Look at all the Pro-Ukraine shills being completely myopic about the strategic importance of Arctic Circle dominance by the US. You're anti-Russia in Ukraine, but pro-Russia in the Arctic.

Considering that we are unlikely to reverse climate change as humanity until at least 2050 and are on a firm track for 4C temperature increase before next solar cycle (past 2050) - folding in northern territories & Greenland which will become more navigable, livable & exploitable as ice recedes - makes perfect strategic sense for USA.

What eludes me is that why does Trump need to annex those? Both Denmark & Canada as well as their constituents are already firmly folded into US economic, political and military influence? Isn’t it cheaper to work them as colonies / protectorates?



This post was edited by Malopox on Jan 9 2025 07:05am

Agree. The US already owns these countries. From geopolitical perspective none would object to US military bases or traffic. Maybe it’s about natural resource development? Europe has very restrictive regulations, if the US wanted to exploit Greenland or Canada’a resource it would be annoying and time consuming to have to deal with local bureaucrats. It’s just easier if we already own the land.

Greenland is not part of the EU and doesn’t have to strictly follow EU laws. Canada is fully aligned with US politically and economically - so forcing legislation beneficent to USA should not be a tough hurdle. Keeping them outside of USA allows US to spend less money on development & social policies and does not dilute US power structures with eg Canadian establishment, while having plausible deniability in case things go wrong?

Moreover even Denmark within EU is one of the most “aligned” NATO countries following US in every single foreign adventure so far and fully aligning its policy with those of the Atlantic block.

This post was edited by Malopox on Jan 9 2025 09:12am

did they auction off the sharks, alligators and lasers as well though?

This post was edited by Fnall on Jan 9 2025 12:50pm