this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
810 points (99.9% liked)

World News

44130 readers
3714 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Trump renewed calls for the US to annex Greenland for "national security" reasons during an Oval Office briefing, claiming "I think it will happen."

Greenland's outgoing Prime Minister Múte Egede responded on Facebook: "Enough is enough," and planned to summon all Greenland's political parties for a joint rejection.

Likely incoming Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen also called Trump's statement "inappropriate."

Trump also undermined Denmark's claim to Greenland, saying it was "very far away and really has nothing to do" with the island.

Danish Defense Committee Chairman Rasmus Jarlov warned that US annexation "would mean war between two NATO countries."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HerrVorragend@lemmy.world 85 points 3 days ago (3 children)

The incoming prime minister should challenge Trump to a one on one fight for Greenland. If he refuses, all state heads should just make chicken noises every time they meet him.

[–] melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 2 days ago (2 children)

feels wrong if the americans don't wager something. florida, maybe.

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago (4 children)

That doesn't sound fair to Greenland if/when Trump loses.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 7 points 2 days ago

It will look funny on maps when Canada shorts fit better because of that.

[–] Birch@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Maybe they can just convert it to a cash prize, how much is one Florida worth anyway?

[–] Codandchips@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

"If we win, we get your country, if we lose, you get this garbage heap."

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ClanOfTheOcho@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

I love this plan.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago

Yet again President Camacho would be superior

[–] Freshparsnip@lemm.ee 104 points 3 days ago (9 children)

For what "national security reasons"? I'd like him to elaborate. Is Greenland somehow threatening the US? the only country threatening other countries in the area is the US.

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 59 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Let me guess, natural resources.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 93 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (6 children)

Also strategic control of the melting and ever more passable Arctic, along with Russia. This also partly explains why Trump wants Canada.

Google Earth screenshot

[–] officermike@lemmy.world 61 points 3 days ago (5 children)

A sane president who values geopolitical allies would just work out a deal with the host country to install more military bases in the region of concern, rather than burning every partnership we have by being aggressively expansionist.

[–] foggenbooty@lemmy.world 53 points 3 days ago

The US already has that agreement!

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

A sane president who values geopolitical allies would just work out a deal with the host country to install more military bases in the region of concern, rather than burning every partnership we have by being aggressively expansionist.

Dismissing it as insanity undermines the culpability of what Trump is doing.

The point isn't whatever 'national security!' bullshit they're putching it as, the point is to piss of Greenland to the point of severing our relationship with them. Same with the shit he's doing to Canada, Panama, etc.

Trump's goal is to weaken the US, and he's accomplishing that in part by cutting us off from our allies.

[–] toadjones79@lemm.ee 12 points 3 days ago

But an insane president will bluster about things he doesn't want to actually do (like Canada and Greenland) as a distraction to keep us focused on this nonsense while he raids the government coffers for all the retirement money he can get his grubbly diseased hands on.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Mandrilleren@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

They already have strategic control over Greenland. Denmark would let the USA do almost whatever they want on greenland.

Denmark probably were the USAs biggests bitch in Europe until they started threatening Greenlands sovereignity.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not to detract, but I never noticed how phallic Sweden and Norway looked from that angle

[–] HereIAm@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

Looks like newer euro coins include Norway, but that wasn't always the case, leading to this unfortunate creation:

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I imagine it's to put defences in the Arctic....

But if Putin and Russia are fantastic and great people why does America need to guard the Arctic?

[–] Tja@programming.dev 9 points 2 days ago

For those evil Norwegians, they might try to spread universal Healthcare!

[–] ehholly@lemm.ee 22 points 2 days ago (2 children)

He has americans convinced that they need to annex greenland to protect them from Russia and China. For some reason they think China is closer to greenland than to Hawaii …

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 days ago

But Trump loves Russia, aren't they great? Why would they ever be a threat?

[–] BingBong@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't know a single American that believes what you just said. Most of us recognize this as bullshit.

Note: I'm not in a deep red state

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

It's the same playbook used by Putin with Ukraine

[–] hikuro93@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

If anything it's cause for national insecurity, given that if they invade, per NATO rules, an attack on one is an attack on all.

But Trump is used to getting what he wants by breaking the rules and facing no consequences, so I guess it'll be a FAFO thing.

