The United Stages Coast Guard has (as of two hours ago…) seized the sixth “shadow fleet” tanker trying to flee from the Caribbean.

That just leaves ten out of the sixteen that were in Venezuela harbors when maduro was arrested.

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, January 15, 2026 - 01:20 pm: Edit

I'd assume that we can easily seize all the tankers as a matter of just grabbing them, and that thus the slow pace of the seizures is a result of legalities.

It's been claimed (by Steve Cole in Real World Military on January 08, 2026 - 02:35 pm) that the first two tankers seized had diplomatic actions prior to seizure to manage the legalities, one having its registration claimed to be fake by the alleged registering government, and the other cancelled by the registering government at US request.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, January 15, 2026 - 07:34 pm: Edit

Trump has said he's not going to invade Greenland unless Russia/China does first, but that negotiations will result in the US having that land.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, January 16, 2026 - 08:52 am: Edit

An invasion of Iceland or Greenland would trigger NATO article 5.

If we need a base in either just get a lease and build the darn thing.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, January 16, 2026 - 09:29 am: Edit

There is no danger of a successful invasion:

President Macron of France is stepping up! He has ordered a joint force of Crack French and German troops to reinforce the brave Greenland defenders!

All 34 soldiers (20 french, 14 German) will prevent any invasion.

They are joining the Danes effort to bolster the existing defenses of Greenland. (The danes increased the Greenland defenses by adding an additional dogsled. (No additional dogs, however. It will be up to Greenland to acquire new animals for the dog sled…))

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, January 16, 2026 - 11:58 am: Edit

Greenlands best defense, in my opinion?

It's WINTER there right now!!!!!

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Friday, January 16, 2026 - 01:02 pm: Edit

>> If we need a base in either just get a lease and build the darn thing.

My sense is the Trump administration doesn't like the idea of investing dollars in basing or economic/industrial development in another country. It's a bit like remodeling the kitchen and bathroom in a house you rent. It's not yours, so why are you spending the money?

And it's a bit cheeky for the Danes so suggest that the US can go off and build as many bases and deploy as many military units as the administration would like. The point is, if Greenland is part of Denmark and Denmark is part of NATO, and Greenland is in a pivotal geopolitical position, isn't it their responsibility to defend their own land?

It is pretty easy to just sit back, run the welfare state on Greenland, and just let the military situation deteriorate. The US will eventually bail you out, won't they?

I'm not sure I completely agree with that train of logic, but I see the point. Denmark appears to want to have their cake (undefended leftover colonial possession) and eat it too.

--Mike

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Friday, January 16, 2026 - 02:22 pm: Edit

Well Mike, that is the cake analogy Then there is that about stealing your neighbours garden shed with the excuse that it wasn't locked and guarded by a Rottweiler. What make people exasperated is that you always stored your rake there with your neighbours blessing. Now the whole street is annoyed with you. Neighbourhood watch will have a unscheduled meeting about this tonight

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, January 16, 2026 - 03:28 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

By Jeff Anderson (Jga) on Friday, January 16, 2026 - 11:58 am: Edit

Greenlands best defense, in my opinion?

It's WINTER there right now!!!!!

---

By Dana Madsen (Madman) on Friday, January 16, 2026 - 09:49 pm: Edit

Denmark is a small but wealthy first world nation. It can certainly afford to spend more money on defense and build new installations (airfields, naval bases) and new equipment (planes, ships) to defend Greenland. They might prefer to spend money on social spending but they could spend more on their military. They couldn't build this in 3 months but over a 5 to 10 years they certainly could. But, everyone has to do their own analysis. How likely is it really that Russia or China is really going to invade Greenland and how much of it is feverish dreams. If I owned a remote farm and in the back corner I had a shed with a old wood door and a latch on it I might consider it secure, the latch is there to keep the wind from blowing the door open. My neighbor might tell me vagrants could break into my shed and I need to run internet there, put up cameras on poles all around it, setup solar panels, batteries, and a generator system for back up power, and build a security system that a business in the worst area of a big city needs with full time security monitoring the cameras. I'd probably look at them like what is wrong with your head.

