Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 01/14/2026 6:20:18 AM PST by Miami Rebel
President Trump insisted Wednesday that the US “needs” to take control of Greenland “for the purpose of National Security,” warning that “[a]nything less than that is unacceptable” ahead of key meetings with Danish and Greenlandic officials.
“NATO should be leading the way for us to get it,” Trump said on Truth Social in reference to the world’s largest island. “IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!"
“Militarily, without the vast power of the United States, much of which I built during my first term, and am now bringing to a new and even higher level, NATO would not be an effective force or deterrent – Not even close! They know that, and so do I. NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES.”
Trump spoke out hours before Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were set to meet Denmark’s foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and his Greenlandic counterpart Vivian Motzfeldt to try and resolve a diplomatic furor over the White House’s insistence that the US should annex Greenland, which has been under Danish control for centuries.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
It can still have as many military bases as it wants in Greenland; there is really no need for anything else.
Bingo! I just said to Mr.GG2 that there has to be something sinister going on. My guess is China is making some kind of incursions we don’t know about.
It’s all such madness.
It requires no threats or “deals” if we want the expense of 50 bases again. Neither Denmark nor Greenland had anything to do with closing those bases — even at the height of the Cold War, many installations were being shuttered because they are enormously expensive to build and maintain. Few ports, no infrastructure, and building on on ice packs is expensive.
This such a black eye for America — akin to a kid in mom’s basement playing Risk on the computer and saying “Look at all the land I have!”.
If the military determines more bases on Greenland are needed - military experts, not internet grognards - then just ask and build them...
Threatening an ally to cede territory is unbecoming of everything that made *modern* America great.
This is what the people who say, "B-but we have bases there already," don't understand.
Yes, I admit I don’t understand.
Is the idea (a) that Russia or China will invade NATO territory, or that (b) we don’t have the right to expand our bases there?
> There has to be more going on in the background then we know about. <
If so, it would be nice for the American public to get a hint or two about it. Because the whole thing seems odd, to say the least. To me, anyway.
What’s going on is the arctic shipping lanes are opening up with the warming trend and Russia’s fleet of nuclear icebreakers are making the northern passage a viable alternative to the longer more costly southern route for Asian shipping to the world. So America can’t tolerate the existence of a peer power with any advantage hence the pending invasion of Greenland.
I would bet that China has already started some kind of Belt and Road program with Denmark.
Russia maintains the entire northern arctic passage with its nuclear icebreaker fleet. They have no possible reason to invade Greenland.
Change my mind.
We have a security agreement with Greenland that allows us pretty much unrestricted access already.
I think the problem here is that the EU is about to undergo some political instability which will lead to civil strife . This could leave unprotected Greenland isolated and vulnerable to attack absent US involvement
Odd enough that President Trump looks nuts.
One searches historical memory in vain to find a proclamation uttered more hypocritically.
Trump has taken giant strides toward dismantling NATO and every one of them done with calculation toward the end of extricating the US from the most successful multilateral defense treaty in history. His blustering and threatening to invade Greenland and make war on a NATO member would be the final irreversible blow to NATO's existence and create a huge hole in America's defense.
Among the unavoidable collateral consequences of such an ill-judged action would certainly be a wave of nuclear proliferation across Europe and into the Middle East. So much for enhancing our national security.
A child could see Trump's blustering is merely a setup for the meeting by Vance and Rubio, clumsily done according to the tips of, THE ART OF THE DEAL. This negotiating tactic is so transparent as to be ineffectual but done at immense cost to our relationship with Europe.
I really hope that there is something more than we know about because on the face of it, this makes no sense. Its incredibly harmful to our relationship with a good ally - Denmark (yes, Demark is a good ally). The people of Greenland do not want to be taken over by the US. And the US could get whatever access it wanted by negotiating a treaty with Denmark rather than this bull in a china shop annexation idea. I like most of what Trump has done. This is a rare occasion where I think he is making a huge mistake.
You make a fair point regarding the Law of Unintended Consequences.
We saw that pesky law applied after Trump commented about making Canada our 51st state.
That comment was almost certainly made in jest. But it help propel the odious Liberal Party to victory in the last Canadian national election.
So you never know.
I agree. Trump could have quietly negotiated a deal to get whatever he wants from Denmark in terms of access to bases or other rights in Greenland short of annexation. Annexation gets us nothing unless Denmark has some secret plan to ally itself with the Russia and China.
Trump is treating Denmark and Greenland just as he treated Panama…govt officials being tempted to enter large commercial developments with China that posed a strategic threat to the US in a conflict.
Notice that Trump and Rubio got Panama to back off further deals with China, which was positioned to control port facilities on both ends of the Canal, and to tell Panama if they wanted to retain ownership, to return to the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty to ensure the prioritization and protection of US interests regarding canal access. Our navy in fact now transits the Canal freely, as in no tolls or bureaucrat delays.
Greenland also has a defense treaty with the US. Entering into commercial projects with China threatens US interests in event of a conflict. Greenland is like the outer wall of territorial defense for the entire North American continent and the Arctic with its geolocation. This is in fact more critical than “ rare earths” which may exist to be exploited. And which China has been maneuvering to lock up by commercial deals. Which then lead to Chinese built infrastructure like airfields. Ports. Communjcation networks. All have dual use potential for access by the Chinese military. We want their navy and airforce in the North Atlantic? Along with Russia? Or in the Arctic?
So Greenland is going to get “owned” financially, commercially, eventually militarily….By us? Or by China? Denmark cannot sustain defense and development to match China. We can.
An “independent Greenland” puts the elected officials of a town-size population … like a Mayor…..in position to make deals with China.
Trump says…not gonna happen. He is looking out 5 years and beyond which seems beyond the capability of certain Senators like Murkowski trying to interfere with diplomacy, and certainly beyond the sensitive Marquess of Queensberry military establishment of Old Europe
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.