I must admit, I do fear that if it comes to that NATO will fight the usual way - strong worded letter. For a buffoon who can't even read and only responds to a fat stick to the face.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 2 days ago

This is going to be interesting because Article 5 assumes an attack on a member state by a non-member state.

By attacking Greenland, Trump would violate Articles 1 and 2 (pledging to use peaceful means to settle a dispute and contribute to friendly relations though you could argue he's violating the latter right now).

I think the whole point of this act is to force NATO to kick the US out of NATO, which is exactly what Russia (and by extension Trump) wants.

[–] dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago

I'd like Trump, Musk and the whole republican party to go fuck themselves. For national security reasons.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago

The fucking nerve for Trump to suggest Zelensky is gambling with WWIII. Ukraine is defending its own nation from invasion and the US is breaking every alliance it can find and causing tensions that remind me all too much of the lead up to WWI.

Can they kick out the US and just ask the EU to station troops there instead?

[–] AidsKitty@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (3 children)

With global warming new trade routes are going to open up through the artic. They will be extremely valuable and the countries geographically positioned to compete for them are going to be Russia, China, Canada, and Greenland. This is why America wants Canada and Greenland so bad and will do whatever it takes to get them.

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Despite all the Republican denial, someone must believe in climate change. Wonder how the true-believing cult takes this.
Also, with all the tariffs, why do we need trade routes?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] johncandy1812@lemmy.ca 29 points 3 days ago

It is such an insult but he is incapable of empathy, not that he'd care if he could

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 28 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Thanks to Greenland, a voice of sanity, in response to the muttered burblings of a demented turnip. In me you will find yet another US citizen that agrees with you, and respects your soveriegnty. The turnip is using this distraction to rob us blind, I fear.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] lka1988@sh.itjust.works 21 points 3 days ago (3 children)

So I got curious and decided to pay a visit to my favorite site to see this... Greenland is about the size of the US Midwest. I did not know that until today.

I'm reasonably certain that Trump thinks Greenland is much larger. He is stupid, after all.

[–] DoubleSpace@lemm.ee 22 points 3 days ago (4 children)

It's more about the resource extraction rights.

[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 19 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ahhhhh. NOW the Canada and Greenland thing makes sense. If Trump took over Canada and Greenland, then Russia gains full control of the artic.

[–] N0t_5ure@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's an interesting point.

[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 10 points 2 days ago

Everything always seems to make a lot more sense when viewed with the "how does this benefit Putin" lens.

Which probably means there's something in Panama too, and I doubt it's a canal.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] WolfmanEightySix@piefed.social 15 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Trump also undermined Denmark's claim to Greenland, saying it was "very far away

He is aware USA is even further away?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] My_IFAKs___gone@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

I have a hard time believing the public, much less military members, have the stomach to do something like this. There's zero moral standing in it and it seems like all modern overt military actions by the US needed to have something its participants and supporters could hold up to say "I'm doing this to make the world, and my country, a better and safer place," even if that publicized nobility turned out to be a farce coughIraqcough (although I am glad Saddam got to experience what it feels like to die). Unless you're the demigod of a highly programmed autocracy like North Korea, it takes significant buy-in to wage an invasion, war, and occupation. With Greenland being a benign and peace-loving gem of nature, it would absolutely blow my mind if Trump said "CHARGE!" and military members did anything but a limp soulless salute and slow shuffle to mill about stupidly in passive protest.

[–] N0t_5ure@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago (3 children)

"Naturally, the common people don't want war. Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

  • Hermann Goering
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 days ago (4 children)

If the right-wing media start inventing stories about Greenland, Canada and Panama being threats to the USA, I don't trust the US public to see through them. Many will, of course, but then many saw through the Iraq stuff too, just not enough.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] RainbowHedgehog@lemm.ee 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I wish Trump would shut TF up.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Foreign leaders need to stop responding as if a serious response will have any effect. They need to throw that shit back in his face. Tell him you'll accept, only if he discards the shithole states. Then list red states. Or tell him if he can find Greenland on the map, you'll consider it. Or direct the message at blue states and welcoming them if they decide to secede.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hikuro93@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 days ago

Inb4 Trump starts invading because 2-3 MAGA nuts from greenland said they wanted to be part of US, so that's plenty of reason for the whole Greenland to need it as well - "they'll see why it's good for them once they're ours, trust me".

[–] hmonkey@lemy.lol 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I have had it with these muthafuckin calls for muthafuckin annexation

load more comments
view more: next ›