- Will the rare earth minerals be mined eventually? As far as I see EU is going into that direction as well, as Greenland became so strategic over time
- What happens with all the land rights that American mineral extraction companies already bought? It means that even if EU/Greenland accepts mining they are already starting from a losing position
- What happens if the American government pays off the people and they want to join US? Will the Danish government still believe in the self determination of Greenland, or it's just political talk?
- what happens after US gets Greenland? Will NATO fall apart and EU get into an even worse position?
It seems the issue boils down to what the Greenlanders want: to become some sort of Venezuela of the north in Trump's imperial crown, and be used to maximize the profits of the American corporations that ultimately get to own it; OR full rights as EU citizens and local autonomy to decide who gets the mining concessions, under competitive terms open to all countries that maximize their profits, which stay in their hands.
The historical path of Greenland in DK is irrelevant.
I see so many americans suddenly hyperfocus on the strategic importance of Greenland because Trump again talks about stealing it. They fall over themselves inventing fantastically involved rationales and really weird moral justifications. Meanwhile Donald is above such pretense. He just wants it. (In way that honesty is refreshing.)
It's especially tragicomical when they frame it as a defense measure against Russia - which those same people are generally aligned with.
it would be a million times more probable that they would throw money to their friends in the military complex to take things by force, than to give money to strangers.
Inuit people are understood to have lived in Greenland since as early as 2,500BC and it was reached by Norse seafarers in the first millennium AD, who established settlements lasting several centuries. Modern colonisation began after the arrival of Hans Egede in 1721, acting with the support of what was then Denmark-Norway. During the second world war, when Denmark was occupied by Germany, Greenland was occupied by the US and was returned to Denmark in 1945.
It became part of the kingdom of Denmark in 1953, and in 1979 home rule was introduced. But Denmark still controls Greenland’s foreign and security policy. It has its own parliament, Inatsisartut, and two MPs in the Danish parliament, Folketing. But calls for independence have been growing.
Tensions have escalated significantly between Greenland and Denmark in recent years. There is intense anger in Greenland over investigations into the forced contraceptive (IUD) scandal of the 1960s and 70s, prompting the former Greenlandic prime minister to accuse Denmark of genocide. There have also been protests in Copenhagen and Nuuk over the separation of Greenlandic children from their parents.
Denmark has banned the use of highly controversial “parenting competency” tests on Greenlandic people that have resulted in Greenlandic mothers being separated from their children. In September, after years of failing to acknowledge the violations, Denmark officially apologised to the victims of the IUD scandal, in which thousands of Greenlandic women and girls were forcibly fitted with contraceptive coils without their knowledge or consent. And in December, victims won a legal fight with the Danish government to receive compensation.
In recent years there has been growing support for Greenlandic independence. But amid the spectre of Trump’s threat, Greenland in March formed a new four-party coalition government in a show of national unity, with the first page of the coalition agreement stating: “Greenland belongs to us.” The pro-independence party, Naleraq, which is the most US- and Trump-friendly party, came second in the election and is now in opposition.
According to a 2009 agreement with Denmark, Greenland must hold a successful referendum before declaring independence.
Greenlanders appear to understand as well as the rest of the EU that the current US administration is only capable of ludicrous offers and a deeply abusive relationship.
> A poll from January shows that only 6% of Greenlanders are in favor of joining the U.S., with 85% against it.
"Greenlanders appear to understand as well as the rest of the EU"
Greenland has never been in the European Union, even though it is effectively a Danish colony. It left its predecessor, the EEC, many years ago. Its interaction with the other EU member states is minimal.
The US agreed to recognize Greenland being a part of Denmark in the same treaty where the US purchased the Virgin Islands. If the US changes its mind right now and uses force or other coercion, why would anyone trust any treaty or other agreement with the US ever again?
> During 1916, the two sides agreed to a sale price of $25,000,000, and the United States accepted a Danish demand for a declaration stating that they would "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland".
In the context of the instant "debate", this is missing the mark. The moral question isn't what happened hundreds of years ago to dead people; it's what do living people want (as is their right to self-determine), and the polls are 85% against 6% in the "we don't want to be Americans" direction. (I infer "Ameerikkamiuunianngilagut" is their word for that?)
Here's a joint statement from yesterday by every major political party in Greenland speaking in unison, which you can't post on HN because it offends Americans and they flag these things on sight, though they desire to own the people who are speaking. ("The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice" (214 comments) is, of course, welcomed by HN). You're invited to translate it for yourself, as they have pointedly not released official statements in English, which is not and never has been their language.
