’s dropped, the damage is “just” reputational and partly repairable. If it’s pursued: tariffs, threats, coercion. It burns trust inside NATO, accelerates European strategic decoupling, and hands a propaganda gift to every US adversary. A forced takeover would be a catastrophic own-goal: legitimacy crisis, sanctions/retaliation, and a long-term security headache the US doesn’t need.
And the deeper issue is credibility. The dollar’s reserve status and US financial leverage rest on the assumption that the US is broadly predictable and rule-bound. When you start treating allies like extractive targets, you’re not “winning” you’re encouraging everyone to build workarounds. Part of the postwar setup was that Europe outsourced a lot of hard security while the US underwrote the system; if the US turns that security guarantee into leverage against allies, you should expect Europe to reprice the relationship and invest accordingly.
The least-bad outcome is a face-saving off-ramp and dropping the whole line of inquiry. Nothing good comes from keeping it on the table.
Yes. Ian Bremmer keeps pointing out that if the "law of the jungle" becomes the norm for relations between countries, the USA will not benefit as much as autocracies like China and Russia.
See https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TLhz6ZbrMuI for a more full-throated explanation from Ian.
Which is exactly the case as long as Trump is POTUS. There's no good deal to be made for Denmark, Greenland, or Europe in general. Trump is a bad person, and can not be trusted.
Any deal that is made will either be altered or voided. And he'll continue to move the goalposts.
There are two outcomes with Trump:
1) He tries to bully someone into submission, and keeps coming back for more if successful.
2) He is slapped so hard that he gives up entirely.
Unfortunately (2) is a bit shaky these days, as he views the US military as his personal muscle.
You're going to pick better next time, right?
Personally I highly doubt a possible democratic would return a conquered Greenland. And even if it did, it would have to ensure that kind of derailment doesn't happen again. The opposition so far seems to be about as ineffectual as centrist parties across Europe at dealing with the far right.
This demonstrates, again, that Trump is the prime domestic enemy of the US. Where are the agencies that are sworn to protect the US against enemies foreign and domestic?
Who said they don't consent ? There was no referendum. /s
But if the value is high or you've landed on their naughty list, they'll have you pay before receiving the package.
> Bipartisan Legislation Prohibiting a U.S. Invasion of a NATO State Introduced
https://hoyer.house.gov/media/press-releases/bipartisan-legi...
It’s honestly just very difficult to communicate with Republican parts of the country on open, reddit-like social media.
It's quiet depressing, because a large number of them know they'll be just fine regardless what they do.
We, in Idaho, recently had a school voucher program rammed through even though a huge number of people called to oppose it. Like 90% against 10% for. They still signed it into law.
It's all very disheartening.
The US is Taiwan’s most important military ally, even if that relationship remains unofficial. It is also the most critical power in the First Island Chain. If the US stopped being a global superpower, countries like Japan and South Korea might not be willing to aid in defending Taiwan on their own.
That was my thought as well. It's a dangerous rhetoric being displayed by USA. "We need this land for our security". Turns out, what if other powers start using the same rhetoric? Russia did it already for Ukraine, China might say "We need Taiwan for our security".. where does it stop and ultimately it leads absolutely nowhere good.
In fact, the US and its allies have been the only major powers advocating for a "rules-based international order." On the other side, you have Russia annexing Crimea in 2014, and China building artificial islands in the South China Sea to forcefully claim territory that isn't theirs under international law. Not to mention that all authoritarian states, by their very nature, are a clear violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defines democracy and freedom of speech as basic human rights.
But at the same time, the US doesn't need a moral justification to sanction China over AI hardware. It is, as always, about power and influence.
The worrying part is that the US is losing its global influence by threatening an ally over Greenland. If they ever resort to military measures, they would lose all influence over the EU, and that would leave Taiwan in a very dangerous spot.
I think it is likely that he wants to stop protecting Taiwan, give it up to China and then expect to make a deal with China to buy stuff manufactured on the island with money, afterwards. It would be totally in character for him and match his actual actions across the world.
Edt: would love some arguments instead of downvotes
What example do you know of a democratic country collectively "accepting" invasion by a dictatorship because being free is "not worth it"?
I can't really come up with anything.
It has more upvotes and comments than anything else posted since it’s been posted 2 hours ago, and has been on the front page for an hour before disappearing
Also go EU!
Most things fall off the front page really fast, I know because I am now spending rather too much time on this site…
"Why should the U.S. continue to have access to these bases, or receive support from allies’ naval assets, air forces, or even intelligence services, if it tries to take sovereign territory from a NATO member like Denmark? "
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-europe-greenlan...
That's literally what they are. American forces appeared in Germany in 1945.
So if the US decides to resign from NATO, they would likely face challenges directly with Germany regarding their existing agreement.
