Trump says 8 European countries will be charged a 10% tariff for opposing US control of Greenland

[Rogue AI]

You think it would be peaceful. Shit it would be a nightmare. NATO is bound to act as one even if one of its own members cross the line. If trump plays such a stupid ass move then well god help us because there goes this generation of kids dead on the ******* field and say thank you Donald J. Trump. That's the real hardcore truth.

Nonsense, the Europeans would do exactly nothing. Few actually understand just how weak they are. Nor do they have the production capacity to sustain any major conflict. Couple that with idiotic immigration policies and they are effectively neutered before it would begin. Not to mention Russia would not just sit on the sidelines. A fair deal would be to cede Greenland to us in exchange for continued support until they can effectively stand on their own up to 10 years. They would be on their own after that, so best not squander it.

 

[Churchill]

You will be. Your King celebrates the Muslims he's moved in to your country that are offended by you. Don't get arrested for your opinions. Stay quiet, blend into the woodwork and hope things aren't going to get worse...

If you ever read about European history of the last two thousand years you'd learn that it was Christianity that caused far more human suffering than Islam ever did.

Christian "civilization" slaughtered millions of Africans, millions of Aborigines, millions of Vietnamese and South American Indians and millions of Native Americans.

Politicized white Christianity invented antisemitism and even slaughtered six million Jews and other minorities.

But you're a beneficiary of all the slaughter so of course it doesn't count.

 

[evankeal]

Our long-term security requires it. Denmark's does not, nor do they have the resources necessary to defend it. That, of course, would fall to the US. NATO needs to end. It has no legitimate purpose now, which means a return to and fulfillment of the Monroe Doctrine.

The fact you side with that big ass **** of a king molester is proof that we do need NATO just so pukes like trump can't willy nilly take someone else's ******* country. Greenland is Greenlanders and protected by a NATO nation. Trumps dangerous rhetoric proves NATO must never end and must be beefed up to counter dictator's like trump and his all Maga ass band. As to the Monroe Doc. when you hear Trump or his people invoke Monroe, understand what they're really saying: "We own this hemisphere, and if you're in it, you do what we say or we'll make you." It's colonialism with a flag pin and a history lesson attached.
And it's the same goddamn imperialism that's been ******* over Latin America for 200 years, just with a new coat of paint and a bigger ego driving it.

 

[evankeal]

Nonsense, the Europeans would do exactly nothing. Few actually understand just how weak they are. Nor do they have the production capacity to sustain any major conflict. Couple that with idiotic immigration policies and they are effectively neutered before it would begin. Not to mention Russia would not just sit on the sidelines. A fair deal would be to cede Greenland to us in exchange for continued support until they can effectively stand on their own up to 10 years. They would be on their own after that, so best not squander it.

That's a Nazi ass statement if ever I heard one. America doesn't need or want stinking Nazis. Real Americans are proud of the fact we take up for weaker nations and people. As to Europe and its fighting capabilities it is not just Europe its 31 nations and many with a nuke button. Further America could not sustain a war with those nations it would bankrupt us and destroy soldiers by the ******* masses. There would be corpses piled up across Europe and America.

 

[citygator]

China is a more predictable trading partner than the US.

 

[22lcidw]

He is insane.

America alone.

We need to money to come in from the outside as to pay for your Progressive Socialist Communist agendas and the leeches pushing them. Gasoline went up dramatically in price during the last administration. So did everything else. That is what we are looking at when you come to power again.

 

[Rogue AI]

No it doesn't.

So if someone can't defend themselves, attack them? but I though that was more or less what a mugger does, isn't it?

Its so funny how terms like "Monroe doctrine" start appearing in these forums only AFTER Trump waffles about it. You numpties never heard the term until he said it, stop faking erudition.

The Monroe doctrine FYI includes:


I'm all for that, so is Denmark too I suspect so Trump had better ask Vance to shut his trap and stop openly supporting the rise of the far right in Europe.

Indeed our security does depend on it so long as it could be used against us.

The mugger analogy is false. Denmark holds a key to our doorstep. They can sell it or attempt to extort us with it. Ending such threats is a viable national security interest.

I have long advocated the annexation of Canada for the same reasons. For as long as I've been here. Check my post history. Annexing Greenland is a step to that goal. So don't play that silly game with me.

The Monroe Doctrine's intent has grown proportionally to America's economic, military, and diplomatic strength. How many European colonies remain in our hemisphere? The end of colonialism in the Americas is due to the Monroe Doctrine. Try harder.

