this is not going to end well
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0j9l08902eo
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit...
I think US ownership (not necessarily of land) is inevitable, but it is going to take a couple of decades of these kind of polarising pieces.
What would that even mean? Especially the use the word 'ownership'?
I think there's zero chance of US long-term influence on Greenland. They simply have no reason to prefer foreign domination, when they can simply be sovereign. I would place independence + EU membership as more probably than any association with the US, and I think them staying within Denmark is much more likely than them becoming independent.
No, they can't. The likes of Palau are (barely) viable as sovereign countries, because at least the geographic size is as small as their populations.
It is absolutely, positively, completely impossible for 50K Greenlanders to by themselves maintain a the world's largest island, even aside from the completely frozen-over aspect. The $600M annual subsidy by Denmark does not include the funds Copenhagen spends on also running Greenland's foreign relations and defense. But in reality, Denmark spends a relative pittance on those things (like "six dog sleds" pittance); the vast majority of the cost of defending Greenland is borne by the US, as has been the case since 1940. Why should the US shoulder the burden without commensurate political power?
The petroldollar has been amazing for every citizen of US… somethings just give and take.
US can choose to jump out of Nato whenever it wishes.
The real danger here is that we might all be chatting against llm bots…