Is the prize of Greenland's supposed mineral riches really worth the problems that either of those countries would encounter. Russia's military is pressed to the limits and when the war in Ukraine ends (either way), they are going to have serious recovery issues that will keep them busy for years rebuilding the damage to their economy. China has plenty of rare earths, they have plenty of places they have bought good will in Africa and Asia to mine other minerals. They don't need to invade Greenland for anything and doing so is more likely to be counter productive economically in boycotts / sanctions from Europe than it will return in any gain. China has built a large navy, but how many of their military ships could operate that far away, building a base in a remote land mass where the environment is trying it's hardest to kill you before you consider that some European ships show up to escort you off. The Scandanavian navies are small, but probably capable of handling anything China could actually send there and maintain.

I've worked years on construction projects in Northern Canada. Winter sucks! I've seen workers try and get things done when it's dark most of the day and the day time highs are in the -40s or -50s (at that temperature it doesn't matter whether we're talking Celsius or Fahrenheit). Greenland is going to be worse than anywhere I've been. Maybe it's going to get warmer in the next 20 to 40 years, although most Americans don't believe in global warming so why would they expect that? The northwest passage is starting to open, but it's not going to be a route taking by thousands of ships annually anytime in our lives.

Denmark has doubled military spending in the last 5 or 10 years. From 1.1% of GDP in 2017 to 2.4% in 2024 with plans to increase another 25% to 3.0% of GDP. They are purchasing F-35's, new ships, long range drones. Is spending billions on building new bases in Greenland really the best use of their defense budget? Or should they spend their money on expanding their army, outfitting a couple new battalions and increasing their air force to contribute to defense in Europe?

On a side note, Denmark is a strong supporter of Ukraine and puts their money where their mouth is. They spend either the most per capita, or right at the top depending on how you measure the contributions. Second, even though they are a small country, their donations to Ukraine, combined economic and military support are 7th largest on a pure dollar basis.

By Dana Madsen (Madman) on Friday, January 16, 2026 - 09:56 pm: Edit

Steve, I've separated out the comment, so you can easily remove this one if you don't like it. It's more political opinion

From early in the war on terror, Denmark supported the US in both Iraq for 4 years and Afghanistan for 18 years. For a country of less than 6 million people they lost 50 soldiers and had the 3rd highest per capita casualty rate of the countries deployed, behind the US and UK. I'd say that it appears American gratitude doesn't last very long, except from polls it looks like a majority of Americans aren't in favour of purchasing Greenland, and 80 to 90% are against any use of force to take it. The President should read the room (or the senate), going too far on this is something that could push Republican Senators and Congressman into joining a Democratic impeachment push. Multiple Republican senators have stated a military attack would result in impeachment. Maybe not 20 of them to actually get it done, but I'd guess there would be 5 to 10.

I'm left considering the above and thinking their are two options that makes sense. First, the back room MAGA really don't like the liberal rules developed over the last 80 years, and they want European countries to bend their knee and be humiliated. Or, President Trump is a real estate tycoon and thinks his legacy will look better if he expands the land mass of the US and leaves America looking bigger on the map. Or a little of column A and a little of column B. If the Danes changed their mind and transferred Greenland to the US for either payment or because they were asked, I doubt that the US would spend billions building multiple bases either. Rational analysis would take over, they would stop and say, why are we putting in all this security into an old wooden shed in the back of nowhere.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, January 16, 2026 - 11:22 pm: Edit

Denmark proved how little they care about the inhabitants of Greenland, when they (Denmark)effectively reduced the birth rate below the number needed to just sustain the population.

The record includes forced birth control, and sterilization of young females of age brackets when they might have become pregnant.

The stated reason to control the birth rate was simply money.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, January 17, 2026 - 01:20 am: Edit

Jeff, yeah nasty behaviour, but do you suggest that makes a hostile take over by the US justified?