 

[Rogue AI]

That's a Nazi ass statement if ever I heard one. America doesn't need or want stinking Nazis. Real Americans are proud of the fact we take up for weaker nations and people. As to Europe and its fighting capabilities it is not just Europe its 31 nations and many with a nuke button. Further America could not sustain a war with those nations it would bankrupt us and destroy soldiers by the ******* masses. There would be corpses piled up across Europe and America.

Really? We are talking about the same Europe that couldn't handle Kosovo or Libya without us. You are just wrong on every level. You also ignore the fact the Russians would pounce on areas with ethnic Russian majorities. No way Europe could withstand a two front war.

 

[The Irish Ram]

If you ever read about European history of the last two thousand years

LOL. I can't believe you said that! Let's weigh Britain in the balance:

While the precise number of deaths is sensitive to the assumptions we make about baseline mortality, it is clear that somewhere in the vicinity of 100 million people died prematurely at the height of British colonialism. This is among the largest policy-induced mortality crises in human history. THE LARGEST IN HUMAN HISTORY!!!!!

How many deaths did the British Empire cause?

While the precise number of deaths is sensitive to the assumptions we make about baseline mortality, it is clear that somewhere in the vicinity of 100 million

www.studycountry.com

Here's a little AI for you;

To understand the impact of the British Empire in terms of loss of life, consider the following points:
Estimates suggest that millions died due to famines exacerbated by British policies, particularly in India.

1. The Opium Wars led to significant casualties and suffering in China.
2. Colonial conflicts and wars, such as the Boer War, resulted in thousands of deaths.
3. The suppression of uprisings, like the Indian Rebellion of 1857, caused widespread fatalities.
4. The transatlantic slave trade, facilitated by the British, resulted in countless deaths during transport and enslavement.
5. Public health crises in colonies often worsened due to neglect and exploitation, leading to high mortality rate.

Your attack on Christianity as opposed to Islam tells us where your sympathy lies. Shall we add up the murders by the Ottoman Empire also? Even today, in Nigeria 12 Christians a day are killed by Mussies.

We protect our own country, you invaded everyone else's country and helped yourself. Then begged us to save your ass from Hitler. Here is a little Christian bon mot for you:

Matthew 7:3-5 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?​

 

[ThisIsMe]

 

[Rogue AI]

Its what Hitler tried, to invade and colonize Europe, it never ends well.

If anyone is likely to invade and colonize Europe it won't be us. There are plenty of others who might though.

We have no interest in colonizing our hemisphere. We wish to create long-term security and strengthen our southern neighbors. That also means we must end the narco-states, but that benefits everyone.

 

[evankeal]

Really? We are talking about the same Europe that couldn't handle Kosovo or Libya without us. You are just wrong on every level. You also ignore the fact the Russians would pounce on areas with ethnic Russian majorities. No way Europe could withstand a two front war.

That is just rationalizing bullshit to uphold your weak beliefs in a a weaker leader. Trump is a ******* looser and liar and wanna be stinking dictator and has proven it over and again everything you say to protect him shows you are complicit in death destruction and corruption. You cant defend a monster and then walk away clean. You are guilty my friend by pure association.

 

[evankeal]

If anyone is likely to invade and colonize Europe it won't be us. There are plenty of others who might though.

We have no interest in colonizing our hemisphere. We wish to create long-term security and strengthen our southern neighbors. That also means we must end the narco-states, but that benefits everyone.

Pure bullshit my friend. Solid gold ******* crap on a cracker and funny thing is you know it. Go peddle that shit to someone else.

 

[rightwinger]

And? The fulfillment of the Monroe Doctrine has been on hold for too long.

You don’t understand the Monroe Doctrine
It does not mean we take what we want in the Western Hemisphere

Denmark governed Greenland for 200 years before James Monroe was born

 

[rightwinger]

Our long-term security requires it. Denmark's does not, nor do they have the resources necessary to defend it. That, of course, would fall to the US. NATO needs to end. It has no legitimate purpose now, which means a return to and fulfillment of the Monroe Doctrine.

If we asked, Greenland and Denmark would allow us to have bases like we always have.

How is our security at risk?

 

[evankeal]

You don’t understand the Monroe Doctrine
It does not mean we take what we want in the Western Hemisphere

Denmark governed Greenland for 200 years before James Monroe was born

The Monroe Doctrine isn't what Trump is trying to use it for—not with Greenland, not with Venezuela, not with Cuba or Colombia or Mexico or any nation. It was never a license for American imperialism. It was a warning to Europe to back off. Trump has turned it into a goddamn threat to the world: bow to American power or face American violence. And he's wrapping himself in 201-year-old language to make it sound like patriotism instead of what it actually is—authoritarianism with a history lesson attached.

