Now he's trying to blackmail Europe into selling him Greenland. Utterly absurd.

Now he's trying to blackmail Europe into selling him Greenland. Utterly absurd. — Michael

You simply cannot make a deal with Trump. And that's why everybody is rapidly making deals with other (Canada with China, EU with Mercosur) because of Trump.

Remember that with the first tariff stupidity the egomaniac wrecked the agreement that his first administration had done with Canada and Mexico. Hence you cannot never trust Trump. (Perhaps only if you are Putin. Doing Putin's bidding has been extremely consistent.)

Lol, so my country, just as Norway, that sent two officers to Greenland to recon for future exercises, is facing Trump's 10% tariffs and later 25% tariffs.

And Trump's lies are so ridiculous. First he (and Vance) say that Denmark isn't taking care of the defense of Greenland and jokes that they have added one dogsled to the defense of Greenland making it two, and when Denmark does increase the defense of Greenland, it's creates according to Trump a "very dangerous situation for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Planet.” It's totally clear that Trump wants the largest territorial expansion of US soil since US buying Alaska (or the US-Spanish war) to make himself important. Greenland's new name could be really Trumpland, if Donald get's his way.

I hope that Denmark and the other NATO countries hold their line, and don't back away from the bully, but just stay calm, firm and let Trump implode himself.

We have to always remember that only a minority of Americans accept what Trump is doing now.

, Mercouris and Christoforou's infatuation with the Kremlin is a bit creepy. :) Usually a waste of time. But, a fine testament to the freedoms they enjoy that the Kremlin's subjects do not.

A waste of time, why? They keep being right about things. Put their viewpoints next to the ones you've been spoonfed by the mainstream media over the last years and ask yourself which one has been bullshitting you all this time. :lol:

Neither China or Russia would even think of invading Greenland because they would immediately be pushed back by NATO forces. — Punshhh

Ironically I feel like now would be a great time for Russia to make a move on Greenland either to take advantage of the tensions within NATO or to exacerbate them. It's questionable if the Trump is really come to it's defense (placing his personal beef with Europe over his obligations under Article 5) or if Trump will condition defense on owning Greenland outright and who knows what the state of NATO will be as a result. His MAGA base ironically will probably act like this whole situation vindicates their leader somehow despite causing it to happen so we'll have to deal with that too.

Trump has nothing when it comes to a reason to annex Greenland. Maybe what he’s thinking of in 20 or 30yrs in the future when the arctic becomes less frozen and mining can be done where it is inaccessible at the moment.

For a guy who doesn't believe in climate change his actions seem to suggest otherwise. My own guess is that his obsession with Greenland (and also Canada to a lesser extent) is because Putin is genuinely interested in the Arctic. Trump may not believe in or understand global warming but Putin probably does and in the case of the Russians they think it's beneficial to them because it makes the Arctic more important geopolitically. Trump sees what's happening with Russia and China making moves on Ukraine and Taiwan and doesn't want to miss out on all the fun.

You simply cannot make a deal with Trump. And that's why everybody is rapidly making deals with other (Canada with China, EU with Mercosur) because of Trump. — ssu

Unless i'm missing something big in what you're suggesting...

U.S.–China Trade and Economic Deal (general trade framework with commitments on market access, export controls, and agricultural/industrial terms)
Reciprocal Tariff Frameworks with Japan
Reciprocal Tariff Framework with the European Union (baseline 15% tariff and investment/purchase commitments)
Trade Framework with the United Kingdom
Trade Agreements / Reciprocal Tariff Reductions with South Korea
Trade Agreements with Malaysia
Trade Agreements with Cambodia
Reciprocal Trade Frameworks with Thailand
Reciprocal Trade Frameworks with Vietnam
United States–Pakistan Trade Deal
Trade Deals with Argentina
Trade Deals with Ecuador
Trade Deal with Guatemala
Trade Deals with El Salvador
U.S.–Switzerland and United States–Liechtenstein Trade Deal Frameworks

I'm unsure this is either accurate or even a meaningful comment.

Ironically I feel like now would be a great time for Russia to make a move on Greenland either to take advantage of the tensions within NATO or to exacerbate them.

