I kind of hope that part of Europe's response it to start selling off its large amount of U.S. bonds.
>Europe owns Greenland, it also owns a lot of Treasuries. We spent most of last year arguing that for all its military and economic strength, the US has one key weakness: it relies on others to pay its bills via large external deficits. Europe, on the other hand, is America’s largest lender: European countries own $8 trillion of US bonds and equities, almost twice as much as the rest of the world combined.
>In an environment where the geoeconomic stability of the western alliance is being disrupted existentially, it is not clear why Europeans would be as willing to play this part. Danish pension funds were one of the first to repatriate money and reduce their dollar exposure this time last year. With USD exposure still very elevated across Europe, developments over the last few days have potential to further encourage dollar rebalancing.
>. . . From our perspective the key thing to watch over the next few days will be whether the EU decides to activate its anti-coercion instrument by putting measures that impact capital markets on the table.
>With the US net international investment position at record negative extremes, the mutual inter-dependence of European-US financial markets has never been higher. It is a weaponization of capital rather than trade flows that would by far be the most disruptive to markets.
"I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the President or the Pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I'd want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody."
Sure, maybe Trump's peculiar mix of ego and ignorance might mean he's one of the few exceptions to that rule - but if he were to actually try claiming that a bond rout is somehow good news in the middle of a market panic, the reaction from distressed would be investors would be hard even for him to ignore.
No, Denmark cannot do that. Denmark does not own Greenland.
Greenland has a parliament and manages its own domestic affairs. Denmark manages some domains like foreign and defense policy, but Greenland governs its own territory.
They could but they'd say that's not what the people of Greenland want. They don't want to be an owned territory when they're used to their autonomy. They don't want their land exploited for minerals and oil by the highest bidder. They don't want to be made a military target between the US and Russia.
I'm not saying there isn't a deal to be made but it's got to be with the people of Greenland.
The generous explanation is that Russia could be a cheap mineral supplier. That a destabilised West strengthens the offerings of US to its neighbours. That domestic xenophobia forces domestic hiring, manufacturing, job creation.
But historically, he apes Putin's strongman routine. He wants to be him. Bibi too. Too powerful to be prosecuted.
He's got a few years left, doesn't give a shit, and knows he can strip mine the US for his family before he goes.
Thinking about it he's probably guilty of a few offences along the sex offence, corruption and money laundering lines so he's probably biased to folk that help him out and don't worry about that like Russia, and against those who police such things.
There are 30 million Americans who cheer on bombing Nuuk and killing Danish citizens... I think this is over! If you have any hopes of reestablishing any kind of relationship, you are delusional..
If the USA sent 100,000 troops to Greenland. 2 soldier per person there. That's not an invasion; the usa has an unrestricted military treaty. They can legally do any military thing they please. So you can ignore any military reasoning for why the USA needs Greenland. This is purely about economics and not really getting all that involved with their politics.
I have no say or influence over whether Greenland becomes part of the usa. For significantly less money than what the USA has sent ukraine, they could could give 100,000$/person to those in greenland for the purchase. Not to mention that afterwards Greenland probably ends up one of the wealthiest places in the world per capita; assuming not a significant change in population.
What's even crazier, the USA budget for this purchase is more like $9 million/person, they'll hold out for much more than $100,000/person but it will happen because the bigger picture for why the usa must have greenland is that vietnam and brazil arent going to join. If Greenland doesnt go to the USA, the USA will be forced to invade Canada. Obviously that means annexing greenland with military is an option.
What's crazy to me, Canada holds the cards for Greenland. Making a deal with Trump would defuse the entire issue.
If it can get federal control over greenland it doesnt need to take Canada. The case where Canada must be annexed is if Greenland somehow remains part of Denmark.
>The case where Canada must be annexed is if Greenland somehow remains part of Denmark.
How does this follow? The US/Canada have previously made numerous mutual defense and land concession deals for joint infrastructure projects and defensive purposes. It's been USA policy for 150 years not to allow foreign interference in the Americas, and potential for Mexican or Canada to be used as grounds for continental attacks on the USA has been the cause of several pre-emptive wars.
If the US desired a military port in the arctic, such a deal could assuredly be negotiated again. As Canada's #1 trading partner, we also have significant leverage on negotiating mineral access and equitable property rights.
What does inheriting Canada's internal challenges including Quebec Succession discussions grant the USA? What makes the US "need" to own Canada?
> The US Geological Survey estimates that onshore northeast Greenland (including ice-covered areas) contains around 31 billion barrels of oil-equivalent in hydrocarbons
The US doesn't need oil, it's the world's largest producer and has enormous estimated recoverable oil reserves comparable to Venezuela or Russia.
Greenland is either about Trump intentionally causing chaos with NATO for the benefit of Russia (depending on your politics), or it's the Pentagon & Co. looking to lock down strategic territory for the near future superpower stand-off with China, which will be a global conflict (and may involve China and Russia on one side). Controlling Greenland and Alaska would provide the US with enormous Arctic Ocean positioning. Now what does that have to do with China you may ask? Trade, transit and military asset positioning. The US is looking to secure what it regards as its hemisphere, while China is about to massively push outward globally with a projection navy. The US has less than ~20 years to lock down its hemisphere (again, what the US believes to be its hemisphere) before China starts showing up with its navy everywhere. There will be constant navy-navy challenges everywhere. China will constantly probe the US points of control, for all the obvious reasons. The US will want to keep China as far away as possible.
What Arctic access is provided by Greenland that isn't already provided by Alaska and control of the Bering strait? US naval ambitions in the Arctic are limited by the US' weak shipbuilding capacity, which it's relied on Canada and Europe to compensate for. Those are also the nations most pissed off by the US' nonsense.
> What Arctic access is provided by Greenland that isn't already provided by Alaska and control of the Bering strait?
Denial to others? If you're going to the Arctic from the south, you have to come up through either the Bering straight (next to Alaska) or through the waters around Greenland.
Several things: 1) the US will deploy substantial military assets to Greenland. Far beyond what it has now. That will include building massive radar arrays and missile defense systems. By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does. 2) The US will aggressively claim water territory around Greenland and use it to restrict transit by foreign military powers. Svalbard is on the table for invasion and annexation if the US goes the route of fascism or empire. If not, then the US will just push its water territory claims to absurd lines in the style of the South China Sea and use it for denial as much as possible. 3) Greenland puts the US drastically closer to the most important regions of Russia, the US will station nuclear weapons on Greenland. Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to Moscow.
The US only recognizes two threatening competitor powers in the world today: China and Russia. Russia is of course not what it was during the Soviet era. However a long-term partnership with China would change the dynamic a lot. Russian territory may come to host major Chinese ports in time. For the right price it's extremely likely that China can buy a multi port deal in the Arctic Ocean region from Russia. It'd be invaluable access & projection potential for China. Any superpower would want that realistically.
By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does
So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission? And these new missile defense systems would presumably be integrated under NORAD, where Canada would have a say anyway. I don't find this a particularly convincing argument.
Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to Moscow.
Moscow has been in range of US ICBMs since the cold war. The US also has an agreement with Canada allowing use of their airspace for nuclear weapons as well.
> So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission?
This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada.
And no, Canada is not a particularly cooperative military partner. Canada barely has a military at this point. Canada is highly skeptical of most of the global military adventurism of the US. While you can agree with that skepticism, it would be wildly unrealistic to think the US wants to be beholden to Canada for much of anything when it comes to force projection.
It's quite plausible the US is looking to begin using its superpower military, to become the empire it has always been accused of being (but never actually was).
Canada allowing the US use of its airspace for nuclear weapons is laughable. I'm talking about the US stationing a large number of nuclear weapons in Greenland, thousands of KM closer to Moscow than any other point in the US now. What does Canada have to do with that?
Having Greenland gives the US an extremely powerful position over the Arctic Ocean for the next century. Build multiple ports.
The logistical value is extremely obvious.
And possessing Greenland reduces the need to have so many military bases in Europe. It lessens the US dependency on Europe.
This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada.
If we're talking polar missile defenses, Canada is quite important. They're half of NORAD already and Greenland is only 500km closer to Moscow.
I'm talking about the US stationing a large number of nuclear weapons in Greenland, thousands of KM closer to Moscow than any other point in the US now.
