Trump wants to buy Greenland

[sumskilz]

However, from a domestic political point of view, its a very dumb decision for a Republican president to make in the sense that Greenland is perhaps the most obvious blue state if it were to join the USA and gain representation in the electoral college.

It wouldn't make a difference. It would be a US territory, not a state. Territories have no electoral votes and aren't entitled to voting representation in congress.

[Cookiegod]

On the matter though, I do wonder what the utility of buying Greenland as a territory would be? I mean there are obvious military and geopolitical benefits to having a naval or air base in Greenland as the island is in a generally good position to challenge naval incursions by foreign powers into the North Atlantic (particularly the Russian Federation in this situation), ensuring US naval supremacy in the region should a conflagration happen. From a economic viewpoint, Greenland could also be very profitable as its fairly natural resource rich; it has gold, diamonds and of course that black gold which keeps the modern world running.

It's not so much about naval positions, and afaik Greenland isn't being used in such a role. The US does however need Greenland as many Russian nukes in a cold war would likely fly over the island. It's amongst the most important radar & satellite stations for the US. This is what makes the island crucial.

In addition, Denmark representing Greenland is laying claim to a huge chunk of the arctic sea up to the Russian exclusive economic zone.

However, from a domestic political point of view, its a very dumb decision for a Republican president to make in the sense that Greenland is perhaps the most obvious blue state if it were to join the USA and gain representation in the electoral college. Denmark as a country is more economically to the left than the USA and I see no reason why the Greenlanders would want to switch out their status quo for the status quo of the USA. Also, the whole issue of integrating Greenland and spending federal money on it in the process just seems like something an over-burdened federal state just wouldn't want to do.

I'd wager the arrangement he envisioned for Greenland was for it to become more of a state similar to Puerto Rico or those pacific island states, and have 0 representation in the federal government plus no say in its own foreign dealings as opposed to what it has with Denmark, where it has both.

Sometimes I do wonder whether these decisions are actually coming from Trump or whether they are emanating from the hands behind Trump and the state actors he has surrounded himself. The military utility of owning Greenland and the belief that the USA can just buy Greenland from Denmark in the same way that the USA purchased Alaska from Tsarist Russia just seems like something the US Military would definitely want and think to do. Then again, it might just be Trump being his usual flamboyant self once more. One can only speculate.

Plenty of nutjobs besides Trump, but on the other hand it would've become his personal prestige project and maybe secured his reelection, as well as his place in history.
On the other hand, given that Greenland is being part of Denmark and us Danes like to be that obedient puppy, the US really doesn't have much reason to acquire it. Except again due to either the narcicism and election strategy in the republican party, or maybe because they're not all that happy with Greenlands homerule being rather assertive in their independent foreign policy.

For example: For Thule airbase, local Inuit populations were forcibly deported. This was during the cold war, when Greenland didn't have much autonomy. The US did lots of questionable , and the Danes always assisted or looked the other way. The US even put bases up without even bothering to inform the Danes that they were doing it.

Worse however was project iceworm. Which again the US didn't bother to inform the Danes about. When the US decided to stop that project, they simply left the nuclear infrastructure and waste there. As the ice is melting away, that biological, chemical and radioactive waste is expected to pollute the environment.

Even though Denmark was clear that it can't sell Greenland (because it really simply can't), Fredriksen had started talking about the US expanding their presence on the island being inevitable after Trump offered to buy the island. So Denmark is willing where it is crucial, even though according to her they haven't even received an official request yet.

The US aren't particularly hiding the fact that they're acting on the island as if it's already theirs to command. And Denmark is ok with it and even paying their bills. Pay to clean up the radioactive waste you deposited without even telling us about it? Ok. Why not?

With Greenland it's a different matter. As stated before Greenland is assertive and the government in Nuuk much more deserving of respect than that in Copenhagen.
They are much more sceptical on US bases, as multiple incidences just in the last few years show:

https://sermitsiaq.ag/node/191132

https://www.information.dk/udland/20...-groenland-usa

Notably while the US threw a fit about the Chinese building an airport on Greenland, the government of Greenland had a coalition collapse and replaced by a new ruling coalition, as one of the parties objected to Denmark investing in the project.