Hence Eli Lilly +40% in the last year and Novo -23%. Or on a longer timescale you can see the problem:
https://www.google.com/finance/quote/NVO:NYSE?sa=X&sqi=2&ved...
"Pricing power fell when someone else entered the market" isn't dropping a ball is why I ask.
If the US can extract Maduro, it can extract the leadership of Novo Nordisk, their lead scientists and all of their intellectual property.
/amused scenario
I'm a Finn.
I don’t know why we got to be assholes. I prefer speaking softly and carrying a big stick.
National security? We already have the right to station as many troops there as we want! And we have actually removed troops recently.
Mineral rights? America is already richly endowed - its just impossible to access what we have when permitting is almost impossible. If there were actually valuable lodes in Greenland, it would probably be easier to mine now!
The only thing I can think of are the warm fuzzies you may feel as a despot to take land and enrage your allies.
> President Donald Trump revealed in a new interview with The New York Times that his quest for full “ownership” of Greenland is "psychologically important” to him.
> During a two-hour sit-down with multiple Times reporters on Jan. 7, Trump was questioned about why he won't just send more American troops to Greenland — which is legal under a Cold War–era agreement — if his goal is to fend off foreign threats. The president replied by saying that he won't feel comfortable unless he owns the island.
> "Why is ownership important here?" Times national security correspondent David E. Sanger asked.
> "Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success," Trump, 79, replied. "I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document, that you can have a base."
> White House correspondent Katie Rogers — whom Trump recently called "ugly, both inside and out" for writing a story about his age — chimed in to ask, "Psychologically important to you or to the United States?"
> “Psychologically important for me," Trump answered. "Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I’ve been right about everything."
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/donald-trump-says-wants-...
Plus, punishing exactlty those Nato partners who are sending military there to see how to strengthen the defense. That shows you don't want Greenland stronger, militarily. You want it weaker to have less issues when you invade it.
Only at Thule. The 2004 re-agreement rescinded the unrestricted establishment of bases:
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/04-806-Denm...
It significantly emasculated the 1951 agreement:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp#art2para...
Its so disappointing and tragic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/trump-a...
This was 2020 and still some people who allgedely want to make America great again voted for him.
>Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.
>“Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway? ...
Nuts!
"Exclusive: How Palantir's Alex Karp went full MAGA" [2]
Look at All In Podcast - tech VCs - they are all in support of this administration.
[1] https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...
[2] https://www.axios.com/2025/10/23/trump-alex-karp-palantir-ma...
Your mistaking is in using rationality and logic.
That's the EU's problem, not Trump's)
Why would you pay the US $10 when you can get the same thing from France for $8?
Or the US then has to issue bonds with massively inflated returns - i.e. pay a much higher interest rate.
He probably sees Europe as too meek to do anything more dramatic/substantial. And believes that without NATO, Europe would buy more US weapons that they now get "for free".
[1] https://www.dirittoue.info/u-s-legislation-restricts-preside...
After NATO 1.0 is declared dead and burried, Trump might as well backpedal and start negotiating NATO 2.0. Which would be light on US military commitments and heavy on European arm purchase commitments. And he seems to believe (not unjustifiably - see Nord Stream sabotage) that the European leaders are spineless enough to accept a NATO 2.0 deal.
This will not be unlike Trump's thinking: "I'll build a wall and the Mexicans will pay for it".
Wild theory, yes. But we live in wild times, unfortunately.
Buying weapons from an unreliable and possibly adversarial (former) partner would create strategic dependence and weaken Europe’s defense autonomy. => It would be stupid.
We're trying our best over here, but y'all can't give up at home either. I know it sucks and it's hard, but don't give into the temptation to just tune out. If you don't like what is happening with your country, do your best to change it - don't wait for others to do it for you!
Sadly, if you look at polling, none of this is remotely unpopular with US Republican voters. Our country’s union is hanging on by tattered threads.
If we successfully revolt the US doesn't survive in any form to stabilize the world built around us and there is no guarantee that the ruling party isn't MAGA-like.
The rubicon was crossed. This is the new normal.
But it is important to acknowledge the wins. They do have an effect, and that's the only path we seem to have toward slowing down the march to autocracy.
I am genuinely sorry that Atlanticism came down to a few hundred thousand of the dumbest Midwesterners we could find.
You can still call your congressman, senator, local political, councilman, or someone else, spend 30 mins watching a demonstration, donate $10 to Amnesty, tell a random dude in fatigues "grateful for your service but please don't invade Greenland". The more people that do these kind of things the harder it gets for the Fascists to brand those that do as left-wing terrorists.
We all know they fall down by showing painted signs at street demos. /s
Refuse to buy from any company that supports the current administration (like Microsoft). End contracts where they exist.
For decades now, elite self-dealing, institutional opacity, and captured power steadily eroded public trust. Trump did not arrive as a reformer. He arrived as a punishment mechanism. A stress test. Unfortunately, US elites are drawing the wrong lessons so far.
