787
Greenland says it should be defended by NATO, rejects any US takeover (www.reuters.com)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
134 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 10 months ago (15 children)

But the US is NATO. 🤭

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    The US needs Greenland to defend it from Russia and China.

    Greenland is in NATO, allowing the US to defend it from Russia and China.

    mission_accomplished.jpg

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 10 months ago* (9 children)

    Also the US already has a military base in Greenland and has for many decades. In fact, they used to have dozen or so during the Cold War. And because the area is apparently such vital importance to the defence of the US, they currently have... 150 soldiers stationed there.
    In the one base they have kept.

    Very, very important location. Vital for defence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    Are you suggesting that when the President says it's vital for national security that he's being less than truthful?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Is there oil or rare earth metals?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago

    Yup, mostly rare earth metals, but in protected areas that require lots of permitting and small operations. That's why the US wants in, with it's industry standards of no standards for industries. Think of all the money his friends stand to make here guys, cmon.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Yes. Invasion is not necessary to extract them. Money is.

    In June, the US Export-Import Bank offered a $120 million loan to advance the development of the $290 million Tanbreez rare earth project in Southern Greenland. That same month, Denmark's Export and Investment Fund (EIFO) increased its shareholding in Canada's Amaroq Minerals, owner of a portfolio of critical minerals properties in Southern Greenland

    In January, GreenRoc Strategic Materials, a developer focused on graphite in Greenland, announced that EIFO had expressed an interest in providing funding for its Amitsoq graphite project in Southern Greenland. The Amitsoq project was subsequently designated as an EU strategic project, granting access to funding and support from EU Member States and financial institutions.

    Hammeken-Holm welcomed these developments, adding that foreign investment is critical for overcoming Greenland's significant environmental and logistical challenges. SOURCE

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    Yes. Invasion is not necessary to extract them. Money is

    An Australian company was all set to do that but was booted out of Greenland (mining licence revoked) by thier then newly elected Government.

    https://www.arctictoday.com/former-danish-foreign-minister-hired-by-mining-firm-in-billion-dollar-dispute-with-greenland/

    Trunp would have to cease it and remove the Government.

    Rear Earths aren't rare and are quite common, the issue is they are toxic to mine and refine. Australian company, Lynas has a mine in Western Australia and was originally refused permission to refine in Australia becase the waste is so toxic (gong back deacades now), so they built a refinery in Malaysia, this was one of the only non Chinese refineries on the planet.

    Malaysia has since had enough of thatt shit and said thay woukd close the refinery down because of the toxic pollition. So now they will mine in Western Australia, do the most toxic refining there and ship to Malaysia the partially refined product to finish The Australiam Government has now granted them a super secret licence to do the most toxic bit of refining there and use up valuable water in the desert.

    https://www.malaysiasun.com/news/278525788/pollution-issues-and-controversy-over-rare-earth-company-lynas

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Not just money, but jurisdiction. They have a huge range of options for building military bases with few permissions required, but a lot of that "cheddar" they would want to extract is under development restrictions.

    TL;DR - a legitimate democracy is in the way of oligarch profits once again

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Right?

    You have to wonder if leaders live in a parallel world, disconnected from ours.

    Do we need to explain to them that it’s over? Is it denial?

    It’s getting tiring watching these things happen, knowing what’s going to happen, have it happen then get ‘but we never anticipated this’. Yeah fuckin righto sunshine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    I suspect the rest of NATO is giving the US as much chance as it needs to disrupt Trump.

    I personally doubt that Greenland will be tolerated by the rest of the world, and certainly Canada should overwhelmingly sanction the US if not worse in the event Greenland is occupied by the US... it is existential for the rest of the world and I think this is obvious. But why interrupt the citizenry and the legal machinations in the US right now?

    I also think that the EU and Canada should start alliance discussions with China if Greenland happens.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    "As part of the Danish commonwealth, Greenland is a member of NATO and the defence of Greenland must therefore be through NATO," the government said.

    They’re not saying that Greenland should be defended by NATO against the US, they’re saying Greenland should be defended by NATO as opposed to being occupied by and defended by only the US.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent