DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Denmark tells Trump to stop threatening to seize Greenland

Denmark=NATO

Sweden, Norway, and germany also sending troops, while France is opening a consulate

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...ps-greenland-government-says-2026-01-14/

'We choose Denmark' over the US, Greenland's PM says

https://www.dw.com/en/we-choose-denmark-over-the-us-greenlands-pm-says/a-75493398

Did France ask them if they wanted fries with that?

Butter do you want to meet hot knife???

The voices are growing stronger. The nations showing support for Greenland and Denmark are increasing. The only thing we have in place to help control global stability to any extent is NATO. Undermining and destroying NATO will help make us closer to hot butter too. And the people left holding the knife won't look anything like they are simply holding a butter knife.

We do not need NATO. NATO needs us.

We all need each other for global stability. You must have forgotten what WW1 and WW2 looked like. They were only three decades apart. It's been eight decades since with no such global war. I believe you should think about that but I doubt you will.

"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.”

What a POS and compulsive liar.

We have been trying to acquire Greenland for 150ish years.
Greenland will end up a part of the USA.
It is just a question of when and for how much.

NATO nations are moving Troops into Greenland....This moron of a president is trying to start WW3 so he can cancel the elections and retain power.....This guy is by far, the biggest criminal ever,,,,,

Since he came down that escalator in 2015 the best you trump minions have managed to come up with is TDS. A 12 year old is more creative than that.

It's your go to line any time you don't have an excuse for what that idiot says and does.

If trump isn't trying to start WW3 it means he isn't smart enough to figure out that weakening NATO will only help invite it.

So pick your poison. Is he trying to start WW3 or is he too stupid to understand that ripping NATO apart will be an open invitation for WW3 to start?

Neither option is a good one.

Let me guess. TDS

Strengthening the US is the role of our President. Greenland is what he thinks will strengthen our Country. So, he negotiates tough. Chicken littles squawk. It is called business and not the pandering your used to.

Threatening to take over a NATO ally with the use military force is a mafia tactic not a negotiation. You always rail against thugs unless that thug is one of your own.

Trump is not a thug he is an elected official to the highest office in the land. The US pays for and is the principal player in NATO, so he uses some strong-arm tactics in negotiations. That is what happens when you are in a position of strength. You use that to leverage the weaker player. Been done since the beginning of time and will be done long after were gone.

You use the threat of military action against an ally? A thug is how someone conducts themselves. It has nothing to do with what office they hold. I'm pretty sure a lot of people who helped elect him had no idea when they voted for him he would be threatening to invade our allies with the military. That's exactly what a thug sounds like.

"We will do it the easy way or the hard way". Just add a name to it...

"We will do it the easy way or the hard way Vinnie."

Sounds like it could be a line straight out of The Godfather.

That's solid rhetoric, but not entirely accurate to the real world. Businesses try to work deals but threaten hostile takeovers in one form or another all the time as a means of driving companies to the negotiating table. Nobody wants the hostile takeover, though, because it's always far more costly. Sometimes that hostile takeover is in the form of buying controlling interest, sometimes it is the threat of entering their market space directly alongside them and stealing all of their business. That's just business.

I am still 1000% against any use of military force.


That said, I understand that Denmark and the other nations have to appear to be doing something, but these countries moving troops there are complete fools. IF the U.S. goes in, those NATO troops are going to have a very bad day very quickly, and I pray to God it never comes to that. The internal conflict our guys would feel about toeing up on western troops wouldn't be good, either. I absolutely would not feel good about it.

When one country does a "hostile takeover" of another country's territory... it is called an act of war..


Just like Ukraine should have just let Russia walk in because they would have a really bad day very quickly?

Also - MAD is of course still at work here. Both the UK and France absolutely have the capability to end all life in the US. Nuclear armed countries have never gone to direct war with each other.

So let me see if I get this straight. You're trying to compare a hostile takeover of a company to threats of military actions against our ally? I mean seriously.

"Ya gotta be pullin' my leg Vinnie!"

You're the one that started making comparisons to say it was just a mafia thing, so Yeah. A takeover is a takeover, and threatening a takeover to get people to the negotiating table is done in business all the time (and the mafia, apparently).

What part confused you? I literally started by saying that I understand they have to do something. I just followed it by pointing out that it is utterly futile.

And yeah.. .MAD, because NATO is going to nuke things because that would REALLY help the people of Greenland. Get real.

I had no idea using the military as a negotiating tactic was like a hostile business takeover. One of those two has no threat of bombing, killing or actual violence of any kind. As the guy says at the local Chinese restaurant says, "Is all da same!"

MAD never helps anybody.... it is the reason why two nuclear powers have never engaged in direct war **despite** the complete senselessness of it....

And maybe the US can beat the rest of NATO in a war (I'll even go with probably, depending on your definition of "beat") -- but it would not be a cakewalk like you make it out to be. The US/EU capabilities are nowhere near as asymmetric as Russian/Ukrainian capabilities were in January 2020. Current drone warfare is extremely defensive (similar to WW1). Plus, the US definitely comes out of this worse off compared to China -- which is their key competition. Taking Greenland will almost certainly mean the loss of US bases throughout the EU, which are key for US power projection in the Middle East.

I am no Trump fan but trying to defend a claim that he is trying to start WW3 is silly.

He could easily undermine and destroy NATO... He most certainly has done some things to distract from Epstein. I do not think he is trying to start WW3.

That's far more likely the case.

Which means he is far too stupid to realize that weakening and or dividing NATO by pitting each other against ourselves is the best open door invitation you could send to our enemies that NATO as a whole is in a very vulnerable position.

I don't think he's trying to start WW3 either.... I'm not confident that he isn't so stupid that he thinks he can just land some soldiers in Greenland and declare it is part of the US now.

Which is why the landings by multiple NATO allies matter. Sure - there are hundreds of troops, and you could certainly land a bigger force - but then you are (at least in theory) committing an act of war against all those countries... and as you said, I don't think Trump wants to do that.

I agree that he isn't trying to start WW3, and I - along with the likes of Italy's Meloni - don't think military action is even remotely likely regardless of how much people are beating this drum.
I don't think he is trying to destabilize NATO, either, but I do think he is firmly taking the stance that the U.S. is done with getting told what to do by NATO/U.N.

What I *think*, actually, looking at this as if i were an analyst, is that all of this is because the threat of an actual shooting war with China is viewed as very, very real within the next few years and we are (too?) aggressively trying to set our side of the chessboard. Not us trying to start it, not us doing stuff to provoke it, but China seeing it as being time.

China has been building and modernizing its Navy big time for the past several years. We just finally decided on a return to having LST's in our fleet... needed for amphib assaults, but we went with an off-the-shelf design from the Dutch Damen Group to get it into service faster rather than what we did with the old Newport class I sailed on which was a purpose-built improvement over everything we learned about LST's during all those landings in WW2 & Korea (my old division officer/ship's bosun was on the Navy's evaluation team for this, so I've gotten a little grapevine insight into this). So, we are definitely anticipating the potential need to put troops ashore, and that screams "The Pacific".
China is running on a clock because their population is aging; they have a window of perhaps five to ten years before their median age is in the 50's, so if they are ever going to make a military play for Taiwan, it has to be within this window.

IF there are ever open hostilities with China, we will be immediately cut off from all of the strategic resources that power technology and a modern military because China controls nearly all of it right now. This is why we're trying to bring so much manufacturing back to the U.S., why we're bringing shipbuilding back, why we're building chip fabs, etc, etc...

In that case, your analysis is crap.

If you are trying to prepare yourself for a war with China -- destroying your relationship with the EU is 100x worse than getting cut off from Greenland. Moreover, in your hypothetical shooting war, it will be much easier to get resources from Greenland when the EU is cooperative, than when it is hostile (even if you have boots on the ground).

Edit: To add - your analysis seems to be based on some idea where the US can walk in, take Greenland, and the EU is going to say "You were very naughty" and then nothing else will change. I think that is extremely unlikely. I would expect the EU to institute huge tariffs. I would expect it to close US bases throughout Europe. I would expect it to cut off intelligence sharing (including 5-eyes) -- and I expect that the EU would increase its cooperation with China along all of those same lines (it would need to, in order to build up its own military). The US will end up much smaller (except for land mass) than it is now, not bigger.

Well, I disagree entirely, because you absolutely cannot count on the EU. I believe the goal to be a self-sufficient America insulated from outside influences.

As for the EU being hostile, that's why I don't believe military action is actually on the table despite what has been said.

You can destroy the trust of your allies without actually following through with your threats. The fact you made military threats to begin with undermine the NATO alliance to some extent. Moving forward how can they ever trust you again?

I don't doubt that our relationship with our NATO allies have been damaged at least to some extent by the threat of our military being hung over Greenland's head already. How much more damage gets done will depend on Trump's moves going forward.

Besides avoiding certain misadventures like Iraq -- which basically everybody agrees was a mistake -- when have you not been able to count on the EU?

Saddam Hussain is no longer tormenting the middle east so i disagree it was a mistake taking him out. Should have been done years earlier during desert storm.

Republican-Backed Bill Takes Stand Against Donald Trump’s Greenland Threats

A bipartisan group of lawmakers moved Thursday to rebuke President Donald Trump’s threats to seize Greenland, introducing a resolution that reaffirms the United States’ partnership with Denmark and Greenland even as tensions over the island have escalated into a broader diplomatic and security standoff.

Sens. Ruben Gallego, D‑Ariz., and Lisa Murkowski, R‑Alaska, along with Reps. Ro Khanna, D‑Calif., and Don Bacon, R‑Neb., said disputes with NATO allies must be resolved peacefully and warned that recent comments from Trump administration officials — including suggestions that the U.S. could take control of the Arctic territory by force — risk deepening mistrust among allies. They argued that America’s strategic goals in the Arctic are best advanced through cooperation with Greenland, not coercion, and said Congress must reassert its constitutional authority in foreign policy as the confrontation intensifies.

Why It Matters

Even as lawmakers issued their warning via the "Sense of Congress bill affirming the United States’ partnership with Denmark and Greenland," troops from several European countries continued arriving in Greenland on Thursday in a show of solidarity with Denmark, underscoring the growing unease across Europe about Washington’s stance. Denmark announced it would boost its military presence on the island. Several NATO partners — including France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands — dispatched small but symbolic contingents of soldiers or pledged to do so in the coming days.

Recent polling data shows that Trump's efforts to acquire Greenland, either through negotiation or military force, face intense resistance among the American public.

What To Know

The troop movements were meant to signal unity among allies and send a message that an American takeover of Greenland is unnecessary at a time when NATO nations are trying to coordinate Arctic security amid rising Russian and Chinese interest in the region. French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday that the first French military elements were already en route, with authorities confirming that roughly 15 soldiers from a mountain infantry unit had arrived in Nuuk for an exercise. Germany followed with a 13‑member reconnaissance team, and Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen said the aim was to establish a more permanent rotation of NATO forces on the island.

Those developments unfolded as Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Greenlandic Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt met Wednesday at the White House with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Rasmussen said afterward that a “fundamental disagreement” with Trump’s position remained and that the U.S. president “has this wish of conquering over Greenland,” though dialogue would continue.

The congressional resolution introduced Thursday echoed that concern, calling the administration’s rhetoric destabilizing and counterproductive.

Greenland’s leaders reacted cautiously as the dispute intensified. Prime Minister Jens‑Frederik Nielsen reiterated that the island “is not for sale” and “does not want to be part of the United States,” welcoming the continuation of diplomacy but stressing that Greenland’s self-governing status must be respected. Residents in Nuuk expressed relief that talks had begun but acknowledged growing anxiety, particularly as additional European troops arrived. Some viewed Denmark’s decision to bolster its presence — and the pledges of support from other NATO allies — as reassurance in the face of what they fear could be U.S. military action, though European officials have not suggested their deployments are meant to deter Washington.

Back in Europe, the Russian Embassy in Brussels denounced what it called the West’s “bellicose plans” in response to “phantom threats,” framing the multinational deployments as part of an “anti‑Russian and anti‑Chinese agenda.” Meanwhile, Denmark established a new working group with the U.S. to address American security concerns while honoring “the red lines of the Kingdom of Denmark,” including Greenland’s autonomy.

What People Are Saying

Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen welcomed the continuation of “dialogue and diplomacy.”: “Greenland is not for sale,” he said Thursday. “Greenland does not want to be owned by the United States. Greenland does not want to be governed from the United States. Greenland does not want to be part of the United States.”

Trump, in his Oval Office meeting with reporters, said Wednesday: “We’ll see how it all works out. I think something will work out.”

Murkowski said in a statement, “Whether through defense cooperation, such as our shared military assets at Pituffik Space Base, or the development of critical minerals that will strengthen our national security, every one of our strategic goals can be accomplished with Greenland as a partner. At a time when we really can’t agree on much of anything, this is a resolution that all members of Congress should be willing to put their names behind. Safeguarding our relationships with our NATO allies should be paramount, with Greenland treated as our partner, not a possession.”

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Newsweek this week that Trump “was not elected to preserve the status quo—he is a visionary leader who is always generating creative ideas to bolster U.S. national security.”

She added: “As the president said, NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the United States, and Greenlanders would be better served if protected by the United States from modern threats in the Arctic region.”
What Happens Next

Despite the rising tensions, Danish officials said the diplomatic channel remains open. Poulsen called the creation of the working group “a step in the right direction,” while Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen cautioned that “the danger has not passed.” For their part, members of Congress said the escalation only underscores why the U.S. must reaffirm its commitment to allies — not threaten them.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-tru...k5VanyM2nj2Fg0AVm0C0g#Echobox=1768493919

Any time we diverge on trade, tech regulation (digital markets), freedom of speech issues, immigration, geopolitical strategies (approaches to China), etc where the EU will prioritize its own strategic autonomy.

Almost like they are their own Countries?

Each nation has their own priorities and they're not always going to align. The idea that Europe has been anything other than reliable? I couldn't disagree more. 80 years of peace support that

If you think there is a chance of a real shooting war with China in the future. What Trump is doing now with Greenland and NATO allies is really even more stupid then.

Greenland is safe as it is. It is not going anywhere or going to be taken over by anyone. So what is the reasoning? Imperialism?

We currently have a military base and troops stationed in Greenland. Both China and Russia knows any attack on Greenland would be seen as military aggression against the U.S. and our troops.

So simple yet apparently hard to understand.

If the USA can purchase the land. That's different. But thay negotiation appears over and who can blame Denmark/Greenland?

I mean - even your own president disagrees with you.