China did offer to buy Greenland. That's what started this mess in T45.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Monday, January 19, 2026 - 07:29 pm: Edit

>> says they wouldn't help Denmark/Europe defend Greenland

>> what did they gain in seizing Greenland?

In either scenario, the US loses the over-the-pole missile early warning from the Thule radar complex. Thule benefits the US. It only indirectly benefits Europe, due to the geometry of ICBMs from Russia or China.

So the US views Greenland as a great power strategic imperative. Europe views it as a welfare state and an ecology project. That's the difference in perception of value, and thus behavior.

At least, that's how I see it.

--Mike

By Dana Madsen (Madman) on Monday, January 19, 2026 - 09:02 pm: Edit

BTW, I don't think the Chinese are a nice friendly world power. I give it at least 50%+ that they attack Taiwan in the next 10 years. If they think they have a good chance of success they will go. I think they would try and expand their claimed resource territory in the South China Sea, especially if it allowed them to exploit oil/gas reserves.

I just don't see them as determining an attack to conquer Greenland as worth it.

Steve, a quick search and I can't find any mention of China trying to buy Greenland in Trump's first term. I can find Chinese mining companies (many of which are probably gov controlled) buying partial ownership stakes in other mining companies who owned exploratory leases on properties or trying to acquire partial ownership in a port. I'd read any link you had.

Mike, no one in Denmark has threatened to take away the ability for the US to have Thule or open new bases if they need them. Ok, no one serious that I've heard of, I'm sure there are always crazies in most countries who cry weirdness from the corners. I believe Denmark recognizes the US interest and has had no issues with US bases.

If the difference is that Russia might decide they would attack a US base on Danish territory but a US base on US territory is a different matter? Well I think we're in a whole different world anyways and the latter case probably wouldn't stop them if they got to the decision point that attacking a US base was critical.

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Monday, January 19, 2026 - 09:29 pm: Edit

It seems that China actually offered to purchase a closed naval base, but was refused by Denmark for security reasons. It seems that the Chinese have had considerable failures in trying to acquire influence in Greenland. It seems they have scaled back their interest with these failures.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, January 19, 2026 - 10:15 pm: Edit

Eddie:

In 2025,China has been operating 5 “research” (armed auxiliary ships) and a nuclear submarine engaged in “under ice research” In the Arctic, (most near Alaska)

Given that for most years between 1949 and 2025 China had zero naval assets deployed to Arctic waters, I feel that your assumption that China has”scaled back their interest” might not be accurate.

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Monday, January 19, 2026 - 11:49 pm: Edit

Greenland

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 02:25 am: Edit

That was what I referred to, Chinese companies. Remember that those companies are totally controlled by and defacto adjuncts to the Chinese government. There is no functional difference between China buying Greenland and companies controlled by the Chinese government buying control of mining companies in Greenland. It was China’s move that put Trump on the hunt.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 02:27 am: Edit

Is it too late to sign up for the first Manned Mars Mission.... and at this rate, I don't mind a one way ticket.

Seen the return of the Chagos Islands has now annoyed President Trump. The Air base on Diego Garcia has a very expensive (UK paying for it) is protected with a long lease - but it seems President Trump is now annoyed that PM Starmer and the various Legal Courts which said the bulk of the Islands had to be returned, didn't just ignore the rulings.


On what China might or might not do - after what they will say is a smash and grab on Venuzualian Oil... it seems the "Do as I say, not as I do" is the US approach now?

On Greenland - loss of face for the President or loss of NATO seems to be the choice now.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 05:57 am: Edit

A compromise plan.

1. The US leases Greenland for 99 years. We pay $500 million a year and take over paying the Danish subsidy. The US takes all responsibility to defend Greenland.

2. For the duration of the lease, Greenland is sovereign US territory. We develop the resources but pay a royalty to Greenland. The US controls any immigration to Greenland, allowing a thousand Americans a year to move to Greenland and buy houses.

3. The Greenlandic people remain Greenlandic, but could apply for US citizenship if they wanted. The Greenlandic people vote every year on how to spend the royalty money.

4. At the end of 95 years, a referendum by the Greenlandic people decides if they want independence, US statehood, Puerto Rico
status, union with Iceland, or restoration of Danish ownership. American citizens who own a house and live in it year round are eligible voters.

By Dana Madsen (Madman) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 06:43 am: Edit

Steve, I wouldn't have any problem with the plan if the Greenlandic people voted in favour of the proposal. I'm just trying to maintain the first world liberal rules that have mostly been their between western governments over the last 80 years.

I would recommend they ask some questions or negotiate some guarantees.

1. Is that 500M per year + current Danish subsidy of about 600M? Increased for inflation? In year 23 when congress is looking to cut spending, what guarantee is there they don't stop paying but keep control? I'd want 100 years of payments up front in a trust in Switzerland. Put roughly 12 Billion into an account earning 4% and it pays out 500M for 100 years. Increase the up front amount to between 50B and 80B, someone can do the math depending on inflation and interest assumptions. Really this can just be solved by a $ amount, might be more than Congress would want to approve, but I personally would want to get my money up front or at least in trust.

2. Who gets to pick what the royalty rate is? Are US mainland environmental rules applied or does mining get dirty? Can the Greenlandic people vote to have environmental rules that are tougher than mainland US? Not very good if your kids are getting cancer from heavy metal poisoning. My comments in previous posts on mining profitability change if there are no rules on mining rare earths and other metals. You can save a lot of money setting up and operating a mine if you just let the waste flow out the river into an ocean. But again, not good for the fish you are eating.

3/4 Sure, or some legalese wrapped around those principles.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 08:18 am: Edit

Not sure if that works for the Greenland people or not.

As Dana mentioned, if American Industry 'Strip' mines Greenland to maximise profit - and then the US leaves - Greenland has alot of mess to clean up.

If Greenland remains a nice place to live - those 1,000 US immigrants a year in will outnumber the native Greenlander Population probably by the end of 95 years- so native Greenlanders don't get to decide what then happens.


In effect - it seems like a way to get Greenland on the cheap - and if I was a Greenlander, not much of a comprise either?

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 08:32 am: Edit

There are about 600,000 Greenlanders. Does anyone really think less than $1000 each per year is going to be a good trade for "free" healthcare. My first question would be "do they get IMMEDIATE statehood" (Senators and Congressmen)?

The whole thing is a bad deal for them.

Just pick a spot suitable and build the base.

SW Coast is basically across the street from Canada So why not build there where your logistic costs would be much lower (trains and truck access)

SE Coast is basically across the street from
NW Iceland is where Pituffik Space Base is. Why not expand that?

So Trump wants something in the NE Corner? For who? Space Force? USN Sosus? A sub base is probably not a great deal since we can use Pituffik Space Base in Britain. Or Olavsvern in Norway...

Again, what exactly is the point unless this is a resource grab for oil/ gas, mining & fishing?

Because "Global Warming" isn't real (sarcasm font) so the NW passage isn't opening...

I still haven't found a real reason to want the place.

My fear this is just a giant bluff that is going to be called.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 08:34 am: Edit

Mike your population is too big by a factor of 10.

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 08:45 am: Edit

Why should they compromise?? Its their property. To bad if a certain individuals ego cant handle that. Tried bribing them that didnt work, all a lease is is another bribe. Immigration, the idea sounds like what some complain about here, the immigrants are moving in to take over. immigrants dont get to vote, they are not citizens of Greenland(sound familiar). The Greenlanders get to set up the terms.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 10:07 am: Edit

Governments don’t do trust funds in Switzerland. It’s done as a treaty which has a force of law just barely behind the constitution. Congress does not get a say in payments after the treaty is signed.

The Greenlandics don’t get US health care under my deal unless they take US citizenship. They just continue whatever they have now under the Danish subsidy.

As for strip mining and leaving a mess, existing US law doesn’t allow that and you know it.

Dana, your previous comments mining profitability were so completely wrong I just ignored you. The mineral deposits are very very profitable.

Royalties would be equivalent to what is paid for deposits it the US, set by the market forces.

Getting 1,000 Americans a year to move there is going to be tricky. It’s hard to get people to move to Alaska or Montana or the South Polar research station. The US cannot just draft citizens for the move. You would need major economic development which would benefit the Greenlanders even more.

Records show that NATO has been pushing Denmark to do more to defend Greenland for a long time. Denmark just ignored them.

General Keene was on the Telly yesterday laying out the strategic case and noting that the US has been trying to buy Greenland for more than sixty years.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 10:42 am: Edit

SVC

"As for strip mining and leaving a mess, existing US law doesn’t allow that and you know it."

The law may be one thing, but probaby easiest to say, if they could cut a corner to save afew ££££'s - some firms might cut two corners to save even more ££££'s.

It may well be a Greenland enhanced Ecological Law might protect 'Greenland' for the future, but as we have found out - what you agree today might get changed tomorrow.

I am not saying the firms would priortise cash today - but it can take a modest time period for some issues to come up.

In the UK - homes got build in Mine areas.... and Mine Reports are needed if you buy in those areas and some properties was build with 'cheap' Concrete (Half Concrete, Half Mining waste) ... and the Concrete fails very easily.

The former is potentially a terminal issue for that property - the latter is very expensive to fix.

I am sure there were good reasons both was done... but someone has to pay now.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 11:02 am: Edit

On a slightly different topic... and President Zelensky says he is "worried" that the ongoing Greenland dispute could divert focus away from the war in Ukraine.

What would you do if you was Russia or Ukraine?

Russia - might think NATO can't support the Ukraine and so they can 'win the war' - but equally an annoyed USA might say to Putin - get out or we come in.

Ukraine - might feel forgotten about and they run out of time (and so lose the war) ...but could they get President Trump at the right time who then makes that call....

The risks onn both sides have probably massively gone up?

I can understand why President Zelensky is worried.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 11:13 am: Edit

It will be interesting to see who blinks first.

--Mike

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 11:28 am: Edit

Several comments have been posted about the inhabitants of Greenland.

This is what a Google search revealed:

Quote:”Population distribution of Greenland (detailed map) [OC] : r ...Greenland's population is overwhelmingly Indigenous Greenlandic Inuit (Kalaallit), making up around 88-90%, with smaller groups of Danes and other Europeans, Thais, and Filipinos, totaling about 57,000 people, characterized by extremely low density, with most living on the southwest coast, speaking Kalaallisut (official) and Danish, and culturally tied to Denmark but with distinct Inuit heritage.
Ethnic & Cultural Makeup
Greenlandic Inuit (Kalaallit): About 88-90% of the population, including mixed heritage, with subgroups like Kalaallit (West), Tunumiit (East), and Inughuit (North).
Danes & Europeans: Roughly 10-12%, many residing in Greenland but maintaining Danish citizenship.
Other Nationalities: Increasing presence from the Philippines, Thailand, and China.
Language
Kalaallisut (Inuit): The official language, with dialects across regions.
Danish: The second official language and commonly spoken.
Population & Density
Total Population: Around 56,000-57,000 residents.
Density: The world's least densely populated country, with most people clustered in the milder southwest.
Social & Governance
Citizenship: Residents hold Danish citizenship and passports.
Culture: A blend of Inuit traditions (hunting, fishing) and Danish influence, with free healthcare and education.
Economy: Heavily reliant on fishing, with emerging mining and tourism sectors.
Key Locations
Nuuk: The capital and largest city, home to about a third of the population. “

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 11:52 am: Edit

Of the 11% inhabitants of Greenland, not originally born there, we have the following data:

As of January 2026, Greenland has approximately 2,259 non-Danish citizens. The foreign-born population has seen a significant increase, rising by over 25% in the last decade. Individuals with two foreign-born parents now make up roughly 10% of Greenland's total population.


Key Migration Trends
Asian Growth: Recent years have seen a record shift toward immigration from Asia, specifically the Philippines and Thailand, primarily for work in the fishing and service industries.
Danish Ties: Because Greenland is an autonomous territory of Denmark, the majority of the population (approximately 54,400) holds Danish citizenship, which includes both ethnic Danes and Greenlandic Inuit.
Nordic Presence: There are 271 residents holding citizenship in other Nordic countries (Iceland, Sweden, Norway, and Finland) as of 2025.
Net Migration: Despite the increase in foreign-born residents, Greenland often experiences a negative net migration rate because many people, especially those with Danish citizenship, emigrate to Denmark.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 04:10 pm: Edit

Paul, if you break the law, you get prosecuted and fined and maybe jailed. Cutting corners gets you in trouble. Companies that do it pay the price. That's just not an issue.

By Alan De Salvio (Alandwork) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 05:01 pm: Edit

The United States is already responsible for the safety of Greenland, by virtue of both being in NATO which defends territorial integrity of its members. Perhaps the president has forgotten Putin's concern about Ukraine's interest in joining NATO?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 07:24 pm: Edit

Trump is on his way to Davos. In the opinions of some, he will come home with a deal to add forces and develop the resources while actual ownership is muddied and unclear. Some will claim Trump caved while others will say he got what he was always wanting. Remember that Trump has a history of ridiculous demands to hide his actual goals.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 07:53 pm: Edit

Maybe . . . but he has also infuriated a lot of Greenlanders. A big part of the US dominance in world affairs has come from the cooperation of people all over the world. The absurd demands are one way to lose that.

Lavrov is backing the US on Greenland. The Russians have a nose for noticing when splits among its adversaries and exploiting them to the fullest.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 - 08:05 pm: Edit

Greenland will not get statehood anytime soon, probably never. The population is tiny, too small to be a state, and the people are not just far left, but extremely left socialists, so Trump is not going to give the other party two free senate seats. DC and Puerto Rico are the same thing, permanent seats for the party not currently in power. Statehood has to be approved by the senate, where a filibuster would block it. Other places that must approve it might go along if that party was in power.