> the polls are 85% against 6% in the "we don't want to be Americans" direction
The realistic plan for Greenland involves it voting for independence from Denmark and then entering into a compact with the U.S. in the model of Palau.
Realistic suicide plan, maybe. No US state gets as much federal funding per capita as Greenland do from Denmark (and that funding doesn't include police, jails, courts, hospitals, etc. as that's paid by Denmark directly). Voting to become part of the US is like voting that you want less freedom, less money, less healthcare, and so on. It won't ever happen. Greenland isn't full of people that believe the US fairytale of "The Worlds Best XYZ".
The sad thing is there's an obvious path forward if America wants to control Greenland.
1. Campaign for Greenland's independence, and apply pressure on Denmark to achieve that. Offer security agreements and trade deals to a newly independent Greenland.
A small majority of Greenlander's support independence today; this number would likely rise if they knew they had strong external support.
2. The trade agreements, security agreements and goodwill of Greenlanders for #1 would bring Greenland into the American sphere of influence.
3. Over time, use carrots and sticks to tie Greenland closer & closer to America.
This strategy has a high likelihood of success, has the moral high ground and would minimize the damage to America's alliances.
The only problem is that it would take multiple decades, and Trump won't be around that long.
During the Cold War the United States military had 15,000 soldiers stationed in Greenland. That presence has been reduced by 99% to just 150 soldiers today.
Denmark has given the US exclusive and full military access to Greenland but the US does not use it. This has nothing to do with security.
The horrible things the Danes did to Greenlanders in living memory are unbelievable. They forced contraceptive devices on them as recent as the 1980s and kept it quiet till some of the women recently spoke up.
Europe has a long and sordid history of such colonialist horrors but few perpetrated these crimes so recently.
When you think about the history of Europe you are faced with a society that violently performs genocide repeatedly. Having pacified the population through these eugenic methods they now claim that present day Greenlanders would rather be part of them.
Indeed one is reminded of Crimea, now assuredly Russian, and Donbas which will answer similarly.
There seems to be some confusion around the basis of morals.
Once you are in power and you have things arranged the way you want, you claim that violence is not the answer.
Otherwise, practically speaking might makes right.
So for Greenlanders and those opposed to the US imperialism, it makes sense to say that the rule of existing law must prevail, regardless of the fact that there is no traditional military willing and able to back this up.
However, if you are American and you stand to benefit, what you want to happen is backed up by the most powerful military the world has ever seen.
And I bet a good chunk of people in Greenland know that with no roads and no infrastructure, they can go toe to toe with the US military inland, that is until they stop getting shipments of grain. But can even the vaunted US military blockade this continent sized island, especially with zero allies in tow?
So morally speaking, both parties are in the right. But you can predict what the outcome would eventually be, it is very much David vs Goliath, barring Greenlandic alignment with another foreign power in a proxy war.
Ethically speaking, the chronic under development and under investment in the global North is not beneficial to humanity. Viewed from afar, it does seem that Denmark has not been handling this colonial remnant particularly well.
31 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 58.0 ms ] thread- Will the rare earth minerals be mined eventually? As far as I see EU is going into that direction as well, as Greenland became so strategic over time
- What happens with all the land rights that American mineral extraction companies already bought? It means that even if EU/Greenland accepts mining they are already starting from a losing position
- What happens if the American government pays off the people and they want to join US? Will the Danish government still believe in the self determination of Greenland, or it's just political talk?
- what happens after US gets Greenland? Will NATO fall apart and EU get into an even worse position?
The historical path of Greenland in DK is irrelevant.
It's especially tragicomical when they frame it as a defense measure against Russia - which those same people are generally aligned with.
That would be just $50B - a pretty cheap way to increase the size of the USA by 20%.
Inuit people are understood to have lived in Greenland since as early as 2,500BC and it was reached by Norse seafarers in the first millennium AD, who established settlements lasting several centuries. Modern colonisation began after the arrival of Hans Egede in 1721, acting with the support of what was then Denmark-Norway. During the second world war, when Denmark was occupied by Germany, Greenland was occupied by the US and was returned to Denmark in 1945.
It became part of the kingdom of Denmark in 1953, and in 1979 home rule was introduced. But Denmark still controls Greenland’s foreign and security policy. It has its own parliament, Inatsisartut, and two MPs in the Danish parliament, Folketing. But calls for independence have been growing.
