ListNook

MicroSofty88 May 12, 2026 +295

We’ve always had access to do this which is why the whole invasion thing made no sense

295

Otherwise-Green3067 May 12, 2026 +93

He has always wanted it for the sole reason that it looked big on a map … Edit: typo

93

burner46 May 12, 2026 +42

He had a big donor to his campaign with investments there. That’s what it’s always about with him.

42

Otherwise-Green3067 May 12, 2026 +8

Order there was messed up. The big donor who wanted it for his special cities came around in 2024 Donald has been on this since 2017

8

TheGringoDingo May 12, 2026 +2

Every thing involving land either involves building something awful on it or tearing the earth apart until there’s nothing left. I don’t think the main plot of the bible is correct, but boy did the New Testament get some things right about money.

2

National-Two2417 May 12, 2026 +6

Don't tell him about Antarctica... the penguins will kick our ass.

6

brentspar May 12, 2026 +6

He's already softened up the penguins by imposing tariffs on them!

6

National-Two2417 May 12, 2026 +1

I thought it hardened them ready for war.

1

NephRP May 12, 2026 +1

Tekeli-li Tekeli-li Tekeli-li

1

old_righty May 12, 2026 -1

*sole

-1

Otherwise-Green3067 May 12, 2026 -2

You really have nothing better to do than to call out a typo?

-2

VaultBall7 May 12, 2026 -5

Or it’s directly between Russia and the U.S., where missiles would fly over and could be intercepted from? I mean I hate the guy but if you never try to understand anything then you’re just as bad as the right, they’re incapable of saying that anything the left does makes sense

-5

ccblr06 May 12, 2026 -91

No, its to secure trade routes as ice melts up north, it makes sense considering that denmark is way over in Europe and the US would have to secure it in the first place from China or Russia.

-91

Euronated-inmypants May 12, 2026 +47

"way over in Europe?" Do you understand that Denmark is part of NATO so its not just being defended by Denmark. Your comment sounds like it's from an American child because Denmark/Europe is closer to Greenland than the US is by 1000km(600miles)🤦‍♂️

47

H0bbituary May 12, 2026 +21

The adults and children sound the same here. It really sucks.

21

Euronated-inmypants May 12, 2026 +12

Its wild considering how easily such information can be verified before making such comically poor assumptions

12

Otherwise-Green3067 May 12, 2026 +27

Take your exaggerated, Trump approved and grossly misrepresented talking points somewhere else. The ONLY and I mean ONLY point you make that is in good faith is that Ice melting will open up trade routes. The rest is either twisting truth, ignoring international law, or grossly misrepresenting fact

27

ccblr06 May 12, 2026 -56

You guys are so hostile to alternative views, it almost like you’re in an echo chamber or something. The countries that are closest to Greenland are Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, China, Canada and the US. Considering that we needed an a****** President to convince NATO to increase their defense spending i dont trust that they are up to task to field a force strong enough to defend Greenland. Also considering that said a****** president also had to play hard with Panama, i dont trust that they wont just let China buy land over time. His why makes sense if you can think past go.

-56

TongsOfDestiny May 12, 2026 +17

>alternative views Fascist propaganda? The US has already been the largest guarantor of Greenland security for decades, *and* already has the prerogative to establish a greater security presence should they choose to do so. And what shipping lanes are you even referring to? The NW passage is entirely within Canadian waters, and there is no reason for commercial shipping to transit north of Greenland, so I don't know what lanes you think the US needs control of Greenland to operate. There is no legitimate reason for the US to annex Greenland; it already meets it's security needs with the current arrangement, anything further is just imperialist ambition

17

Oerthling May 12, 2026 +11

Trump has NOTHING to do with increased defense spending. It's in reaction to actual problems with Russia. Well, I have to row back the NOTHING a little back - the fact that Trump threatens allies like Canada and Greenland/Denmark might well affect current and future defense spending. When the threat from the USSR receded, Europe reduced defense spending. When Russia aggression came back it got raised again. Not that hard to understand. The only one threatening Greenland ATM is Trump. The US had more base presence on Greenland in the past. It was the US that decided to reduce its presence. Because similar to Europe it reacted to the dissolution of the USSR with cuts. But unlike Europe the US increased its military budget, because it's not for defense, but global power projection.

11

Otherwise-Green3067 May 12, 2026 +5

ALTERNATIVE FACTS FAKE NEWS MUST PROTECT THE WEAK PEOPLE OF ~~ICELAND~~ I MEAN GREENLAND American freedom!! But in all seriousness, one small thing destroys your whole argument . You believe China would buy Greenlandic land, if they chose to do so it is there right . HOWEVER, to believe such a thing was possible shows a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding how Greenlanders operate. All land in Greenland belongs to the people. They would not sell it to China because it’s not one singular persons to sell. Domestic policy in Greenland is closer to communal land sharing than most western nations. Denmark, who handles Greenlands foreign policy officially, also would not risk souring their already at times tense relations with Greenland by selling land out from under them to China . The US has a right to have as many bases as they see fit at any given time on Greenlandic soil due to a 70 year old treaty. China does not have such rights This is also ignoring that all “security” arguments you make are invalid based on said treaty. We can open as many bases as we want on Greenlandic soil at any given time for whatever reason we want . That would include increased Chinese and Russian movements up north. We have this right because we agreed to recognize Greenland/Denmark sovereignty in perpetuity . So unless you are unable to understand what all of this means, your whole “alternative viewpoint” fails

5

IAppear_Missing May 12, 2026 +6

You drank the Kool Aid then

6

CHINESEBOTTROLL May 12, 2026 +5

You are a victim of propaganda.

5

Noderly May 12, 2026 +14

It makes no sense lol. Are you stupid?

14

fukreddits May 12, 2026 -28

He’s actually correct. You should look into the northern passages opening with less ice and how much shorter trips are for supertankers.

-28

Noderly May 12, 2026 +19

I don't disagree with the tanker argument - I disagree with the logic that we need to "own" it to secure it.

19

ccblr06 May 12, 2026 -2

We do need a bigger presence there. Also considering that NATO members can just refuse the US from flying out of the territory much like Spain and the UK recently….. again his why makes sense

-2

jack_oatt May 12, 2026 +14

The difference between refusin access due to not supporting a war of aggression and refusing it for defence is amusingly huge.

14

ccblr06 May 12, 2026

Have you looked at the military presence in Greenland, the US has literally one space base which doesnt offer any real capability to defend the island. There needs to be something defending it besides just the baltic states, if you look at a map of the military presence up north it quite literally is mainland Russian and all of its territory with a sliver of norway, sweden and finland.

0

axxl75 May 12, 2026 +14

Greenland had no issue with allowing more bases. The US only having one was because the US only wanted one. No one would reasonably argue that Greenland is strategically important. It’s been a point of emphasis across multiple US administrations in the past couple decades. There’s just a big difference between understanding it needs to be more secure and working with your allies vs threatening annexation. There’s are also US bases in most of Europe. By your logic we should be annexing them too. They’re HN/NATO owned but US occupied and are for primarily Russian deterrence. Everything you’re saying that needs to be secured could’ve been secured with partnership just like there already is in Greenland, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Germany, Italy, Norway, etc. There was no reason to threaten annexation.

14

Oerthling May 12, 2026 +9

So the US gets to own everything where they have trade going or would like to fly through to conduct illegal wars? That's imperialist thinking.

9

ccblr06 May 12, 2026 -1

If you look at ny previous comments I keep saying “here is the reason why”. I dont have to agree with annexing a country and riling up our allies to provide context for why Trump would say or believe something.

-1

ccblr06 May 12, 2026 +1

See all the downvotes, crazy

1

Sarnsereg May 12, 2026 +12

He wants it for the resources and clout of expanding the country, not the bases.

12

babybirdingURgrandma May 12, 2026 +12

The intention was always to destroy NATO and for nothing else

12

CursorX May 12, 2026 +2

Invasion plan was for Greenland resources, of course.

2

wiztard May 12, 2026 +2

Yes, but Putin promised Trump the ownership of the American continents, including Greenland, if he was a good lapdog. This is Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact all over again.

2

xX609s-hartXx May 12, 2026 +1

The Hitler-Stalin pact didn't involve Russia getting stuck in Ukraine for 4 years though :D

1

Old-n-Wrinkly May 12, 2026 +3

Mmm…kinda like his ripping up Obama’s treaty with Iran?