I wonder whether UK media decide to hammer Farage over his Trump connections to screw Reform super hard.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46670275 and marked it off topic.
What bold change looks like is Trump. An anti-Trump government implementing bold change in the other direction would be bad too. Not as bad because more of their change would at least be toward things that would be good in the long run, but there would still be a lot of harm on the way by taking it too fast.
Each expansion of executive power is treated as unprecedented until it becomes normalized. Before Bush, indefinite detention without trial was unthinkable. Before Obama, the executive assassination of U.S. citizens without due process was unthinkable. Before Clinton, routine humanitarian war without congressional declaration was unthinkable. Each step is later reclassified as “different,” “necessary,” or “less bad,” each step decried by the "opposition" but excused by partisans. The danger isn’t that one party does uniquely shocking things. It’s that both parties participate in a ratchet where norms only ever move in one direction supported by the rank and file. What looks like a false equivalence is actually a cumulative one: today’s outrage rests on yesterday’s precedents.
And it’s not even mainly about presidents. Fixating on the occupant of the office misses how much of this is legislative and bureaucratic drift. The real damage is often done through laws that quietly expand state power, normalize surveillance, weaken due process, or lock in perverse incentives. Presidents sign them, but Congress writes them, renews them, and funds them. That’s where the ratchet really lives.
USA PATRIOT Act (2001), Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994), FISA Amendments Act (2008), National Defense Authorization Acts with detention and secrecy expansions, Telecommunications Act (1996), Controlled Substances Act (1970), Defense of Marriage Act (1996), Welfare Reform Act / Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996). All terrible. All drafted and passed by both parties.
This is why “no one did X before” is the wrong metric. The system advances through laws and precedents that feel technical, temporary, or defensive at the time. Each one lowers the bar for the next. By the time something looks outrageous, the groundwork was laid years earlier by people insisting they were the reasonable alternative.
No Democrat president threatened to take over Greenland or took another head of state hostage without precedent.
Yes, they are corrupt and warmongers, but not nearly as harmful as the current Republican party.
Start preparing for the post-American world.
I really hope the US heals, quickly.
A little history lesson: the US has defacto and dejure been defending Greenland since WWII (they've had a defence pact since Denmark fell to the Nazis). US bases have been on Greenland from then to the current day.
Even after Ukraine, Europe buys Russian gas. Even with all the threats from China towards Taiwan, Europeans are cozying up to them. And Europe still doesn't adequately defend itself, with a few exceptions.
While Trump is erratic in public, all recent US moves point to a confrontation with Russia/China in the near future. And Europe just sits by twiddling their thumbs. Feels like Eastern Europe and the Baltics are the only ones who take it seriously.
Just like Trump being hot-and-cold on Ukraine. The administration's real goal isn't the US letting Russia take over Europe or even Ukraine. The goal is to scare the EU enough about the possibility the US might let Russia take over Europe or Ukraine that they start paying the expense of making sure that doesn't happen.
Greenland only has a population of 56k. If the US really wanted to buy Greenland, it should suggest a referendum whether Greenland should be annexed by the US, then pass a law that says the US will give each Greenlander $1 million if the referendum passes. I'm sure it would pass in a landslide and it would only cost $56 billion, which seems much lower than the price of trying to capture it militarily.
[^1] With NATO, the security reason given by US makes no sense. And as for natural resources, I'm sure there are perfectly legal and inexpensive mechanisms that US companies can use to set up mining operations in Greenland.
The US is allowed for decades to have a military presence on Greenland, but the US Army has been diminishing it's presence as the time went by.
Does not make sense. Denmark had already budgeted with a huge increase of military capabilities on Greenland. If US wanted more they could talk with their allied.
And the 'lol just pay them' argument is tone deaf and insulting to the Greenlanders. If you followed along you would know that they have already stated that they would not take money. To say nothing about the laws that governs the Kingdom and the process of leaving the it. Which can not be deferred by paying anyone. But I guess americans have a really hard time understanding the rule of law now.
The ideal for the US superpower right now, is to collapse Iran's regime while Russia is kept busy in Ukraine. It's unable to lend support to prop up its allies. The peace efforts are fake, meant to maintain a constant back and forth that never really goes anywhere. The US system has been focused on trying to strip Russia out of that region for decades, since before 9/11. Iraq was about Russia. Syria was about Russia. The first Gulf War was about decimating the Soviet supplied Iraqi army with the latest generation of US weapons, to put them to the test.
Most of the agenda exists from one administration to the next. The Pentagon works on its strategic aims across decades (see Bush & Obama & Trump and pivoting against China).
The US superpower is interested in the great power conflicts, it's not interested in Iraq because of oil, or Venezuela because of oil. It's about Russia and China, the other components (oil, chips, weapons, etc) are mere strategic calculations on the board.
The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
