That's a political stunt to make President Trump look bad and to try to save face. They know it won't come to war. They also likely know we could obliterate then in a very short time. They'll do anything to try to keep their populace, who they have betrayed, from turning on them.

Keith

I'm just thinking those poor Germans are being deployed where there isn't any bier, lol.

I trained with some German soldiers back in 1989 and 1990, unless they suddenly got tough we don't have much to worry about.

If you got bier they aren't a problem at all, lol.

They served spice wine on the rifle range because it was cold.... I had 2 canteen cups full but they wouldn't give me a third.....lol

Saw a diplomat from Greenland on FOX yesterday. He said they had no intention of being owned by the US, but were definitely open to negotiations to America's presence there.

Trump's said that Greenland is a strategic location. His concern was a hostile takeover by China or Russia.

Makes a guy wonder what's going on in world wide picture. Maybe more than we think??

a hostile take over of Greenland would start ww3 as it is own by a NATO nation and ally of the USA so a pretty lame reason to take it over seeing the usa already has some sort of base there

Not that I think taking it by force is even a realistic possibility just dumb rhetoric to remind the world we can and knock some taking the US backing and not having to take your own defense seriously let the US foot the bill for you down some.

Get real if you think nato would be a problem for us to handel. It would not and regardless ot all the talk several would back out of doing anything.

Take a look at the rest of the world's military equipment and its capabilities. Then what's actually operational and ready to deploy. All I can say is good luck.

Yep,

We're not going to take Greenland militarily, that's a distraction, end of the day negotiations and money will get what we need....Heck, we already have a military presence there and some abandoned facilities....Denmark can't defend that place if they wanted to, and by the time Nato is done dithering the place would already be taken over by bad actors....it's just posturing and ego going on....
The US is the only option for defense of Greenland, Denmark, and Europe....and they know it.

if you seriously think you could win a war on your own your very delusional the USA has never won a war on its own and if you think countries around the the world are not operational ready that's a joke too i didn't mean the USA taking over Greenland but China or Russia that would spark a response from the rest of the world

If China cut off our pharmaceuticals and electronics 3/4 of our population would be ready to surrender in a week

We’re actually pretty good at winning them. The problem is we feel ( by ‘we’ I mean the folks in DC) that conquering the enemy isn’t enough. We also are obligated to rebuild it and make it a proper, Western society.

Trump has repeatedly complained that Europe doesn't pull their own weight in NATO and said that they need to step it up and take more responsibility for their own defense.

Well guess what? lol

Funny how things worked out.

Here's another funny one.
Brits raising mil recall upper limit from.55 to.65 years of age.
Got to call.up the geezers if things get bad.
Yet they seem.to.have millions of recently arrived military aged men ...

all the wars that america thinks they won actually where with multi nations the last war that america won totally by its self was agaisnt the indians and that even the war of indepence was fought with the help of the french navy and napoleon in eurpoe

Read the fine print. They sent 13 soldiers - thats right 13!
And the German army is pathetic - I still have family over there and the german military is an absolute joke.
Nothing to worry about.

Haha, nothing military wise will happen, but can you imagine if it would? Talk about turning the world upside down!
Suddenly, the enemy of your enemy becomes your friend, and who’s left all by themselves? That’d friggin suck man.
Be a cool movie though!

Wonder if we will send troops to defend Greenland from being taken over?

England and France were doing so good without us back in the ‘40s we should have just stayed home.

Who was helping us put Japan back in the box?

From the country whose sole purpose is to provide canon fodder for a fading and fallen empire.

ONLY, if the USA was involved, Nato is a collection of sheep without the USA. This is what Trump is looking at. We dont need nato, nato NEEDS us, we can run Greenland without the bureaucracy of nato, which is turning more muslim everyday.

And everyone could pretend they are Steven Seagal in the early 1990's.

Agreed!

Saw a meme somewhere that said Denmark should just rename Greenland to Epstein Island so Trump would stop talking about it. No matter where you stand, you gotta admit that is funny.

… saw that too trapdog … laughed pretty good over it

I saw that too, shared by Thomas Massie.

They would have fallen well before we got our military built up and entered without our production supplying them. Should have let them speak German.

