Do you view this talk as a threat to Greenland?
Do you support him talking like this?
Would you support an annexation or Greenland becoming apart of your country when they have said they don’t want this?
Do you believe Trumps claims that it is for National Security or do you think it is to control Greenlands natural resources and develop new shipping lanes?
Do the recent events in Venezuela make you think this is more of a possibility now?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g0zg974v1o.amp
https://www.cp24.com/video/2026/01/05/we-need-greenland-trump-declares/
LATEST STATEMENTS FROM WH TODAY:
“US discussing options to acquire Greenland, including use of military, says White House”
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyg1jg8xkmo
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/06/trump-greenland-military-white-house.html
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
For all participants:
Flair is required to participate
Be excellent to each other
For Nonsupporters/Undecided:
No top level comments
All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
For Trump Supporters:
Helpful links for more info:
Rules | Rule Exceptions | Posting Guidelines | Commenting Guidelines
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Developing shipping lanes and controlling resources are exactly what he’s talking about when he refers to national security.
I don’t agree that we “need” it. I definitely see utility in having it, but that utility is completely defeated if it must be taken by force.
I’d support a purchase that minimally impacts the people who live there. I would not support any sort of military action, and view that as incredibly unlikely.
Greenland and Denmark’s government and a large majority of its people say no. Do you think Trump should drop it?
Do I think he should just give up? Probably not. That said he’s gotta approach it differently if he wants a different result.
So you’d like Trump to continue to push to Annex Greenland? You truly feel that country and the world would be better off under American control? What makes you think they’d be better off with America in control of its resources? Is there some modern American history that would make you think an American takeover is beneficial to the country being taken over?
I’d like him to continue making efforts to get there. I’m not sure exactly what those efforts look like, and I don’t want him to sit there and just beg for it either.
Whether it’s an improvement for Greenland is pretty much irrelevant to me.
What differs you from the average Russian Putin supporter?
The fact that I’m neither Russian nor a Putin supporter.
Yes, off course your nationality(and as Trump supporter it can be argued that you are Putin supporter by proxy)
I meant that more of on a moral level. Do you feel like your set of morals is superior?
It would be a very poor argument, as I have no stake in or influence over Russian politics.
Morality isn’t something that can be measured, or deemed superior or inferior. Especially given the state of the world we live in, it’s all simply a matter of perspective.
But you can have opinions about it.
I disagree. For example you and me are morally superior to a child rapist. And in ww2 it was clear who had the moral high ground. Don't you agree?
Why don't we approach the topic from this POV? Let's say China's government wants to annex the US. They want to buy our country and put us under their laws. The US government tells them no, but they keep asking, like some creepy Tinder date. Some Chinese citizens protest the annexation, telling their government to back off. Some Chinese citizens are indifferent, and say and do what you're doing.
You don't think we need Greenland, but you want him to continue efforts to acquire it? What is your logic here? Are you at all concerned about an Iraq style insurgency? I am slightly concerned that this will lead to years of American military members being blown up with IEDs or sniped, etc.
Yes this is what I was kinda expecting. The people of Greenland are not important to this decision for you at all. Kind of an aside to the original question but do you want your country to take over any others? I am from Vancouver so what about Canada?
I wouldn’t want to inherit the problems with Canada at this point.
Vancouver is a shithole, which is a shame, because the landscape around it is so beautiful.
Ok good the feeling is mutual. Please spread the word among your folks that Vancouver is a shithole and should be left alone. No where else in the world you want USA to take?
I don’t see a point in answering questions for foreigners with no real basis for an opinion on US politics.
You think the US controlling oil resources is essential to national security, we will overthrow governments to secure our interests, and also our neighbors to the north with vast oil resources shouldn’t worry about our politics?
Do you see foreigners as "less than" simply because of their origin? Like anyone not fortunate enough to be born in the US does not deserve security, rights or even empathy? That they are fodder for US imperialist actions?
You can’t understand why people from other countries have questions about trump?
But what is your answer to the question? Do you want your country to take over any other countries?
The White House said on Tuesday: "The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the US military is always an option at the Commander-in-Chief's disposal."
Thoughts on that statement?
If Trump invaded Greenland via military force would you drop your support for him?
As I explicitly stated in my previous comment, which you apparently didn’t bother reading, I would not support any military action.
I did read it, and my question was would that affect your overall support of Trump if he did do this?
