What future do you wish for Greenland?

[ThisIsMe]

I think it would be red. It can't become a state with 30,000 people. The only realistic draw is the energy and mineral industry, which is like kyptonite to liberals.

Is there a population limit?

Population is actually around 56000.

 

[Thinker101]

Are you high right now?

Excuse me, that's high again.

 

[Dante]

Again, start another thread, and we'll talk about native Americans outside of Greenland.

  This thread is about the native Americans in Greenland and their european "owners."

I'm not concerned with Native Americans. Not at all. Though I throughout enjoy Joseph Campbell's stories about them and their myths

 

[LordBrownTrout]

If US military thought there was even a hint that Russia or China was seriously making a move on Greenland, we would have a military buildup in Greenland going on right now.

The 1951 Defense of Greenland Treaty between the U.S. and Denmark grants the U.S. broad rights to establish and operate military bases, including constructing new ones as well as housing troops there indefinitely.

Officials from Denmark and Greenland have stated the existing treaty already allows the U.S. increased military presence and cooperation from Denmark and Greenland, so why does Trump keep making threats to take over Greenland?

They are going to make a move with or without us and yes its getting real.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I had a though a while back -- He could become Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. There is no criteria that one has to be a lawyer

Just look at Ketanji

 

[Flopper]

They can sell it to America. Then every person becomes a multi millionaire. There economy gets wealthier. They are protected from Russia. No they would rather freeze their asses off in a third rate village. Cold must make you stupid

They can't sell it because Greenlanders do not own the land; private land ownership is prohibited, as all land belongs to the state (currently Denmark), but residents can get long-term, transferable land allotments for homes, meaning they own the building, not the ground.

The rule also applies to private businesses, you can own what goes on the ground but not the ground or what is in it. Businesses seeking to mine for minerals or drill for oil face very high cost compared to the US due both to climate and goverment fees and regulation. This may well be why Trump insist that he must have Greenland. He certainly can't use the military to justify it.

 

[Flopper]

Russia is “very close”, by what means, exactly?

Their Black Sea Fleet has been badly degraded by Ukraine using little more than drones. That’s not a force capable of projecting power into the Arctic, let alone seizing and holding Greenland.

The U.S. already has a military presence there, plus the ability to project overwhelming combat power from the mainland. That’s before even factoring in NATO and the fact that any such move would immediately trigger treaty obligations from multiple nuclear-armed states.

In other words, it would make zero practical sense and would be functionally impossible.
There’s only one country currently threatening Greenland, and you’re living in it.

The closest point as the crow flies from Russia to the north coast of Greenland is over 3,000 miles but ships go not cross the artic in a straight line due to ice. The real distance from nearest Russian naval base to Greenland is 4,000 to 5,000 miles. A fast Russian cruiser in perfect weather might be able to make the trip in 7 to 10 days. However with the typical weather in the Arctic, it would take several weeks and if the ice was really bad it could be close to a month.

Glancing at a globe, one might think Russia and Greenland are very close, but they aren't.

 

[Flopper]

Can anybody imagine a war between US and the other NATO members?

I wouldn't dismiss the idea entirely with Trump in office. It would not surprise me if tomorrow he said Denmark is next.

 

[Flopper]

Even Germany has sent 13 soldiers.

They are sending a small contingents of troops to Greenland for joint exercises, part of a "reconnaissance mission" and to show of support for Denmark amid heightened tensions with the U.S. over its ambitions for the island.

 

[Leo123]

They can't sell it because Greenlanders do not own the land; private land ownership is prohibited, as all land belongs to the state (currently Denmark), but residents can get long-term, transferable land allotments for homes, meaning they own the building, not the ground.

The rule also applies to private businesses, you can own what goes on the ground but not the ground or what is in it. Businesses seeking to mine for minerals or drill for oil face very high cost compared to the US due both to climate and goverment fees and regulation. This may well be why Trump insist that he must have Greenland. He certainly can't use the military to justify it.

