President Donald Trump has said the U.S. will revisit its stance on Greenland in the coming weeks.

Asked if he expected to take action on the territory, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday: "Let's talk about Venezuela, Russia, Ukraine. We'll worry about Greenland in about two months. Let's talk about Greenland in 20 days."

He added: "We need Greenland from a national security situation. It's so strategic."

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 192 points 9 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 31 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    🀷

    Even his most coherent quotes contradict themselves, and he talks shit all day long. And the phrasing "Greenland deadline" is a little too evocative for my taste, but clickbait is a must these days.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 23 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    He added: "We need Greenland from a national security situation. It's so strategic."

    The US already has military bases on Greenland in accordance with diplomatic agreements. This isn't about national security or defense strategy. If it were, there would be diplomatic ways to increase US military presence. This risks losing the diplomatic agreements which allow the US to maintain a military presence there. It won't be very strategic if US forces get banished from the realm.

    This isn't about national defense. It's about natural resources. Trump wants to exploit Greenland for its rare minerals the same way he wants to exploit Venezuela for its crude oil.

    It's so transparent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 169 points 9 months ago (17 children)

    A "nato member" threatens invading another NATO member ......

    Well Europe, we'd better gear up. Although I don't have much hope for us now our spineless 'leaders' don't even dare to call the Venezuela illegal (let alone an act of war)

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    I really dislike the narrative 'eu can't leave nato' / 'eu can't push back on the us because we need them. I'd really like to know:

    • how true this is
    • how much the people in control want to change this
    • how long it will take to change this

    The eu can't allow itself to be treated like this, but also can't allow itself to be forced into a passive stance of having to agree. The eu needs to be able to stand up to this bully (and all the others).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 9 months ago* (8 children)

    'eu can’t push back on the us because we need them

    The question is: For what do we need them?

    They certainly will not respect Article 5 of the NATO treaty. They do not respect the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark. They will use any(!) leverage they have against us, no matter what we do. What do we get for playing nice? Nothing! If I look at Starmer, Merz, Kallas, ...., it looks like Chamberlain 2.0 and we know from experience that this will not work.

    Maybe we buy some time but I do not see attempts to end the dependency. All I see is the hope that everything will be ok once Trump is gone. I doubt it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    The question is: For what do we need them?

    For everyday life mostly payment processors and IT infrastructure. For both of them there's some change in the plans, but it's painfully slow and with the orange toddler it's a reasonable threat to assume that those might vanish from EU overnight if there's even moderate push for any change which he doesn't like.

    Then there's obviously international trade, support for sanctions against Russia, support for Ukraine (whatever's left of it) and a ton of other things, but specially Visa and Mastercard are pretty important part of everyday life for Joe Averages around Europe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 148 points 9 months ago (24 children)

    I propose a kind of peaceful ring exchange - Greenland to the US, Alaska to Canada, California to Denmark and Texas to Mexico. Yellowstone goes to the Vatican so they can prevent an eruption with prayers. The British kingdoms then go to Ireland, with the exception of Scotland, which goes to Bavaria because of cultural similarities.

    Have we forgotten anything? Oh yes. Russia goes to Ukraine. For reparations reasons alone.

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • load more comments (15 replies)
    [–] 129 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    I can't wait to watch him actually do something against Greenland to try and take over it and watch as the rest of Europe pretty much does nothing.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 9 months ago

    Notice anything unusual?
    - Nah.

    Alt TextTwo armed guards at entrance of medieval castle. EU flag at top of entrance. Two guests entering. Closeups of guards' blank faces.
    Knight appears in the distance, Russian flag above head. Closeups of guards' faces, staring blankly.
    Russian flag above knight's head joined by Hungarian and Slovak flags. Closeups of guards' faces, staring blankly.
    Flags joined by social media companies' logos. Closeups of guards' faces, staring blankly.
    Flags and logos joined by drones. Closeups of guards' faces, staring blankly.
    Flags, logos, drones joined by USA flag. Knight slays 1st guard as 2nd guard looks on.
    Knight and 1st guard out of frame, EU flag torn in half. 2nd guard says: "Hey!"

  • source
  • parent
  • Greenland is a goner, I'm afraid.
    Even worse, with mounting aggression from East and West, and our own right-wing parties handing our enemies the continent on a silver platter, Greenland's fall is going to usher in a century of humiliation for Europe.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 119 points 9 months ago* (16 children)

    What deadline?

    We'll worry about Greenland in about two months. Let's talk about Greenland in 20 days.

    Is NOT a deadline, but a delusional person's ramblings. Two months is not 20 days, fyi.