3

AU36832 May 12, 2026 -2

The treaty where the US gave an Islamic extremist regime billions of dollars in exchange for a pinky promise that they would stop trying to make a nuclear bomb? Yeah, I'm good with breaking that treaty.

-2

Norseviking4 May 12, 2026 -10

That treaty with Iran helped fund Iran when they increased their presence and influence in the me. It was awfull If you think the old Iran deal was good, you are ignorant of the facts and the consequences.

-10

mmoore327 May 12, 2026 +5

And yet better than any agreement Trump will end up with and without the loss of innocent lives...

5

Mjolnir36 May 12, 2026 +2

Not to mention billions wasted, lives lost and the reputation of the US.

2

Norseviking4 May 12, 2026 +1

Yeah there seem to be no plan, yet the Iranian regime has killed tens of thousands of lives, protesters in their own country pluss they spread terror in the region and fund groups that kill thousands more. Trump is not the guy to take them out, but i 100% support military action vs regimes like that The UN should have removed them, but its broken. Nato could, but wont nor do they have the mandate to be world police (they are better than most. Yoguslavia was a good operation for instnace)

1

Ansiktsburk123 May 12, 2026 +5

and now Iran has full control of the Hormuz strait and thus the global economy. Thank you Trump.

5

Norseviking4 May 12, 2026 +1

Yeah, the way Trump runs things is horrible and incompetent. The US is so cursed

1

Ansiktsburk123 May 12, 2026 +1

Nah its part of the plan. The Pedophile class is still making money. They just want to make everyone a slave so they can get even more money.

1

AU36832 May 12, 2026 +1

They've always had full control over it.

1

Ansiktsburk123 May 12, 2026 +1

I don't recall the strait being closed until Bibi ordered Donald to attack Iran.

1

deejeycris May 12, 2026 +1

It makes sense for his personal agenda.

1

soldiernerd May 12, 2026 +1

100% correct, this is so frustrating to me

1

ajc3691 May 12, 2026 +1

Yeah almost like asking in a calm manner would’ve resulted in a “yeah sure sounds good”

1

SippsMccree May 12, 2026 -25

How do you guys still not get like his MAIN negotiation strategy of the big ask? It's like literally every time with him that he does it but you all still act like you've never seen it before

-25

RN2FL9 May 12, 2026 +12

There was nothing to negotiate because the US could already add more bases on Greenland..

12

Disastrous_Stick8148 May 12, 2026 +14

Because actions has consequences. And threatening to invade another country is an action that has big consequences. Doesn't matter if that is just his way of negotiation.

14

mmoore327 May 12, 2026 +7

As others have pointed out - you could always have opened up new bases - it is actually harder now, than it would have been if Americans hadn't acted so much like Americans. The 1951 defence agreement already granted the US broad rights to establish bases there.

7

ccblr06 May 12, 2026 -21

Because they hate him so much that they aren’t trying to understand him. To them he’s just an idiot and they are better than all conservatives because they smart

-21

Thedarkhunt May 12, 2026 +18

Trump hasn’t achieved anything with his ‘big ask’ except alienate former allies. Maybe if you stopped suckling on his tiny mushroom for one second you’d realize that

18

Another-attempt42 May 12, 2026 +9

Yes. What's your point?

9

Thedarkhunt May 12, 2026 +43

No, get these fucks out of Europe’s business. Unreliable and untrustworthy

43

hal60mi May 12, 2026 +23

Could have done that last January, but noooo.

23

isd3 May 12, 2026 +88

They've been operating (varying numbers of) bases there since WW2.

88

postduif-7 May 12, 2026 +9

Even did some nuclear testing in underground bases. Real interesting stuff. For those who wonder -> experiment was not a big success en the army left nuclear waste under the ice hoping it would go away. This nuclear waste is currently on the way to reach the surface and thats how Greenland found out about.

9

BritishAnimator May 12, 2026 +33

Now it feels like a Trojan Horse situation.

33

Expert_Put_7492 May 12, 2026 +171

You'd have to be a complete fool to let U.S. troops in your country after what Trump's been saying.

171

DFWPunk May 12, 2026 +100

The US already has bases in Greenland with agreements that allow for expansion and additional installations.

100

dinggusss May 12, 2026 +11

Still stupid

11

Mindless-Peak-1687 May 12, 2026 +2

is now, wasn't before trump came along.

2

whatproblems May 12, 2026 +20

is he going to try that stunt he did on the border? claim half of greenland is base land?

20

Astrosaurus42 May 12, 2026 +4

Just tell Trump whatever it takes to make him believe, without actually doing anything.

4

Expert_Put_7492 May 13, 2026 +1

Classic old person strat.

1

collergic May 12, 2026 +7

Honestly that was just a loophole to give troops the power of border enforcement. Crazy, but actually a smart play if you're attempting to do crazy bullshit

7

nicuramar May 12, 2026 +2

> The US already has bases in Greenland Currently one :)

2

Fresh_Boysenberry576 May 12, 2026 +1

Too bad agreements between the EU-US aren't constantly being broken by one side already otherwise we could tell the US to piss off

1

PeachVelvet_ May 12, 2026 +19

Everytime Greenland is in the news, I just think about that failed attempt to buy the whole island

19

TrumpsATraitorSoAreU May 12, 2026 +9

Well, it is the current timeline so, I’m just gonna assume it’s complete fools all the way down

9

0202_tihssitidder May 12, 2026 +20

This will be true forever. US is always just a few years away from going batshit crazy. The USA cannot be trusted on any matter. No one should ever trust the USA again.

20

slavelabor52 May 12, 2026 +29

I still remember 10 years ago in 2016 when I kept telling people that this is what Trump was going to lead to. A complete dissolution of US trust and hegemony internationally. That the world would wake up to the fact that US policy is only good for 4 years at a time and no long term agreement made with America was 100% safe. Trump ended the longstanding tradition of honoring agreements made by former Presidents and the government.

29

Mindless-Peak-1687 May 12, 2026 +4

Felt like being a conspiracy idiot talking about it. I feel very much vindicated, but would prefer to be wrong on this.

4

Expert_Put_7492 May 12, 2026 +4

I think that's a bit overstating it honestly, In many respects the Pax Americana was good for the world. There have been big wars, for example in Congo, but they're outliers.

4

bloop7676 May 12, 2026 +11

Yeah, it's good until it's not. Willingly letting one nation have that much of a power difference with its allies was always a huge liability, but until something bad happens you can keep saying everything seems fine even though you know about the problems. It worked reasonably well for a while but there's obviously a need for finding a better solution after what's happened now.

11

Expert_Put_7492 May 13, 2026 +1

Democracy is going to make mistakes sometimes, doesn't mean it needs reworked, We just got a bum deal this time. It's bound to happen. I'm not saying the system is perfect by any means, but it's not bad. We as a country have done exceptionally well.

1

CRUSTBUSTICUS May 12, 2026 -6

Well it worked out a hell of a lot better than the European powers era of ruling the world. How many tens of millions died in Europe, Africa, India, Central America, South America, the North America (before independence), Southeast Asia… list goes on but if you’re going by deaths and direct subjugation through occupation it’s not comparable. Hell, the British starvation of millions of Bengali people is barely a footnote in their history. That would be easily the worst thing America has ever done if it were them. For reference, the trail of tears which was insanely awful was around 5,000 native Americans. Edit: Euros hate when you point out the scale of their atrocities lol.

-6

mantidmarvel May 12, 2026

Yeah, no. Pax Americana *only* applies to the West. By design. Just because we didn't have WW3, doesn't mean the world was with less conflict - just that instead of directly beefing, major powers fought by funding the wars of smaller powers thousands of kilometres away, outside of their North American or European homelands. Your governments decided they were better off exporting war to the global south, and that doesn't mean the world is any more peaceful. Pax Americana was not good for the Middle East, nor Latin America, nor Africa. Pax Americana is just an idea, and frankly, a great way to propagandise a habit of aggressive foreign military involvement that is basically imperialism in a shiny hat, something easy to sell to the masses. Do you know how many countries have been completely up-ended and set back decades because the US doesn't like socialism or communism and refuses to let any state try either out, even if their people want it? Do you know how many terrorist organisations have come directly or indirectly from US meddling? Or dictators? Pinochet had US backing at one point - a man that saw people kidnapped and thrown out of helicopters. Peace my ass. Guetamala was chucked into a civil war for almost 40 years. FWIW, [here's a list of all the wars going on in the world](https://www.war-memorial.net/wars_all.asp) in recent decades. The reality is that there are very few years without any - widespread peace has not been the reality for much of the world. "Pax Americana" has outright contributed to many of these.

0

WealthyMarmot May 12, 2026 +2

This is classic Listnook framing of the Cold War proxy wars, completely omitting the Soviets’ (and the Chinese, to a much smaller extent) role and painting the US as the only country with agency. But you’re correct that the global south has not exactly been peaceful, though it has become massively wealthier as a result of Western-led post-war globalization, the greatest reduction of severe poverty in human history by a mile. And finally, let’s be real - the end of colonialism was always going to leave half the world mired in civil war. The Cold War just stoked the flames.

2

SeaworthinessSome454 May 12, 2026 -8

I hope you actually believe that and advocate for your county’s government to finally take defense seriously (unless you’re from Poland or Estonia).

-8

Notgreygoddess May 12, 2026 +1

True, but the longer you can keep them talking, the better EU & allies can prepare should US invade.

1

zaevilbunny38 May 12, 2026 -9

Yep the 1 month old posting anti-western statements. Totally not a troll account.

-9

morbie5 May 12, 2026 -15

It is either eat US ___ or take on Russia all on your own (which Europe might have to do anyway as long as Trump is in power). Bad or very very bad options, no good options

-15

CyanConatus May 12, 2026 +6

The thing about America is their citizens don't realize how much their Government brainwashes them

6

morbie5 May 12, 2026 -1

Bro, no one is more brainwashed than you.

-1

CyanConatus May 13, 2026 +1

Lol no you eh. Cute. Not that I expected much tbh I noticed you historically point out positive karma as a means to support your claims or negative karma to disprove other claims. So maybe you should.... "Read the room bro" as you say LOL Anyways I'm not reading any further. "bro"

1

rubbarz May 12, 2026 +13

"OK! You were always able to do that!" -Greenland

13

kuemmel234 May 12, 2026 +8

On the other hand...you don't want soldiers of a belligerent nation that has threatened to invade. So, that ok is going to be a bit nervous.

8

tecdaz May 12, 2026 +14

Dump could have got this with a letter a year ago

14

Oerthling May 12, 2026 +1

The US had that before they closed bases down after the dissolution of the USSR. Just like Europe the US lowered defense spending when it wasn't needed anymore.

1

Tim-in-CA May 12, 2026 +5

Like they already had an agreement that the US could before all of the Greenland invasion nonsense?

5

sirhackenslash May 12, 2026 +16

That should make the inevitable invasion a lot easier.

16

devi83 May 12, 2026 -61

And make the invasion from China and Russia harder. Give and take.

-61

Describing_Donkeys May 12, 2026 +26

China is not about to invade Greenland. Russia can't take over Ukraine, and Europe is committing much more to their defense. The US is the only country Greenland needs to worry about right now.

26

devi83 May 12, 2026 -33

Not if they make a deal, then its a moot point.

-33

Describing_Donkeys May 12, 2026 +21

Yeah, the US has been such a reliable partner recently. They haven't torn up the JCPOA, trade deals, then the new trade deals that replaced them, invaded countries in the middle of negotiating with them, or done anything to hurt their credibility. /s The US can't be trusted anymore. Their deals aren't worth the paper they are written on.

21

devi83 May 12, 2026 -30

Yes, we did make a mess, but in the long run that shits gonna pay off.

-30

Describing_Donkeys May 12, 2026 +14

What incredible unjustified hopium. You are watching the end of us as the world leader. That's what America first is. Europe is cutting us out. China is filling in the vacuum we are leaving. We've eroded decades of trust we worked to build. Accelerating the end of the petro dollar and US dollar dominance. Creating an open path for China to dominate green technology. Canada is looking at Chinese EVs. We lost the war to Iran, and the middle east is going to turn to China as a result. Iran is going to emerge as a stronger country and a local power. The damage that is being done is not going to pay off. I don't know how anyone can look at what is happening and think this is going to benefit the US.

14

devi83 May 12, 2026 -5

well thats doomium you are snorting, I think the world leaders see trump as a threat, but they also have hope for midterms and next election. Things are not beyond repair my dude

-5

Describing_Donkeys May 12, 2026 +13

We elected him twice. American voters are not reliable. The first time was seen as an aberration. This time we've shown we aren't the stable country we were perceived to be. Things would take over a decade to repair in regards to trust, and in that time all of our advantage will be gone. Our time as world leader is over, and it is not coming back.

13

devi83 May 12, 2026 +1

> We elected him twice. I honestly doubt this. I think there is a chance we did once, and even that is questionable, but the other time was definitely hacked with the help of certain very rich people and adversarial nations. It was a multi-factor thing, them all working toward the same common goals, and Trump was the result. We didn't elect him, it was stolen.

1

Software_Dependent May 12, 2026 +10

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

10

devi83 May 12, 2026 -28

How is it not technically true? If they wanted to invade, and no US bases were there, it would be a cake walk. That's just physics.

-28

Superb_Club_5882 May 12, 2026 +22

Why the hell would either of those countries want to invade Greenland?

22

devi83 May 12, 2026 -8

IDK, but the guy I was posting to lives in the reality where nations invade Greenland, so from that perspective all cards are on the table, which is the reality I am writing my reply about. Technically any nation that wants to invade Greenland will have a much more difficult time if US bases exist there. Yes or no? Stay on subject.

-8

Expert_Put_7492 May 12, 2026 +26

I'm trying to remember which nations have threatened Greenland with invasion recently.

26

devi83 May 12, 2026 +1

You mean dumbass Trump. So technically that means Putin threatened invading Greenland if we trace the masters of Trump.

1

hoishinsauce May 12, 2026 +13

Yea but Putin doesn't want to invade Greenland, he wants the US to be at war with EU, so he could invade Ukraine, Georgia, Finland, Poland, and so on. Your framework is weird and illogical.

13

devi83 May 12, 2026 +1

Oh sorry, you know the mind of Putin, he definitely wouldn't want to have a nice joint drone base or several with China/Iran/NK, there during WWIII, when undefended lines are crossed. My bad for doubting you.

1

tweakwerker May 12, 2026 +3

Trump isn't a nation. The US is.

3

Superb_Club_5882 May 12, 2026 +11

Yeah if the US wasn't the one invading and someone else was to try then US bases make it much more difficult. Problem is the only country that has announced they may do it is the US.

11

devi83 May 12, 2026 +2

Good thing we are making a deal then. And then once that deal is in place, any other nation will have no chance to invade it.

2

Particular-Cow6247 May 12, 2026 +8

there have been several deals with greenland/denmark already the us just proofs time and time again that their signature isn't worth the ink

8

devi83 May 12, 2026 +1

>there have been several deals with greenland/denmark already the us just proofs time and time again that their signature isn't worth the ink Like what were those deals, and did they expire or what? Can you educate me on what we had already and what this new deal will possibly do?

1

Strank May 12, 2026 +6

Deals with trump are best printed on soft paper

6

devi83 May 12, 2026 +2

Agreed.

2

Lucius_Sulla-420 May 12, 2026 +8

This is the most late stage case of cognitive dissonance I’ve ever seen. Reread your posts, the mental gymnastics are astounding.

8

RN2FL9 May 12, 2026 +3

Except anyone attacking Greenland would trigger article 5 and would be at war with NATO. Even if the US stays out of it, it would still trigger the EU defense pact. Why would China or Russia want to go to war with NATO or the EU over Greenland of all places. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

3

devi83 May 12, 2026 +1

I think there is a future where the other team does try to take on nato, hence attacking greenland for strategic locations.

1

RN2FL9 May 12, 2026 +2

It would be suicide with nukes. But other than that there's nothing really strategic about it for China or Russia, they'd be surrounded by enemies. Look at a world map.

2

devi83 May 12, 2026 +1

Nothing strategic in a melting arctic? Nothing strategic about having a forward early warning base to help protect said melting arctic? Oh okay sorry mister tactician.

1

RN2FL9 May 12, 2026 +1

It is strategic, just not for Russia or China. It is an island in between literally all of the NATO countries. Again, look at a map.

1

devi83 May 12, 2026 +1

So it's strategic and worth defending.

1

White_M99 May 12, 2026 +8

Ah yes, going to war against the whole of NATO, a cake walk indeed!

8

devi83 May 12, 2026 -4

Why would they go to war with NATO if they were granted permission to have bases there? That's the reality we are talking about, where the talks end with a US base deal.

-4

Sphism May 12, 2026 +1

In a world where europe doesn't exist maybe. Otherwise you're just talking nonsense. Even if america were invading greenland then america vs nato minus america would be a very even fight. No way US would just walk in and take it. And that was before the US incompetence was on full display in iran so actually I'd favour nato minus US

1

Top_Chef May 12, 2026 +3

I’m going to proactively steal your car so nobody else steals it first. I’m doing you a favor, bro.

3

devi83 May 12, 2026 +1

If you make a deal with me, I will let you drive it. That's what this article is about bro. It's not about a hypothetical invasion, which is the very first post I replied to.

1

Top_Chef May 12, 2026 +1

Nah bro. I want the whole thing, haven’t you seen this really big gun I’m holding?

1

RadiantTurtle May 12, 2026 +2

Parrotting phaux news talking points to the letter. The boot must take like candy!

2

devi83 May 12, 2026 +2

Never watched them, and I despise trump anyways, so never will. Here let me ask you this: Is China probably going to invade Taiwan? (the question is relevant to my next questions about Greenland)

2

tweakwerker May 12, 2026 +2

Let's say China reunifies with Taiwan, you really think China is going after Greenland next? Lol You despise Trump yet you parrot his talking points? lol

2

devi83 May 12, 2026 +1

I'm sure you've heard the phrase a broken clock....

1

tweakwerker May 13, 2026 +1

Is the clock broken if you keep repeating his talking points?

1

LSF604 May 12, 2026 +2

Neither could do it in the first place.

2

devi83 May 12, 2026 -1

They could if no US bases were there and NATO was busy elsewhere.

-1

traveltimecar May 12, 2026 +7

This is only an issue cause of the selfish baboon who is currently in the US white house

7

devi83 May 12, 2026 +2

Well, China is always going to attack Taiwan, and they aren't doing it in a vacuum, between them and NK and Iran and Russia, if recent history didn't involve Venezuela and Iran attacks, China would be in a much stronger position to have allies in-case of a WWIII breakout during a Taiwan invasion. I can completely imagine a WWIII scenario where strategic places change hands, unwillingly. I think Greenland would be one of those places, and that could happen when all out war is occurring around the world.

2

traveltimecar May 12, 2026 +6

Trump could not just be an a****** and treat our allies with respect and not try to take them over to pillage their natural resources. There's a reason most of the world now considers US one of the biggest threats to world peace.

6

devi83 May 12, 2026 +2

Tbf I consider us that too, with a madmen at the wheel. I do hope he gets voted out.

2

LSF604 May 12, 2026 +1

He is not capable of that

1

LSF604 May 12, 2026 +2

No they couldn't. Neither can project force

2

devi83 May 12, 2026 +1

you think that is always going to be the case? what even is china making nuclear carriers for then? to set next to their beach?

1

LSF604 May 12, 2026 +2

I'm talking about what's possible right now. And right now China can't even take taiwan

2

devi83 May 12, 2026 +1

Isn't the point of setting up bases now to be ready for when those things are possible? One day it will be possible, and that day would be sooner if there was no bases to resist.

1

LSF604 May 12, 2026 +3

if thats possible then invading anywhere is possible. But bases aren't being set up \*everywhere\*. looking at recent history, the most likely country to invade greenland is.. the USA!

3

devi83 May 12, 2026

And if the USA is already there with bases because of a deal, then the most likely country to invade greenland during WWIII is? (answer its someone on the other team)

0

HockeyPhoenician May 12, 2026

China and Russia have no capacity to invade anything. Russia going on 5 years to invade and conquer a 'weak' neighbor that was only going to take 2 - 3 days. China blustering about Tawaian and still doing f*** all about it after all these years. Yall are soft as baby shit and more scared than a startled turtle.

0

devi83 May 12, 2026 +1

oh okay, good argument, thanks

1

Bayarea0 May 12, 2026 +5

This could have happened normally without the insult to all our allies. Denmark never denied us access to Greenland, just asked for basic respect.

5

Capital_Resident_872 May 12, 2026 +6

The US had every right to do this before the threats of invasion too. The threats of invasion should have been the end of this right. It's public knowledge that the US president still wants to "own" Greenland (as confirmed by the Danish PM), that they're still running a (failing) soft power campaign and that American millionaires/billionaires are trying to buy the votes of Greenlanders. These negotiations now are humiliating.

6

manfr57 May 12, 2026 +2

J'espère qu'il refuseront plus de base américaine en Europe je vois pas pourquoi ils n'y a pas de base de l'OTAN aux usa

2

Numerous-Bowler-8677 May 12, 2026 +7

lmao, I am astonish at the fact that Greenland and Denmark hasn't kicked us out yet, much less allowing the US to add more bases....

7

Mogwai_Man May 12, 2026 +2

Too important for defense.

2

dude0001 May 12, 2026 +3

I love when we all get along.

3

Ok-Spirit-4074 May 12, 2026 +4

It's... in the treaty already. The US can just do this as long as it doesn't interfere with the lives of Greenlanders. They can just land a boat there tomorrow and start building a base. Edit: No I'm wrong. Apparently we still need to ask permission. I was told by the news that we just had the right to build and that's what I was working off of.

4

oeboer May 12, 2026 +4

No, they would need the approval of the Kingdom of Denmark as per the 2004 amendment to the 1951 base agreement.

4

Ok-Spirit-4074 May 12, 2026

Thank you for sharing that. I thought it was just a right we had through the treaty.

0

AsparagusFern319 May 12, 2026 +2

Did... something new happen? It seems like these the same talks that have been going on for a few months, and the BBC is just rereporting on them.

2

Blunt_Hadder May 13, 2026 +1

No more money for Federal Government unless we receive free proper healthcare and food as human right.

1

Amijiw May 12, 2026 +1

This is a mistake.

1

EditorRedditer May 12, 2026 +1

Not closely-guarded enough, if the BBC have got hold of it. Another security victory for the current administration…🤦🏻

1

benrinnes May 12, 2026 +1

That's a big no-no!

1

charcoalist May 12, 2026

Call trump's bluff. If building new US bases on Greenland is about security against Russia and China, then why isn't NATO part of the conversation? You know, the security organization designed around such things. Building new US bases that are sovereign US territory in Greenland is an invasion in all but name. Just look at trump's rhetoric over the past year as a clue to his intentions.

0

Brodimere May 12, 2026

While the US, cannot be trusted. This would atleast for a short while, shut up their demand for control over the country. Then just delay with burecracy. But personally think we should rather give that permission to actual allies instead of Fanta Führer and his cronies.

0

WiredEarp May 12, 2026

They shouldn't allow jack without a clear agreement that if the US ever question their ownership of Greenland that all bases immediately revert to their ownership legally.

0

MourningRIF May 12, 2026

Ahh smart... Give us a staging ground. 🤦

0

Thagyr May 12, 2026

>The US has been holding regular negotiations with Denmark to expand its military presence in Greenland. Is that what they call that whole mess of a month from Trump?

0

ElTejon_TheDestroyer May 12, 2026

I’m so tired of this dumb f****** shit, from a dumb f****** man - this is what the US has representing it to the world??? Come the hell on and remove him

0

Zerosumendgame2022 May 12, 2026

Frump wants everything for the grift, its that simple.

0

Interesting-Type-908 May 12, 2026

Honestly, I hope NATO gives the current US administration, the finger.

0

Notgreygoddess May 12, 2026

I hope they don’t give the US a centimeter of “sovereign territory” on the bases. Really, what does Greenland gain from US bases? NATO only, as US has proven untrustworthy.

0

Twistedsmock May 12, 2026

Has Camp Century been cleaned up yet?

0

polygonalopportunist May 12, 2026

Surely drones wont be able to bombs these ones when needed for defense. Iran “excursion” pretty much showed a multi million dollar base has become fairly useless in war given $30k drones can make render it unusable. These serve interests other than USA safety.

0

[deleted] May 12, 2026 -5

[deleted]

-5

M3G4MIND May 12, 2026 +6

Because the Dutch and the Danish aren't the same...

6

CockchopsMcGraw May 12, 2026 +2

Because the Dutch are a separate country

2

Patrickme May 12, 2026 -1

Perfectly fine the moment that orange embarrasment leaves the white UFC cage. Or for an absolute boatload of money.

-1

senorchaos718 May 12, 2026 -1

Awk-waarrrrrrd

-1

Small_Owl_ May 12, 2026 -16

We taking over, one city at a time.

-16

US in closely-guarded talks to open new bases in Greenland

💬 Send a Message

186 Comments