Fortunately for us Russia is already preoccupied with trying to secure the Donbas. It would cause overreach for Russia to invade other territories, especially a sea based invasion. Trump’s talk of Russia, or China looking to acquire Greenland is pure fantasy, along with most of his rationale right now. People are starting to say has he lost his mind. It’s beginning to look like a classic case of megalomania.

Trump sees what's happening with Russia and China making moves on Ukraine and Taiwan and doesn't want to miss out on all the fun.

I think you’ve summed it up quite well there.

Unless i'm missing something big in what you're suggesting... — AmadeusD

Yes, you indeed are missing my point.

Trump and the EU made last year a trade deal... which is now ripped open because basically of his own vanity in getting Greenland. And this vanity is obvious on the reply Trump made to the Norwegian prime minister (who btw or his government doesn't decide who gets the Nobel peace prize).

So less than a year has past and Trump already is changing what was decided.

This is the reason why I said that you cannot make a deal ...and basically assume that Trump would himself go along with what has been decided.

How Russian media is viewing the possible US annexation of Greenland? With praise, it seems, from one fellow imperialist to another, from the Rossiyskaya Gazeta:

(translation) If Trump achieves the annexation of Greenland by 4th of July 2026 when America celebrates the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence he will undoubtedly become one of the historical figures to assert the greatness of the United States. With Greenland, the United States will become the second largest country in the World after Russia, surpassing Canada in area. For Americans, that outcome will be on par with such "planetary" events as the abolition of slavery by Abraham Lincoln in 1862 or the territorial conquest of the Napoleonic Wars. Everyone will quickly forget the current diplomatic contacts with the Danes on the future of Greenland as something momentary and, in fact, useless. But if, thanks to Trump, Greenland comes part of America, this will be forever. For sure the American people will not forget such achievement.

But standing in the way of the US president's historic breakthrough is the stubbornness of Copenhagen and the mock solidarity with it of a number of intransigent European capitals, including the so-called friends of America - Britain and France. Europe does not need the greatness Trump is promoting. Brussels is counting on "drowning" the US President in the midterm congressional elections, on not letting him conclude his greatest deal of his life.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. Would probably still reject that.

It's actually something that the Russians do (earlier the Soviets did) a lot. Many Nordic countries simply start from the assumption that international treaties once agreed on are upheld and that is that. They won't dare to question them afterwards and take them for granted.

Russia has a totally different way to think about it: if things are great, then those treaties are upheld, no problem. Yet if there's problems with the relations Russia wants to push some agenda, perhaps there's a problem here or there and the treaty isn't so clear anymore. If for example before the FSB (acting as border guard in Russia) did keep people from wandering from Russia into my country, somehow later there was a huge influx of migrants without the needed papers coming to our and Norway's borders. When asked why they are there, they tell that they were told that the border was now open and the FSB was helping them to go to the border. So basically everything is on the table, negotiable.

This creates simply an environment which makes for example international trade very difficult and everything is basically very political. Political ties to the leadership becomes very important, which gives rise to corruption. This basically creates a large country risk, which is the cause that money doesn't (and didn't) flow from the West to Russia ...or many developing countries. International trade and investment needs strong reliable institutions.

Is the suggestion that whatever the case, countries need to stick to their agreements? I understand i need to divest of talking about Trump here, but it almost seems liek you're saying we must remain party to agreements which don't benefit us. I don't really see that working.

I was watching some panels from the current WEF session early today (its about 2pm here). The tact that America takes there, compared with say Rachel Reeves contributions, seems common-sense national security considerations.

You're right, though. If Trump is (I can't quite see what you're seeing, but that's not surprising to me) renegging on several agreements, particularly on trade, then yeah thats bollocks and geopolitically unstable.

If, however, he's doing it as leverage to dominate the international landscape with a view to securing American interests - i don't quite know what I think anymore.

? I understand i need to divest of talking about Trump here, but it almost seems liek you're saying we must remain party to agreements which don't benefit us. I don't really see that working. — AmadeusD

You think that changing tariffs less than in one year is rational? What international investments and trade simply needs is stability. Think about, if someone really plans to do large investments to the US, plans building a factory etc. it takes basically years to build one and locks the company for many years onward. If you don't know what is happens, that there's the possibility of some politician making Trump angry and then all your plans go bust, then you simply avoid doing anything and stay on the sidelines.

Or make deals with China as Canada has done now. Earlier, when the US was an ally to Canada, the country basically didn't allow Chinese electric cars on their market (as Biden wanted). Now the Canadian market is open for Chinese electric cars.


Why alienate countries that had good relations with you? It's all just the US shooting itself in the foot, which is hugely benefitting Russia and China.

You're right, though. If Trump is (I can't quite see what you're seeing, but that's not surprising to me) renegging on several agreements, particularly on trade, then yeah thats bollocks and geopolitically unstable. — AmadeusD

Political instability isn't good for the economy. Just look at how gold is doing.

If, however, he's doing it as leverage to dominate the international landscape with a view to securing American interests - i don't quite know what I think anymore. — AmadeusD

Is he really dominating the international landscape? What really is the benefit of this domination? What are these interests? That he himself gets vast amounts of money? How is that helping actually the US? He definitely is in the spotlight, sure. It's really a global reality show around him, which he obviously likes.

The Clown
▸ says the Arctic needs protection from Putin (provided by him)
▸ invites Putin to his "Board of Peace"

:brow: What's going on here?
His creepy Putinfatuation isn't going to divide the Kremlin and Beijing.
But his backstabbery could send allies China's way instead.
Canada just met up with China and Qatar; could become a trend.

Carney Says Canada’s Old Relationship With the U.S. Is Over (— WSJ · Apr 25, 2025 · 1m:11s)


Trump on Canada-China trade deal: ’If you can get a deal with China, you should do that’ (— CBC Radio Canada · Jan 16, 2026)

US says Canada will regret decision to allow Chinese EVs into their market (— Reuters · Jan 17, 2026)

Should Greenland ask China for protection from the US? :grin:
Seems ridiculous, yet not more ridiculous than what comes out of House Trump.

EDIT: seems like I repeated some of your comment

Why alienate countries that had good relations with you? It's all just the US shooting itself in the foot, which is hugely benefitting Russia and China. — ssu

Because from an America first perspective, these are untenable bases for making geopolitical decisions. I can't really say much more than that. It's an observation. I wouldn't get into bed with those I don't want to get into bed with. That's kind of where that reasoning ends.

You think that changing tariffs less than in one year is rational? — ssu

I don't quite understand the question. It's not a matter of rationality. They are instrumental tariffs, not aimed at normalizing trade relations in the normal sense. They have largely achieved what Trump wanted (and that may be irrational!).

then you simply avoid doing anything and stay on the sidelines. — ssu

I understand the problem, but Trump has brought in billions of investment since this term started. Not the $21 trillion claimed, obviously, and that's at Trump's feet for being a buffoon publicly. I just think you're looking at goals that administration is not. It's hard to "come to terms" in that way. Its all theater to me.

Is he really dominating the international landscape? — ssu

I don't think this is a serious question. There may be too much daylight in how we're seeing things (or, what information we have access to day-to-day) to come to terms, as above. Trump is obviously dominating the geopolitical landscape. You call it a spotlight and that's fair - but his movements are hte talk of the globe, in most facets of geopolitical life. People are having to do what he wants, or do something relatively radical to not do what he wants. That is dominance to me. That doesn't mean its good.

Just look at how gold is doing. — ssu

Given the tariff situation, that's probably good in the short term. But its definitely not good across 24 months or more. It indicates a collapse is coming. But Trump, being hte mover he is, is probably aware of this.

But Trump, being hte mover he is, is probably aware of this. — AmadeusD

Lol. The only thing he is looking at is the midterms. Huge win might get finally an impeachment that goes through. That's why he wants the economy to be fine, and what better would be is to lower interest rates. Nevermind the inflation later. So, I think gold might be going still up, even if the fears of military annexation of Iceland Greenland by USA from Denmark isn't on the table.

It's estimated that the future Fed chairman will be perhaps between two Kevin's:

Kevin Hassett, a long-time conservative economist and key Trump economic adviser, is seen as a top contender to succeed Powell.

A Trump loyalist, Hassett, 63, served as chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers during Trump's first term and now leads the National Economic Council.

Hassett has been a stalwart defender of Trump's economic policies, downplaying data showing signs of weakness in the US economy and repeating allegations of bias at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Or then it might be Kevin Warsh:

The 55 year-old economist, a fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution who serves on the board of UPS, had also been considered for Fed chair during Trump's first term. He briefly overtook Hassett in prediction markets this month before falling back to second place.

