Exactly my thoughts.
I think US ownership (not necessarily of land) is inevitable, but it is going to take a couple of decades of these kind of polarising pieces.
I think US ownership (not necessarily of land) is inevitable, but it is going to take a couple of decades of these kind of polarising pieces.
Like so (source Wikipedia)
"... there were three basic tenets behind the concept:
The assumption of the unique moral virtue of the United States.
The assertion of its mission to redeem the world by the spread of republican government and more generally the "American way of life".
The faith in the nation's divinely ordained destiny to succeed in this mission." ?
If a country other than Denmark was to claim Greenland, either Iceland or Canada would make more sense.
We're also really not interested in annexing random things.
And also glad to hear that random annexations by Canada are currently off the menu. Though who knows if Canada might become "interested" in some bits of Oregon or Maine in the future ;-) These might might not be "really" American....
When American Idiocracy (AI) fatally weakens their southern neighbor would be the time for Canada to conquer their rightful claims. The Burning of Washington will rise again.
(just kidding, to be sure)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aroostook_War
We get expanded military rights and potentially some mineral/drilling rights, while Greenland gets protection, lots of money, access to USPS domestic rates, and probably increased tourism in addition to the independence they desire. Their citizens could also live and work in the US indefinitely.
Native Hawaiians would escape the continued mistreatment:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/hawaii-no...
I think Radio Free Denmark should launch a soft power campaign.
But hey, maybe I'm wrong and the Danes will successfully integrate a large group of people that don't share their values. They've already done that, right?
That's your mistake.
Does the US? They don't seem to have a great track record of that
I mean do you even remember Pearl Harbor?
/S :^)
Not sure why Greenlanders would care at all.
They can already do the same in Denmark, which is a country with far better standards of living.
You may not want to come here and that's fine, but it's a huge draw and will continue to be. Administrations are fleeting, but the allure of opportunity remains. You're posting on a forum that is somewhat of a monument to exactly that.
EDIT: some of this made a bit more sense prior to your hasty edit
The US is not.
Sure, there's allure in going to US if you're from a poor country, or if you have an ambition your country cannot satisfy (some scientists and entrepreneurs will find America only in America, that's true).
Greenlanders are neither of those two categories.
If they don't care moving to Denmark or rest of Europe you can be sure they don't care coming to US either.
It is also protected by Denmark's membership in the EU and the CSDP by virtue of the EU's collective self defense clause (which protects all of all member states territory, not just the parts in europe).
The status quo - apart from the part where the US is threatening to violate its NATO treaty obligations and invade something it is obligated to protect from invasion - is just fine.
You are talking about getting a colony and stealing their resources.
You might expect them to have christian values, but it would be a mistake…
What would that even mean? Especially the use the word 'ownership'?
I think there's zero chance of US long-term influence on Greenland. They simply have no reason to prefer foreign domination, when they can simply be sovereign. I would place independence + EU membership as more probably than any association with the US, and I think them staying within Denmark is much more likely than them becoming independent.
The reason is they require subsidy to live there. The economy appears to run at a net deficit. The same reason the Vikings gave up on it.
Some Swedish regions also have a net deficit relative to other Swedish regions, but that doesn't mean that they don't work out economically. After all, not all economic activity in region is taxed there. A firm in Örnsköldsvik pays their taxes to the Swedish government, and then the Swedish government distributes part back to the region.
It's around 600 million USD per year, on 56836 people. Around $1000 per head. But GDP per capita is $58,498.
Continuing to lose money leads to bankruptcy.
It would probably be fine. Furthermore, I don't think Denmark plans on dropping it. They want reasonably strong government services also in this sparsely populated arctic region.
No, they can't. The likes of Palau are (barely) viable as sovereign countries, because at least the geographic size is as small as their populations.
It is absolutely, positively, completely impossible for 50K Greenlanders to by themselves maintain a the world's largest island, even aside from the completely frozen-over aspect. The $600M annual subsidy by Denmark does not include the funds Copenhagen spends on also running Greenland's foreign relations and defense. But in reality, Denmark spends a relative pittance on those things (like "six dog sleds" pittance); the vast majority of the cost of defending Greenland is borne by the US, as has been the case since 1940. Why should the US shoulder the burden without commensurate political power?
The petroldollar has been amazing for every citizen of US… somethings just give and take.
US can choose to jump out of Nato whenever it wishes.
The real danger here is that we might all be chatting against llm bots…