"Greenland" Topic
28 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
 Extra Crispy  | 07 Jan 2026 6:57 a.m. PST |
Okay I admit I never had "USA Declares War On NATO Over Greenland" on my Cold War Gone Hot Bingo card. But it raises some interesting ground battle options on the ice. Might throw some winter camo on my M1A1s…. |
| Maggot | 07 Jan 2026 7:49 a.m. PST |
It does highlight we live in interesting times. The Cold War is over, the post Cold War era fiction of "international law globalism" (not that is was "working" in any sense) may also be coming to an end. A return to the pre-WW2 order of nationalism? I'd say you are wasting your time. No one is going to fight for Greenland. No one on the planet outside of the US has the means to move any appreciable numbers of troops and maintain them in that hostile environment to fight for it. A realistic scenario wouldn't even be fun, it would be over in 10 minutes. |
| Andrew Walters | 07 Jan 2026 9:42 a.m. PST |
Agree. The political conflicts, internal, external, etc, would go on for a decade and might be interesting, but there wouldn't be much to game. I'm not even sure it's a matter of having the means to move assets to Greenland. Anything you move there gets hit by a Tomahawk in the first minutes. I can't imagine a way to move enough ships to contest the crossing. Nope, this will be an entirely political/diplomatic conflict. |
| SBminisguy | 07 Jan 2026 10:01 a.m. PST |
Okay I admit I never had "USA Declares War On NATO Over Greenland" on my Cold War Gone Hot Bingo card. But it raises some interesting ground battle options on the ice. Nah -- all this angst is coming from the Europeans. Trump's hyperbole is all framing to highlight REAL security concerns that have neglected and are getting worse. For example, Greenland under Denmark's unwatchful eye has has been groomed by China to where China is now Greenland's #2 trade partner (and growing to catch up and pass Denmark's trade value), buying $400 USD USD Million per year in fish it does not need. AND Chinese investments into mineral companies operating in Greenland threatent to give them a presence on the ground. Trump's putting them on notice as he has with others -- quit fruckin around and get serious about solving this, or we will solve it for you. So far while Denmark has promised more security for Greenland, they have mostly been talking and whining about mean Trump than taking concrete steps to improve things in Greenland. And in the meantime the indigenous population is pushing for indepedence away from Denmark and has elected a pro-independence majority to their parliament. So things will change. For the price of words, Denmark is slowly taking Greenland security seriously. The world sees China's game at buying it out from under the Danes' noses, and Greenlanders are talking about walking. And if they do walk I could easily see a deal where the US offers Commonwealth or Territory status – all the benefits of US citizenship with fewer obligations, access to a massive market AND all such charters have a "walk away" clause. ALL US territories, including PR, have the right to vote to 1) stay a Territory, 2) Petition to become a formal State or 3) walk away and become independent. All Denmark's and the EU's whinging does, frankly, is cause unecessary friction within NATO and COMFORT FOR PUTIN who sees this and thinks all he has to do is outlast NATO and he wins. Given European attitudes, he may be right… I mean, it does seem that the current crop of Authoritarian-minded elected and unelected leaders of Europe are MORE threatened by Trump than by Russia. I think they see Trump as an existential threat to their continued power -- he calls them on their BS without hestitation, he demands they act like partners and not passengers, criticizes their Authoritarian back-sliding and encourages the European citzenry to hold them accountable. They may lose control! Russia, on the other hand, despite all their talk is NOT an existential threat. I mean, how could it be when throughout the Ukraine War the Europeans have bought HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF $$$ in Russian energy! If they were a mortal enemy, wouldn't you stop funding their war machine? Nah, I figure they see that they could cut a deal with Putin if they had to and still remain in control of Europe. Better to rule over Europe's ashes than stand in the unemployment line… |
Grattan54  | 07 Jan 2026 11:04 a.m. PST |
Not really comfortable with the US, which is a democracy and strong believer in self-determination, deciding we are just going to take over a group of people, who by 85% oppose becoming part of the US, because we can. Denmark has said it is open to more US military and bases in Greenland and we don't even discuss it. Taking over Greenland because we can makes us different from Russia and China how exactly? |
 ochoin | 07 Jan 2026 11:28 a.m. PST |
|
| Augustus | 07 Jan 2026 11:28 a.m. PST |
+1 SBminisguy. Denmark has a chip in the big game now. It needs to either spend it or watch it become valueless. Whining about anything saved no one ever. Get big and strong or get stepped on. I'm sorry, the US didn't make the Universe the way it is, but unless "you" are going to put as much into the game as the US, "you" need to understand that the US needs to make moves that benefits everyone as a stronger control of our hemisphere means better position to help Europe fight its next inevitable war. Does it excuse being a donkey to our friends? No. Trump has a serious issue ticking off friends. Does it mean the US can go along abandoning Europe to people like Putin? No. Not even close. But,frankly, the US should have annexed Greenland a longtime ago. Denmark cannot handle it and the excuse of "but it has always been ours" fails to hold much water in the face of 1 Not being able to defend it and 2 Still not being able to defend it. Denmark can barely defend itself and letting China get access to anything remotely close to vast resources is just a recipe for disaster. Sometimes the superhero needs feeding so he can save everyone the next time. |
| 35thOVI | 07 Jan 2026 12:07 p.m. PST |
Some facts of history, which seem to be relevant here: 1) "The U.S. bought the Virgin Islands for $25 USD million: The United States purchased the Danish West Indies from Denmark in 1917 for $25 USD million, renaming them the U.S. Virgin Islands, which include the main islands of St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix. This deal, finalized on March 31, 1917, gave the U.S. strategic naval bases in the Caribbean, concluding decades of negotiations for the territory. Key Details: Territory: The islands of St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix, plus smaller surrounding islands. Price: $25 USD million in gold coins. Date: Formal transfer of possession on March 31, 1917. Reason: The U.S. sought naval bases, especially during World War I, and the Danes were open to selling due to economic issues and unrest in the colonies.