By Dana Madsen (Madman) on Saturday, January 17, 2026 - 07:11 am: Edit

Yes Jeff, I don't disagree, 40 years ago. Since then they have changed how they act. Canada did similar or worse. There are news reports of native women who were sterilized in the 90s or 2000's without consent. Now in some cases the full story was in the doctor's opinion if she had another baby living on a remote reserve she was highly likely to die, so he tied her tubes, but never asked her or informed her. The US has done similar or worse with their native population.

The Danish administrators probably even thought they were doing the right thing. They brought modern medicine, antibiotics etc. So the survival rate of children would increase dramatically. The Greenlander women had 6 babies because they needed to so that 2 of the 6 lived to adulthood and maintained population. When every baby starts living to adulthood and you are a subsistence level hunting population, within 20 to 30 years you will hunt and fish out all the game, then mass starvation would set in.

Denmark has also taken the position that when the people of Greenland decide they want independence they will let them go. Until then they have tried to show they have mended their ways by increasing social welfare to the Greenlanders substantially. If the Greenlanders wanted independence they could have it.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, January 17, 2026 - 07:29 am: Edit

Carl,

No, but I suspect that if the wealth of resources (rare earth deposits, other minerals, possible oil reserves etc…) were not present, The Bureaucrats and politicians wouldn’t care about Greenland.

They have previously chosen greed as their primary consideration, can you offer any actual proof that their current concern is not again about the money?

Dana:

In the words (paraphrased) of Shakespeare, I think the government of Denmark doth protest too much.

By Dana Madsen (Madman) on Saturday, January 17, 2026 - 08:15 am: Edit

I don't think it's about the money, or maybe I question the judgement and intelligence of people who do say it's about the money.

Simplify the example. Is there a deposit of mineral X in Greenland, yes, there is. We can build a mine for 4 billion, we can operate the mine (cost of wages, consumables, maintenance spares, etc) for 0.4 billion a year. The ore body has a 10 year life span. After 10 years we will have spent 8 billion mining. If the ore body is worth 5 billion at current prices the mining company has lost 3 billion dollars. Most public companies don't like doing that. I'm ignoring, interest, inflation, etc to keep it simple. I'm also simplifying the costs, it's a lot more than double the cost to build and operate a mine in Greenland then it is in other parts of the world where the environment isn't actively trying to make every part of your operation worse 9 months of the year.

A similar ore body in Africa, we could build the mine for 1 billion and operate for 0.2 and the mine is profitable, providing a corrupt government doesn't steal your mine once you've built it.

If there was large amounts of money to be had on minerals in Greenland, the biggest mining companies in the world would be there exploring. BHP, Vale, Glencore, Rio Tinto, etc. The big companies aren't anywhere near there. Shysters are there trying to convince people to buy shares in their highly speculative junior companies which will go bankrupt shortly after they've made their score. Maybe in 20 to 50 years after years of global warming, if you believe in that, and increase in prices of the ore the mines might approach break even status, but my children's children children won't be seeing massive profit come out of anything up there.

Everything I've seen, Greenland has no significant ore bodies that can't be found elsewhere in the world and mined cheaper in those locations. There are lots of potential mining sites, in the US, in Canada, in Europe, in Central and South America, in Africa, in Asia, in Australia that have better economics and will get mined first.

So if it's not about the money? If it's not about defense? I come back to my two options above.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, January 17, 2026 - 09:38 am: Edit

On that birth control thing, yup, they did...between 1966 and 1975. I hate to break this to folks, but various states in the U.S. were doing similar things fifty years ago; over a quarter of 18-25 year old Native American women were sterilized between 1970 and 1976 via covert tubal ligation during what were supposed to be appendectomies.

By Dana Madsen (Madman) on Saturday, January 17, 2026 - 09:50 am: Edit

Or, there could be a number of connected people in Washington with a million options on some junior miners with a strike price of a nickel trying to see if they can convince the rubes of middle America to invest their retirement savings and drive the share price up to $10+ and then the connected insiders sell for a fortune and leave the rubes holding the bag. I could believe that.

But hundreds of billions of profit generated by mining in Greenland in the next 50 years. Pull the other finger. How everyone else invests their retirement savings is up to them but I like to invest in companies with cash flow and profit that pay a dividend or sometimes I'll put a small portion in something speculative but with a good business plan.

I realize some Americans feel cheated by NATO or the other western countries, but this is a way to blow it up and light the corpse on fire on their way out the door. Why not just withdraw, close down your bases in Europe and head home? Or do they need to make sure there is no easy way back.

By Vincent Solfronk (Vsolfronk) on Saturday, January 17, 2026 - 02:18 pm: Edit

Excellent article int eh NYT: "Is the Russian Military Adapting Effectively to the Drone Age?"

"Drones have become the primary weapon against soldiers and equipment, with 70 percent of Russia’s combat deaths attributed to them as of early 2025, according to Russian statistics cited in a policy journal, Russia in Global Affairs.

Training is another issue that has come up. Many of the first civilians mobilized in 2022 were given the chance to fire off a few rounds before being thrust onto the battlefield. Now, at least, many are taught how to distinguish the sound of different types of drones, experts said. But discipline and professionalism are sorely lacking.

Apart from drone attacks, Russian forces struggle to execute complicated joint maneuvers of different types of forces because soldiers lack the training needed to understand their orders, said Jack Watling, a senior research fellow in land warfare at the Royal United Services Institute, a think tank in London."

"Russian military thinkers often subscribe to a “technology will solve the problem” attitude, the study said. In other words, they expect that some technology will eventually neutralize drones so that the military can again dominate the battlefield by maneuvering large forces. “There is little thinking about alternative operational concepts,” the study said.

Russia established a specialized unit to deal with drones in 2024, but in November, under a special order from President Vladimir V. Putin, it expanded its efforts by establishing a separate branch of the military called the Unmanned Systems Force. Drones on both sides now execute myriad battlefield tasks, including reconnaissance, radio-electronic warfare and attacks."

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, January 17, 2026 - 03:46 pm: Edit

End of NATO?

President Trump has annouced a blanket 10% Trade Tariff on 8 European Nations - who are all NATO members - including the UK (no idea why the Trade Deal was signed last year if President Trump in effect is tearing it up already)... - which will rise to 25% on 1st June 2026 - unless Denmark hands (sell/transfer) Greenland over to the US.

(Note - it seems 85% of Greenlanders don't want to be part of the US - so any sell/transfer would most likely be against the public will).

I can see NATO folding and a new European (plus possibly Canada and ANZAC??) Defensive Alliance being formed) - as I doubt unless President Trump backs down, Greenland WILL want to be part of the USA.

Nore sure how that will leave the Gaza/Isreali Peace Deal (I doubt former PM Blair will be happy now) and the ongoing Ukrainian Peace talks?

With the US Supreme Court Ruling due on the Trade Tarrifs - this will complicate things even more.

I can't see this ending well for the West.

Not sure I can say much more due to poltics.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Saturday, January 17, 2026 - 04:40 pm: Edit

"The European Union and the Mercosur bloc on Saturday signed their long-awaited trade agreement, sealing one of the world’s biggest free-trade deals after more than 25 years of negotiations and repeated political standoffs."

"If fully ratified, the agreement would create a free-trade area covering more than 700 million people across Europe and Latin America. More than 90 percent of tariffs on EU exports would be phased out over time, opening new markets for European manufacturers, especially in industrial sectors."

The Politico

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 17, 2026 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Donald, Donald, Donald, I told you not to get carried away on this Greenland thing. Backing down is going to be humiliating.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, January 17, 2026 - 09:15 pm: Edit

By all accounts, the one who is pushing Pres. Trump on this Greenland thing the most is Stephen Miller. Exactly why is uncertain, unless he thinks it to be a great place to send his ever-growing list of "undesirables"; Miller has been doing his very best Goebbels impression of late.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, January 17, 2026 - 09:29 pm: Edit

That birth control thing was done by the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and a few others besides Greenland, all with indigenous population women.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Saturday, January 17, 2026 - 09:39 pm: Edit

Ayup; it was widespread awfulness that we didn't really outgrow until about fifty years ago.