Got to think how many of these countries are biting the hand that feeds(protects them) they darn cant do it themselves and have not needed to spent the resources doing so seriously for decades since they had the US to come save them.

I like how the U.S pretends they did Europe a huge favor by helping the communist take half of it.

Who have we been protecting Europe from the last 35 years?

Themselves evidently.

Yes and the UK sent 1

The poverty rate in Greenland is better than 18% or so and with Denmark’s being a country of odd socialism where everyone is guaranteed atleast a certain income and it’s own poverty rate around 4% Greenland is a pretty big liability financially. For the right “deal” the Danish would happily sell Greenland down the river or in this case down the ocean.

This is all bullcrap Theatre to slight Trump. The option is given to the Greenlanders and they know they will be far better off with US financial option inputs than any other nation.

Osky

Strength in numbers is Natos policy

“North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), 1949
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created in 1949 by the United States, Canada, and several Western European nations to provide collective security against the Soviet Union.”

Nothing worse than “mission creep”!

Hahaha…….. just give us a call when you forget how to shoot again, we’ll come show ya.
What’s this all about anyway, resources or security? What’s the US going to do up there that they aren’t already?
You might think we’re just cannon fodder, but we died right along side your cannon fodder in the Stan, and previous wars that were worth fighting. God gave you a noggin for a reason, fill it with some knowledge so you don’t sound off like an idiot.

A voice from Greenland:

I for one am tired of having the best military in the world to defend sniveling, whiny, unappreciative, leeches. Who can then fund their socialist medicine, governments, and people? All on the coat-tails of the United States taxpayers. canada, mexico, and europe should begin paying for their own defense and we get out. They can learn chinese and russian real quick. Screw-em all.

Trump might be playing a game to get others to arm Greenland to keep it from being over run by Russia and China. Talking about a military take over gets some other countries to spend their money to arm the place. If that is what he is doing it is saving us a lot of money and making the other countries pay their share in global defense......jk

A 1994 or close on the age of that Toyota pickup. I got one just like it but is an extended cab. They are ready for bear.

I don't agree with Trump's slapping tariffs on all these countries unless they side with him. I would agree with negotiations giving the US military a stronger presence in Greenland plus additional forces such as the UK and some of the other NATO partners to keep China and Russia out. I would get out of the UN who hates America and consistently votes against us.

Well said T7. I’m sure our allies Denmark/Greenland would be happy and willing to let us expand our existing military presence in Greenland and even gain valuable mineral rights etc. with a relatively simple ask. But, we need to make a big show out of it and try flex our muscles just for show like a bodybuilder who acts invincible. Whatever happened to humility? There’s always that trapper out there who catches more critters. Happy trapping! ScottW

If all were so in that pie in that sky world. The simple truth is that we've been played by NATO for 75 years and carried the load while they benefited. But for the first fifty it served our interests keeping the Soviets in check. Europe has never been our allies, partners at times yes but never an ally.

And humility has never had a place in international affairs, just ask Poland. Heck even the Swiss back up their neutrality with a rifle in every hand.

I'm sure Denmark would let us, for a neverending cost of course. Just like the neverending cost of NATO. Trump is just redefining things into tangible assets here.

Greenland might be a distraction,that being said, I haven’t read this post.

One must wonder if this giant show of aggression is simply some form of distraction.

Also, food for thought warrior, though I am sure you'll reject every aspect of it.

I think Nato has benefitted all, yes you've carried the load.

However, article 5 has only been enacted once, that was after 9/11. Nato nations actually did join the war on terror in many ways including actual combat, funding, 15 years of NATO patrol in the Mediterranean, even NATO aircrafts patrolling US skies. ........and more.
40000 Canadians fought in that war. When did 40000 Americans join Canada in battle or any nation for that matter, as a fellow NATO member?

That's exactly what I was thinking, I'm sure it would be a lot easier to lease a base there from Greenland and construct the "GOLDEN DOME" from a couple bases that they would probably be happy to lease to the U.S. maybe in perpetuity This "TAKE IT nonsense would never in a million years make it through Congress anyway. So I'd say this is a chess game much more than "Saber rattling".