You can be against military action and still vote for Donald Trump. Would military action to take Greenland be “nail in the coffin” so to say for your support and your vote?
Why is the fact that greenland is part of NATO not enough security?
Because NATO has shown us time and time again that they won’t make the necessary sacrifices to stop Russia.
Most recently when NATO nations undermined sanctions on Russia for invading Ukraine by refusing to stop purchasing Russian oil.
If they expect the US to simply bail them out, they have to give us the tools we need to do so.
Europe does not have oil so they have to buy it from somewhere?
US is still supporting Russia with over $2B per year, so you think it's fair to ask Europe to cut the cord while US is not doing it at the same time as they pumping money in to the US arms industry(and have done for a long time)
Russia is far from the only option.
The US did cut the cord.
Europe doesn’t spend nearly enough on its own defense as it is.
What about the $2B of products you import every year? Europe is importing about $12B per year and it's in its way down. Do you think US should stop that import?
This has been by design. It's on its way up now.
On the other hand, it can be argued that China is the main issue for US and US is propping up the Chinese economy to the tune of $288 billion per year. Do you think US should get that down to 0 during 2026?
The ship of economic sanctions sailed years ago.
I’m well aware it’s been by design. Past US presidents let the EU walk all over us, so they did.
The US should make efforts to step away from the Chinese economy. I support sweeping tariffs. Unfortunately, this isn’t something that can happen overnight. Although if they invaded Canada, I’d like to think we would cut them off overnight and deal with the severe crisis that followed in the name of protecting our neighbor.
Just like Europe getting rid of the Russian dependence...
More like that it allows US to have the upper hand. A well armed Europe has no reason to allow US bases or give military and political support to illegal and failed invasions.
When an American soldier is badly injured in the middle east they get flown to Germany, not US at first. Would you prefer that EU armed and told US to kick rocks if they wanted to stop over or get any support in their ventures?
Well, European dependence on Russian oil is more easily solved, and when your neighbor is being invaded you should endure hardship to help them.
Giving away free defense isn’t an upper hand. It needs to be paid for either monetarily or with policy. We were given neither.
No, I’d prefer to maintain fair alliances. And for the EU to meet its NATO obligations. The Middle East is a problem for all of us.
Not so easy, the countries that still imports are landlocked and would need to build pipelines to stop importing Russian oil. You don't do that very fast. (And the main importer is EU's own Trump, I don't think Hungary will stop importing anytime soon)
EU did not protest your illegal wars. Did not kick up a stink about the war continuous crimes. Always came along to your fiascos and dealt with the refugee crisises you created. Plus kept buying arms to keep your arms industry going. What more do you want?
them to do?
The Middle East became a problem after what US did there. Why not let the middle east and Israel do their own thing? As long as they sell oil and don't send refugees I'm all good with that.
Far ftom a gradual disentanglement, isn't the U.S. accelerating its support of the Chinese economy? President Trump has repeatedly authorized the sale of advanced AI microchips to the PRC for a kickback. In addition,, aren't American farmers [dependen] ](https://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/2025/12/china-reaches-8-mmt-of-us-soybeans-purchased-in-2025/) on a robust export market, chiefly to China?
nato = usa. without us, it is nothing
Usa is also the only member of Nato that has activated article 5. Do you think that Usa will not come to help when russia invades Greenland while it is not part of the US?
Denmark is not establishing or investing adequate defense there leaving thousands of miles of strategic coastline vulnerable.
Where is the money coming from?
Hopefully from the billions we have spent feeding, clothing, educating and protecting illegals. Hopefully those same deported illegals will return through the front door and become productive and self-sustaining immigrants like my family did.
I have to pay tax dollars for an island we don't need? Why?
Given that Denmark & Greenland have repeatedly stood by the firm assertion that Greenland is NOT for sale, what do you think will become of it?
Would Trump definitively lose your support if they tried to take it by military force & occupation anyway?
I don’t know.
Almost certainly.
Is there an excuse you could accept, from the Trump administration, that you square with allowing or dismissing that possibility? a la "It isn't an invasion, its a strategic law enforcement operation"?
And perhaps circling back around to the non-hypothetical, why not be more concerned with how childishly Trump's administration, and himself, are conducting themselves, with the threats to take these territories?
Is the sort of posturing to do what you say would cost them your support, in the wake how they handled Venezuela, not something that makes you question supporting this?
