Trump Links Greenland Threats to Nobel Peace Prize Snub
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
> During 1916, the two sides agreed to a sale price of $25,000,000, and the United States accepted a Danish demand for a declaration stating that they would "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland".[12][18] Although it had a claim on northern Greenland based on explorations by Charles Francis Hall[19] and Robert Peary, the United States decided that the purchase was more important, especially because of the nearby Panama Canal.[20] Historian Bo Lidegaard questions the utility of such a declaration, as the country had never disputed Danish sovereignty.[12]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_the_Danish_West_Indi...
See:
> In proceeding this day to the signature of the Convention respecting the cession of the Danish West-Indian Islands to the United States of America, the undersigned Secretary of State of the United States of America, duly authorized by his Government, has the honor to declare that the Government of the United States of America will not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland.
* https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1917/d881
"Dear [Norwegian PM] 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? There are no written documents, it's only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland.
Thank you! President DJT"
>the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement with Denmark, the US unambiguously recognizes ‘the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark’ over Greenland. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/01/who-owns-greenland
Maybe Trump doesn't realise that?
>Trump defiant as NATO rages over Greenland "blackmail" tariffs
Didn't even mention the absurdly juvenile, ahistorical "boats" argument. Ofc, Axios is the height of access journalism, so not really surprising.
After Trump, this should be a required reading for every American student in their American history class. The letter is short, the premise is stupid, and the way it's written is stupider: middle school kids can write better than this.
A distilled example of the insanity of our time, and the cowardice of people who let this happen.
We really dodged a bullet there, huh?
It does kind of suck, though, when you're in Ferguson, Occupy, at Standing Rock, protesting the second Iraq war, in the streets because the police murdered another of your fellow humans, because the folks who think all this started on Oct. 7 or Jan 20 will tell you that you're just being hyperbolic and that you should accept all this violence done in your name.
So, I dunno. I'm not stoked about being in an actual insurrectionist moment- I'd rather just be playing music. I'm not at all happy about being in a house I despise while it burns down. But having read at least one or two books, it feels like, I dunno, folks who were actively stoked about Harris don't want -less- violence, they just want it done to folks they don't see...
The thing is you're choosing the violence of American imperialism to be done in your name either way.
And yes, the people who wanted Harris did actually want less violence, and would have gotten less violence. I know it's comforting and cathartic to demonize them and consider them more ignorant than you because it makes your decision seem more righteous. Harris voters were making the best decision they could with the choices they actually had, to not throw all of their allies (including Palestinians, mind you) under the bus and double down on accelerating fascism for the sake of a moral victory.
But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. It's not as if it matters now, you all got what you wanted.
However, given the fact that a) the Democrats seemed to have done literally everything that they could do to lose what they called the "most important election of our lifetimes" and b) I have neither control over who they choose to run nor a vote in a contestable state, I am not going to feel bad for my real anger at them and the folks who support them for failing the rest of us so badly.
The "choices they actually had" are the product of the Democratic party, and I feel no end of anger for them chosing as they did and failing to win.
A lot of us just wanted to see them win, which should have been no problem. I'd much rather not be going to stand in front of an ICE detnetion facility every week.
At the same time, you can pretend that Harris was for a less violent world. She was not, she was for a world order that targeted its violence at folks you don't care about.
I sleep just fine. We have been organizing a long time and will continue.
Now is definingly the time to disengage from America as an ally, as unfortunate as that is. The voting populace has been fed decades of bad education, a media of nationalistic propaganda and finds itself in the same position many pre-authoritarian nation states have found themselves in prior to great conflicts - brainwashed, lied to, but mostly apathetic about the situation.
I hope in 2028 we're able to vote ourselves out of this mess, but just the mere fact that all of this can happen without repercussion should make it evident that it's just a matter of time before someone else takes Trump's examples and puts them back into practice another four to eight years after that.
You write "there is not much we can do in a police state against our current circumstances" and then you state "Our elected leaders on the opposition side are weak and spineless".
I would argue it's not just elected leaders that are being weak at the moment. Civil society too.
Do want want to have a day in those changes and maybe shape their direction, or sit back and just let it happen?
Curiously enough if you do a survey of who of Kim Jong-Un and Donald Trump would be more likely to throw a world-threatening tantrum.. I don't think Kim Jong-Un is going to win that survey.
I wonder what "imminent" might mean to Tillis? Anchorage to Nuuk is only ~5 hours by air (Newburgh to Nuuk, ~3h15).
(using https://nuclearsecrecy.com/missilemap/ for distances and assuming ~900 km/h for a C-17 — although it would require multiple C-17s [which Anchorage has] to significantly outnumber the allied OOB [per wikipedia])
----
the standard bureaucrats' response to crises, according to Sir Humphrey Appleby GCB KBE MVO:
- Nothing is going to happen.
- Something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
- Maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
- Maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.
a)AI (in particular, regulation on the mil/statedept use of "private AI").
b)independence of the fed
c)tariffs
Imho
In the past we have hit critical mass, where so many people were calling in to Congress to complain (when Trump initially started with his arbitrary tariffs) that the Congressional phone system began to fail under load, and that made headlines that managed to break through the 24/7 firehose of bullshit.
We need meaningful punishments for the people committing crimes within the Trump administration and we need systems in place to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.
Maybe the next election is the right moment to do something about it. I can't believe there will be a time where it's more obvious that the system is broken - other than after it's too late.
Have you contacted your Senator about voting to convict on impeachment?
Have you donated and/or volunteered to Democratic party efforts for the mid-terms?
Currently 11 comments. This one's bigger, but not hugely so.
DFW, Neal Stephenson, and Idiocracy seemed funny 25 years ago. Not so much now that they seem to have predicted where we have arrived.
Idiocracy did not predict things accurately: in that movie the President acknowledges that he does not have all the answers and asks questions (and listens) to people he recognizes as knowing more from him. That is not the situation currently.
Edit: maybe it's predicting the presidency a couple of terms down the line, when a well-meaning Theo Von becomes president. But the Theo Von of today is too smart already, it would have to be the Theo Vom of a decade ago.
Surely a broken jaw would prove quite the challenge for an 80 year old to recover from and fist fight on personal matter grounds would not constitute an attack on the U.S. henceforth not endangering NATO
As things stand, it's frequently a complete debacle. (Of course in 2025, but see also, e.g., Abiy Ahmed.) Or an embarrassment. (Too many examples to list.)
They ought to either cancel the thing outright, or invert the usual Nobel Prize rule and only award the peace prize posthumously. That would solve every problem.
The problem here is that Trump believes that the Norwegian government has any say in what a private organisation is doing, and - to be frank - just shows that Trump is a tyrant who wants everyone to use illegal force to please him.
We are not a serious species.
Giving a "peace" award to living people/organizations -- who can and do go on to sully the award with most unpeaceful deeds -- is a proven failure.
The legal trust for all the Nobel Prizes state (AIUI) that they can only be awarded to living persons.
The only option would be to not award it (like happened in 1948).
Can the Nobel Foundation change their rules? Or is static, forever set in stone? In a complex world, you need to be able to adapt.
This is the prize.
If people find it irrelevant it will become irrelevant.
The committee didn't ask for the US president to put so much relevance into it.
He got the FIFA peace prize. It would be better if he valued that prize higher.
You have to ask yourself. Why is it important for you that they change?
I don't follow. Are you saying the committee should have known that Trump would literally wage a military war if he isn't awarded the peace prize? Are you saying if they changed their mind now and allowed Venezuelan politician Machado to gift her prize to Trump, that Trump would no longer have a desire to own Greenland? I'm honestly trying to understand but maybe I missed an important story.
“I do whatever the fuck I want. I say jump, people ask how high. People do what I say”
He expects the same of other leaders in other countries.
But you are simplifying greatly. He got it because he reached out to Arabic leader to lower the tone set by George "crusader" Bush.
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the award on October 9, 2009, citing Obama's promotion of nuclear nonproliferation[2] and a "new climate" in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize
Either way. Stating that you don't care about world peace because you didn't receive a prize. It is a bit childish. I would not let guy near something that requires responsibility. You win some you lose some. Get on with life.
One month, a vain, vindictive, mentally unstable, and heavily armed parent who tirelessly lobbied for the award and lost begins physically threatening and menacing their neighbors, declaring that if they won't be recognized as the best parent, then by god they'll just take what they're owed until they feel they've gotten what is "psychologically needed for success."
In that scenario, I don't think focusing on reform of the office politics and favoritism of the PTA award is the most productive use of time.
If I don’t get what I want from an event can I just make it controversial by yelling all the time to close it down?
You’re arguing that everyone should just give up to muggers