Trump suggests renaming the Gulf of Mexico to “Gulf of America”

[spowiednick]

Understand that " R " is silent to maintain good tradition of NOR-USA relationships and cooperation in "some " matters

[ombugge]

The Economist has an interesting article on the matter of USA taking over Greenland in some fashion or another:

An American purchase of Greenland could be the deal of the century

Transcript for those who are not subscribers:

Although America has a history of taking a commercial approach to international relations, purchases are rarely made without controversy. When Thomas Jefferson bought Louisiana in 1803, doubling the size of the country, he had to set aside his zest for constitutional constructivism, which would have ruled out such bold federal action. Sixty-four years later, when William Seward, then secretary of state, purchased Alaska from Russia for $7.2m ($162m today), the move was dubbed “Seward’s folly”. Now the Alaska deal is seen as a masterstroke and the Louisiana purchase the greatest achievement of one of America’s greatest presidents. In hindsight, both look extraordinarily good value.

History will not be as kind to Donald Trump if he gets Greenland from Denmark under duress. On January 7th the president-elect declined to rule out using military might or economic warfare in his pursuit of Greenland (and of the Panama Canal). America will lose friends if it bullies one into ceding territory. But Mr Trump’s provocations are also foolish because an agreement to buy Greenland, made freely and in good will, could indeed be another deal-of-the-century. Such a deal would increase America’s security, and perhaps that of its NATO allies, too. Autocrats would be dispirited. And a purchase could also benefit the inhabitants of the island, who must—and surely would—have the final say.

What, then, is Greenland worth? One starting point is the island’s annual GDP. At last count, in 2021, it was $3bn, or one seven-thousandth of America’s. Only 56,000 people live in Greenland, despite the fact it is bigger than any American state. Much of the territory’s output is the work of the 43% of the labour force employed by the state (against 15% in America). Over half the government’s bills are paid by Denmark, which gives the territory $500m a year. The biggest industry is fishing. Removing the public sector, ignoring other spending commitments, assuming Greenland’s long-run growth continues and America’s federal government receives 16% of GDP in tax (the national average), as well as discounting using America’s 30-year Treasury yield, produces a valuation of $50bn, or a twentieth of America’s annual defence spending.

Yet Mr Trump covets Greenland for its strategic and economic potential, rather than its puny output. The island sits between America and Russia in a part of the world that is becoming more navigable as Arctic ice melts. Although America’s Pituffik Space Base on the territory’s north-west coast already provides the armed forces with missile-warning sensors, an American Greenland might better monitor the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) gap, a strip of the Atlantic Ocean that is the access route for Russian submarines to America’s east coast, and to the North Atlantic.

Map: The Economist

On top of this, Greenland’s resource wealth is immense. It has known reserves of 43 of the 50 minerals deemed “critical” by America’s government, including probably the largest deposits of rare earths outside China. These are crucial to military kit and green-energy equipment. Wells off Greenland’s coast could yield 52bn barrels of oil, about 3% of the world’s proven reserves, according to an estimate in 2008 by the US Geological Survey.

Greenland’s resources have gone relatively unexploited owing to the difficulty of operating in the territory’s harsh, remote areas. Four-fifths of the island is covered by ice. There are not even roads linking settlements. And the government banned oil exploration in 2021. But as the climate warms, the minerals become both more accessible and more valuable. Already, perhaps the greatest resource rush ever seen, on a per-person basis, is under way. Firms are drilling at around 170 sites, up from 12 a decade ago.

From whom could the island be bought? In 2009 Denmark all but granted Greenland the right to declare independence should its people choose such an option in a referendum. The island’s nationalist government would very much like to exercise this right. At the same time Denmark granted the territory control of its own natural resources (though as its revenues go up, its block grant from Denmark goes down). Any purchase, therefore, should not be from Denmark, which really would be colonialist, but from the islanders themselves. If America offered merely our crude valuation of the flow of future taxes, it would amount to nearly $1m per inhabitant. Given the territory’s riches and importance, America could probably make every Greenlander a multimillionaire and still benefit enormously from the purchase.

Cold feet

Romantics and nationalists would doubtless call such an arrangement grubby. Couldn’t the island go it alone? After all, the 380,000 citizens of Iceland manage well enough. Greenland could host more American military bases at the same time as exploiting its natural resources on its own terms. Why abandon your identity and subject yourself to political control from Washington?

But natural-resource bonanzas bring risks, too. One is corruption that prevents the benefits from being divided fairly. It is unclear whether 56,000 people can govern effectively in the presence of an immense windfall: imagine an English town council being given Saudi Arabia’s oilfields. Extracting minerals means mass immigrant labour. National security is no longer just about the risk of invasion but also forestalling hybrid warfare, from sabotage to propaganda on TikTok. Selling to America up front would bring the full might of America’s administrative and security apparatus to the territory, while guaranteeing—if your columnist’s advice was followed—an equal distribution of the windfall.

Respecting Greenland’s right to self-determination means respecting its citizens’ right to consider such an offer, which could be put to a referendum. For the choice to be free, Mr Trump would have to retract his threat of force. He should do so—and then try putting some red meat in front of the polar bear. ■ (My highlights)

[ChaplainDarrell]

Curious. What is your feelings about MAID?

[tugsailor]

I’ve always been very fond of maids, maidens, princesses and divas.

[Steamer]

@ChaplainDarrell

Curious. What is your feelings about MAID?

The Netflix TV show? Good grief man, what does that have to do with a fascist takeover of Greenland?

[Hogsnort]

Some Wall Street Guy came up with this:

Wall Street Mav

[ombugge]

Put the shoe on the other foot:

Lars Gotlieb on LinkedIn: Greenland has belonged to Denmark since 980, Leif...

PS> Not entirely accurate, Leif Eirikson (aka Leif the lucky) was living in Greenland, which was a Norwegian “colony” at the time. (As was Iceland)
He was on his way from Norway to Greenland when he got blown off course and spotted the North American Continent:

Leif Eriksson Discovers America, oil on canvas by Christian Krohg, 1892.

Leif Erikson | Biography, Accomplishments, & Facts | Britannica

PS> Greenland, Iceland, Faeroes, Shetland and Orkneys became “Danish” when Norway became part of the Kalmar Union in 1397:

The Norwegian kings gradually took control of the Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Greenland, and interacted closely with the Viking kings of Sweden and Denmark.

In 1397 Denmark, Norway, and Sweden merged to form the Kalmar Union – essentially a Nordic empire. The union also comprised the old Norwegian overseas dependencies of the Shetlands, the Orkney Islands, the Faroe Islands, and Iceland, as well as Åland and Finland, which were under Swedish rule during the Middle Ages. The map of the Kalmar Union roughly resembles that of the Nordic Region we know today.

The union between the Nordic countries was relatively strong in its early years; however their ties gradually weakened and were dogged by internal strife between Denmark and Norway on one side and Finland and Sweden on the other. The Kalmar Union finally split down the middle, which was followed by a period of unrest – not helped by the infamous Stockholm bloodbath of 1520 when the Danish King Christian II had a large group of the nobility and other prominent citizens executed in the Swedish capital in an attempt to retain power over Sweden.

First Denmark had to cede the verdant and well-developed Skåne, Halland, and Blekinge to Sweden; and in 1814, the whole of Norway was ceded to Sweden

Source: https://www.norden.org/en/information/history-nordic-region

[ombugge]

Nothing new under the (midnight) sun:

Trump's Greenland purchase plan has been a US ambition since 1868 - ArcticToday

When President-elect Donald Trump once more floated the idea of purchasing Greenland, reactions ranged from ridicule to intrigue. Critics dismissed the notion as another eccentric Trump proposal. However, history reveals that the United States’ interest in Greenland is far from new—it’s a strategy that dates back more than a century.

From territorial ambitions in the 19th century to Cold War military priorities, Greenland has repeatedly caught the attention of American policymakers. But while the U.S. has eyed Greenland as a strategic asset, the political and legal dynamics surrounding the island have evolved significantly over time. Today, Greenland has self-rule and the right to declare independence from Denmark, fundamentally altering the terms of such discussions. Arctic Today has compiled a timeline of key developments in the history of U.S. interest in acquiring Greenland.