If you wouldn't support someone getting shot, why be okie with someone holding a gun to another person's head, while swearing they'll pull the trigger? Especially, when there is someone still bleeding out, behind them, that they just did the same to.
Not one that I can currently foresee.
This is a very disingenuous description of both scenarios. Nor do I think the two situations can be compared.
Which two situations do you find the unfair comparison? Greenland compared to Venezuela? Or Greenland compared to the loaded gun analogy?
Do you mind expanding on what you find disingenuous or unfair to compare on whichever it is?
Both.
I don’t think it’s worth my time to explain, given how obviously dishonest it is.
If he were to invade Greenland and attempt to cease control militarily, would that be a deal breaker where you would no longer consider yourself a trump supporter?
Does it anger you that Trump’s fixation on Greenland is a threat to our allies and isolates & endangers Americans?
It's really simple. Greenland is the future Ukraine directly between North America and North Asia. People have a hard time grasping this because their Mercator brains think of the world like this.
America doesn't want to deal with European clown bureaucracy who can't even handle its own energy, military capabilities, industrial base or deter its own buffer zones from being invaded.
This is a continent that ‘would struggle to put 25,000 troops on the ground in Ukraine’, in 2025. 3 years into the war. All of European NATO couldn't keep up with North Korea's shell production. They shut down their nuclear sector and banned fracking despite knowing it was Russian subversion. They kept buying Russian oil—ignoring US warnings and are still doing so. Industrial output has collapsed and keeps falling. They even continued exporting weapons to Russia after the first invasion and ran out of missiles in the Libya campaign. Their governments rely on US tech fines for more tax revenue than their entire tech sector. And somehow these clowns believe the number one global threat is the guy who asked them to meet their dues, not to rely on Russian oil, and pre-armed Ukraine.
We are done sacrificing national security to coddle incompetence and ideological box-checking.
This is how I feel. Sure, I’d love if the world was how we’d like it to be with us and our European allies but it’s not. We’re losing in a lot of ways to China especially by playing by all the rules when they are not. It’s time to start making strategic moves even if they don’t feel “peaceful” all the time. Reddit has been posting articles about European politicians mocking Trump for years not able to hold a mirror over their own face to see how much trouble they will be in in the not so distant future. If anything ensuring our sustainable independence is the best path to continued world peace.
How do you achieve peace when you make enemies of your allies?
If violence is justified as necessity, how do you prevent it from becoming a precedent?
But Denmark already lets us put basically as many military bases as we want on Greenland. If anything, this rhetoric will pressure them to revoke or limit that access.
Like seriously, what military value do we get from an invasion of Denmark that we don't already have, and how does that suppass the military value of NATO?
Trump heavily armed Ukraine with weapons as well, far more than Greenland. Putin invaded because the European processocracy walked itself into energy scarcity, industrial decay, and hollowed-out war-fighting capacity. They only scraped by because of a veritable emergency flotilla of American LNG, a historically warm winter, and the residual deterrence created during Trump’s first term. He would not have invaded a credibly American-managed security space, except possibly under another Harris-Biden term because they embodied near Euro-level incompetence.
That’s all fine - but Greenland isn’t ours, and never has been. If Denmark doesn’t wish to sell it, would you approve of taking Greenland by force?
[removed]
As Greenland is a part of NATO via Denmark, they could just build more bases, station more troops there easily without any need to own it. Why do you need to own it?
It’s very annoying and it’s meant to be.
Is it a distraction or do you think he will move to take it over?
The US is not going to “take over” a sovereign liberal democracy’s rightful property. He wants them to sell it though.
The tedium of childish prodding is a bargaining tactic.
What's the value in being annoying?
No, theres no evidence its a threat.
What has he said that has you so concerned? The word annex does not imply by force if thats what has you concerned.
Again annexing does not imply by force, so to annex it they would have to agree. Im sure the decision is split there, so its a question of how split...is it 50/50 or 90/10.
Those are one in the same. Trump has been looking to cut our dependence on China which is a security issue which became blatantly obvious during covid even to detractors who think there's no issue with china making our most important and vital goods.
No, theres no commonalities.
Did you watch that video of Miller that is included? That’s what is concerning. He’s doing the Trump admin thing where they speak like mob bosses and don’t answer questions directly. It seems like no one wants this and it’s still being pushed. Would you support in anyway the USA taking the country over by force?
because you cant submit to ridiculous questions and allow ridiculous headlines. All press secretaries do that.