Okay, why do you think that matters? An ICBM in Alaska has a range that entirely covers the Northern hemisphere, and a large chunk of the southern hemisphere as well. Greenland offers no benefits here.
Having Greenland gives the US an extremely powerful position over the Arctic Ocean for the next century. Build multiple ports.
With what ships? The US Navy is not particularly well-equipped with arctic ships beyond the subs. It also has two arctic ports already at Utqiagvik and Prudhoe Bay with substantial infrastructure already. I've visited both.
The logistical value is extremely obvious.
It really isn't. Greenland is a logistics nightmare. That ice is dangerous and the weather is fun for planes. The US uses much more sensible bases in the UK for patrolling the Greenland/Iceland straits.
An actually interesting proposal would be Jan Mayen.
> Okay, why do you think that matters? An ICBM in Alaska has a range that entirely covers the Northern hemisphere, and a large chunk of the southern hemisphere as well. Greenland offers no benefits here.
I'm no expert here, but more missile bases positioned more closely to your targets seems better, no?
> With what ships? The US Navy is not particularly well-equipped with arctic ships beyond the subs.
I'm a big proponent of repealing the Jones Act, but don't forget that Trump struck a big shipbuilding deal with South Korea recently. Maybe the "Trump class" (barf) battleship will be particularly well suited for arctic climates.
> Since the US military strikes on Venezuela and seizure of its president Nicolás Maduro this month, Trump has said he plans to tap into the country's huge oil reserves.
Welfare perhaps. State, almost certainly not. If this did come to pass, I wonder if the inhabitants would be US citizens or non-citizen nationals, like the population of American Samoa.
Not sure about the US citizens versus non-citizen nationals (I had always thought American Samoans were citizens), but you're spot on that it would certainly not be a state. The people living in Greenland would almost certainly lean blue, and the republicans would never allow the Dems to gain more de facto seats in the house and senate.
I don't think any of the Trump crowd thought as far as these legal ramifications. Send in the Little Green Men, annex, and figure things out as they happen.
I kind of hope that part of Europe's response it to start selling off its large amount of U.S. bonds.
>Europe owns Greenland, it also owns a lot of Treasuries. We spent most of last year arguing that for all its military and economic strength, the US has one key weakness: it relies on others to pay its bills via large external deficits. Europe, on the other hand, is America’s largest lender: European countries own $8 trillion of US bonds and equities, almost twice as much as the rest of the world combined.
>In an environment where the geoeconomic stability of the western alliance is being disrupted existentially, it is not clear why Europeans would be as willing to play this part. Danish pension funds were one of the first to repatriate money and reduce their dollar exposure this time last year. With USD exposure still very elevated across Europe, developments over the last few days have potential to further encourage dollar rebalancing.
>. . . From our perspective the key thing to watch over the next few days will be whether the EU decides to activate its anti-coercion instrument by putting measures that impact capital markets on the table.
>With the US net international investment position at record negative extremes, the mutual inter-dependence of European-US financial markets has never been higher. It is a weaponization of capital rather than trade flows that would by far be the most disruptive to markets.
https://www.ft.com/content/beeaf869-ca12-4178-95a1-bfb69ee27...
What do you think selling US bonds will do? Because selling US bonds is good for the US actually.
"I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the President or the Pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I'd want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody."
Sure, maybe Trump's peculiar mix of ego and ignorance might mean he's one of the few exceptions to that rule - but if he were to actually try claiming that a bond rout is somehow good news in the middle of a market panic, the reaction from distressed would be investors would be hard even for him to ignore.
Denmark could rent Greenland to the US, e.g. for 10 billion dollars a year. Wouldn‘t that be a great deal for our dealmaker?
No, Denmark cannot do that. Denmark does not own Greenland.
Greenland has a parliament and manages its own domestic affairs. Denmark manages some domains like foreign and defense policy, but Greenland governs its own territory.
They could but they'd say that's not what the people of Greenland want. They don't want to be an owned territory when they're used to their autonomy. They don't want their land exploited for minerals and oil by the highest bidder. They don't want to be made a military target between the US and Russia.
I'm not saying there isn't a deal to be made but it's got to be with the people of Greenland.
