Posted on 01/18/2026 6:44:52 PM PST by yesthatjallen
SNIP
While many European leaders are still hoping they might be able to talk things out, discussions have essentially been futile so far.
Europe has been hesitant to retaliate against the United States, in part because it relies on America for military technologies and support for NATO.
But Brando Benifei, a member of the European Parliament and the chair of its delegation for U.S. relations, said that calculus may be shifting, in part because popular opinion in Europe has turned more critical of the U.S.
“A lot of people are saying that we are clearly over a red line,” he said in an interview.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain spoke to Mr. Trump on Sunday and told him that “applying tariffs on allies for pursuing the collective security of NATO allies is wrong,” a Downing Street spokesman said.
Italy’s prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, told reporters on Sunday that she had also spoken to Mr. Trump and called the proposed tariffs a “mistake.”
Mark Rutte, the secretary-general of NATO, said on social media that he, too, had spoken with Mr. Trump about Greenland, but provided few details, saying only that “we will continue working on this” and that he looked forward to seeing Mr. Trump at Davos this week.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
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,
Jim
The art of the deal is in play.
As I said in an earlier thread, Pres. Trump won’t seize Greenland. He’ll just strongarm them into agreeing to security and mineral rights.
This is just the pig squealing after the farmer grabs his tail. The only question now is ham now or chops later.
Mmmmmmm....bacon
“But Brando Benifei, a member of the European Parliament and the chair of its delegation for U.S. relations, said that calculus may be shifting, in part because popular opinion in Europe has turned more critical of the U.S.”
What a coincidence the NYT dug him up:
* * *
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brando_Benifei
“He supports Laicism and LGBTQIA+ rights.”
The European leaders want his support on Ukraine. They won’t do anything to infuriate him.
Trump could be heard muttering something like ‘please don’t throw me in that briar patch’...
If you just look at it on paper, a sale of Greenland to the U.S. makes sense for all parties involved - U.S., Denmark and NATO and Greenland. But there’s national pride and ruffled feathers that need to be smoothed out before that happens. I have to wonder if Trump could have achieved the outcome he desires if he had taken a friendlier approach. I think that’s likely. But it’s water under the bridge at this point.
From a purely security related point of view, it’s in the interests of the U.S., Denmark and NATO for Greenland to be a U.S. possession. The investment in military infrastructure needed to make Greenland a powerful defense against future Russian and Chinese aggression against not just the U.S., but against the rest of NATO is something only the U.S. can provide.
As far as economics is concerned, Greenland is heavily subsidized by Denmark. Removing that expense from Denmark’s balance sheet would be a plus for them. Add to that any money we pay to them for purchase of the territory, and it could be a significant financial win for them.
Denmark does have some legitimate national interests in Greenland that would need to be addressed. There is a significant Danish minority living in Greenland, and there are undoubtedly existing business ties between the two countries. Some agreement would need to be made to guarantee that those interests are protected. And there are cultural ties. I would suggest that preserving Danish as one of three official languages, along with English and Innuit, might address those concerns as well as guaranteeing immigration rights to Danish citizens - at least to some degree.
Once those issues are addressed, the rest is easy. Trump switches to “nice guy” Trump, suggests he was never really serious about an invasion, compliments the Danes on what good negotiators they are, and waxes poetic about the ties of friendship between the two countries.
“… for Greenland to be a U.S. possession.”
No, it doesn’t. If that’s the case, then they are US dependants. The best case is that Denmark and the Greenlanders make some kind of agreement with the US to allow us to set up defense and mineral extraction areas.
Let the Danes do all the political stuff with the locals.
>>”Let the Danes do all the political stuff with the locals.”
How much political stuff do we concern ourselves related to Guam, American Samoa, etc.? Very little, I suspect. They are largely autonomous.
The Danes used to run the US Virgin Islands until we bought them.
That’s true. These sorts of territorial swaps were common in past centuries. As long as the residents of Greenland are okay with it, I’m okay with it.
All of those are US possessions and have all the rights granted by the Constitution.
Right. And what’s your point?
There’s no reason to add to our territory if we can easily avoid it. After all, if we have bases and mines there, let the Danes deal with the locals.
Agreed.
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.