Best Of

I actually think Greenlandschluss will be popular with DJT's base because it's owning the libs/EU, getting them out of NATO and Makes America Great Again.

Plenty of people in the UK would get behind a similar project if we had the military and economic might to do it.

Buying Greenland is popular with Republicans as the poll I showed earlier said (but not invading it), US voters overall though are opposed once Democrats and Independents are included

Realistically speaking any US invasion of Greenland is going to be over as soon as anyone hears that it is happening, and so there's going to be nothing for US voters to oppose.

Once the deed has been done I don't see many Republican voters being in favour of withdrawing with their tail between their legs.

You would also have to occupy it and plenty of Greenlanders would be willing to form an armed resistance, perhaps even with arms supplied by the Danes and then the US bodybags would start.

Democrats and Independents and therefore most Americans would be opposed anyway and there would certainly be enough Republicans in Congress willing to break lines to join them and impeach Trump and maybe even convict

You do know there are only 56,000 Greenlanders with about 20,000 in Nuuk

It is approx 9 times the size of the UK

Taking on the US in an armed conflict is nonsense

The weak and evasive Farage response to Trump today sticks out like a sore thumb in contrast with Lab, Con, LD and Greens, and a whole raft of EU/NATO countries. Time alone will tell but it feels like something in Reform is coming apart. Farage needed today to stick with the bullied not the bully and didn't.

Three huge mistakes in about a week: taking Zahawi, taking Jenrick, not backing Greenland and EuroNATO. Farage's demolition is now only a matter of time.

Good evening

Let's hope so

Like @Leon I have been to Greenland and it is a vast country with just 56,000 population

I can understand Trump's judgment on seeing it as vital to US and Artic security, but this is beyond anything that can be even remotely seen as sensible and it needs unity both here and in the EU in defying him

He already has military access for the US and needs to be told no, no matter the consquences

I also can see why Trump thinks that and he has good reasons for wanting to secure Greenland. A fear of an expansive Russia and a China happy to throw money around wherever it can.

But the solution is to work with his NATO allies on it not just use threats to take it.

It’s the hot and cold approach.

Threats from Trump, face to face negotiation from Rubio.

Are we really supposed to think thst Greenland is under threat of being annexed by Russia or China?
It's a straightforward asset grab suggested to Trump by one of his real estate buddies who has investments in Greenland.
Same approach witb Gaza hence involvement there of Witkoff and Kuchner.
The spirit of Al Capone lives on.

It’s not what you or I may think that is driving this.

As for Gaza former PM Blair should immediately refuse to be a part of it and cite the threats to Greenland as the reason. I’m sure a man of high principle and and internationalist outlook won’t hesitate to do so.

The Premier of Alberta (allegedly the most Trump-sympathetic province) has called for Canada to levy counter-tariffs against the U.S. in solidarity with the UK and NATO allies.

Even Trump sympathetic staunch right-wingers are drawing the line on this.

You can't support someone trying to bully an ally into surrendering its territory. And, if we do, the world is fucked anyway.

Not all. Farage and Reform are yet to signal their clear opposition to Trump on this and their clear support for Greenland. Farage has issued a half hearted comment; generally Reform has gone silent, no doubt awaiting orders.

Farage usually goes quiet on his Trumpism when Trump does something particularly offensive or gross which will play badly in the UK. He won't be able to get away with that every time, but I think he probably can on Greenland, which is dramatic but hardly the sort of area most people would typically think about.

I must say, I wouldn't agree here. I was taken aback by the absolute rage among the Mail's readers, today.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15473067/Donald-Trump-Britain-tariffs-Greenland-deal-buy-territory.html

I have to assume that MAGA thinks they are tough, and because their free speech blocks out anything they disagree with, they haven't realised the utter ridicule being piled on them for Trump accepting the Peace Prize and now threatening to impose tariffs on his own people for NATO members defending NATO members.

Starmer has held this line that Trumpler is our ally and can do business. Please can that now be dropped?

Starmer's position is impossible - of course - and the only course for the moment it broadly to keep in line - it doesn't have to be exact - with the approach of France and Germany in particular and Canada/EuroNATO in general. We shall be in a n impossible position together. What is not good, unless you absolutely have to is: https://www.johndclare.net/images/wwii1.alone.jpg

Starmers position is simple - made so by Trump.

Trump is President of the United States and has issued an ultimatum to his NATO allies. NATO is quickly pulling together into a form excluding the US.

This isn’t going to be military war. Trump doesn’t need military action to steal Greenland. And NATO isn’t going to get into a battle with the US.

What we need to do now is unanimously and directly tell Trump why happens next. We eject the US from NATO. And we eject the US from our financial systems. US Treasury Bonds are going to zero and with it the US economy.

Is that what he wants?

I am far from being a Starmer fan, but he does feel strongly about the law.

The European Union plans to suspend a trade deal with the United States over Trump’s Greenland tariffs, Bloomberg reports.

I think it already got suspended when the counterparty slapped 10% rising to 25% tariffs on them

It is unfortunate that Trump obviously wants Europe to be treated as a rival at best and enemy at worst, yet his actions (generally supported by 50% of americans, probably more like 25-35% on this issue) mean we still have to give him what he wants, since allies just cannot be treated like this, dancing to his whims.

It's not that the USA was ever a friend without any conditions, or interested in others above themselves, but the capriciousness is particularly damaging to making any kind of deals - how could they be trusted?