It's strange how Trump wants to be pally with Russia but attack America's closest allies like Canada and Denmark.
That's what a bully does: beat up on EASY targets.
The generous explanation is that Russia could be a cheap mineral supplier. That a destabilised West strengthens the offerings of US to its neighbours. That domestic xenophobia forces domestic hiring, manufacturing, job creation.
But historically, he apes Putin's strongman routine. He wants to be him. Bibi too. Too powerful to be prosecuted.
He's got a few years left, doesn't give a shit, and knows he can strip mine the US for his family before he goes.
Thinking about it he's probably guilty of a few offences along the sex offence, corruption and money laundering lines so he's probably biased to folk that help him out and don't worry about that like Russia, and against those who police such things.
soon he will be dead and the slow, painful, halting recovery will begin
People already thought once that Trumpism would disappear some years ago. They were wrong.
His mother lived to 88
Did she eat as much McDonald's? Anyway, the cat is out of the bag. Problem goes far beyond the man.
There are 30 million Americans who cheer on bombing Nuuk and killing Danish citizens... I think this is over! If you have any hopes of reestablishing any kind of relationship, you are delusional..
If the USA sent 100,000 troops to Greenland. 2 soldier per person there. That's not an invasion; the usa has an unrestricted military treaty. They can legally do any military thing they please. So you can ignore any military reasoning for why the USA needs Greenland. This is purely about economics and not really getting all that involved with their politics.
I have no say or influence over whether Greenland becomes part of the usa. For significantly less money than what the USA has sent ukraine, they could could give 100,000$/person to those in greenland for the purchase. Not to mention that afterwards Greenland probably ends up one of the wealthiest places in the world per capita; assuming not a significant change in population.
What's even crazier, the USA budget for this purchase is more like $9 million/person, they'll hold out for much more than $100,000/person but it will happen because the bigger picture for why the usa must have greenland is that vietnam and brazil arent going to join. If Greenland doesnt go to the USA, the USA will be forced to invade Canada. Obviously that means annexing greenland with military is an option.
What's crazy to me, Canada holds the cards for Greenland. Making a deal with Trump would defuse the entire issue.
Why is the USA forced to invade Canada?
>Why is the USA forced to invade Canada?
If it can get federal control over greenland it doesnt need to take Canada. The case where Canada must be annexed is if Greenland somehow remains part of Denmark.
>The case where Canada must be annexed is if Greenland somehow remains part of Denmark.
How does this follow? The US/Canada have previously made numerous mutual defense and land concession deals for joint infrastructure projects and defensive purposes. It's been USA policy for 150 years not to allow foreign interference in the Americas, and potential for Mexican or Canada to be used as grounds for continental attacks on the USA has been the cause of several pre-emptive wars.
If the US desired a military port in the arctic, such a deal could assuredly be negotiated again. As Canada's #1 trading partner, we also have significant leverage on negotiating mineral access and equitable property rights.
What does inheriting Canada's internal challenges including Quebec Succession discussions grant the USA? What makes the US "need" to own Canada?
It would be the largest welfare state in the union.
> The US Geological Survey estimates that onshore northeast Greenland (including ice-covered areas) contains around 31 billion barrels of oil-equivalent in hydrocarbons
https://theconversation.com/greenland-is-rich-in-natural-res...
If oil is so fucking important that it justifies this idiocy, why is the US a net exporter of oil?
The US doesn't need oil, it's the world's largest producer and has enormous estimated recoverable oil reserves comparable to Venezuela or Russia.
Greenland is either about Trump intentionally causing chaos with NATO for the benefit of Russia (depending on your politics), or it's the Pentagon & Co. looking to lock down strategic territory for the near future superpower stand-off with China, which will be a global conflict (and may involve China and Russia on one side). Controlling Greenland and Alaska would provide the US with enormous Arctic Ocean positioning. Now what does that have to do with China you may ask? Trade, transit and military asset positioning. The US is looking to secure what it regards as its hemisphere, while China is about to massively push outward globally with a projection navy. The US has less than ~20 years to lock down its hemisphere (again, what the US believes to be its hemisphere) before China starts showing up with its navy everywhere. There will be constant navy-navy challenges everywhere. China will constantly probe the US points of control, for all the obvious reasons. The US will want to keep China as far away as possible.