Greenland and Denmark have completely different priorities.

[Daruwind]

nah, delete it

[Holger Danske]

Tbh giving Greenland the autonomy to actually do something like declaring independence is imo one of the biggest geopolitical mistakes that Denmark has made since the whole debacle in 1864. Greenland is the only real piece we have left that allows us to punch so much over our weight, and it has enormous resource potential that could make Norway look like a joke (again). But, as always, our politicians continues their tradition of squandering. At this stage the best we can ever hope for is the status quo because there is no way we will ever get away with repealing their autonomy and have them fully annexed again.

As for the Trump Circus Show. I can fully understand the American desire to own Greenland, however unlikely. The result of this overture and especially the childish response from Trump means that America has successfully harmed one of its few amicable relations with an ally that has been dependable for decades, well done. The Danish government has had little issues with American military presence and would likely be interested in expanding on this now that the Russians are in full overdrive to militarize the arctic, but this utter :wub: will retard that process greatly.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Tbh giving Greenland the autonomy to actually do something like declaring independence is imo one of the biggest geopolitical mistakes that Denmark has made since the whole debacle in 1864. Greenland is the only real piece we have left that allows us to punch so much over our weight, and it has enormous resource potential that could make Norway look like a joke (again). But, as always, our politicians continues their tradition of squandering. At this stage the best we can ever hope for is the status quo because there is no way we will ever get away with repealing their autonomy and have them fully annexed again.

As for the Trump Circus Show. I can fully understand the American desire to own Greenland, however unlikely. The result of this overture and especially the childish response from Trump means that America has successfully harmed one of its few amicable relations with an ally that has been dependable for decades, well done. The Danish government has had little issues with American military presence and would likely be interested in expanding on this now that the Russians are in full overdrive to militarize the arctic, but this utter :wub: will retard that process greatly.

Agreed. Between Trump’s embargo on Iranian oil making Europe more dependent on Russia, withdrawing from the INF treaty, and this debacle souring relations with key Arctic allies at a time when Russia is seeking to dominate the region, one might yet again have reason to ask whose side he’s really on.....

There was a push to open a US consulate in Greenland and boost military cooperation with European allies in the arctic a couple years ago which seemingly went nowhere. Nevertheless, Greenland was receptive to the idea. Even less chance of any of that happening now. As long as Russia doesn’t do something dumb like invade Poland again, there’s little standing in the way of Europe and the US drifting further and further apart, chasing Europe right into Putin’s corner. Such a shame.

[B. W.]

As usual when these stories come up the left-wing media is focused solely on stirring up acrimony in their anti-Trump quest and as usual after a few days some real investigative reporter at one of the evil right-wing sites will actually do a journalistic investigation and the truth will come out, but the narrative is already established and the damage is already done.

As it turns out, the Chinese are already in Greenland and they took a backdoor path to do it:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timtrea.../#1a82a2ac3f3c

I wonder if mainstream media will ever get around to publishing this information. Maybe, if a Democrat is elected and he tries to do the same thing Trump is trying to do, which is prevent the Chinese and Russians from establishing influence on a strategic piece of geography. Yeah, if a Democrat were President they would be doing everything they could to make him look good instead of undermining him.

No matter, Trump has canceled his trip to Denmark. It doesn't mean that the episode is over. It's just a cooling off spell because everyone involved at the highest levels know what the real issue is. In the meantime, the Danish people will have to recon with the fact that their leaders were played by America's left-wing media into making fools of themselves to the detriment of the Danish people and undermining a key alliance.