Give me an example of where 40,000 Canadian soldier went to fight where the U.S. did not engage first, or with even more troops? After the early 1800's. We're each others best allies and have been for almost two hundred years.

Have you ever been attacked to be in need of 40000 Americans? You're welcome.

Matter of fact, I'd like to ask you about accepting with open arms criminal deserters from America, or maybe allowing your nation to be a trans shipping point for illegals and drugs. Just not neighborly if you ask me, much lees the actions of an ally.

Truth be told we've looked the other way on the whole corrupt lot of y'all so called allies.

Both WW 1 and WW 2 wolfer in terms of entering first. Anyhow, I'm not even talking that, I'm discussing since NATO was founded. There has only been one situation where a NATO member was attacked, that was you guys. Others were there to help and assist as the deal suggested they should. It's wild how everything is always such a pissing match. It's always like that. D Day is a great example, you guys took 2 of the 5 beaches but act like you took them all. The rest of the world doesn't sit back and act like you guys do nothing, in fact they acknowledge you do much heavy lifting. They just get tired of hearing how nobody else does anything. Like you'd swear 2/5 (Dday) is 100% but even grade 6's know it is 40. Happy Trapping.

We already have a base there. we had several at one time.

The second part of your post is actually kind of funny. Everyone who actually wants to know the truth , knows that more meth is cooked up by scrapes living all over your nation, or more opioids are delivered to your people from your people in the form of prescription pills than any amount of drugs entering from here. lol

Now I'm not even saying that nothing bad enters there via here but c'mon man, what you're saying is exactly as me saying that you have been a terrible ally and neighbor historically because cocaine gets here through you.

There’s a few keyboard “warriors” that really got their heads up their arse. Why is a fringe minority of Americans intent on having the world against them? Must’ve been beaten as a child which probably carried on into adulthood, constantly being the victim and mad at the world. Get off your arse and do something, anything for yourself. Nobody owes you a dam thing, you’re a flunk because you never had the guts to stand up….lol
It seems Trumps goal is to deconstruct everything that happened after WW2.
Try stepping out of your slippers and take a look at the big picture. Guess who’s sitting cool and letting things play out.

Alberta?

I'm not sure whether I'm more fascinated or shocked by how many Americans seem to live on their own planet with their own truths, consistently ignoring all the information from the world around them.

The 1951 Greenland Agreement, to my knowledge, was never revoked. It was solely the US's decision to drastically reduce its bases and troops there, from at least 17 to just one.

And they had good reason: After World War II, there was never a threat to Greenland from other nations, and there still isn't.

The US has reduced its Arctic troops to a minimum. How many are there now? 8,000? 10,000? Finland alone has three times that many.

Even Germany still has about 4,000, even though we have no other claim to the Arctic than through the alliance.

The EU countries together have about 25 icebreakers.

How many do the US still have? Five?

I have no idea what game Trump is playing and why, no idea why he's breaking with all of America's friends and wants to isolate the US.

I think that's very stupid in the long run.

It may be that a country of only 350 million people can survive on its own in a world with more than 8 billion people. It's easier with friends and partners.

And folks wonder why we stayed out of WW1 until their problems started sinking our boats. Didn't want to repeat it so stayed out of the next one until our boats got touched again. So we tried to fix things where nobody is touching anybody else's boats.

Bunch of stinking ingrates.

Are we still pretending the good guys won both world wars?

The bankers won both WWs and every other war

And the options were?

If you really don't think the United States is the good guys then you're more than welcome to find a better nation.

I won't split hairs on that. Now if you want to argue the ills of international banks/corporations/alliances that created the conditions that led up to war then let's discuss. I agree that international actors place their own interests ahead of the nation state to the detriment of all nation states. Maybe we should be going back to an isolationist policy and Sherman Act the banks and abolish the Fed while beefing up the tarriffs. After all ot worked for us for 150 years.

If the Treaty of Versailles had been a little less harsh on Germany, I wonder if WWII would have taken longer to happen? I still think it would have eventually happened, but likely decades later.

Keith

One option was to not ally with the murderous Soviets who took a huge chunk of Europe after the war and lead to a nuclear arms race. Could of also not allied with China who is currently our main adversary and nearest peer militarily.

This 100 year old veteran on the news crying saying "it wasn't worth it" should probably find a new country also eh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YTayqvw9TE

Again the options are what?

We would have still been at war with Japan and Germany, period. Are you saying we go in uncoordinated with the guys also fighting Japan and Germany? What then when we we inevitably come up at cross purposes or meet up on the battlefield, a free for all?

Or follow Patton and Churchill into an attack of the Soviet Union immediately after fighting the bloodiest war in history? Immediately rearm the Nazis to help us do it? Nuke Moscow after they just proved that several million dead and the relocation of all manufacturing out of reach was a thing for them without quitting? Napoleon just entered the chat. How about China, a land of millions that had never been a nation. Fallen empire, yes, but never a unified people. Even today they are not a uniform demographic. What to do with them? Impose American hedgemony, like the British tried to do. Sure we could feed them opium as well. As it was we picked the team most like us, free market and corrupt, and hoped for the best.

The what ifs of hindsight will just make you miserable and second guessing rather than dealing with the here and now while hoping not to repeat the mistakes of the past is about the best we can do.

Now for the lessons of the past let's get ourselves out of the foreign entanglements that got us in the mess in the first place.

Obviously the U.S should of rearmed the Germans and pushed the Soviets back out. What was the point in fighting a war against Germany while simultaneously helping the Soviets do everything the Germans wanted to in the first place?

Maybe we can at least stop acting like the U.S uses its military for a Force of good around the world and everyone needs to thank us. Maybe we can quit pretending we need to take Greenland for defensive purposes and just admit we want it's natural resources.

At the end of WWII, President Truman and General Eisenhower bluffed the Soviets into believing they would bomb 9 Russian cities, including Moscow, if the Soviets continued expanding West. We only had 1 ready nuclear bomb. In 1946, we had 6 nukes ready to go. If we bombed the Soviets then, it would be a very different world. The commies and socialists likely would not of gotten control of much of our education system, without Soviet sponsorship.

Keith

President Trump has been very c!ear we want Greenland for both it's defensive position and resources.

Keith

What advantages does it offer defensively if we own it that it cannot provide though a lease or treaty?

While I agree the Soviets should have never been allowed to hold what they took I'm also a realist that when looking at history will try to put myself into the minds of the people making the decisions in the moment with the information that they had to hand at the time.

America had just been through years of war and lost many sons and daughters, we had a new untested president, for years we had been allies with the Soviet Union. Turning on an ally isn't exactly an American trait plus to be asked to sacrifice possible the same or more in sons and daughters immediately on the heels of having just supposedly won would be not just a nonstarter but political suicide. And in America unlike most of Europe politics is everything. Great Britian was bankrupt, France crippled and at war with itself, Germany leveled and starving, China in civil war. We also knew soviet infiltration had occurred but not to what extent. We had the bomb but not enough and hoped we were the only ones.

All in all a crapshoot that could go either way. I don't fault Truman for his call. We credit his decision to drop the bomb as being a hard call but don't consider Potsdam and what he had to live with.

We wouldn't have to get approval from Denmark or Greenland for every little thing. We wouldn't have to pay a lease fee. We wouldn't have all the oversight for everything we do there. The facilities would be more secure from spying. We would have it forever. We wouldn't have to worry about the Greenlanders or Danes switching allegiance at some time in the future.

Keith

And don't forget Truman was saddled with the legacy of FDR who had appeased the Soviets while giving Truman the mushroom treatment prior to his death. The same FDR that was in the process of being canonized in US history.

Only Churchill among world leaders was realist enough to see what needed to be done but he couldn't go it alone, and the british people would see him out in short order.

Keith, you're to smart to pretend that Denmark or Greenland is going to force us to get approval to defend Greenland, you and I both know they would sign an extremely broad defense agreement for free if offered.

The U.S still has a base in Cuba, even if they wanted to switch alliances we could deal with that in a long term lease.

The U.S is going BROKE, both parties spend money like Cowboys in a red light district, If we cant collapse Russia to raid their resources I guess we have to take another artic nation for theirs.

Greenland and Denmark would still want oversight of what we do there. A large, important part of what our military does has to remain secret.

Right now, they won't even let us have nuclear missiles in Greenland.

Keith

Not sure where I stand on this......what's their wimmin look like?

Pretty pale I'm guessing?

Need it for the "Golden Dome"

Probably big girls, Hippie. Gotta stay warm!

Inuit is what they look like. My understanding is that very few actual Danes wanted to be colonists.

They are mostly Eskimos or Eskimo like from all the videos I've seen of them. Most have a small amount of Danish DNA from more recent times. The original Norse settler population died out along time ago. There might be a a little genetic admixture from captured original settlers, that the Eskimos took when they invaded.

It went less well for the whites in Greenland, when the Native Americans arrived, then it did for the Native Americans, when the whites arrived here.

Keith

They should stick out in a snow drift then.

The EU has 25 countries that is one ice breaker per country yet the US has 5? Things that make one go hmmmm! Once again who is carrying the world? Not the EU or its 25 members. Bunch of freeloaders!.

We're building more as well. Just read an article about a contract let out to one of the gulf ship yards.

There are 27 EU country's not 25, 5 of them are landlocked and do not have Navy's at all.

n 2026, eight EU countries operate icebreakers or ice-capable government vessels to maintain winter navigation, support polar research, or conduct sovereignty patrols.
EU Countries with Icebreakers

Finland: The world leader in icebreaking technology. It operates a core fleet of 8 specialized icebreakers (such as the Polaris and Otso) and has several multi-purpose vessels with icebreaking capabilities. A new icebreaker, the Aino, is scheduled to begin construction in early 2026.

Sweden: Operates 6 icebreakers, including the polar-capable Oden. Sweden has also tendered for the construction of new A-Class icebreakers, with the first expected for delivery in 2026.

Germany: Operates the Polarstern, a heavy polar research icebreaker, and several smaller ice-capable vessels for coastal duties.

Denmark: Maintains ice-capable patrol ships, primarily used for operations around Greenland and the Faroe Islands.

Estonia: Operates the Botnica (a multipurpose icebreaker purchased from Finland) and smaller coastal icebreakers.

France: Maintains the L'Astrolabe, a polar logistics and patrol icebreaker operated by the French Navy to support Antarctic research. France also possesses the privately-owned Le Commandant Charcot, the world's only luxury hybrid-electric icebreaking cruise ship.

Latvia: Uses the Varma and other ice-strengthened ships to keep its Baltic ports open.

Italy: Operates the Laura Bassi, an ice-strengthened research vessel used for Antarctic expeditions.

Key Regional Capabilities
The Baltic Sea: Finland, Sweden, Estonia, and Latvia focus on winter navigation, as their ports frequently freeze during the winter months.

Polar Operations: Only a few EU countries (France, Germany, Sweden) possess "heavy" icebreakers capable of year-round operation in the Arctic or Antarctic.

The ICE Pact (2024-2026): In late 2024, Finland signed a trilateral agreement with the U.S. and Canada to collaborate on icebreaker design and production, solidifying its role as the primary provider of icebreaking expertise for the West.

My best GUESS is Trump wants to make it more difficult to disable a missile defense system by controlling who can gain access to Greenland. Acquisition of mineral exploitation is another biggie. Maybe the driving factor.

IMO he ought to lay it all on the line. Might be other NATO countries agree.

Might be he has laid it all out with them and they are opposed. Whatever is going on we won't get the full story.

Pretty sure being able to operate UNDER the ice, would be the bigger advantage/ more important

How many nuclear submarines does the EU have?

Trump threatening our allies over Greenland AND because he didn't actually win the Nobel Peace Prize is going to make for a terrible open of the markets. Bravo.

so the great united states armed forces spends 3x the amount than the Chinese spends and wont be able to stop them from taking over Taiwan and afraid to do anything in north Korea because of the Chinese and 9x more than Russia and cant convince Russia to back out of Ukraine so they pick on little countries like Denmark which is an ally even in Syria the the Russian told the USA army to get out and they did even congress has warned all united states commanders that if any of them send troops to Greenland without congress approval than they will be brought up on war crimes Canada and Europe have both said no to the missile defense plan that the USA has put forth and that probably has (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) off trump more than anything because of the trillions of dollars spent on it and nobody wants it yes here in Canada with our small army but still respected around the world and will help an ally at the drop of a hat we fought in both world wars long before the USA got involved even where the first to storm the beaches in France which cost us and gave valuable insight into what the troops where to expect again in June 1944 stop your whining that the rest of the world doesnt agree with you an your tactics maybe take 100 billion of your defense spending and spend it on education or health care