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

Nonsense, the Europeans would do exactly nothing. Few actually understand just how weak they are. Nor do they have the production capacity to sustain any major conflict. Couple that with idiotic immigration policies and they are effectively neutered before it would begin. Not to mention Russia would not just sit on the sidelines. A fair deal would be to cede Greenland to us in exchange for continued support until they can effectively stand on their own up to 10 years. They would be on their own after that, so best not squander it.

Just how weak they are?
You're underestimating Europe. They have already begun ramping up their military production since Ukraine-Russia, and especially since the US has shown restraint in aiding Ukraine. You don't think that Europe as a United front could not sustain any major conflict? I don't know what propaganda you've been fed, but that is entirely incorrect and naive to think. And Europe has multiple countries that have nukes. Europe is not some 3rd world country where the US military would have advantages like they have had in Afghanistan. If in some insane world, The US was in an armed conflict with Europe, and it somehow didn't result in a nuclear conflict, then Europe would not be conquered easily. And the longer it goes on, the harder it would be, as Europe would fill in the gaps it had from relying on the US.

Yes, Europe has been comfortable under the US umberella, but to say few understand just how weak they are is a mistatement.

And the very fact that you are saying that idiotic immigration is a reason that they are currently further neutured is idiotic. Regardless of whether immigration in Europe is a long term problem or not, it certainly is not a problem right now regarding the military capabilities of the countries in Europe.

Russia cannot even take Ukraine, but you think it will beat all the other countries in Europe (those countries without US support)?

What you are talking about is the US attacking a NATO ally, and a soverign country. And you are talking about it like it is reasonable.

You are so hurt at being the superpower that has close ties to Europe, and you honestly believe that the US doesn't benefit from that?? Well, you will get what you want, because it didn't even take a full year for Trump to destory relations between the US and Europe. Well done...It's almost a certainty now that Europe will move to make themselves less reliant on the US over the next 5-10 years.

 

[evankeal]

If we asked, Greenland and Denmark would allow us to have bases like we always have.

How is our security at risk?

They have actually offered to let us expand our military presence and operations but that is not what trump wants. He wants the goddamn minerals and the land that is his true objective. Since de-icing has begun across miles of Greenland the prospects for mineral and oil deposits are unfathomable.

 

[TemplarKormac]

He is insane.

America alone.

Hey, here's an idea, maybe we could trade them Puerto Rico?

(Thinks for a moment...)

Nah.

In all seriousness, if the EU can only be bothered to commit dozens of troops to a supposedly important island territory, how committed are they to actually keeping it? Time for them to start asking themselves the big questions.

 

[evankeal]

Hey, here's an idea, maybe we could trade them Puerto Rico?

(Thinks for a moment...)

Nah.

In all seriousness, if the EU can only be bothered to commit dozens of troops to a supposedly important island territory, how committed are they to actually keeping it? Time for them to start asking themselves the big questions.

Check your stats.
Here's the situation that didn't exist three weeks ago: multiple NATO countries are sending military forces to Greenland—not to defend against Russia or China, but to defend against the United States. Germany, Sweden, Norway, France, Finland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Estonia are all deploying troops to the Arctic island as part of "Operation Arctic Endurance," a Danish-led exercise that everyone knows isn't really about training in harsh conditions. It's about showing Trump that if he tries to invade Greenland, he'll be fighting NATO. His own alliance. The one the United States created.


Germany sent 13 reconnaissance troops. France sent mountain infantry and promised to reinforce with "land, air, and sea assets." Sweden dispatched officers. Finland sent two liaison officers. Norway sent personnel to "map out further cooperation between NATO allies"—which is diplomatic speak for "figure out how to defend Denmark from America." The UK, Netherlands, and Estonia followed. Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen announced plans to "establish a more permanent military presence with a larger Danish contribution," with NATO soldiers rotating through Greenland indefinitely.


This isn't a normal training exercise. Danish Royal Navy ships are patrolling Greenland's coast looking for foreign vessels—and the "foreign" threat isn't Russia or China. It's the United States. Denmark has invested 42 billion kroner (about $6 billion USD) into Arctic defense upgrades in the past year, including new naval vessels, long-range drones, upgrades to the Joint Arctic Command in Nuuk, intelligence capabilities, and Arctic military training. They signed two agreements in 2025—one in January for 14.6 billion kroner, another in October for 27.4 billion kroner—specifically to defend Greenland from whoever might threaten it. And right now, that's Trump.


French President Emmanuel Macron stood in front of military personnel and said "history forgives neither lack of preparation nor weakness," then announced France was sending more troops. He's not talking about Russia. He's talking about the United States. German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius confirmed Germany's deployment was "in light of Russian and Chinese threats in the Arctic," but everyone knows the real threat driving this deployment is Trump threatening to invade a NATO ally.


Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that if the United States attacks Greenland, it would "spell the end of NATO." Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen met with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington on Wednesday and came out saying there's still a "fundamental disagreement" over Greenland's future and that it's "clear that the president has this wish of conquering over Greenland." Former NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Trump "speaks like a gangster" in his threats. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte refuses to call it a "crisis," but when asked how security is "enhanced in any way by the US claims that they need to own Greenland," he dodged the question and talked about Arctic cooperation instead.


Republican Senator Roger Wicker, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told Trump this is "a topic that should be dropped" and cautioned him against "spending time antagonizing allies." Republican Senator Thom Tillis and Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen, co-chairs of the Senate NATO Observer Group, issued a joint statement saying "the United States must honor its treaty obligations and respect Greenland and Denmark's sovereignty and territorial integrity." A bipartisan congressional delegation flew to Copenhagen to try to salvage the relationship. But White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said European troops' presence in Greenland "will not impact the president's decision-making process, nor does it impact his goal of the acquisition of Greenland at all."


So NATO allies are deploying troops to defend against an American invasion, and the White House is saying it doesn't matter because Trump's going to take Greenland anyway.


Denmark says Greenland's waters aren't "swarming with Russian and Chinese vessels" the way Trump claims. Danish Maj. Gen. Søren Andersen, leader of the Joint Arctic Command, said he hasn't seen any Chinese or Russian combat vessels or warships in his 2½ years commanding forces in Greenland. Trump is lying. Again. But he's using the lie to justify annexation, and it's working politically even if it's not true militarily.


According to multiple reports, NATO allies are floating ideas for a new permanent mission in Greenland, modeled on the Baltic Sentry operation that defends underwater infrastructure in the Baltic Sea. Germany proposed calling it "Arctic Sentry." The discussions are "at an embryonic stage" with "no concrete proposals on the table," but the fact that they're happening at all shows how serious this is. NATO is considering a permanent deployment to Greenland—not to defend against Russia, but to defend against the possibility that the United States might actually invade.


Denmark has been clear: under the 1951 treaty (updated in 2004), the U.S. can send more troops to Greenland anytime it wants just by notifying Denmark. There are currently about 150 American troops at Pituffik Space Base in northwest Greenland. The U.S. has had military access to Greenland for over 70 years. Trump doesn't need to invade to increase the U.S. military presence. He can just ask. But Trump doesn't want access. He wants ownership. He wants to plant the flag and call it American soil. And Denmark is preparing to fight to stop him.


Thousands of people—about a third of Nuuk's population—marched through the streets on Saturday protesting Trump's threats. They carried signs that said "Stop Trump," "Make America Smart Again," and "Hands Off." Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said "if we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark." Sara Olsvig, leader of the Inuit Circumpolar Council in Greenland, said "there is no such thing as a better colonizer." Julius Nielsen, a fisherman in Nuuk, told reporters: "We have been a colony for so many years. We are not ready to be a colony and colonized again."


Polls show Greenlanders overwhelmingly oppose U.S. takeover. A Quinnipiac University poll found 55% of Americans also oppose trying to buy Greenland, including 85% of Democrats and 58% of Independents. Only Republicans support it—and even then, Republican senators are publicly telling Trump to drop it.


Kori Schake, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said "it will take a generation to repair the damage and collapse of trust among the U.S.' closest allies that Trump has caused." She's right. NATO has existed since 1949. It's the foundation of post-WWII transatlantic security. It's kept the peace in Europe for 77 years. And Trump is willing to destroy it—willing to invade a founding member, willing to threaten allies with tariffs, willing to turn the alliance into a protection racket—because he wants an island that Denmark has repeatedly said isn't for sale.


Every adversary the United States has ever had is watching NATO tear itself apart over Trump's imperial fantasy. They're watching European allies deploy troops to defend against America. They're watching the White House dismiss allied concerns and double down on annexation threats. They're watching the collapse of the rules-based international order in real time.


And when NATO finally breaks—when Trump pushes too far and Denmark invokes Article 5 against the United States, or when European allies decide the alliance isn't worth maintaining if America treats them like vassals—every authoritarian regime that wants to see the West divided will have won without firing a shot.


Because Trump decided Greenland was worth more than 77 years of collective security. Because he decided owning an Arctic island mattered more than the alliance that's kept the peace since World War II. Because he's a narcissist playing Risk with real countries, and nobody with the power to stop him has the spine to try.


So NATO allies are deploying troops to Greenland. To defend against the United States.

---

Original reporting by The Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, NBC News, CBS News, Axios, Newsweek, Defense News, Euronews, and PBS.