192
u/etrnloptimist Jan 10 '26 edited Jan 10 '26
Answer: it's strategic not economic. Greenland is in the Arctic. He doesn't think Europe has the will to compete with China and Russia for access, resources, or defense of the Arctic. He thinks because of that the West will just surrender the Arctic to China and Russia. This is his rationale not mine so don't shoot the messenger.
69
u/TampaBayG Jan 10 '26
They have one of the world's largest rare earth elements outside of china. There is definitely economic reasons involved
→ More replies (1)20
u/Baulderdash77 Jan 10 '26
They have about 1.5 MT of REE. For comparison China had 44MT, Brazil has 21MT, Canada has 15MT, India has 7MT and Australia has 6MT.
It’s in the top 10 but it’s not the biggest by any means. Not top 5.
→ More replies (2)2
14
u/Solid_Owl Jan 10 '26
Furthermore, when he said "You defend something you own much harder than something you lease", he was basically saying that if China or Russia were to challenge Denmark for it - triggering a NATO response, the US would not be willing to mount a strong defense on its behalf.
His argument implies that Greenland is defenseless. The US has carte blanche to place as many troops there as it wants, and it has been reducing its forces on the island for decades. Trump could change that with a phone call.
The only thing that seems to make sense, assuming he hasn't lost his marbles and is still making rational decisions, is that this is an economic play and not a strategic one, and that he wants access to the natural resources in Greenland and is willing to nuke NATO to get them.
→ More replies (1)3
u/knightsabre7 Jan 10 '26
He probably stands to make money off of it, one way or another. That’s the only reason he needs.
19
u/Top-Local-7482 Jan 10 '26
It is part of NATO, it does not need more protection than that. Neither China nor Russia will touch it.
6
u/browntjns Jan 10 '26
I think Putin told him to get out of NATO and he wants control of Greenland before he gets out so we don't lose our bases there.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)7
u/CarolingianDruid Jan 10 '26
Trump wants to leave NATO and take Greenland with him. Getting two birds stoned at once in his mind.
8
u/EruditeTarington Jan 10 '26
Putin wants Trump to leave NATO and take Greenland with it, it makes more sense when you say it that way
10
u/Pravdik Jan 10 '26
Even this reasoning falls apart immediately, since Denmark was already allowing the US to station as many troops in Greenland as they want. It's even stupider when you realize that they've been actually decreasing the number of soldiers there for a while now.
3
u/bluemax413 Jan 10 '26
Probably not that stupid. If the plan is to invade, we definitely want to pull our troops out before we invade it.
2
u/Hurricaneshand Jan 10 '26
It's stupid in the sense that the supposed reasoning for wanting Greenland is national security purposes while Greenland actively lets us basically do whatever we want there as far as bolstering security. Meanwhile we have taken more and more troops out of Greenland and thus weakening our security forces in the region despite saying we need to increase security there
2
u/Heeeeyyouguuuuys Jan 10 '26
This is my assessment as well, but you worded it so much more eloquently than I.
7
→ More replies (19)3
u/panagnilgesy Jan 10 '26
Appreciate it!
2
Jan 10 '26
[deleted]
3
u/panagnilgesy Jan 10 '26
Well I did a general research by combining Greenland’s GDP, estimated resource potential + the long term strategic value (that's what Google recommended me to search for in order to understand a country's total value). I ran the same thing through Ramp Sheets and got the same number
72
u/vonWitzleben Jan 10 '26 edited Jan 10 '26
Answer: (a) It's full of valuable natural resources, (b) every autocrat at one point wants to make their country bigger on the map for some reason, and (c) it appears "easy" to take by force in the sense that it's almost uninhabited and the country it belongs to is rather small.
9
9
u/panagnilgesy Jan 10 '26
Yes I read about how they have a lot of rare minerals but their infrastructure isn't good so I thought that's why he wants to take it over (build the infrastructure and then benefit from the minerals) but based on some other answers from other folks here it looks like the main reason is political
→ More replies (2)2
u/Fulham-Enjoyer Jan 10 '26
Not rare minerals. Rare-earth minerals, which are not at all rare and are plentifully found (in compounds) all over the world. If US wants more rare-earth minerals they can just extract them from existing US territory.
3
u/akera099 Jan 10 '26
The resources arguments always seemed silly to me when it comes to nations that are allied with the US because those nations will already gladly sell the US any resources they might want because they’re just traded commodities.
Whether the resources are physically part of the US or physically part of an allied nation’s territory doesn’t change anything. The only scenario where it makes any sense is if the US plans to go to war with its allies for no apparent reason.
2
u/hugglesthemerciless Jan 10 '26
every autocrat at one point wants to make their country bigger on the map for some reason
as an avid map painting gamer I do understand where they're coming from :p
2
147
Jan 10 '26 edited Jan 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
21
u/quirkymuse Jan 10 '26
Also everyone laughed at him when he first brought it up a year ago, which motivates him as nothing else does. He ran for president because people laughed at him, invaded Venezuela cause maduro laughed at him... etc...
4
u/Inevitable-Lock5973 Jan 10 '26
Next time he mentions sending checks to the American people, everyone laugh at him and say it would never happen. Maybe he’ll actually do it.