I suppose you'd be happier with
Harris

I'm thinking all they have are diesel-electrics but I may be wrong. The only nuclear operators over there that I'm aware of is Great Britian and that one may not be in use.

Greenland has long been the western anchor of the GIUK listening post line of sensors to listen for russian subs coming into the Atlantic. Now with the artic opening up maybe we need a line from Greenland to Alaska?

Diesel subs have a very limited amount of time they can stay under the ice

Not sure they’re even in the game, as far as artic defence

I'm under the understanding that the EU subs are primarily tasked with the Baltic and GIUK gap, possibly the Med. Supposedly they can run even quieter than nukes and make great listening posts, but that's just nerd reading the net stuff on my part. I could be totally wrong. I do know that in one recent NATO exercise one, Swedish(?), "sunk" one of our carriers according to what was reported.

It's like to be a wild ride all week.

Been hearing Trump was gonna tank the market for a year now, ain't happened.

Not tanked. Just volatile.

yes you are correct in nato excerises the american carriers have been sunk several times by disel powered subs either american sonar has gone down hill or sonar training but it really doesnt matter in time of war the carrier would be a huge lose

Gotcha,

That's pretty common or no?

Did ya hear our trade deficit is now half what it was?

Well...... let's just say... there's volatile, and then there's "Trump volatile".

I honestly thought it'd be worse until it got better due to tariffs but hasn't been the case.

Inflation down
Exports up which means manufacturing is up
Imports down
Stock market ? I don't follow it close but heard its up.

you're not much of a negotiator, are you?

I would take that in context if I were you. YOY, October, which is the last month data is finalized for as far as I can find, the deficit was nearly half of what it was in 2024. However, that doesn't really look at the whole picture. Maybe this chart will help.



You'll notice the first three months of the year, before Trump's tariffs took effect, our deficit was MUCH higher than in the previous year. This was due to companies stocking up in an attempt to beat the tariffs. Because of that, they were able to spend less in the subsequent months, as they stockpiled product before the tariffs.

If you do the math, for the ten months for which data is available (Jan-Oct of both '24 and '25).... you'll find that over those 10 months, our deficit actually increased by $7.76 billion over what it was in 2024. Here's the math if you're interested.

Greenland is the 12th largest country in the world. It's a little over 22% of the size of the US. Adding it will make the US close to 4,500,000 square miles and the second largest country in the world.

Keith

how much would Australia add to our land mass??

Hopefully they look similar to their Nordic neighbor Iceland! Most beautiful women on earth….

Not as much as Canada will.

Keith

Then why is this being reported by outlets that are less than friendly to this administration?

https://fortune.com/2025/12/26/trump-tariffs-trade-deficit-year-in-review-charts/

I wonder if Keir Starmer handing over the Chagos Islands to Mauritania has any influence on the demand for US control?

The Chagos is Diego Garcia, our big naval and B52 base in the Indian Ocean.

Got me lost hippie. Your article seems to say what I just said??? From it:

I think you mean Mauritius. Mauritania is in Africa. Probably spell check.

Sept drop, then newer data here

This is a good article, imo. You should read it again. A couple of quotes from it:

Sure, they had to try and discredit it somehow. Hope their crystal ball into the future is wrong..

This whole taking Greenland thing is ridiculous, and getting more so every day.

Just pushing China and Russia back across the ocean similar to what's going on in Panama.



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...ports-is-about-to-be-decided/ar-AA1U7f0Z

I have to question the stockpiling concept as most companies don’t have the space. It’s the reason the whole supply chain interruptions when there are shortages.

Take into account shelf life on some materials and that stockpiling becomes impossible for some items.

Then what would you attribute the sharp increase in imports in the three months prior to the tariffs going into effect to?