True, even Americans don't own their on land because the Government has the right to take it in an emergency. All we own is a bundle of rights to our land. America could put more military installations on Greenland. IMO though, Greenland would do well being part of the U.S.

 

[Leo123]

They are sending a small contingents of troops to Greenland for joint exercises, part of a "reconnaissance mission" and to show of support for Denmark amid heightened tensions with the U.S. over its ambitions for the island. China and Russia also have 'ambitions' for Greenland.

 

[Flopper]

Putin has not invaded any NATO nations, but now Trump is giving him an excuse to invade the Baltics.

The possibility that Ukraine would join NATO caused him to launch a bloody campaign that cost him over 250,000 troops. NATO is just about the only thing that really scares Putin.

 

[Flopper]

The Convicted Felon knows a not-to-good fate awaits him when he leaves office -- if he does so standing on two feet

when he goes, he will go in straight jacket.

 

[Flopper]

Really?

How did Greenlanders thrive for thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans?

Why did the European Norse fail to settle while the Inuit survived?

The Inuit in Greenland as they have done for over 4,000 years.

Norse people established successful, long-lasting settlements in Greenland, starting with Erik the Red around 985 AD, creating thriving communities for nearly 500 years before they mysteriously vanished around the 15th century, leaving behind ruins and artifacts.

There is evidence that the Norse engage in friendly relations and trade with the Inuit but there is also evidence of fighting between them.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The Intuit people survive today by hunting and fishing in Greenland as they have done for over 4,000 years.

Correct. No help from the "Great Danes" needed.

Norse people established successful, long-lasting settlements in Greenland, starting with Erik the Red around 985 AD, creating thriving communities for nearly 500 years before they mysteriously vanished around the 15th century, leaving behind ruins and artifacts.

There is evidence that the Norse engage in friendly relations and trade with the Intuit but there is also evidence of fighting between them.

Hence the disappearance may not have been so mysterious.

I'm not sure how any of that argues for European ownership of Greenland and its people.

 

[Flopper]

Is there a population limit?

Population is actually around 56000.

If Greenland was transferred from Denmark to the US, Denmark would save (and the US would lose) a billion dollars of year. We would be getting an island 3,000 miles from the US, 25% larger than Alaska 2/3 of it is in arctic circle with a coast line greater than the US mainline. Only a small percent of the island is considered inhibitable.

The only thing it has to offer is oil and minerals with the highest recovery cost in the world, a coastline so large it would be impossible for the US to adequately defend, and about 700,000 sq.miles of an uninhabitable ice sheet with about 3,000 starving polar bears.

 

[eagle7-31]

I noticed you're repeating a baseless rant Dotard made trying to justify taking Greenland against the will of its citizens. Here's the problem with it.

As an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland is covered by the NATO alliance. So if Russia or China (or the US) were to try to take Greenland by force NATO countries would come to its defense.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/15/greenland-nato-troops-denmark-germany-arctic-trump.html

Got it?

PS, think for yourself for a change.

Are you really that naive to believe that NATO would do anything if China or Russia moved on Greenland?

 

[Unkotare]

Google Image Result for https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/futuristic-icy-city-sleek-architecture-sky-pods-snowy-landscape-372054833.jpg

 

[Dante]

when he goes, he will go in straight jacket.

I'm bettin in a coffin

 

[Flopper]

Correct. No help from the "Great Danes" needed.

Hence the disappearance may not have been so mysterious.

I'm not sure how any of that argues for European ownership of Greenland and its people.

Arguments for a nation's ownership to its land are rooted in the concepts of sovereignty, historical claims, and international law.

As a practical matter Denmark's claim to Greenland stems from its union with Norway in 1380, with Greenland passing to Danish control when the Denmark-Norway union dissolved in 1814.

A nation's claim to land most often originates due to a union or dissolved union such as this or conquest as the case with most US acquisition of states and territories. Who is the most deserving of ownership, the nation who acquires the land by conquest or by agreement.