What Arctic access is provided by Greenland that isn't already provided by Alaska and control of the Bering strait? US naval ambitions in the Arctic are limited by the US' weak shipbuilding capacity, which it's relied on Canada and Europe to compensate for. Those are also the nations most pissed off by the US' nonsense.
> What Arctic access is provided by Greenland that isn't already provided by Alaska and control of the Bering strait?
Denial to others? If you're going to the Arctic from the south, you have to come up through either the Bering straight (next to Alaska) or through the waters around Greenland.
Several things: 1) the US will deploy substantial military assets to Greenland. Far beyond what it has now. That will include building massive radar arrays and missile defense systems. By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does. 2) The US will aggressively claim water territory around Greenland and use it to restrict transit by foreign military powers. Svalbard is on the table for invasion and annexation if the US goes the route of fascism or empire. If not, then the US will just push its water territory claims to absurd lines in the style of the South China Sea and use it for denial as much as possible. 3) Greenland puts the US drastically closer to the most important regions of Russia, the US will station nuclear weapons on Greenland. Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to Moscow.
The US only recognizes two threatening competitor powers in the world today: China and Russia. Russia is of course not what it was during the Soviet era. However a long-term partnership with China would change the dynamic a lot. Russian territory may come to host major Chinese ports in time. For the right price it's extremely likely that China can buy a multi port deal in the Arctic Ocean region from Russia. It'd be invaluable access & projection potential for China. Any superpower would want that realistically.
> So the US would destroy all of its diplomatic relations specifically to avoid asking Canada for permission?
This is about not having to ask for permission to deploy vast military assets to Greenland, not a matter of having to ask Canada for permission. I didn't mention Canada.
And no, Canada is not a particularly cooperative military partner. Canada barely has a military at this point. Canada is highly skeptical of most of the global military adventurism of the US. While you can agree with that skepticism, it would be wildly unrealistic to think the US wants to be beholden to Canada for much of anything when it comes to force projection.
It's quite plausible the US is looking to begin using its superpower military, to become the empire it has always been accused of being (but never actually was).
Canada allowing the US use of its airspace for nuclear weapons is laughable. I'm talking about the US stationing a large number of nuclear weapons in Greenland, thousands of KM closer to Moscow than any other point in the US now. What does Canada have to do with that?
Having Greenland gives the US an extremely powerful position over the Arctic Ocean for the next century. Build multiple ports.
The logistical value is extremely obvious.
And possessing Greenland reduces the need to have so many military bases in Europe. It lessens the US dependency on Europe.
An actually interesting proposal would be Jan Mayen.
> Okay, why do you think that matters? An ICBM in Alaska has a range that entirely covers the Northern hemisphere, and a large chunk of the southern hemisphere as well. Greenland offers no benefits here.
I'm no expert here, but more missile bases positioned more closely to your targets seems better, no?
> With what ships? The US Navy is not particularly well-equipped with arctic ships beyond the subs.
I'm a big proponent of repealing the Jones Act, but don't forget that Trump struck a big shipbuilding deal with South Korea recently. Maybe the "Trump class" (barf) battleship will be particularly well suited for arctic climates.
> The US doesn't need oil
> Since the US military strikes on Venezuela and seizure of its president Nicolás Maduro this month, Trump has said he plans to tap into the country's huge oil reserves.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy4qdnj5vl9o] 4 day ago
Welfare perhaps. State, almost certainly not. If this did come to pass, I wonder if the inhabitants would be US citizens or non-citizen nationals, like the population of American Samoa.
Not sure about the US citizens versus non-citizen nationals (I had always thought American Samoans were citizens), but you're spot on that it would certainly not be a state. The people living in Greenland would almost certainly lean blue, and the republicans would never allow the Dems to gain more de facto seats in the house and senate.
I don't think any of the Trump crowd thought as far as these legal ramifications. Send in the Little Green Men, annex, and figure things out as they happen.
Today I had some fun digging into the Greenland tech startup ecosystem, or lack thereof https://www.siliconsnark.com/the-first-ever-deep-dive-into-g...