Tensions have escalated significantly between Greenland and Denmark in recent years. There is intense anger in Greenland over investigations into the forced contraceptive (IUD) scandal of the 1960s and 70s, prompting the former Greenlandic prime minister to accuse Denmark of genocide. There have also been protests in Copenhagen and Nuuk over the separation of Greenlandic children from their parents. Denmark has banned the use of highly controversial “parenting competency” tests on Greenlandic people that have resulted in Greenlandic mothers being separated from their children. In September, after years of failing to acknowledge the violations, Denmark officially apologised to the victims of the IUD scandal, in which thousands of Greenlandic women and girls were forcibly fitted with contraceptive coils without their knowledge or consent. And in December, victims won a legal fight with the Danish government to receive compensation.
In recent years there has been growing support for Greenlandic independence. But amid the spectre of Trump’s threat, Greenland in March formed a new four-party coalition government in a show of national unity, with the first page of the coalition agreement stating: “Greenland belongs to us.” The pro-independence party, Naleraq, which is the most US- and Trump-friendly party, came second in the election and is now in opposition. According to a 2009 agreement with Denmark, Greenland must hold a successful referendum before declaring independence.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/06/why-is-donald-...
> A poll from January shows that only 6% of Greenlanders are in favor of joining the U.S., with 85% against it.
Greenland has never been in the European Union, even though it is effectively a Danish colony. It left its predecessor, the EEC, many years ago. Its interaction with the other EU member states is minimal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_the_Danish_West_Indi...
> During 1916, the two sides agreed to a sale price of $25,000,000, and the United States accepted a Danish demand for a declaration stating that they would "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland".
https://www.reuters.com/world/poll-shows-85-greenlanders-do-... ("Greenlanders overwhelmingly oppose becoming part of the United States, poll shows" / "only 6% of Greenlanders are in favour of their island becoming part of the U.S.")
Here's a joint statement from yesterday by every major political party in Greenland speaking in unison, which you can't post on HN because it offends Americans and they flag these things on sight, though they desire to own the people who are speaking. ("The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice" (214 comments) is, of course, welcomed by HN). You're invited to translate it for yourself, as they have pointedly not released official statements in English, which is not and never has been their language.
https://siumut.gl/inuiattut-ataatsimoorpugut/ (Greenlandic)
https://dk.siumut.gl/vi-star-sammen-som-et-folk/ (Danish)
> "Ameerikkamiuunianngilagut, qallunaajunianngilagut, Kalaaliuniarpugut."
The realistic plan for Greenland involves it voting for independence from Denmark and then entering into a compact with the U.S. in the model of Palau.
1. Campaign for Greenland's independence, and apply pressure on Denmark to achieve that. Offer security agreements and trade deals to a newly independent Greenland.
A small majority of Greenlander's support independence today; this number would likely rise if they knew they had strong external support.
2. The trade agreements, security agreements and goodwill of Greenlanders for #1 would bring Greenland into the American sphere of influence.
3. Over time, use carrots and sticks to tie Greenland closer & closer to America.
This strategy has a high likelihood of success, has the moral high ground and would minimize the damage to America's alliances.
The only problem is that it would take multiple decades, and Trump won't be around that long.
Yes it's true, this is how US was built (and almost all countries)
Denmark has given the US exclusive and full military access to Greenland but the US does not use it. This has nothing to do with security.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46566444
Europe has a long and sordid history of such colonialist horrors but few perpetrated these crimes so recently.
When you think about the history of Europe you are faced with a society that violently performs genocide repeatedly. Having pacified the population through these eugenic methods they now claim that present day Greenlanders would rather be part of them.
Indeed one is reminded of Crimea, now assuredly Russian, and Donbas which will answer similarly.
Oh my sweet summer child
Once you are in power and you have things arranged the way you want, you claim that violence is not the answer.
Otherwise, practically speaking might makes right.
So for Greenlanders and those opposed to the US imperialism, it makes sense to say that the rule of existing law must prevail, regardless of the fact that there is no traditional military willing and able to back this up.
However, if you are American and you stand to benefit, what you want to happen is backed up by the most powerful military the world has ever seen.
And I bet a good chunk of people in Greenland know that with no roads and no infrastructure, they can go toe to toe with the US military inland, that is until they stop getting shipments of grain. But can even the vaunted US military blockade this continent sized island, especially with zero allies in tow?
So morally speaking, both parties are in the right. But you can predict what the outcome would eventually be, it is very much David vs Goliath, barring Greenlandic alignment with another foreign power in a proxy war.
Ethically speaking, the chronic under development and under investment in the global North is not beneficial to humanity. Viewed from afar, it does seem that Denmark has not been handling this colonial remnant particularly well.
if american mining companies just turned up on greenland and started strip mining.. what is denmark going to do about it?