Yes but only if they were ruled over by a dictator.
Denmark has no say in the US annexing Greenland, so im not even sure why they are brought up. Its 100% in the control of those in Greenland, and honestly we should just buy them. Pay each citizen 100k to vote greenland to become a territory like puerto rico, let them be mostly autonomous.
How is Trump supposed to annex Greenland peacefully if Greenland has to desire to become a part of the US?
yet. again, show me a poll, maybe its 60/40 against, and we only need ot convince 15%. And thats easy to do. 1m per resident in USD, it could be paid out over 5 years by mining or oil companies.
This is so depressing. I'm so sad to be an American right now?
Its depressing to buy land? Was it depressing to make the Louisiana purchase, or the purchase of alaska?
Why are the nation's leaders in Europe treating Trump's rhetoric as veiled threats?
Because they are looking to put a particular spin on it as they wouldnt want to lose land/resources that will be valuable in their own negotiations.
The White House said on Tuesday: "The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the US military is always an option at the Commander-in-Chief's disposal."
Thoughts?
Trading them California is also an option. Utilizing the US military could also be publicly saying they will no longer defend them. Or it could mean using the army core of engineers to rebuild all of their infrastructure for them.
What do you think about his latest statement that “we’re going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not”? Do you still think there’s no reason to be concerned?
Sounds good
This is what i voted for
Keep up the good work
Why does it sound good?
No, it's not a threat, it's the beginnings of negotiations.
Yes, I'm fine with him talking this way.
I would support it, and no way do all Greenlanders not want this. Some won't, some will.
I believe Trumps claim that it's for national security. I also believe that it's for control of their resources and a shipping lane. There are many benefits.
Yes, Trump and his administration have shown they're very capable and willing to do what needs doing.
Aren’t there only like 50,000 people in Greenland? I’m not so sure we can just say to leave a decision about such a massively important piece of land to such a small community with zero way to expand or defend it. It’s a hard truth that if we aren’t protecting it, Russia or China will surely seize it at some point.
I mean, we can leave it to them for as long as it's safe for us.
But my guess is if the offer is good enough, the people will take the offer up. Right now he rhetoric is that the US will do an Iraq-War-style invasion, with tanks rolling in and guns blazing, so it makes sense that most people are voting no with that in mind.
But once they see/realize that life is going to be way better under US protection in terms of what they get in return, and that tanks won't be coming in and seizing property by force, they'll change their minds.
I can agree with that although I don’t think they will agree with the premise even if it’s true. From what I understand, it’s not even the part they live on that anyone really cares about.
Have you ever thought about the difference between „protecting“ and „occupying“?
It’s one and the same with Greenland, they’re already occupying it too. I won’t pretend to know all the intricacies of the situation but I trust this administration.
Can you actually hear yourself? Your saying because YOU dont feel they have enough people living there, YOU should be able to unilaterally decide to claim their land and sovereignty?
What happened to the land of the free? The land of the Castle Doctrine? Are you saying if your community decided they want to steal your land, and property, then that's fine because ' Might makes right'? If your state decides they need your community because its 'important' you should just give it up. That's sounds ridiculous.
Why didn't this apply when Biden was in charge of the US? He was the majority voice, so you should have just followed his lead right? Or did you feel like just because a large government wanted something, that didnt mean it was the right or moral thing to do?
Why would Russia and China "surely seize" a land deep in the western hemisphere under the protection of NATO?
If there's a concern about Russia or China seizing it, why not wait to use the military until such an event actually happens? Taking over Greenland by military force because "Russia and China will do it if we don't" is a poor excuse and would lead to WWIII.
Have you seen any people in Greenland or Denmarks government express anything other than a hard no for negotiations? How far would you want Trump to push this if they dont want it?
I don't care much about what the governments say, I care more about what the people say.
I would want him to push negotiations very hard. As hard as he needs to save for an invasion.
Pardon me, but this is blatantly stupid. As is the whole Greenland discussion. Whatever may be the advantage of having Greenland for the US, just answer yourself the following questions: Do you think you need international allies? How should allies treat each other?
No matter how much you think you need Greenland for security reasons, it is NOT available, as both Denmark and the majority of Greenlanders have declined any „offer“. It is grotesque that you think there is still room for negotiation. May I assume in the same way that you would sell your daughter or your mother if only the offer is „good enough“?
Did you ever put yourself in the opposite position? Under which condition should the USA be given to France and Germany? I mean we here in Europe could find some use for your country as well….
It's not a threat to Greenland.
I'm fine with him talking "like this" (whatever that means).
I don't really want them to become Americans if they don't want to be; that'd be annoying. Maybe I could tolerate making them a territory like Puerto Rico. I could also see a world where we get Greenland but a lot of the population is given the opportunity to move away beforehand.
I don't know the extent to which economic factors are motivational. It's not really important to me either way. I'm inclined to think national security is the more motivating factor though.
I don't think Venezuela has any relevance to Greenland.
How do you conclude that Venezuela has no relevance here? He invaded because he wanted to give all the venuzualans oil to the the oil companies, and he isn’t even trying to hide it. He’s open about it. Why wouldn’t he do the same with Greenland?
I don't think Trump can do the same thing to Greenland. And even if he could, "the same thing" wouldn't be enough to annex Greenland, he'd have to do even more. Which makes Venezuela irrelevant.
Like alcohol consumption is irrelevant to someone's likelihood to drink bleach. Sure, they could both be called harmful beverages, but aside from superficial appearances, they're not the same at all.
I think it makes perfect sense especially since Russia and China have a major footprint there.
In what way do they have a "major footprint" there?
Perhaps at this point it would be more accurate to say that the US is trying to avoid allowing China and Russia to establish a major footprint there. Both have a strategic interest in the arctic and both are attempting to invest heavily there. The strategic interest interest for the US and its own defense can’t be understated.
I feel great about it. We need greenland, it's not debatable.
Greenland is owned by Denmark which is a part of NATO. If we attempt to take over Greenland by military force, Denmark and all of NATO will 100% retaliate against us, leading to World War 3.
Do you still feel that we need it, to the point of using military force?
europe wouldn't do anything, they are weak.
What if Greenland says no?
our national security comes first. We can easily bribe the voters there. Elon bought twitter for 50 billion, we can give 1 million dollars to each citizen in greenland for cheaper.
We are through playing games. The european theater needs us for their protection. They hyperventalite over russia, but then they fund russias war economy by buying their oil. Useless! Europe/denmark cannot protect greenland, and if they want usa/nato protection, they need to get realistic, the usa is the only one that can actually provide that protection. What kind of game are we even playing here? Just let the russians and chinese dominate the arctic? Because "principles?" Because of a "good guy award?" Because the colonizing denmarkians got there first? That's not how the world actually works. It is in the best interests of the usa AND europe AND greenland AND denmark for us to control greenland. Europe needs to come to full terms with their ineffectiveness and accept that daddy usa is the one calling the shots.
Plato o plomo. We can do it the easy way or the hard way.
If someone needs your house, is it OK for them to take it from you?
no it's not
I love watching how anxious, impotent and desperate Europe is becoming
Why do you enjoy seeing the US become distant from its biggest allies?
Because they are worse than worthless as allies. They are authoritarian, decadent, delusional and bankrupt. They’re trying to drag us into war with Russia. They’ll be Islamic in a couple decades.
If they are worthless as allies, why has every other administration in modern American history worked so hard to build and maintain these alliances?
Why? It's causing resentment and distaste for the US. America losing it's prestige is not good for business or for soft power.
Relations with Europe are a liability for business and soft power
Just claim it. Who's gonna say no, or yes for that matter? National security is not negotiable
How far would you want to go in terms of taking it? Full on military invasion? Would you be willing to join the fight?
Yes. I happily join.
Good for you. Most people just put other people’s children on the line when calling for war. Are you currently in the army or is the Greenland invasion where your passion is?
So to your mind stealing something is fine as long as you need it and have the ability to steal it? Morality doesn't play into this at all?
Exactly. You know why? Because if you don't claim it. Someone else will. And before you tell them about your morality, they claim you too
I rather claim than talk about morality and be claimed
How is this a threat for US national security?
Denmark, and all of NATO. Military action against Greenland would 100% lead to retaliation by NATO, leading to World War 3. Is that really what you want?
I feel good about it.
No
I support everyone talking the way they want to talk. Don't you?
If no deal can be made that is an option but I prefer a win/win deal.
The race to control the arctic circle for both strategic military advantage and resources is real.
