While we bought the U.S. Virgin Islands from Denmark, Alaska from Russia, and the Louisiana Territory from France, I don’t think we buy places with people any longer.
If Denmark and Greenland and we are all o.k. with it, Greenland can shift from Denmark to the U.S. I think that means we, not Denmark, becomes responsible for the subsidies Denmark is currently paying Greenland, and we (directly) assume responsibility for the defense of Greenland.
But, our immediate interest is that Denmark and the rest of Europe meet their NATO obligation of 2 percent of GDP. If they did that, we would have no problem backing them up, whether defending Latvia or Greenland or any other part of the NATO alliance. Together, we’d tower over any possible adversary.
But, as it is, there is no “together” to NATO. It’s us subsidizing a bunch of spoiled welfare recipient countries. When the border moved east, the original NATO countries concluded they were not at risk of Russia and could cut back on their defense. When Russia got back on its own feet, and then started to play the role of trouble-maker in that part of the world, the Europeans thought that was the U.S.’s problem, not theirs or our collective problem.
I am beginning to wonder what we’re doing in NATO. Since the NATO countries offer us nothing, and it’s a one-way alliance, we should consider a new alliance of democratic countries that actually join in mutual defense. Maybe Denmark, having Greenland to defend, will think of leaving NATO (and the EU) and joining with this new alliance.
Maybe we can trade Denmark Puerto Rico for Greenland?
Greenland would repay the purchase price many times over with the mining possibilities, including rare earths.