Denmark can't prevent Greenland from becoming part of the US—Commentary -...

While both Egede and Frederiksen have ruled out Greenland being sold, this does not mean it cannot become part of the US. In his New Year’s speech, Egede highlighted that the Greenlandic government is working to make “our country more independent.”
If Egede were to seek closer ties with the US, one option would be for Greenland to first become an independent state and then integrate with the US. Greenland could potentially become a federal state, as Alaska did in 1959.

Alternatively, Greenland could have looser ties with the US, akin to Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, or the US Virgin Islands—the current name for the Danish West Indies. Greenland could also negotiate an entirely new relationship.:
Greenland’s right to self-determination
Unlike Catalonians, Greenlanders have an international right to self-determination, which applies to the people of former colonies.
As a result, other countries have generally been less reluctant to recognise their secession. Although Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, there is no doubt that the Greenlandic people have a right to self-determination. This is confirmed in the Self-Government Act.
The Act states that the decision regarding Greenland’s independence rests with the Greenlandic people. However, independence requires an agreement between Naalakkersuisut (Greenland’s government) and the Danish government, to be approved by a referendum in Greenland and by a vote in the Danish Parliament.

The Self-Government Act thus assumes a negotiated independence, though this is not a requirement under international law.
A unilateral declaration of independence by Greenland would likely be recognised by the US and possibly other states.

[ChaplainDarrell]

Except for the fact that Project 2025 comes from the Heritage Foundation, not President Trump. Not saying Trump might be agreeable to parts of it, still it is not his. Like the “Green New Deal”, do Democrats really like that mess?

[BargeMonkey]

[Sand_Pebble]

Trump is an international trendsetter. Now the Mexicans are getting in on the renaming game.

[ombugge]

One more new name suggestion for today’s Greenland;

Source: Redirecting...

[ombugge]

Meanwhile in Greenland:

The Home Guard is getting ready to defend their homeland from the “Orange peril”.
Source: Redirecting...

[ombugge]

Danmarks statsminister holder ny pressekonferanse om Grønland

Greenland will neither be Danish nor American, says Prime Minister Múte B. Egede. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen says it is Greenland itself that will define its future.

Press conference with the Prime Minister and the chairman of Naalakkersuisut
JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE: Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte B. Egede and Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen spoke on Friday about developments in the debate on independence.
Photo: Mads Claus Rasmussen/Ritzau Scanpix / NTB

She says it is Greenland itself that should define its future.
– I notice a strong desire among many Greenlanders to move towards independence. In my eyes, that is legitimate. It is understandable, and it is a desire that I have great respect for, says the Prime Minister.

[CoastalTrader]

@freighterman1

@texastanker

that plan is 2 weeks away

…and it always will be.

That’s the only good thing about the OrangeMan. How long will it take for the Free Trump Bacon crowd to catch on?

[spowiednick]

@ombugge

I notice a strong desire among many Greenlanders to move towards independence. In my eyes, that is legitimate. It is understandable, and it is a desire that I have great respect for, says the Prime Minister.

If every one of those Greenlanders gets 1 mil usd then the majority may change their mind and vote for US statehood and protection. Do You remember Dr.Bugge when there was a huge outrage about agent orange who called Puting a “genius” ???

In disputed ukrainian oblasts a referendum was made and those who wanted close ties to mother Russia won.

This can be arranged in Greenland as well and Putin will not blink an eye, neither will he protest or object . As to EU…well Victoria Nuland alredy has paved a way what to do or think abt EU and it starts with letter “F”

[spowiednick]

What a lovely name

[ChaplainDarrell]

I have enjoyed the humor in some of these posts, especially the maps. But seriously, the word “orange” was/is being way overused. That’s almost as bad as “Dementia Joe”. Both need to be deleted from our vocabulary.

[ocnslr]

What would you suggest in lieu of ‘orange’? He’s certainly not ‘white’ or ‘flesh colored’, or even broadly ‘caucasian’ colored. Certainly 'bottle-colored man" could be used.

[Steamer]

The Pumpkin.