[caratacus]

As it turns out, the Chinese are already in Greenland and they took a backdoor path to do it:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timtrea.../#1a82a2ac3f3c

There isn't much backdoor about it. This artice on the BBC website I found very interesting reading some months ago;

How Greenland could become China's Arctic base
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46386867

The question I would have, is why the Greenlandic government would want to build three big international airports capable of taking large passenger jets? China of course is bidding for the contracts. With Arctic sea ice rapidly melting due to climatic change (largely due to that countries contribution of co2), China is already looking into the possibility of opening up a regular sea route from the Pacific into the Atlantic making Greenland an important strategic area, as well as an opportunity for expoiting its natural resources which include rare earths.

click on the video in the report above, of Kuupik Kleist the former PM
"The former prime minister says someone - anyone - has to invest in Greenland"

If Trump's comments wake everybody up about the great game going on between the superpowers over the Arctic, it will have achieved something. It should be to them all "The Arctic is not for sale" in dollars, yen or rubles.

[Cookiegod]

There isn't much backdoor about it. This artice on the BBC website I found very interesting reading some months ago;



The question I would have, is why the Greenlandic government would want to build three big international airports capable of taking large passenger jets? China of course is bidding for the contracts. With Arctic sea ice rapidly melting due to climatic change (largely due to that countries contribution of co2), China is already looking into the possibility of opening up a regular sea route from the Pacific into the Atlantic making Greenland an important strategic area, as well as an opportunity for expoiting its natural resources which include rare earths.

click on the video in the report above, of Kuupik Kleist the former PM
"The former prime minister says someone - anyone - has to invest in Greenland"

If Trump's comments wake everybody up about the great game going on between the superpowers over the Arctic, it will have achieved something. It should be to them all "The Arctic is not for sale" in dollars, yen or rubles.

No dude, that's exactly where the crucial difference is. Greenland's homerule as it is now has the right to make their own foreign policy and their own deals (officially representing Denmark, but still). So if anyone wants to invest in Greenland, they'll have to be the ones making the most attractive offer.

The US trying to buy Greenland is perhaps related to that, but not in the good way. It would not allow its territory to do its own foreign policy, it would not allow them to deal with others to their liking. What it wants to do is to exclude others and gain the monopoly.

The Greenlanders put it very simple: "We're not for sale, but we're open for business." However, competing on an even playing field against Chinese & other international corporations isn't what the US wants to do on an island they already consider to be theirs.

[caratacus]

No dude, that's exactly where the crucial difference is. Greenland's homerule as it is now has the right to make their own foreign policy and their own deals (officially representing Denmark, but still). So if anyone wants to invest in Greenland, they'll have to be the ones making the most attractive offer.

The US trying to buy Greenland is perhaps related to that, but not in the good way. It would not allow its territory to do its own foreign policy, it would not allow them to deal with others to their liking. What it wants to do is to exclude others and gain the monopoly.

The Greenlanders put it very simple: "We're not for sale, but we're open for business." However, competing on an even playing field against Chinese & other international corporations isn't what the US wants to do on an island they already consider to be theirs.

I think foreign polcy is still controlled by Denmark Defence and natioal security certainly remain the responsibility of the Danish Government and Parliament. Correct me if that has changed since 2017.

Recently an application from a company to develop a former naval base in Greenland was refused by the Danes on that basis.The business was part of the General Nice Group, an iron trader based in Hong Kong with Chinese government involvement.

Denmark spurned Chinese offer for Greenland base over security:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-d...-idUSKBN1782EE
In a statement to Reuters, the Danish defense ministry said the base at Gronnedal - which had been put up for sale - would be reopened as a strategic and logistical location for storing fuel and materiel and for training personnel. It did not comment on the Chinese offer.

“The government does not want to sell the naval base to China, as we have a long, close partnership with the U.S. and a defense agreement for Greenland with the U.S. from April 1951 to think about,” said a source with direct knowledge of the matter.

There are presently moves to change all this if a referendum goes ahead on 2021 at the time of 300th anniversary of Greenland’s colonisation by Danish-Norwegian missionary Hans Egede, and Greenland becomes fully independent. It will go the same way as those small countries elsewhere in the world whose economies have now becoming completely dominated by Chinese loan money through large infrastructure projects. You know for sure that that exploitation of those resources is probably part of the deal to build those airports financed through loan capital.

Former Greenland premier wants independence by 2021
https://www.arctictoday.com/former-g...pendence-2021/

Maybe it's Trump's startegy is to get the Danes to think more possessively about keeping Greenland through provocative talk, and not let its large mineral reserves slip away to foreign exploitation through full independence, for something that is presently costing the Danish taxpayer a lot of money. I very much doubt that the offer was a genuine one for an American goernment to buy ownership. I note he didn't consult with the Greenland politicians first, which says a lot.

[Muizer]

Has Putin made an offer yet?

[Swiss Army Cheese]

As usual when these stories come up the left-wing media is focused solely on stirring up acrimony in their anti-Trump quest and as usual after a few days some real investigative reporter at one of the evil right-wing sites will actually do a journalistic investigation and the truth will come out, but the narrative is already established and the damage is already done.

As it turns out, the Chinese are already in Greenland and they took a backdoor path to do it:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timtrea.../#1a82a2ac3f3c

I wonder if mainstream media will ever get around to publishing this information. Maybe, if a Democrat is elected and he tries to do the same thing Trump is trying to do, which is prevent the Chinese and Russians from establishing influence on a strategic piece of geography. Yeah, if a Democrat were President they would be doing everything they could to make him look good instead of undermining him.

Those Australian fools. We should have known when we started mining in Greenland that all holes lead to China. Looks like we dug too deep.

[B. W.]

There isn't much backdoor about it. This artice on the BBC website I found very interesting reading some months ago;



The question I would have, is why the Greenlandic government would want to build three big international airports capable of taking large passenger jets? China of course is bidding for the contracts. With Arctic sea ice rapidly melting due to climatic change (largely due to that countries contribution of co2), China is already looking into the possibility of opening up a regular sea route from the Pacific into the Atlantic making Greenland an important strategic area, as well as an opportunity for expoiting its natural resources which include rare earths.

click on the video in the report above, of Kuupik Kleist the former PM
"The former prime minister says someone - anyone - has to invest in Greenland"

If Trump's comments wake everybody up about the great game going on between the superpowers over the Arctic, it will have achieved something. It should be to them all "The Arctic is not for sale" in dollars, yen or rubles.

Interesting. For that article I'll give a rare tip of my hat to the BBC.

I think foreign polcy is still controlled by Denmark Defence and natioal security certainly remain the responsibility of the Danish Government and Parliament. Correct me if that has changed since 2017.

Recently an application from a company to develop a former naval base in Greenland was refused by the Danes on that basis.The business was part of the General Nice Group, an iron trader based in Hong Kong with Chinese government involvement.


There are presently moves to change all this if a referendum goes ahead on 2021 at the time of 300th anniversary of Greenland’s colonisation by Danish-Norwegian missionary Hans Egede, and Greenland becomes fully independent. It will go the same way as those small countries elsewhere in the world whose economies have now becoming completely dominated by Chinese loan money through large infrastructure projects. You know for sure that that exploitation of those resources is probably part of the deal to build those airports financed through loan capital.

Maybe it's Trump's startegy is to get the Danes to think more possessively about keeping Greenland through provocative talk, and not let its large mineral reserves slip away to foreign exploitation through full independence, for something that is presently costing the Danish taxpayer a lot of money. I very much doubt that the offer was a genuine one for an American goernment to buy ownership. I note he didn't consult with the Greenland politicians first, which says a lot.

Pretty much spot on. The Greenlanders should ask some east African countries how Chinese investment has worked out for them.

Incidentally, the recent reports of rapid Greenlandic ice melting were based on erroneous data. I would note that the NYT and WaPo have not retracted those stories:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...rect_data.html

[Cookiegod]

I think foreign polcy is still controlled by Denmark Defence and natioal security certainly remain the responsibility of the Danish Government and Parliament. Correct me if that has changed since 2017.

No, Greenland has since 2009 had the right to conduct their own foreign policy when only their interests are concerned. Greenland furthermore has the right to refuse to be part of any international deal Denmark makes. Chapter 4 in the homerule law has the relevant details.

However, any deals Greenland (or the Færøer) make are done "on behalf of the kingdom", so officially it's a deal made between e.g. China and Denmark - but without influence from Copenhagen.

Which is why the important Danish embassies also feature Greenland staff.

Recently an application from a company to develop a former naval base in Greenland was refused by the Danes on that basis.The business was part of the General Nice Group, an iron trader based in Hong Kong with Chinese government involvement.

Denmark was able to refuse that deal because that base is still an active Danish military base. Denmark was so scared of that deal happening they decided to reopen the base. So it's still used. With 3 men stationed in it.

There are presently moves to change all this if a referendum goes ahead on 2021 at the time of 300th anniversary of Greenland’s colonisation by Danish-Norwegian missionary Hans Egede, and Greenland becomes fully independent. It will go the same way as those small countries elsewhere in the world whose economies have now becoming completely dominated by Chinese loan money through large infrastructure projects. You know for sure that that exploitation of those resources is probably part of the deal to build those airports financed through loan capital.

There's nothing wrong with those deals, and this red scare lacks any actual merit. Worst thing that can happen is that some project defaults and is then administrated by a Chinese company. In that case, that port/airport/whatever will still create additional economic growth in the region and pay taxes. Which is why those countries make those deals in the first place. It's economically sound and you only hear the West scared about it. The alternative investment sources through the IMF are far more dangerous and an absolute debt trap.

Maybe it's Trump's startegy is to get the Danes to think more possessively about keeping Greenland through provocative talk, and not let its large mineral reserves slip away to foreign exploitation through full independence, for something that is presently costing the Danish taxpayer a lot of money. I very much doubt that the offer was a genuine one for an American goernment to buy ownership. I note he didn't consult with the Greenland politicians first, which says a lot.

Denmark can't talk possessively about Greenland at all though. The homerule law cannot be repealed without consent from Greenland. Which also answers your other theories: Trump and his administration were probably simply ignorant and decided to try. They didn't inform Greenland first because 1) that's not how Trump operates, 2) they probably already knew that Greenland would dislike it very much for so obvious reasons, and 3) it's the "Greenland politicians" and their independence which in America's eyes is the problem. Not Denmark - Greenland.

Oh and btw: That offer was definitely serious. Otherwise he wouldn't have canceled the deal upon hearing the refusal.

[Cyclops]

...
There's nothing wrong with those deals, and this red scare lacks any actual merit. ...

There's been some state debt slavery in the Pacific. The Chinese in our backyard are sloshing a bit of money around and they don't massage their consciences like Australia and NZ do by occasionally doing something useful. East Timor has an empty international airport, likewise Tonga and Samoa are now in actual debt strife with China.

Its pretty targeted too, they have splashed only a third of the money Australia has but its mostly white elephants.

[Love Mountain]

There's nothing wrong with those deals, and this red scare lacks any actual merit. Worst thing that can happen is that some project defaults and is then administrated by a Chinese company. In that case, that port/airport/whatever will still create additional economic growth in the region and pay taxes. Which is why those countries make those deals in the first place. It's economically sound and you only hear the West scared about it. The alternative investment sources through the IMF are far more dangerous and an absolute debt trap.

What a ridiculous assertion. I also doubt you'll find many people on this forum who approve of IMF's neoliberal debt traps, those same people are likely critical of both China and IMF's loans. There are many alternative investment sources. The IMF has a pool of 240$ billion annually, which it doesn't even use completely. This is in comparison to 1.2$ trillion of global FDI. There are plenty of countries that grew or are growing without falling into debt traps.

[Cookiegod]

There's been some state debt slavery in the Pacific. The Chinese in our backyard are sloshing a bit of money around and they don't massage their consciences like Australia and NZ do by occasionally doing something useful. East Timor has an empty international airport, likewise Tonga and Samoa are now in actual debt strife with China.

Its pretty targeted too, they have splashed only a third of the money Australia has but its mostly white elephants.

What a ridiculous assertion. I also doubt you'll find many people on this forum who approve of IMF's neoliberal debt traps, those same people are likely critical of both China and IMF's loans. There are many alternative investment sources. The IMF has a pool of 240$ billion annually, which it doesn't even use completely. This is in comparison to 1.2$ trillion of global FDI. There are plenty of countries that grew or are growing without falling into debt traps.

You two misunderstood what I was saying - I should perhaps have been more specific:

I'm not saying "every deal with China is unproblematic" or "every loan taken is unproblematic".

What I'm saying is that investment loans that are collateralised by the project tend to be unproblematic. It's not putting the country in a debt trap, as the worst that can happen is a default that lands the airport/port in the hands of a Chinese company. If it then continues to fail, so much better for the country that it doesn't have to cover those losses. If it succeeds, however, it's still providing a boon to the surrounding economy.

I know zero about the East Timor airport. Feel free to tell me more about that one. It could be an interesting mirror case to the Greenland deals.

But a prominent example of unfounded China investment scare would be Sri Lanka's Hambantota Port Development Project - This scaremongering article in the NYT titled "How China Got Sri Lanka to Cough Up a Port" had amongst other things this to say:

Mr. Rajapaksa was voted out of office in 2015, but Sri Lanka’s new government struggled to make payments on the debt he had taken on. Under heavy pressure and after months of negotiations with the Chinese, the government handed over the port and 15,000 acres of land around it for 99 years in December.

[...]

The case is one of the most vivid examples of China’s ambitious use of loans and aid to gain influence around the world — and of its willingness to play hardball to collect.

Thing is though that it really isn't. To reduce the textwall a bit, I'll refer you to 1) this blogpost here, though it doesn't delve too much in the project itself and instead focuses on ripping the NYT article apart (similar articles about the same port were published also in other newspapers), and 2) this article by the South China Morning Post. And while yes, you obviously should not blindly trust a Chinese newspaper, the facts provided in the linked article are generally correct and verifiable:

When critics of Beijing accuse the government of debt traps and other predatory policies, the example that crops up is almost always that of the Chinese-built Hambantota International Port in Sri Lanka.
The government of Sri Lanka, a country where Chinese firms have also financed and constructed railways, roads and power stations, allegedly failed to repay Chinese loans to build the port and was then forced to lease it to China, which covets the port as a naval base.
It is part of an oft-told tale that China provides infrastructure loans to developing countries, often as part of the Belt and Road Initiative, knowing they cannot be repaid, allowing China to seize borrowing states’ valuable assets.

[...]

The Hambantota port lease, held jointly by the Hong Kong-based China Merchants Port and the Sri Lanka Ports Authority, was negotiated over 2016-2017. Payments of the principal and interest for the port loans comprised only about 1.5 per cent of Sri Lanka’s external debt repayment obligations due then. The Sri Lanka Ports Authority paid on time, using revenues from Colombo port, which includes a successful container terminal run by China Merchants Port.

China holds an estimated 9-15 per cent of Sri Lanka’s external debt.
Some of the rest is high-interest loans from (mainly Western) commercial banks. International sovereign bonds account for about half of the external debt, with Americans holding two-thirds of their value and Asians only about 8 per cent.

Sri Lanka must pay interest averaging 6.3 per cent on international sovereign bonds and the principal must be fully repaid, on average, within seven years. In contrast, more than two-thirds of the value of Chinese state funds lent to Sri Lanka from 2001-2017 (including two-thirds of the Hambantota port loans) were at 2 per cent interest, and mostly repayable over 20 years.

Thus, the recent reports, including one in a leading UK newspaper, that Sri Lanka’s government was forced to sign the port away on a 99-year lease after failing to repay Chinese loans that were racking up 6.3 per cent, are erroneous.

[...]

Sri Lanka has never defaulted on any loan payment and has not sought to have any external debt rescheduled.

The Hambantota port lease was not a result of any inability to service the loans, nor was it a debt-for-equity swap — the Sri Lankan government still owns the port. And funds received for the lease were not used to repay port-related debt, but to pay off more expensive loans, generally to Western entities.

Also, there is no Chinese military base at Hambantota port. The port’s security remains in the hands of Sri Lanka, which has its southern naval command
in Hambantota.
In fact, the US — which has 800 overseas bases, versus China’s single base in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa — has a much more elaborate military relationship with Sri Lanka than does China.