I think the desire for win/win deals with the US is greater now.
If nothing changes and Greenlands government and people hold firm that they don’t want to be apart of your country would you support taking it by force? Boots on the ground? Would you join the fight?
Let's take it one step at a time. We are a long way from that dramatic action.
It’s clear we have an interest in Greenland. Imagine how positive Alaska has been, Greenland is similar especially as the Arctic becomes more navigable.
I think it’s very possible that we make a deal for Greenland where everyone wins. Imagine this -
Greenland - $1M/person direct deposited to them. Get even more self governance than you have today under Denmark.
USA - uninhabited/undeveloped parts of Greenland becomes federal land.
Denmark - USA continues to be in NATO for another decade.
Greenland and Americans clearly win. Denmark would be fine with it.
What makes you think Denmark would be fine with it when they're explicitly saying otherwise? Don't you think that it would be false to say they'd enjoy more freedoms when our freedoms here in America are being degraded daily, even ones guaranteed in the constitution. Are you guys still pro-constition or just whatever Trump says?
Greenland should get self determination, so it does not really matter what Denmark politicians say.
Even if Greenland doesn’t get self determination, words are very cheap. Politicians have little choice but to say what they are, it’s part of Trumps negotiations/politics.
Where are we gonna get the money for 1 million per person? Do you know the population of Greenland?
It’s similar to the amount of funding we cut from USAID
Where is the 1m per resident idea coming from?
Idk. Seems like a good deal though. It’s a lot of money for them and not a lot for us.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyg1jg8xkmo
Any thoughts on these comments from the White House today?
I don’t think the statements are anything beyond what was said months ago.
“”” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers at a classified briefing on Capitol Hill on Monday the Trump administration did not plan to invade Greenland, but wanted to buy the island from Denmark, the Wall Street Journal reports. “””
Trump said months ago he wouldn’t rule out military force, which was repeated by Miller today. No new information.
The admin has stated within the last few hours that they are willing to use the military to take over Greenland. Would you support that?
In regards to giving every Greenlander a million dollars why should my taxes pay for that? How would my daily life improve? Why should a Greenlander get paid while the government gives no payment to me, a U.S. citizen?
I support paying for Greenland. Part of our payment can involve security benefits for parts of the world (e.g. more NATO funding). I would be against conquering them Crimea style.
Purchases of land can be a very wise investment for the USA — Alaska and Louisanna purchases come to mind. Citizens clearly benefit from those purchases today in both security and resources. Given the wealth and strategic location of Greenland, it has clear value.
Remote undeveloped land in places like Alaska sells for $100-$500 an acre and around 1K an acre if there’s water access. I’d personally chip in to buy Greenland for any price under $1K an acre (roughly $500B in total), but would decline above that.
But Denmark and Greenland have both been very vocal about having zero interest in selling Greenland to the US. Donald Trump cannot force the sale of Danish territory. So no, you can't just assert that "Denmark would be fine with it."
When Stephen Miller says that military action isn't off the table, it disturbs me. What he is saying is essentially "The United States is willing to invade, occupy, and annex the territory that belongs to our NATO ally, Denmark."
Do you support the military force that our administration has shown an interest in using to take Greenland? And if not, would the invasion of an allied nation be enough to lose your support?
Yeah invading NATO would flip me to anti-Trump.
I think they’ll say yes (we have lots of leverage outside of shooting them), but no is a no.
What additional self-governance would they get?
Also: Why? What would each Greenlander do with 1m? It's not exactly a luxurious place to live with wealth. What would it even get you? People don't remain there because they aspire to great wealth. I imagine it would collapse their local economy.
We have even less interest in how they live their lives than Denmark. Self governing is pretty absolute.
That’s very white of you to think the simple Greenlanders can’t possibly handle money. It’s not like we have ships or planes which can bring them stuff. If they’re anything like people who live in rural areas elsewhere, the young ambitious people will leave and start lives in urban areas with their nest egg.
Don't care.
No.
Don't care.
No.
Don't care.
No.
If this isn’t an issue for you, what are your top concerns now?
Economy, AI, China, the military, the future of work/economics/war
Why do you think Trump seems to care so much?
Greenland is of major significance both for national security and economic security.
If you don't care why did you even take the time to make this comment? What did you gain from this?
Because some care, when we don't care. There was lots of discussion to be had. See, even you engaged because you can't understand my viewpoint.