this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2026
541 points (98.0% liked)
Not The Onion
19263 readers
1674 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The US already has direct colonial control over NATO. NATO is fully committed to not let Russia invade Greenland or setup oil rigs off the coast, and it is absurd to suggest that Russia or China are patrolling Greenland or have any desire to attempt to take their resources without cooperation. But the US would get NATO's help for defense of Greenland, and NATO would permit greater US contribution to NATO command bases there, or obey orders to contribute more themselves.
Trump, in addition to repeating the false China/Russia threat, has admitted zero interest in Greenland's resources. They are too far away and extremely expensive to develop. This leaves only a single possible motive for needing US control over Greenland: The absolute certainty that EU will disobey US orders for greater submission and the need to directly threaten them from closer distance. There is no offensive missile threat to Russia provided by Greenland relative to other NATO territory.