As you might have noticed, that NYT article is now over a year old. The numbers it used to wilfully misrepresent the project as doomed were of course even older, to serve its agenda:

Over years of construction and renegotiation with China Harbor Engineering Company, one of Beijing’s largest state-owned enterprises, the Hambantota Port Development Project distinguished itself mostly by failing, as predicted. With tens of thousands of ships passing by along one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, the port drew only 34 ships in 2012.

In 2012, only the first phase of the port development had been completed. So those low numbers weren't exactly surprising. Bloomberg reported in April 2018, several months prior to the NYT article whilst still being critical to the project and calling it a white elephant, that it received approximately one ship a day - which is more than ten times what the New York Times would later imply.

The question would then be how the harbour has developed since.

Well, first of all: China still has no military presence in Sri Lanka and has yet to show any interest to do so. The US meanwhile wants to ramp up their presence on the island, which scares the people living there.

Secondly, the port has already had some synergy effects on the economy on the island, with other non-Chinese projects following in its wake:

Sri Lanka Will Get a $3.9 Billion Refinery Next to China-Run Hambantota Port

Sri Lanka’s export earnings may rise as much as $7 billion because of the refinery.

A Singapore-based company and the government of Oman have pledged to build a $3.9 billion oil refinery next to a Chinese-controlled port in what will be the largest foreign investment ever for the Indian Ocean island nation, officials said on Tuesday.

The refinery will be a joint venture for the Singapore-based Silver Park International Private Limited firm and the Sultanate of Oman’s Ministry of Oil and Gas, said Nalin Bandara, Sri Lanka’s deputy minister of international trade. Construction will begin next week and the refinery is expected to be up and running in 2023, he said.

“This is the biggest foreign investment in the country’s history,” Bandara told reporters in the capital Colombo.

But let's get back to the topic at hand: Greenland.

It's not so different there. Those airports are economically viable. To my knowledge it does not create a debt trap, as the investment is directly bound to the airports.

The political fallout however was very interesting. While the US threw a tantrum over the Chinese investment, Greenland had a government crisis due to Denmark wanting to invest 700 million DKK in it.

[Holger Danske]

There was a push to open a US consulate in Greenland and boost military cooperation with European allies in the arctic a couple years ago which seemingly went nowhere. Nevertheless, Greenland was receptive to the idea. Even less chance of any of that happening now. As long as Russia doesn’t do something dumb like invade Poland again, there’s little standing in the way of Europe and the US drifting further and further apart, chasing Europe right into Putin’s corner. Such a shame.

Fortunately the United States, unlike Russia, is not forced to having to live with such a character for several decades. While the Democratic party is still in shambles (thank you very much Mr. Obama) I find it hard to see how Trump could get himself reelected with his continues streak of embarrassing failures.

And by the looks of it the Danish government has full intentions of not letting this clown show ruin centuries of diplomatic relations, so at least someone is being adult.

No matter, Trump has canceled his trip to Denmark. It doesn't mean that the episode is over. It's just a cooling off spell because everyone involved at the highest levels know what the real issue is. In the meantime, the Danish people will have to recon with the fact that their leaders were played by America's left-wing media into making fools of themselves to the detriment of the Danish people and undermining a key alliance.

In what absurd world of yours do you imagine the Danish government saying yes to his objectively bad idea?

[Ludicus]

To buy a island or a region reminds me on the era of imperialism. What do you think?

I think this is self-explanatory,
"She's not talking to me. She's talking to the United States of America. You don't talk to the United States that way. We protect Denmark."




-----
I tell you Denmark, do not offer resistance to the...

[B. W.]

In what absurd world of yours do you imagine the Danish government saying yes to his objectively bad idea?

What is absurd is your conclusion that there was ever going to be an offer to begin with. An offer was never made. The "talk" was actually about preventing incursions into Greenland by hostile actors. Your notion that the US shouldn't take its security seriously is absurd.

[Love Mountain]

What is absurd is your conclusion that there was ever going to be an offer to begin with. An offer was never made. The "talk" was actually about preventing incursions into Greenland by hostile actors. Your notion that the US shouldn't take its security seriously is absurd.

Uh huh. That's exactly what happened.