[flagged]
The highest ranking member of the US executive, in a publicly televised speech before Congress, said that "we're going to get Greenland one way or the other".
You can argue that's not a threat, but it would make you look silly IMO.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-text-of-...
"And I also have a message tonight for the incredible people of Greenland. We strongly support your right to determine your own future, and if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America.
We need Greenland for national security and even international security. And we’re working with everybody involved to try and get it. But we need it really for international world security. And I think we’re going to get it. One way or the other, we’re going to get it.
We will keep you safe. We will make you rich. And together we will take Greenland to heights like you have never thought possible before.
It’s a very small population, but very, very large piece of land and very, very important for military security."
So he said Greenland has right to determine its own future. But he outlined that we need it for international world security. He then promised to improve the economy and security of Greenland so we can achieve "international world security". Then he said 'I think we're going to get it'. Then he said, in his casual New Yorker schtick that he's known for, 'one way or another we're going to get it'.
That is a forward looking, hopeful statement. But it's also, there's multiple possibilities to getting what Trump wants. He wants North American security. Note, that Greenland has a NORAD defense system in place since the 1950s. It has long been known that Greenland was important for the North American hemisphere's defense, to protect from threats across the Arctic by the then USSR and now Russia.
It has a U.S. military base. It also has some critical minerals like rare earths that China has captured 70% of global supply for.
A path to getting security and mineral access could also involve a treaty with a sovereign Greenland. That's how he thinks. The dude does not do pessimism.
He's currently floating wildlife protection plans, like $50M for polar bear protection: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/10/09/...
Either way, this is how he negotiates, and it's more effective than it seems in the drive by headlines.
That's the message. The optimistic riffing that he does as asides during his speeches are always exaggerative and forward looking. That's just his personality that he can't turn off. ::shrugs::
If you want to criticize the highest ranking member of the US executive for saying dumb things, then get in line, we all agree.
(It is weird, having to state such facts now)
If somebody threatened you with murder, would you avoid hanging out with them or would you be like "it's just empty talk"? Stop justifying the unjustifiable.
I personally think it's about time we get a nuclear program in Denmark.
We don't need launchers, we'll just nuke whatever island anyone invades.
Also, while I don't share your assessment that anyone involved is (the equivalent of) a kindergartner: a child with a gun making threats is not a great image. I don't know what your point actually is, but it's not going in the direction of: just normal business between two states, there's nothing to worry about. Not at all.
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/04/world/greenland-annexatio...
Bases as in multiple? Didn't they shut down all but one?
> was never a threat. It was an offer
Is this a joke? The president has literally said they're not ruling out military force to annex Greenland, in what world isn't that a threat? Especially when said to a military partner no less.
When the US purchased Lousiana from the French, did the bid also come with a "if you don't agree, we might take it by force" addendum?