    Stupid clickbait article title. I have to downvote this.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • load more comments (13 replies)
    [–] 92 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    If you want every country to get nukes, this is how you do it. Countries with nukes don't get invaded.

    I miss the old world.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 70 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    Let's talk about the Epstein files.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Hot take: even if they would get released uncensored and in full, nothing would happen.

    We would just have confirmation on what we aready know.

    At this point talking about the files is a distraction from the atrocities the US government commits and not the other way around.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah. I've been saying it for some time that Trumps base was more worried about him possibly blowing Clinton than him fucking kids. Trump could make a press statement saying he fucked kids and he loves fucking kids and he wants to continue fucking kids and the only thing that would happen (apart from the fake outrage) is conservatives would normalize fucking kids.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 53 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    I'm concerned he thinks he's able to take Greenland as easy as he was able to kidnap Maduro.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    I’m concerned that anybody could think such spearheaded attacks could bring anything but chaos. I agree on Greenland, kidnapping a high value target with a flashy operation has nothing to do with conquest. Successful US dominance was based on diplomacy, imo Trump overrates military supremacy once deprived of diplomatic credibility.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I have thought for a long time that the chaos is the point. They're not trying to do something strategically smart. They are trying to diminish the credibility of the US. They are corruptly manipulating US markets with big crazy moves as a means of transferring wealth to their friends while also trying to weaken the US.

    They started small to see what they could get away with and have been progressively getting more wild with the moves they make.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 46 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    If its so strategic you could, Oh I don't know...cooperate with Greenland and Denmark? You know, like normal world leaders?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago

    Or you know. Like the US has done before Trump. There are already US military bases and Iβ€˜m sure he could have built more and even extracted minerals for a fee. But nope it has to be his. Fuck everyone else, including the US by proxy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, Denmark and the EU would happily let the US military do whatever they want/it needs to defend against Russia and China. This argument is bullshit, just like kidnapping Maduro because if drugs.

    If there is one single thing that is consistent, it is that US foreign politics aims at enriching the Trump clan and the US oligarchs. Under this premise, it all makes sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago

    The US HAS a base in Greenland. Formerly Thule Air Base, now Pituffik Space Base belongs to the United States Space Force, (which Trump created) and used to station B-52 Bombers and shit like that to threaten the USSR during the cold war.

    Thing ist:

    The 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement allows the United States to operate the base under a NATO framework, as long as both Denmark and the United States remain NATO members.

    (Emphasis by me)

    I think Trump wants to leave NATO and keep this important base.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 33 points 9 months ago

    Greenland get your shit together, you've probably got 10 days.

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 9 months ago (18 children)

    It's people like these that stop humanity from ever evolving past meaningless wars and eternal petty garbage. Trump, Putin, Xi and others are the reason why humanity can't have good things.

    Trump has forever tarnished the USA as a beacon of freedom and democracy. I'm hopeful the american people will see this eventually, but history contradicts that hope.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • load more comments (18 replies)
    [–] 32 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    US: We need to violate your national security for our national security to exploit your natural resources.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 25 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    2 months == 20 days. Not senile at all.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 21 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    What deadline? Surrender or die?

    Fuck the United States of America

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 20 points 9 months ago

    "let's talk about Russia, Ukraine, Venezuela, Colombia, Mexico, Canada. Also, where's my fucking Nobel Peace Prize!? I'm the president of peace! I think we're going to have to do something about Mr.Nobel as well."

    .....

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    A related question I have: Was the US ever (publicly) interested in "acquiring" Greenland before Trump? His comments are the first of the sort I ever noticed, but I could imagine the idea having a longer tradition.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    They were literally offered Greenland by the Danish ambassodor during WWII, and could have kept it after the war, but chose to hand it back. So no, the purposes of the US with Greenland has been served perfectly fine with the previous diplomatic arrangements they have had.

    There is no sense to this other than Trump sees how big and beautiful it looks on a map in the same colour as the US territory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    We’ll worry about Greenland in about two months. Let’s talk about Greenland in 20 days.

    60 days = 20 days. Got it.

    We need Greenland from a national security situation. It’s so strategic.

    Much strategic. So situation.

    I've thinking a lot this past year about John Oliver's segment on how this loon is undeniably, comically stupid, but that he's equally dangerous, and the former often seriously undercuts the latter. He sounds like he's having a stroke most of the time, sure, but I keep wondering how long it will take for leaders to figure out that they need to take his gibberish seriously. Maybe the latest abduction of a world leader will clue them in.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next β€Ί