Purchase of the United States Virgin Islands, 1917" So there is precedent with the country of Denmark. This is not new. 2) "Desire for Independence: A majority of Greenlanders favor independence, seeing it as a way to have greater control over their own affairs and international representation." They may not want the US, but they are not crazy about Mother Denmark either. Not making any predictions. This was hot on day one, then cooled off. I have no idea what the real ultimate aim is. |
| ochoin | 07 Jan 2026 12:17 p.m. PST |
I often think Americans watch too many superhero Hollywood movies. Would it be offensive to suggest you should read a book? If not, I'd suggest "Diplomacy" by Henry Kissinger as a primer.
Who knows, perhaps the Marvel Universe isn't actually real? |
| SBminisguy | 07 Jan 2026 12:28 p.m. PST |
Would it be offensive to suggest you should read a book? Yeah, 'cause ignorant Americans somehow emerged as the leader of global strategy to defeat the Axis Powers in WW2 and then created the entire modern world order we experience today (the UN, GATT/WTO, ICC, WARC, NATO – all of it) AND then led an international coalition for 45 years that resulted in the defeat of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact without WW3 and then continued to be the world's global cop and sugar daddy for another 35 years… But, we just don't understand how Diplomacy works as you cite an American diplomat's book…and say, you know what? Kissinger was a HUGE fan of Realpolitik and he would absolutely approve of this direction for the US. Perhaps he'd conduct this diplomacy less abrasively, but with the same goals. |
goibinu  | 07 Jan 2026 12:39 p.m. PST |
A dheartháir, ochoin, ní bhfaighidh tú aon chiall ó na hamadáin ghránna seo. |
| SBminisguy | 07 Jan 2026 1:07 p.m. PST |
Ní chloiseann ach an té atá oscailte don chiall choitianta í! Fun thought exercise – I uploaded Kissingers book and key essays into ChatGPT and asked it to adopt the persona of Kissinger and write a New York Times editorial…enjoy! *Opinion | Guest Essay*
*By Henry A. Kissinger (style and analytical voice)* --- ### Greenland, Alliances, and the Discipline of Power American foreign policy is again at a crossroads—not because of a single territory or a single leader, but because we have reached the end of a historical illusion. The debate surrounding Greenland has become a proxy for a larger struggle over how power is exercised, how alliances endure, and whether strategy can be separated from ideology. For three decades after the Cold War, the United States operated on the assumption that its power and its values were naturally aligned with the direction of history. Alliances were treated as moral communities. Institutions became substitutes for strategy. Accountability was increasingly delegated upward, away from electorates and toward transnational management. That era is ending. The issue before us is not whether Greenland should change hands, nor whether Denmark or Greenlandic authorities are legitimate. It is whether the Atlantic alliance can adapt to a world in which power has returned, geography matters again, and rival states pursue advantage without apology. From a strategic perspective, Greenland is not a prize. It is a position. Its importance lies in its geography—its proximity to North America, its role in Arctic access, and its relevance to early warning, undersea surveillance, and missile defense. No great power can ignore such facts. Nor should it attempt to moralize them away. At the same time, strategy requires restraint. Public confrontation over sovereignty—especially among allies—invites unnecessary resistance and transforms manageable problems into symbolic struggles. The language of acquisition or coercion, however emotionally resonant at home, hardens opposition abroad and obscures the real objective: preventing rival powers from establishing leverage in the North Atlantic and Arctic regions. What complicates the present moment is not geography, but politics. Parts of Europe's governing class increasingly perceive American demands for burden-sharing and accountability as existential threats—not to security, but to authority. NATO commitments, once understood as reciprocal obligations, are now treated by some as settled entitlements. Calls for defense spending or national responsibility are framed as destabilization rather than renewal. This is a dangerous confusion. Alliances survive not by insulating leaders from their publics, but by maintaining a clear alignment of interests. An alliance that cannot absorb internal accountability will eventually fracture under external pressure. The United States, for its part, must resist the temptation to confuse bluntness with strategy. Leadership is not measured by how loudly one asserts interests, but by how effectively one secures them. History shows that durable outcomes are achieved through quiet alignment, not public humiliation. A Kissingerian solution path would proceed along several principles. First, reaffirm the strategic objective clearly and privately: Greenland must remain aligned with Western security structures, and no rival power should gain structural leverage there—whether through infrastructure, technology, or finance. Second, separate