Why is Greenland Even a topic?

[Wilson23]

We would probably welcome you.
Under the clear agreement - no nuclear weapons.

When a missile can travel across continents, it hardly matters where you launch it from.

We really OVERREACTED to that Cuba thing in 1962.

 

[Cat]

Because Trump has no interest (negative interest?) in helping any country governed by decency or rule of law. Pay bribes or get fucked

Also, Greenland is a really good smokescreen.

Forgive me, but I need to think about as many scenarios as possible, and with your president's tendency to say crazy things, just flooding the media with constant information, hoping that people will forget all the other bad things he is doing..

Then Greenland may take the price as really crazy?

At least that is what I hope, otherwise it becomes a bit too surreal and stressful.

 

[Cat]

When a missile can travel across continents, it hardly matters where you launch it from.

We really OVERREACTED to that Cuba thing in 1962.

Yup, you can launch from anywhere, but we have a law that says: no nuclear weapon on our soil in Rigsfællesskabet.

- We have even given the US a base down here in Denmark (made the agreement before your government started to threaten us.).

 

[OralAllOver]

Think sovereignty, geography, operational reach, and strategic proximity. Control of Greenland secures the Arctic flanks and approaches to North America. This isn’t some imperial fantasy; it’s simple map literacy.

Hey, Einstein:

Canada JOINED us going up Normandy Beaches and much more

Enslaved peoples COST money and integrity. FRIENDS MAKE YOU STRONGER

BTW u notice Trump has no friends?

 

[Rightguide]

You closed all of your bases, by your own accord.

That the US decided to store nuclear weapon on Greenland might have been a mistake.

After the Cold War, most of those auxiliary sites were closed as their missions became obsolete. The U.S. retained its primary base, formerly Thule Air Base, now renamed "Pituffik Space Base" in 2023. We prepositioned nuclear weapons at bases all over the world during the Cold War. Just as we do now. That's why we never had a nuclear war.

 

[Wilson23]

Yup, you can launch from anywhere, but we have a law that says: no nuclear weapon on our soil in Rigsfællesskabet.

You really cannot expect the international community to take your country seriously, if you give places names that sound like you're choking on raw reindeer liver.

 

[Cat]

After the Cold War, most of those auxiliary sites were closed as their missions became obsolete. The U.S. retained its primary base, formerly Thule Air Base, now renamed "Pituffik Space Base" in 2023. We prepositioned nuclear weapons at bases all over the world during the Cold War. Just as we do now. That's why we never had a nuclear war.

But that does not change the fact that you are welcome to reopen them.

Only real issue: we, the collective we: Greenland, Denmark, The Faroe Islands, The EU, seem to have lost a lot of faith in the US.
Fearing that you might use the bases as a Trojan horse, silently taking over the country.

So while you actually do have the rights to reopen your bases, we have even made new airports - the infrastructure in Greenland is kinda non-existing, the airports will help somewhat.
We will have a really, really.. Really hard time trusting you.

And the nuclear weapons: you had no rights to place them there. Other countries were definitely welcoming of them, but we were not.
That was a serious breach.

 

[Cat]

You really cannot expect the international community to take your country seriously, if you give places names that sound like you're choking on raw reindeer liver.

... Would it be better deep-fried? With lots of high fructose corn syrup?

Nah, I prefer my fish.. dried, smoked, cured.. raw..

 

[Wilson23]

... Would it be better deep-fried? With lots of high fructose corn syrup?

Nah, I prefer my fish.. dried, smoked, cured.. raw..

Not rotten/fermented?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hákarl

 

[Cat]

Not rotten/fermented?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hákarl

Nah.. I prefer this (and yes, not a joke I really like it):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spekesild

 

[Rightguide]

But that does not change the fact that you are welcome to reopen them.

Only real issue: we, the collective we: Greenland, Denmark, The Faroe Islands, The EU, seem to have lost a lot of faith in the US.
Fearing that you might use the bases as a Trojan horse, silently taking over the country.

So while you actually do have the rights to reopen your bases, we have even made new airports - the infrastructure in Greenland is kinda non-existing, the airports will help somewhat.
We will have a really, really.. Really hard time trusting you.

And the nuclear weapons: you had no rights to place them there. Other countries were definitely welcoming of them, but we were not.
That was a serious breach.

Greenland is geographically critical. It's a massive Arctic landmass controlling vital sea lanes, early-warning systems, and access to the North Pole. Its vast natural resources and strategic location make it a prize in the emerging Arctic competition between the U.S., Russia, and China. While Denmark is a loyal NATO ally, its capacity to militarily defend Greenland against a major power like Russia or China is indeed limited. Greenland's remote location, harsh environment, and logistical challenges put real constraints on Denmark’s defense capabilities, which are tiny in comparison to the scope of the security problem the defense of Greenland presents. The United States government has concerns about Russian and Chinese ambitions in the Arctic, and an American military presence in Greenland is seen as essential to counterbalance Russian and Chinese ambitions in the region.

 

[Wilson23]

Its vast natural resources and strategic location make it a prize in the emerging Arctic competition between the U.S., Russia, and China.

There is no "Arctic competition," and nothing to be gained or lost by one, either.

 

[Cat]

Greenland is geographically critical. It's a massive Arctic landmass controlling vital sea lanes, early-warning systems, and access to the North Pole. Its vast natural resources and strategic location make it a prize in the emerging Arctic competition between the U.S., Russia, and China. While Denmark is a loyal NATO ally, its capacity to militarily defend Greenland against a major power like Russia or China is indeed limited. Greenland's remote location, harsh environment, and logistical challenges put real constraints on Denmark’s defense capabilities, which are tiny in comparison to the scope of the security problem the defense of Greenland presents. The United States government has concerns about Russian and Chinese ambitions in the Arctic, and an American military presence in Greenland is seen as essential to counterbalance Russian and Chinese ambitions in the region.

You are not wrong. At all.

But you forget something: Greenland is a member of NATO. Which means they are able to activate article 5.
Just like the US did. The strongest military country in the world. Who we defended, who our troops died for.

Since the creation of NATO, the US have never fought a war for us. We have never asked for help or needed it.

No one has ever threatened Greenland before.

Only the US.

Who have sworn to protect it. Together with the rest of NATO.
But closed their bases.

We have gone to war for you.
We are 6 million people. We lost more soldiers per capita in Afghanistan than any other country,
Not because we were bad soldiers: but because we fought at the front, in the worst hellholes. Protecting the American camps far behind the lines.. my brother always called home when he was visiting the American camps, because there he could relax!
While fighting YOUR WAR.

Will you pay your debt?

 

[Cat]

Also... The American president keeps talking about "all the Russian and Chinese" ships..

What many ships? There might be a sighting from time to time, and yes! We need to pay more attention to that.

But it is a ridiculous exaggeration when he says that there are many ships up there. There are not.

 

[ll74]

Its natural resources would balance that debt and more.

No it wouldn't

 

[Rightguide]

You are not wrong. At all.

But you forget something: Greenland is a member of NATO. Which means they are able to activate article 5.
Just like the US did. The strongest military country in the world. Who we defended, who our troops died for.

Since the creation of NATO, the US have never fought a war for us. We have never asked for help or needed it.

No one has ever threatened Greenland before.

Only the US.

Who have sworn to protect it. Together with the rest of NATO.
But closed their bases.

We have gone to war for you.
We are 6 million people. We lost more soldiers per capita in Afghanistan than any other country,
Not because we were bad soldiers: but because we fought at the front, in the worst hellholes. Protecting the American camps far behind the lines.. my brother always called home when he was visiting the American camps, because there he could relax!
While fighting YOUR WAR.

Will you pay your debt?

Let’s get a few facts straight. First, Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, which is a NATO member, but Greenland itself is not a separate NATO member. And NATO’s Article 5 is only as strong as the willingness and capability of its members to act. Without the United States, NATO is an empty shell; it’s no secret that America provides the overwhelming majority of NATO’s military power, funding, and global reach.

Your claim that “we have never asked for help or needed it” conveniently ignores that the U.S. has spent decades carrying the bulk of NATO’s defense burden, and without American boots, bullets, and billions, Europe would be far less secure. The U.S. has fought in many NATO operations with allies, but those were never “American wars” for Europe; they were collective security efforts that relied heavily on American leadership.

As for threats to Greenland, the geopolitical reality has changed dramatically. Russia has reopened Arctic bases and increased military activity. China is aggressively expanding its influence in the Arctic, seeking resources and strategic footholds. The idea that “no one has ever threatened Greenland before” ignores these emerging and very real threats.

You say the U.S. “closed its bases” in Greenland; no, the U.S. consolidated and modernized its presence at Pituffik Space Base, which remains a vital strategic asset. America’s commitment to defend Greenland is not a matter of empty promises; it is backed by capabilities and technology that Denmark simply cannot match.

And while you praise your country’s sacrifices in Afghanistan, and rightfully so, don’t mistake those efforts as a debt owed by America to Europe. America’s strategic priorities evolve, and with growing challenges in the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere, the U.S. must recalibrate its commitments.

Bottom line: America will protect its interests, and Greenland’s strategic value is undeniable. But expecting the U.S. to indefinitely bankroll and babysit NATO while Europe freeloads and shrinks its defense spending is wishful thinking. If NATO is to survive without America, it will be on Europe’s own terms, not by clinging to past debts or illusions of equal partnership. If you really want to carry this out to a conclusion you can contact me privately, thus saving the board a new wall of text every five half hour or so.

 

[Rightguide]

No it wouldn't

Stop being an uninformed dunce.

 

[Wilson23]

Stop being an uninformed dunce.

Remember the promise that Iraq's oil would pay for the war?

 

[Cogan]

Let’s get a few facts straight. First, Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, which is a NATO member, but Greenland itself is not a separate NATO member. And NATO’s Article 5 is only as strong as the willingness and capability of its members to act. Without the United States, NATO is an empty shell; it’s no secret that America provides the overwhelming majority of NATO’s military power, funding, and global reach.

Your claim that “we have never asked for help or needed it” conveniently ignores that the U.S. has spent decades carrying the bulk of NATO’s defense burden, and without American boots, bullets, and billions, Europe would be far less secure. The U.S. has fought in many NATO operations with allies, but those were never “American wars” for Europe; they were collective security efforts that relied heavily on American leadership.

As for threats to Greenland, the geopolitical reality has changed dramatically. Russia has reopened Arctic bases and increased military activity. China is aggressively expanding its influence in the Arctic, seeking resources and strategic footholds. The idea that “no one has ever threatened Greenland before” ignores these emerging and very real threats.

You say the U.S. “closed its bases” in Greenland; no, the U.S. consolidated and modernized its presence at Pituffik Space Base, which remains a vital strategic asset. America’s commitment to defend Greenland is not a matter of empty promises; it is backed by capabilities and technology that Denmark simply cannot match.

And while you praise your country’s sacrifices in Afghanistan, and rightfully so, don’t mistake those efforts as a debt owed by America to Europe. America’s strategic priorities evolve, and with growing challenges in the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere, the U.S. must recalibrate its commitments.

Bottom line: America will protect its interests, and Greenland’s strategic value is undeniable. But expecting the U.S. to indefinitely bankroll and babysit NATO while Europe freeloads and shrinks its defense spending is wishful thinking. If NATO is to survive without America, it will be on Europe’s own terms, not by clinging to past debts or illusions of equal partnership. If you really want to carry this out to a conclusion you can contact me privately, thus saving the board a new wall of text every five half hour or so.

Witch Europe country is shrinking its defense spending? Not the Nordic once I can tell you.

Denmark raised from 2,4 to 3% of GDP last year
Sweden raised to 2,8 and will reach 3% of GDP in 2026
Norway was 3,3% of GDP in 2025
Finland went from 2 to 2,4% of GDP in 2025.
USA was between 3,1 and 3,4% of GDP in 2025 as a reference.

And just for information:
Poland: 4,5% of GDP
Lithuania: 4,0% of GDP
Estonia: 3,8% of GDP

What a bunch of freeloaders!

 

[Wilson23]

Also, Greenland is a really good smokescreen.

Not the best.
https://forum.literotica.com/threads/youre-not-doing-this-right-donald.1647956/

 

[ll74]

Stop being an uninformed dunce.

That's not a response.

 

[Wilson23]

Stop being an uninformed dunce.

Stop sending him posts that would make him one if he took them seriously.

 

[Rightguide]

Witch Europe country is shrinking its defense spending? Not the Nordic once I can tell you.

Denmark raised from 2,4 to 3% of GDP last year
Sweden raised to 2,8 and will reach 3% of GDP in 2026
Norway was 3,3% of GDP in 2025
Finland went from 2 to 2,4% of GDP in 2025.
USA was between 3,1 and 3,4% of GDP in 2025 as a reference.

And just for information:
Poland: 4,5% of GDP
Lithuania: 4,0% of GDP
Estonia: 3,8% of GDP

What a bunch of freeloaders!

Screw all of that. Here's my case for the European Union matching the United States’ defense spending percentage around 3.3% to 3.5% of GDP, rests fundamentally on two pillars: achieving genuine strategic autonomy and safeguarding the long-term viability of the transatlantic alliance. Europe’s current defense expenditures, averaging well below this benchmark, reflect a reliance on the United States to shoulder the majority of the collective security burden. To evolve from a dependent partner into a truly capable and independent actor on the global stage, the EU as a whole must invest significantly more in its military capabilities, infrastructure, and readiness. This increased investment would enable Europe to respond decisively to emerging threats, reduce vulnerabilities, and assert its interests with greater confidence.

Moreover, bridging the defense spending gap is essential to preserving the health of the NATO alliance itself. The United States has repeatedly expressed frustration with disproportionate burden-sharing, and without meaningful increases from Europe, the transatlantic partnership risks fraying under the weight of uneven commitment. By matching U.S. defense spending as a percentage of GDP, the EU would not only demonstrate its seriousness as a security partner but also strengthen the political and military ties that bind the alliance. This commitment is crucial for deterring adversaries, managing crises collaboratively, and ensuring a stable, rules-based international order well into the future.

Matching the United States’ defense spending level of approximately 3.3% to 3.5% of GDP would represent a monumental shift for the European Union, translating into an estimated additional $300 to $400 billion annually in defense expenditures across member states. Currently, the EU collectively spends around 1.5% of GDP on defense, so doubling this investment would significantly bolster Europe’s military capabilities, infrastructure, and readiness. The result would be a military force unmatched by anything the Russians or the Chinese could muster.

 

[Cat]

And it is not that we disagree.
- We know that we need invest more in our defense.

Which we already are. But even though we stood with money ready in our hands - we cannot buy the military equipment on the spot.

Also, if we really wanted to be equal partners, then we should produce the equipment ourselves, making sure that we got the critical infrastructure up and running, becoming more independent and able to protect ourselves.

So, that is what we are doing.

 

[nudeblaqgirl]

because Greenland will be the location of the new ICE Headquarters