Comparing Greenland to Ukraine

[jwoodie]

Comparing Greenland to Ukraine:
1. Both were territories which gained independence from outside countries.
2. Both represent serious security concerns of other countries.
3. Both have military bases of other countries who wish to protect those concerns.

In terms of geopolitcal issues, what is the difference between the US wanting to control Greenland and Russia wanting to control Ukraine?

 

[kyzr]

1. Denmark does not agree that Greenland is an independent country, got a link?
2. True
3. Not sure Ukraine has military bases from other countries, I know we have one on Greenland

 

[braalian]

Both have military bases of other countries who wish to protect those concerns.

Every military base on Greenland ie either ours, or belongs to an ally of ours

 

[Votto]

Every military base on Greenland ie either ours, or belongs to an ally of ours

The Chinese already have a monopoly on the Panama Canal

Why? The US built it for the US.

It would not surprise me to see them take over Greenland as well, especially with democrats in charge.

 

[jwoodie]

1. Denmark does not agree that Greenland is an independent country, got a link?

Greenland is an independent territory of Denmark, and will be voting on full independence this year.

3. Not sure Ukraine has military bases from other countries, I know we have one on Greenland.

Russia has an important naval base in Crimea, as well as other military bases in Eastern Ukraine.

 

[Dante]

Comparing Greenland to Ukraine:
1. Both were territories which gained independence from other countries.
2. Both represent serious security concerns of other countries.
3. Both have military bases of other countries who wish to protect those concerns.

In terms of geopolitcal issues, what are the differences?

Compare Greenland to Ukraine? Let us not. Why?

The total ignorance:

1)
AI Overview

Greenlanders are considered Danish citizens, as Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark; meaning they have the same citizenship as people living in metropolitan Denmark.

Key points about Greenlanders and Danes:

• Citizenship:
  Greenlanders hold Danish passports and are considered full Danish citizens.
• Self-governing:
  While Danish citizens, Greenland has a high level of autonomy within the Danish realm.
• Ethnic distinction:
  Although they are Danish citizens, Greenlanders have a distinct Inuit culture and language, separate from the majority Danish population.

2) Greenland does not represent a security threat to anybody

3) cuckoo

"In terms of geopolitcal issues, what are the differences?" - go back to school and get a refund for any prior educational shit

 

[Dante]

Please reread the OP, paying attention to every word, phrase and sentence, before replying.

P.S. The "other countries" I referred to were, obviously, the US and Russia.

Greenland does not "represent serious security concerns" to either the USA or to Russia. Greenland poses no threat to either nation.

 

[Dante]

Rightwing News Narrative - Fake News Alert! - FOX News Narrative

The Chinese already have a monopoly on the Panama Canal

Why? The US built it for the US.

It would not surprise me to see them take over Greenland as well, especially with democrats[sic] in charge.

Where are Democrats in charge?

The USA did not build any canal for the USA - you might try (putting your proud ignorance aside), reviewing the history of the treaties

The Chinese control the canal?


in what world do the Chinese have some unnamed monopoly -- monopoly on what exactly (this is not a crappy satire thread)?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Chinese already have a monopoly on the Panama Canal

Why? The US built it for the US.

It would not surprise me to see them take over Greenland as well, especially with democrats in charge.

That is the primary reason Trump and his team are even looking at Greenland, i.e. the very real risk there could be a hostile takeover of it by some country we would not want to have that strategic position. That and the stability we need to do heavy investment and utilization of resources from that country.

I'm pretty sure Greenland becoming part of the USA would be negotiated and not a hostile takeover. Currently Greenland is a territory of Denmark but it does have the right to declare its independence. That would be the logical course for it to take if Greenlanders do want to be Americans, i.e. it would exercise its right to declare it's independence and then request annexation by the USA. Theoretically risky for them of course as theoretically we could always back out of the deal after they declared independence.

We do have a base that is now Thule Space Force Base on Greenland with I think around 200 American military personnel. It is used mostly for research purposes and is part of our early missile warning system. Being part of the early missile warning system makes it of extreme security importance to the USA.

 

[jwoodie]

Compare Greenland to Ukraine? Let us not. Why?

The total ignorance:

1)
AI Overview

Greenlanders are considered Danish citizens, as Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark; meaning they have the same citizenship as people living in metropolitan Denmark.