"I think the two Kevins are great," Trump told the Wall Street Journal this month.

Warsh has been an outspoken Fed critic, lambasting everything from the central bank's heavy reliance on data to its use of assets on its balance sheet. He has escalated his rhetoric since emerging as a contender for the top Fed job this year, calling for "regime change".

Warsh had a relatively "hawkish" reputation as Fed governor, meaning that he tended to favour higher interest rates and focused on concerns about inflation.

But he is now seen as a voice that would support lower rates in the near term. He has argued that the Fed should shrink its balance sheet in order to bring down short-term interest rates, though some have questioned that logic.

"He thinks you have to lower interest rates," Trump told the Journal. "And so does everybody else that I've talked to."

Let's remember that Trump has wanted to oust the present chairman for a long time.

Lol. The only thing he is looking at is the midterms. — ssu

Yeah, that's why the short term part is relevant there. He clearly can't think past his nose (or, at the very least, thinks it's a good idea to appear that way).

So, I think gold might be going still up, even if the fears of military annexation of Iceland Greenland by USA from Denmark isn't on the table. — ssu

hahaha, i see what you did there.

Regarding the Kevin's, those outlines are clearly bent in a certain direction. I forego making comment cause I'm not informed, but again, from Trump's perspective, or those who trust his intuitions (lets say... clearly an inapt description of what motivates his actions) would just say "great!". Could be a bit more bollocks there. I just don't know - from what I've seen on the economic side its pretty bland and uninteresting, except for what things look like.

American Presidents will choose always later inflation from losing the next elections. If there hasn't been a dollar crisis yet, perhaps there isn't one in the next two years.

Both Biden and Trump have been very consistent on this.

And now, finally.

I think this absurd thread will like be ending soon as Trump finally gave in. For now. Until someone asks him if he is still thinking of buying Greenland, to which he will say "Of Course..."

And then this continues... But now:



Sanity seems to have prevailed. :smile:

For those of us trying their best to stay outside the "I hate Trump and "I hate Europe/liberals/opposition" circles, tihs just seems like the exact intended outcome.

If, however, he's doing it as leverage to dominate the international landscape with a view to securing American interests - i don't quite know what I think anymore. — AmadeusD

Trump lovers will say: "This is the art of the deal!" "4D Chess!!!"
Trump haters will say: "This is TACO!"

End result: The US alliance system got a really a beaten and bad bruise which cannot be hidden and Europeans won't forget this, that Americans can attempt to annex territory from their allies and impose tariffs or other sanctions if this annexation is imposed.

I agree with the premise there, but I think your conclusion just falls into the Haters line (this is speculative - I'm not charging you with being a hater). Time will tell, and I have an extremely hard time thinking this is bruise on the US or Trump. That seems an emotional reading. We'll see. Really apprecaite this exchange so far.

Well, @AmadeusD, I'm surely not in the Trump-lovers line.

Time will tell, and I have an extremely hard time thinking this is bruise on the US or Trump. That seems an emotional reading. We'll see. — AmadeusD

A bruise isn't something dangerous. An open cut which isn't treated might be. A mortal wound is truly something else. So that for the "figures of speech" here. So I'm not in the camp of declaring NATO to be dead.

Really apprecaite this exchange so far. — AmadeusD

I do too.

Sorry, i meant latter, clearly. You haven't said anything that could've drawn me to the alternate. Sorry about that.

A bruise isn't something dangerous. — ssu

True - but its a 'win' for a certain pre-disposition toward Trump's activities. I guess I'm trying to avoid the predisposition. It could be totally fumbling. But it could be what he intended all along, sacrificing looking a certain way to his detractors in the process. That would be respectable. I try to be charitable i suppose, having been trained on judgments which are almost always intended to trade of a set of facts most favourable to a defendant.

I think he really got excited about Greenland. It was outrageous. It was totally surprising. Totally out of the ordinary. But he assumed it could be done, because he really thinks so little of Europeans. Just the idea of a real estate tycoon finishing his career with the biggest deal of the Century with buying the largest island in the World.

Trump posting himself (or, at least, someone in his feed) this AI picture tells more than a thousand words:


Yet let's think about this:
- Denmark wasn't going to sell it
- Greenlanders didn't want to become Americans
- Americans didn't want to buy and especially not to invade Greenland
- The military likely viewed it as an unlawful command as the NATO treaty is actually something as a law when the US has signed the treaty.
- The Republicans in Congress were not so hot about annexing territory from an ally.
- The only ones enthusiastic about this were the Russians.

What cards did Trump have? How is this a great opening?

Then of course there's the idea that all of this was part of the "Art of the Deal". That this was 4D Chess and Trump gives first an outrageous and demeaning bid, and then takes home something totally else.

Well, if so, just what on Earth did he get? What did Denmark now "reasonably" accept that made everything first to be worth it? We don't know.

This idea simply doesn't make sense. What makes sense is that the markets panicked of a sudden possibility of a trade war because of Greenland, and Trump had to quickly back down. And there was Rutte to give the hasty exit for the US president as this wasn't going anywhere.

And now Trump can focus on the "Bored of Peace"-thing.

It was totally surprising. Totally out of the ordinary. But he assumed it could be done, because he really thinks so little of Europeans — ssu

These are the assumptions I have absolutely no interest in taking on board. This, and my alternative seem equally plausible. I think it takes someone in camp 1 from the previous thing to land on this side, as a statement rather htan speculation.

Then of course there's the idea that all of this was part of the "Art of the Deal". That this was 4D Chess and Trump gives first an outrageous and demeaning bid, and then takes home something totally else.

Well, if so, just what on Earth did he get? What did Denmark now "reasonably" accept that made everything first to be worth it? We don't know. — ssu

I'm not really sure what's so hard to swallow in this (albeit, your framing is highly prejudicial - but reasonable imo).

He's probably secured further defense positions and tactical mineral access. Which is what he wanted all along. Its just a question whether he's stumbled into it or there's some "art of hte deal" thing going on (note, I have already dismissed "4D Chess" as a cultish concept. But he is a Businessman). To me. It is not inconceiveable he predicted how the chatter would go and leading up to DAVOS, had this in mind all along). It's just also not inconceivable your framing is accurate.

You're right - we don't know. That's the point of hedging at this stage. Thinking yourself into knots about the President being senile or whatever overtly dumb thing you can claw on to (not you, but the more unhinged along these same lines) is bad for you and does nothing for anyone else given there's no real evidence at this stage of how this all came about.

Trump posting himself (or, at least, someone in his feed) this AI picture tells more than a thousand words: — ssu

What are the first five? I have a feeling a huge amount of rhetoric is doing lifting in response to this thing.

You're right - we don't know. — AmadeusD

The good thing is that afterwards we will know. History will put these issues into context.

Just imagine the historical films done about Trump decades from now. Biden might be forgotten like Gerald Ford. Trump won't be. That's for sure.

What are the first five? I have a feeling a huge amount of rhetoric is doing lifting in response to this thing. — AmadeusD

Look at the map: US with Canada and Greenland. The US is larger than Russia. And look at the people who Trump is telling these facts. From left to right: Starmer, Meloni, von der Leyen, Merz, Macron, Stubb(!!!), Zelenskyy, Rutte (I guess).

(Yep, it's nice that my tiny country's president is among those European heavy hitters.)

Just imagine the historical films done about Trump decades from now. Biden might be forgotten like Gerald Ford. Trump won't be. That's for sure — ssu

Haha, that's true. I wonder how it will look.
I recall on a forum i was on about 20 years ago there was a user who was highly conservative and was absolutely convinced History would look back on Bush II as one of the best presidents ever. Yeesh.

I can't quite grasp the point of the response to the Rhetoric comment. That's not a serious picture or anything, right? And unbecoming of a President to be so unserious but uhh - what are the first five of those more-than-a-thousand words?

That's not a serious picture or anything, right? — AmadeusD

No. Supposed to be Trump's humor.

But posting maps where countries are part of another one is actually no laughing matter. I just remember the maps that circulated of NovoRossiya after the takeover of Crimea. Or the maps published by ISIS of their future Caliphate.

I recall on a forum i was on about 20 years ago there was a user who was highly conservative and was absolutely convinced History would look back on Bush II as one of the best presidents ever. — AmadeusD

He was the best president Israel ever had. :lol: