> BREAKING: Greenland and Denmark request meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio

You fuqers ready to sign?
       \

https://x.com/PeterRHann1/status/200839 … 61405?s=20

wrote:

Smart, negotiate their surrender now, in the hopes of Trump showing mercy!

If the Danes are smart, they'll keep Greenland as a protectorate & welcome the US in as a partner, provided the locals profit handsomely from the arrangement.

wrote:

If the Danes are smart, they'll keep Greenland as a protectorate & welcome the US in as a partner, provided the locals profit handsomely from the arrangement.

Not an option.
        \

https://x.com/KShevchenkoReal/status/20 … 07149?s=20

wrote:

Neo-con Rubio has been a pleasant surprise.

Now we can have Rubio's Folly with Greenland.

It will be an even bigger folly than Alaska

wrote:

Why do you think Alaska is a folly?

Alaska was originally labeled “Sewards Folly”, criticism was brutal and it was ridiculed as a mistake of worthless wasteland

‘The Alaska Purchase was the 1867 acquisition of Alaska by the United States from Russia for $7.2 million, negotiated by Secretary of State William Seward, and initially mocked as "Seward's Folly" or "Seward's Icebox". Russia sold the territory due to financial strain from the Crimean War and the logistical difficulty of managing the remote land, while the U.S. saw strategic value and potential resources, which were later confirmed by the Klondike Gold Rush in 1896. The purchase ended Russia's presence in North America, and Alaska became the 49th U.S. state in 1959.’

‘The principal urban newspaper that opposed the purchase was the New York Tribune, published by Seward opponent Horace Greeley. The ongoing controversy over Reconstruction spread to other acts, including the Alaska purchase. Some opposed the United States obtaining its first non-contiguous territory, seeing it as a colony; others saw no need to pay for land that they expected the country to obtain through manifest destiny.[22] Historian Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer summarized the minority opinion of some American newspaper editors who opposed the purchase:[32]
Already, so it was said, we were burdened with territory we had no population to fill. The Indians within the present boundaries of the republic strained our power to govern aboriginal peoples. Could it be that we would now, with open eyes, seek to add to our difficulties by increasing the number of such peoples under our national care? The purchase price was small; the annual charges for administration, civil and military, would be yet greater, and continuing. The territory included in the proposed cession was not contiguous to the national domain. It lay away at an inconvenient and a dangerous distance. The treaty had been secretly prepared, and signed and foisted upon the country at one o'clock in the morning. It was a dark deed done in the night… The New York World said that it was a "sucked orange." It contained nothing of value but furbearing animals, and these had been hunted until they were nearly extinct. Except for the Aleutian Islands and a narrow strip of land extending along the southern coast the country would be not worth taking as a gift… Unless gold were found in the country much time would elapse before it would be blessed with Hoe printing presses, Methodist chapels and a metropolitan police. It was "a frozen wilderness."’

wrote:

Look at all the wealth we have extracted from Alaska - I say we got one hell of a deal!

Russia got a measly $6 million, most of which they wasted by paying 2 Americans from Baltimore to design a railroad system that didn’t work

My point of view on Greenland:

- Denmark has been unable to develop anything on this territory for over a century.
- The main interest of Greenland is to be an immense strategic outpost in the Arctic (military bases, interception, and so on) facing Russia and China. Of course, Denmark, as a small country, is totally incapable of putting this into practice.
In short: Greenland is today an asset that Denmark has no need for and no value to it.

In this context, any sensible adult would go looking for a win-win deal with the USA while there's still time. Something like "I cede Greenland to you, which has great strategic value for you, and in exchange you give me something useful for me (cash, enhanced military protection, trade contracts... etc)."

But since we have in Europe an elite made up of immature, pretentious kids disconnected from the real world, their sole objective is to try to flex their muscles against Trump on the theme "We are sovereign" (which is obviously false, we have no real sovereignty, lacking a sufficient military and economic force for that).
Probable outcome to come: As soon as things heat up between NATO and Russia, the kids in question will call Trump for help, who will tell them "Ok, I'll take Greenland first as a small down payment for my intervention." And Denmark will then have lost everything by wanting to ignore the balance of power currently in place.

Another possible variant (if there is no extension of the Russia/Ukraine conflict):
USA: "You refuse to give me Greenland? OK, I'm withdrawing all my troops from the European continent. And my collaboration on intelligence, GPS, Starlink, and so on."

Here too, we'll very quickly see the kids apologize to their American suzerain over Greenland and regret not having negotiated smartly when it was the right time (that is, now).

First thing Trump should do is walk back all those stupid chug placenames that sound like seagull gang rape that were promoted by Danish cousin.


/
Godthab.


/
IT'S QUAAARGIUSUQMEKOQAAAAQUUULITOKAQEQIQOQUQSOMETIMESYQ, ADOLF!

wrote:

An idea:  Denmark gives the US Greenland.  In return, we give Minnesota to Denmark.  That's called winning!