sovereignty from security. Publicly respect Denmark's sovereignty and Greenlandic self-rule, while privately negotiating binding security arrangements that expand American and allied access, investment, and presence. Third, make alignment inevitable rather than enforced. The United States should offer economic partnerships, infrastructure investment, and long-term development support that make Western cooperation the most attractive and least risky option for Greenland's future—particularly if its autonomy deepens. Fourth, coordinate discreetly with European partners. The objective is not to win an argument, but to prevent a vacuum. Quiet consensus is more valuable than public victory. Finally, discipline rhetoric. Alliances fray not because interests diverge, but because leaders allow domestic polarization to dictate international posture. Strategy requires patience. Diplomacy requires ambiguity. Stability requires restraint. The central challenge of our time is not the absence of American power, but the temptation to wield it without hierarchy or subtlety. The return of great-power competition demands a return to strategic thinking—one that distinguishes between what is desirable and what is essential. Greenland is not the test of American ambition. It is the test of American judgment. If we fail to approach it with realism and restraint, we risk turning a manageable strategic issue into an ideological fracture—one that benefits no ally and invites precisely the external influence we seek to prevent. History has never rewarded nations that confuse moral certainty with strategic wisdom. It has, however, occasionally favored those who understand that order must precede aspiration—and that alliances endure only when power is exercised with discipline. |
| 35thOVI | 07 Jan 2026 1:38 p.m. PST |
SB maybe his version of "Diplomacy" was the "CliffNotes" or "Diplomacy for Blonds" 👱 😉 |
| SBminisguy | 07 Jan 2026 3:07 p.m. PST |
Could be -- I mean, the most common complaint about Kissinger is that he decoupled morality from national security results, that in Realpolitik what matters most is achieving your goals via the effective exercise of soft and hard power. He would totally agree with the goal, but not the Trumpian abrasiveness. But that abrasiveness is a product of our day, a more polite and less self-assured person would surely have been destroyed by The Establishment. |
| 79thPA | 07 Jan 2026 3:10 p.m. PST |
Mark, I was thinking the same thing today. At the end of the day, no one in Europe is going to war over Greenland. Maybe the Greenlanders think they will get a better deal from the US. |
| Andrew Walters | 07 Jan 2026 4:36 p.m. PST |
Greenlandic independence seems impractical to me. There are fewer than 60,000 people there. Together they couldn't pay enough taxes to run the place. Denmark is paying $500 USD-600 million per year to pay for half of Greenland's public budget. So Greenlanders will have to pay another $8,000 USD-9,000 in taxes just to maintain the status quo without Denmark's handout. With a per capita income of 58,000, that's another 13% of their income in taxes, and they're already paying 42-44% (it's a European country, after all). And those taxes only pay for internal things – education and law enforcement, and the minimum of those. All external representation and defense is through Denmark. The cheapest you can send an ambassador to the UN is 1.5 million dollars, so it's going to cost each person $250 USD per ambassador. You need at least a dozen of those. So that's $3,000 USD and the per capita income is $58,000. USD So each *person* will have to pay 6% of their income just to have a dozen ambassadors out there. Plus you'll have to have your own passports, and who knows what else. So Greenland can be its own country if the people there are willing to pay 75% of their income as taxes and have minimal defense. Otherwise someone else is going to be calling the shots, whether formally or informally, whether by the choice of the Greenlanders or otherwise. I'm not saying the US should take over. I'm saying someone other than the Greenlanders is going to be in charge and the question is who. Denmark seems like a good choice to me, but they better actually do it. If Trump were to take over I'm certain the next Democratic president would just give it back on Day 1 and talk about healing from dark times or some such, so anything spent to "acquire" Greenland would be wasted anyway. |
| TimePortal | 07 Jan 2026 5:28 p.m. PST |
The option to buy Greenland seemTo me to best the best. No vote of the people is required. |
| SBminisguy | 07 Jan 2026 6:09 p.m. PST |
Greenlandic independence seems impractical to me. There are fewer than 60,000 people there. Together they couldn't pay enough taxes to run the place. But as a US Territory? Different story. |
 StoneMtnMinis | 07 Jan 2026 9:44 p.m. PST |
The POTUS is keeping his eye on the main threat which is always china. And while the Master Magician has you looking at Greenland, I wouldn't be surprised if the next chinese asset removed from the board is Cuba. |
| korsun0 | 07 Jan 2026 10:10 p.m. PST |
He should have got the Nobel prize, how did he not? Maduro I 100% agree with, job well done, law enforcement operation.
But bust apart an alliance , however shite it might appearto be, that is madness. |
| SBminisguy | 07 Jan 2026 10:10 p.m. PST |
I wouldn't be surprised if the next chinese asset removed from the board is Cuba. I hope the Mullahs of Iran fall, massive street risings still on-going. I have read yhey have unleashed IRGC and Hezbollah on protesters since many local police are refusing orders. |
| korsun0 | 07 Jan 2026 11:54 p.m. PST |
A couple of surgical strikes by Israel on Iran should focus the mullahs attention elsewhere. |
 McKinstry  | 08 Jan 2026 8:04 a.m. PST |
A 1951 Treaty allows the US essentially unlimited military basing rights at the sole US discretion. A resource treaty allowing the US sole resource access is quite possible. Threatening an ally who, on there own volition, sent troops to Iraq (7 killed) and Afghanistan (38 killed IIRC) and is a NATO member is, churlish, ungrateful and stupid. They bled for us and we're spitting on them. |
| SBminisguy | 08 Jan 2026 8:47 a.m. PST |
They bled for us and we're spitting on them. It takes two to tango, as the saying goes – prior to this issue leading Danish politicians and infuencers have been nasty and critical of Trump. Calling him "unstable", Danish intelligence called him a "Security risk" for working on a peace deal over UKraine, and a few minor Danish MPs (amplified by social media no doubt) have called him an enemy and a threat to Europe. Do you think this may color Trump's tone of voice in how he deals with Denmark? And then this over the top, hyperbolic response DOES NOT HELP. Telling Trump to FO, and publicly calling the US a threat to NATO and Euro-Politicians threatening to sieze US NATO bases is also "churlish, ungrateful and stupid." I mean, do you know how MANY Americans, when they hear European politicians threaten the "end of NATO!" think – damn, that's not a bad idea? My family fought to liberate Europe from the Nazis, then in the US Army and USAF family and friends "stood on the wall" for 50 years to protect Europe…we've been doing that for almost 80 years…maybe we should take our marbles and go home, and let them figure it out. Let them spend their own money and resources on their own defense…let them, with their far larger economy and population, defend against the Mussolini of Russia… …so, careful what you wish for, eh? Would I prefer a better tone of voice? Yes -- but maybe we're in a media age where only harsh rhetoric can bypass the media filters and obfuscatory BS. 1. Now we see how much influence China has been buying in Greenland 2. Now Denmark and Europe are finally taking it seriously 3. Now Greenland is considering independence |
| Martin Rapier | 08 Jan 2026 10:00 a.m. PST |
"Telling Trump to FO, and publicly calling the US a threat to NATO " Well, he is. President Trump doesn't believe in international law, international agreements and treaties, just transactional deals. Thats just how he is, and part of the reason he hates the EU. It is an interesting way to conduct foreign relations. Hilariously the only member of NATO to invoke article 5 is the USA after 9/11. |
| SBminisguy | 08 Jan 2026 11:16 a.m. PST |
Cool -- do you believe the US should exit NATO? I mean, the US IS NATO…what do you want? |
| 35thOVI | 08 Jan 2026 11:50 a.m. PST |
International law is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules. Maybe just yell "parlay!". 😉 |
| McKinstry | 08 Jan 2026 5:50 p.m. PST |
I believe any rational discussion can accomplish US goals without stupid violent rhetoric the might be OK in a particularly freewheeling freshman international relations class. As to telling the Adminstration to pound salt, they are grown men and women in charge of the most powerful nation on earth, they can suck it up and act like they left sticks and stones on the elementary playground. |
|