Key points about Greenlanders and Danes:

• Citizenship:
  Greenlanders hold Danish passports and are considered full Danish citizens.
• Self-governing:
  While Danish citizens, Greenland has a high level of autonomy within the Danish realm.
• Ethnic distinction:
  Although they are Danish citizens, Greenlanders have a distinct Inuit culture and language, separate from the majority Danish population.

2) Greenland does not represent a security threat to anybody

3) cuckoo

"In terms of geopolitcal issues, what are the differences?" - go back to school and get a refund for any prior educational shit

This is a great example of someone substituting "AI" for higher-order thinking.

 

[Votto]

Rightwing News Narrative - Fake News Alert! - FOX News Narrative


Where are Democrats in charge?

The USA did not build any canal for the USA - you might try (putting your proud ignorance aside), reviewing the history of the treaties

The Chinese control the canal?


in what world do the Chinese have some unnamed monopoly -- monopoly on what exactly (this is not a crappy satire thread)?

The US took over the project in 1904 and opened the canal in 1914. The US continued to control the canal and surrounding Panama Canal Zone until the Torrijos–Carter Treaties provided for its handover to Panama in 1977.

Thanks Jimmy!!!

Chinese companies have a significant presence there.

From October 2023 to September 2024, China accounted for 21.4% of the cargo volume transiting the Panama Canal, making it the second-largest user after the US.

In recent years, China has also invested heavily in ports and terminals near the canal.

Two of the five ports adjacent to the canal, Balboa and Cristóbal, which sit on the Pacific and Atlantic sides respectively, have been operated by a subsidiary of Hutchison Port Holdings since 1997.

The company is a subsidiary of the publicly listed CK Hutchison Holdings, a Hong Kong-based conglomerate founded by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka-shing.

It has port operations in 24 countries, including the UK.

Although it is not state-owned by China, says Ryan Berg, director of the Americas Program at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, there have been concerns in Washington over how much control Beijing would be able to exert over the company.

Chinese companies, both private and state-owned, have also strengthened their presence in Panama through billions of dollars in investments, including a cruise terminal and a bridge to be built over the canal.

This "package of Chinese activities", might have prompted Trump's assertion that the canal is "owned" by China.

So, it is official ownership vs. influence and actual usage.

Usually, the one with the bigger wallet or military wins.

I'm sure China at some point has the intent of taking it over officially.

 

[Independent thinker]

Comparing Greenland to Ukraine:
1. Both were territories which gained independence from outside countries.
2. Both represent serious security concerns of other countries.
3. Both have military bases of other countries who wish to protect those concerns.

In terms of geopolitcal issues, what is the difference between the US wanting to control Greenland and Russia wanting to control Ukraine?

Well, I'd say the biggest difference is Russia actually invaded Ukraine.

 

[toobfreak]

1. Denmark does not agree that Greenland is an independent country, got a link?

I believe the people of Greenland view the situation a bit differently.

 

[jwoodie]

Well, I'd say the biggest difference is Russia actually invaded Ukraine.

What if Greenland wanted to enter into a mutual defense pact with Russia?

 

[Independent thinker]

What if Greenland wanted to enter into a mutual defense pact with Russia?

Huh? Isn't Denmark a member of NATO?

 

[Dante]

This is a great example of someone substituting "AI" for higher-order thinking.

it's a result from using a search engine

try it sometime

may save you from always looking the fool

 

[Dante]

The US took over the project in 1904 and opened the canal in 1914. The US continued to control the canal and surrounding Panama Canal Zone until the Torrijos–Carter Treaties provided for its handover to Panama in 1977.

Thanks Jimmy!!!

Chinese companies have a significant presence there.

From October 2023 to September 2024, China accounted for 21.4% of the cargo volume transiting the Panama Canal, making it the second-largest user after the US.

In recent years, China has also invested heavily in ports and terminals near the canal.

Two of the five ports adjacent to the canal, Balboa and Cristóbal, which sit on the Pacific and Atlantic sides respectively, have been operated by a subsidiary of Hutchison Port Holdings since 1997.

The company is a subsidiary of the publicly listed CK Hutchison Holdings, a Hong Kong-based conglomerate founded by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka-shing.

It has port operations in 24 countries, including the UK.

Although it is not state-owned by China, says Ryan Berg, director of the Americas Program at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, there have been concerns in Washington over how much control Beijing would be able to exert over the company.

Chinese companies, both private and state-owned, have also strengthened their presence in Panama through billions of dollars in investments, including a cruise terminal and a bridge to be built over the canal.

This "package of Chinese activities", might have prompted Trump's assertion that the canal is "owned" by China.

So, it is official ownership vs. influence and actual usage.

Usually, the one with the bigger wallet or military wins.

I'm sure China at some point has the intent of taking it over officially.

Jimmy Carter dd no wrong. He honored the treaties. You have no clue: see Senator Thomas J. McIntyre speech on the Senate floor.

Oh wait!

never mind

 

[Dante]

The US took over the project in 1904 and opened the canal in 1914. The US continued to control the canal and surrounding Panama Canal Zone until the Torrijos–Carter Treaties provided for its handover to Panama in 1977.

Thanks Jimmy!!!

Chinese companies have a significant presence there.

From October 2023 to September 2024, China accounted for 21.4% of the cargo volume transiting the Panama Canal, making it the second-largest user after the US.

In recent years, China has also invested heavily in ports and terminals near the canal.

Two of the five ports adjacent to the canal, Balboa and Cristóbal, which sit on the Pacific and Atlantic sides respectively, have been operated by a subsidiary of Hutchison Port Holdings since 1997.

The company is a subsidiary of the publicly listed CK Hutchison Holdings, a Hong Kong-based conglomerate founded by Hong Kong businessman Li Ka-shing.

It has port operations in 24 countries, including the UK.

Although it is not state-owned by China, says Ryan Berg, director of the Americas Program at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, there have been concerns in Washington over how much control Beijing would be able to exert over the company.

Chinese companies, both private and state-owned, have also strengthened their presence in Panama through billions of dollars in investments, including a cruise terminal and a bridge to be built over the canal.

This "package of Chinese activities", might have prompted Trump's assertion that the canal is "owned" by China.

So, it is official ownership vs. influence and actual usage.

Usually, the one with the bigger wallet or military wins.

I'm sure China at some point has the intent of taking it over officially.

The hysteria over China in the canal zone is laughable

look under your bed -- probably Made in China like many MAGA wear was

 

[Dante]

The US took over the project in 1904 and opened the canal in 1914. The US continued to control the canal and surrounding Panama Canal Zone until the Torrijos–Carter Treaties provided for its handover to Panama in 1977.

Thanks Jimmy!!!

The Torrijos–Carter Treaties (Spanish: Tratados Torrijos-Carter) are two treaties signed by the United States and Panama in Washington, D.C., on September 7, 1977, which superseded the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903. The treaties guaranteed that Panama would gain control of the Panama Canal after 1999, ending the control of the canal that the U.S. had exercised since 1903. The treaties are named after the two signatories, U.S. President Jimmy Carter and the Commander of Panama's National Guard, General Omar Torrijos.

...

The Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty (Spanish: Tratado Hay-Bunau Varilla) was a treaty signed on November 18, 1903, by the United States and Panama, which established the Panama Canal Zone and the subsequent construction of the Panama Canal. It was named after its two primary negotiators, Philippe-Jean Bunau-Varilla, the French diplomatic representative of Panama, and United States Secretary of State John Hay.

Terms​

The terms of the treaty stated that the United States was to receive rights to a canal zone which was to extend five miles on either side of the canal route in perpetuity, and Panama was to receive a payment from the U.S. up to $10 million and an annual rental payment of $250,000. Panama never legally became a colony of the United States; the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty gave the United States governance only in the Canal Zone.[9]

Aftermath​

This treaty was a source of conflict between Panama and the United States since its creation. The Canal Zone became a racially and socially segregated area, set aside from the country of Panama. The push for environmental determinism seemed to be the best framework to justify American practices in Panama. The conflict from the treaty reached its peak on January 9, 1964, with riots over sovereignty of the Panama Canal Zone. The riot started after a Panamanian flag was torn during conflict between Panamanian students and Canal Zone Police officers, over the right of the Panamanian flag to be flown alongside the U.S. flag. U.S. Army units became involved in suppressing the violence after the Canal Zone Police were overwhelmed. After three days of fighting, about 22 Panamanians and four U.S. soldiers were killed. This day is known in Panama as Martyrs' Day.

The events of January 9 were considered to be a significant factor in the U.S. decision to negotiate the 1977 Torrijos–Carter Treaties, which finally abolished the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty and allowed the gradual transfer of control of the Canal Zone to Panama and the handover of full control of the Panama Canal on December 31, 1999.[10]

 

[Zavulon]

Greenland does not "represent serious security concerns" to either the USA or to Russia. Greenland poses no threat to either nation.

But Russian or Chinese bases in Greenland might be more security risk for the USA than Soviet missiles in Cuba.