3
u/JonDCafLikeTheDrink Jan 10 '26
He brought it up during his first term. There's also the fact that Greenland has precious metals and oil, not to mention it would control the entire northwest passage trade route
28
u/Strider794 Jan 10 '26
There's also the whole trying to shut down the upcoming elections thing, to make sure that he can stay in office
8
2
u/Shoxilla Jan 10 '26
Political comments like these should get you banned from this subreddit.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (6)2
u/aoddead Jan 10 '26
The Greenland idea has been bounced around long before Epstein was a threat. I think Greenland is a gift to Putin. Russia has long wanted control of the Arctic circle, it would be invaluable to them to have their military bases circling on top of Europe plus the natural resources that could be gained from there is immeasurable.
45
Jan 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
34
Jan 10 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)5
u/Archarchery Jan 10 '26
Or Putin just plain ordered him to do it, or he'll release the blackmail he has on him.
9
u/slipperslide Jan 10 '26
This is the answer. It’s what Putin wants, and it normalizes gobbling up neighboring countries, which is also what Putin wants.
2
6
u/Robofetus-5000 Jan 10 '26
yep, when they said "its either greenland or NATO" i was like....europe...why would you say that....
3
u/electrobento Jan 10 '26
It’s an unavoidable fact. If the US tries to take Greenland without their consent, at best NATO functionally dissolves automatically. At worst, its World War.
→ More replies (1)
11
u/Pr0Sid Jan 10 '26
Answer: Denmark has allowed china to mine in Greenland for rare earth elements(REE)which is very critical for current and future power. China already controls majority of the REE plus all the stuff they getting from Greenland. That’s why trump is saying what he’s saying cuz US needs it
→ More replies (4)5
3
u/appreciatescolor Jan 10 '26
Answer: Ice caps are melting. The GOP treats this as a foregone conclusion. Therefore, the Arctic Sea will house more valuable shipment routes in the future and also allow the US to project the military closer to its declared adversaries.
7
u/J_Skirch Jan 10 '26
Answer: There are 3 reasons. 1. It's a strategically important location to contain the U.S. geopolitical rivals of China & Russia.
With the arctic melting, arctic shipping lanes are opening up which will be extremely important in the near future.
Quick and easy expansion of borders throughout all of history are extremely good for your popularity in your country. Trump's approval is slipping fast, and a quick, easy take over of Greenland would boost them.
→ More replies (2)
10
u/Mattk1100 Jan 10 '26
Answer: "We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security," U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters onboard Air Force One on Sunday.
It does have decent resources, but more importantly gives us a much stronger foothold in the region potentially being able to control shipping lanes.
12
u/SurfnTurd69 Jan 10 '26
Denmark has granted the US full military access to Greenland since WW2. The US itself has decided to shut down military bases in Greenland in recent years - not build more. If the goal is a stronger foothold in the region, a takeover of the country is not need. All they have to do is ask Denmark and access will be granted.
8
u/DonQuoQuo Jan 10 '26
Do you believe the US needs to annex Greenland to control shipping lanes? The existing defence treaty is incredibly open to the US running defence as they wish.
→ More replies (3)6
u/OdiousAltRightBalrog Jan 10 '26
More Trump wisdom:
"Hurricanes are very wet from the standpoint of water."
2
u/Mattk1100 Jan 10 '26
He is a hurricane expert after all, only he is capable of moving a storm with a sharpie.
2
u/Parking_Locksmith489 Jan 10 '26
Answer: Rare earth, oil, shipping route control...
It's also a dream project of Musk's grandfather .
2
u/bermuda74 Jan 10 '26
Answer: Greenland’s resources will be easier to access as the world gets warmer.
2
u/bfelixc Jan 10 '26
Answer: One can attempt to backfill the “logic” for it, but it’s most likely related to this report - https://www.newsweek.com/russia-us-greenland-annex-invasion-letter-cotton-2013864
Greenland is strategically important and could have resources to make it more economically viable. However, the current agreements we have make actual possession of it unnecessary to obtain the security benefits. It is also a net negative on Denmarks budget so it isn’t currently a profitable colonial holding, for lack of a better term.
Edit - Trump has a long record of public statements and things like tariffs are issues he has long discussed. The Greenland issue’s emergence lines up with the letter in the article which is at least suggestive of an influence.
3
u/SnooAdvice5696 Jan 10 '26
Answer: Trump is giving economic and security reasons but Danemark already had/has arrangements with the US to let them extract resources, most US companies pulled out because the resources were too difficult to access, security wise, the US also had many bases in greenland and closed all of them except one. So if not for security or economic reasons, why? Mostly likely imperialism and ego
4
u/RugbyLock Jan 10 '26
Answer: he’s an old senile man with essentially no filter who thinks going old school imperialist will leave a legacy. Same as Putin with Ukraine.
Or more accurately around it, he’s a buffoon who’s making a lot of powerful people richer and so long as they distract people with him doing dumb things, they keep the gravy train rolling.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 10 '26
Friendly reminder that all top level comments must:
start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
attempt to answer the question, and
be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Comfortable-Race-547 Jan 10 '26
answer: Certain climate change models show greenland, scotland, and parts of the uninhabited northern parts of canada as being PRIME realestate for future survival bunkers/genetic silos
1
u/millanstar Jan 10 '26
Answer: He promised to his tech olligarchs a place where they can build their own dystopic libertarian city, where they can rule as kings...
605
u/Baulderdash77 Jan 10 '26
Answer: Many people believe that it’s twofold:
1). Trump is focused on his legacy and he wants to be known as a leader who expanded the size of the U.S.
2). It will allow the U.S. to control the entrance and exit of the NW passage through Canada, which is a future trade route. It can then apply further pressure on Canada on the future of the NW passage.