Greenland ‘Sovereignty’ is a Problem – Won’t Fly With Trump’s Security Vision
A Framework About Control, Not Courtesy
President Donald Trump has been explicit about what the Greenland framework is meant to achieve. It is not a symbolic gesture, not a temporary partnership, and not an exercise in diplomatic niceties. Trump has repeatedly described the deal as long term, infinite, and forever because, in his view, U.S. security demands arrangements that cannot be undone by foreign politics.
That framing matters. Trump is not negotiating for access. He is negotiating for certainty. And certainty is exactly what traditional notions of sovereignty refuse to provide.
Why ‘Sovereignty’ Is a Nonstarter
Sovereignty is often discussed as if it were an abstract moral principle. In reality, it is a mechanism for political reversal. Sovereignty means that the people of Greenland or the political leadership of Denmark retain the right to change course. They can hold a referendum. They can elect a new government. They can reinterpret agreements. They can demand withdrawal.
From Trump’s perspective, that makes sovereignty incompatible with permanent U.S. security operations. A defense posture that can be overturned by a vote in Nuuk or Copenhagen is not a defense posture at all. It is a lease at a landlord’s whim, and Trump has made clear he does not defend leases.
Power Asymmetry Is the Point
Much of the criticism aimed at Trump assumes this is a negotiation between equals. It is not. The United States is the military backbone of NATO, the primary guarantor of Arctic security, and the only power capable of fully countering Russian and Chinese expansion in the region. Trump is operating from that position of strength, not apologizing for it.
He has already demonstrated leverage through tariff threats and diplomatic pressure, and he has shown he is willing to remove that pressure once movement occurs. That is not recklessness. It is leverage being used deliberately.
The Philippines and Hong Kong Precedents Still Loom
The cautionary tale Trump keeps in mind is the U.S. experience in the Philippines. For decades, the United States built massive air and naval bases that anchored its Pacific strategy. Those investments vanished in 1992, when domestic politics in the Philippines shifted and the lease payments became extortionate. The Senate rejected renewed basing agreements. This severely crippled our defense posture in that region.
The British 99 year lease of Hong Kong turned into a modern day tragedy. Despite assurances that China would treat Hong Kong as a special zone and allow it to function as it had previously, China proceeded to execute a brutal crackdown on free speech. Perhaps Hong Kong should have voted their own ‘sovereignty.’ After all, that was a land lease not a slave community.
The lessons were simple and expensive. Sovereignty allowed a partner nation to erase American strategic investments without firing a shot. Trump has no intention of repeating that mistake in Greenland, especially not with assets tied to missile defense, Arctic surveillance, and rare earth supply chains.
Foreign Influence Is Not a Hypothetical Risk
Leaving Greenland fully exposed to sovereign reversals also invites external manipulation. Russia and China have clear incentives to undermine any permanent U.S. presence. If sovereignty remains intact, the pressure point is obvious. Influence the politics, influence the vote, force the Americans out.
That influence does not need to look like tanks or troops. It can come through information campaigns, economic inducements, political agitation, or proxy investments. Trump’s insistence on permanence is designed to close that door before it ever opens.
Denmark Is Not a Fixed Variable
Another inconvenient reality is that Denmark itself is not static. Governments change. Coalitions shift. Strategic priorities evolve. A future Danish leadership could take a more hostile view of U.S. control in the Arctic or pursue parallel arrangements with rival powers. Sovereignty gives Denmark that option, whether Washington likes it or not.
Trump is unwilling to anchor American security to assumptions about the political trajectory of another country. That is not arrogance. It is risk management.
Why the 1951 Model Is Insufficient
Supporters of the status quo often point to the 1951 defense agreement that allows a U.S. military presence in Greenland. Trump clearly views that arrangement as inadequate. It exists within a sovereign framework that can be challenged, renegotiated, or politically undermined.
Calling such an arrangement permanent does not make it so. We always assumed the arrangement with the Philippines was permanent, it was not. Trump’s repeated emphasis on ownership and forever signals dissatisfaction with agreements that survive only as long as foreign governments allow them to.
For Trump, any serious investment in Greenland must come with ironclad guarantees. That means no referendums that can revoke access. No political vetoes from afar. No future negotiations over whether American assets get to stay.
One path forward is territorial restructuring. Populated areas of Greenland could retain self governance and cultural autonomy, while the vast, largely uninhabited regions (three times the size of Texas) fall under permanent U.S. control. Another approach could involve legal arrangements that permanently remove U.S. controlled zones from sovereign reversal – but again, approval right now could turn into disapproval and squabbles later. And just like a foolish and ignorant Barrack Obama gave away the massively expensive Panama Canal, a weak President in the future could foolishly decide to cave in.
NATO administration alone does not solve the problem, because NATO itself is political and consensus driven. But this may end up as a satisfactory arrangement, since the U.S. dominates NATO, and in the unlikely event that NATO were to somehow breakup, ownership might be sufficiently ambiguous to spark the U.S. to claim control.
Critics often frame this debate as Trump misunderstanding sovereignty. The opposite is true. He understands sovereignty very well, and that is why he rejects it. Sovereignty introduces uncertainty, reversibility, and vulnerability. Trump’s security vision is built on permanence, deterrence, and control.
Those two concepts do not align. They never have.
Greenland ‘sovereignty’ will not fly with Trump’s security vision because it leaves too much to chance. The United States will not commit to permanent defenses, long term infrastructure, and strategic assets on land it does not permanently control.
Trump is not asking Denmark or Greenland for permission to protect the United States. He is setting the terms under which that protection will occur. And given the balance of power, it is increasingly clear whose terms will matter most.
Gotta love a guy who will rationalize anything to cover his mad King. He just does not realize it’s all for show. He’s being sold and totally misses the pitch. All to avoid investigation of Ross for the murder of Good. Apologies to the wrong-address boxer-clad American citizen they smashed and grabbed. The kids they left alone, or worse. All to avoid freeing the Epstein files, not a violation of his own law, All to avoid the potential forever war as he steals VZ oil under the screen of stopping drugs, which he hasn’t, or his own tariff-based taxation without representation uneven economy favoring the rich at the cost of everyone else. And don’t look and listen to Jack Smith as he steps out from behind the screen. Trump does not even seem to know whether it’s Greenland or Iceland, was that dementia, jet lag, or both. Newsom laughed his head off, great optics. Literally.
Drinking the Kool-Aid, forgetting his mind, Joe somehow thinks this issue, never raised in his campaign for the crown, the Kennedy center, and that spiffy new ballroom, is even relevant. Because Trump told him so. Joe says: “Greenland ‘sovereignty’ will not fly with Trump’s security vision because it leaves too much to chance. The United States will not commit to permanent defenses, long term infrastructure, and strategic assets on land it does not permanently control.” Trump security vision: what the heck is that? Something that Joe has divined that Trump is doing? Got a web page for that vision, plan, framework on an idea worth musing? Maybe found next to Trump’s healthcare plan or infrastructure plan? Or the plan to tariff us and then give some back before the midterms? That one is almost Machiavellian, except it’s right in front of our eyes, kinda stupid that way.
In reality, Greenland’s sovereignty is the norm, not the exception. It’s a ruse to stop you from noticing there’s something wrong going on here, we have military in our streets taking us down, we have masked men with long guns walking round town, we arrest anyone who’s brown. In truth, the United States operates approximately 750 foreign military bases in around 80 countries and colonies where it does not hold sovereignty, with the host nation retaining legal control over the land. Major concentrations of these non-sovereign bases are located in Japan, South Korea, Germany, and Greenland. So, Germany next, eh Joe? South Korea has a nice economy to make our own. And Japan —- I just love Tokyo.
I suggest Joe take a course in diplomacy and realize the American vision is to lead the world to our form of Democracy enforced by the rule of law, laws by man, the people. Lead by example, not to rule the world through fear, aggression, and subjectivation. Walk softly and carry a big stick. Not scream ICELAND, stupid fucking idiots, and many other nasty names, and TACO.
Does not matter: TACO and Trump will accept new bases, nice meaningless words, will claim victory, mission accomplished, and Joe will take the knee, won’t worry, and will be happy.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
Back to VZ and can you explain how no Russians supporting all those 5,000 Russian missiles were injured as zero missile fired, almost as if they were turned off or disabled? Another phone call like the heads-up gut-check call to the oil oligarchs? That’s just a spooky thought that Hill announced way back in 2019 about two boys playing in the world sandbox to divide and conquer the world. Notice how Vlad does not even speak of Greenland, go figure, eh? He’s just loving watching Trump take NATO down.
NATO, the strongest partnership for peace since 1949 now is a shattered relationship for us for the rest of this administration. There is no trust, it is broken. Likewise, the UN is gone, we have the Board of Pieces now to divide up the spoils between: Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Hungary, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Mongolia, Zandanshatar, Morocco, Pakistan,
Paraguay, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan; Trump’s new world order. Each could pay $1B to be there OR Trump hires and fires on his whim and fancies; Think it’s not about dividing up the spoils? Just watch. Much of the world passed on this “deal.”
No, Joe, screw Greenland, hell with VZ, Cuba, GAZA, Iran, and let’s focus on America first; let’s MAGW not TWA (Takeover the World Again). THAT he did promise in his campaign.
It’s the economy stupid, fix it, don’t just plaster BRAND NEW AND IMPROVED over it and expect us to buy less pencils and dolls.
Nobody can be right if everyone thinks everyone wrong.
Here’s facts. Trump is right. Dunger is wrong. But he was born stupid and has lost ground every day.
Harold Blankasdung: what an intelligent way of looking at this. You are a shining example of maga; except you can’t polish a turd. You can’t gild this lilly. You live in fear, blame others for all your perceived paranoid put-upon, and truly believe your life would be better if it weren’t for “them.”
You say here’s facts and then spew opinion’s. You didn’t disprove one thing I said; you can’t because it’s the facts, Jack. You got nothing but dung. Probably why you highlight it so much.
Dunger your crowd, including a democrat AG is calling for violence against ICE agents who. Just wondering what you think about that. Your people are much worse than the January 6 patriots
Greenland’s sovereignty is not the norm. You can try to be theoretical as much as you want, but when people are dying you have to adjust. Venezuela, Gaza and Syria are all better off than they were before. Cuba and Iran will be better off before the end of Trump’s term. You have never been to a totalitarian police state so I don’t expect you to know such things.
The people of Greenland deserve to determine their own future, but their security depends on others. Denmark is not up to the task. Trump and NATO can provide that security, but Trump will not be at the whim of his protectees.
Yes Trump is reshaping the world, and it needs reshaping. Because China and Russia will do it if he doesn’t.
And yes, Joe knows more about diplomacy than you do. And Joe knows that if he were to travel to China, they would arrest him (as would Cuba and Iran if they were smart enough to know who he is). And Joe knows that he can walk across Greenland without encountering a soul. And Joe’s Venezuelan friends are celebrating. And Joe’s friends in Beirut have their fingers crossed for Gaza.
Joe in the third person, wow. You said “Greenland’s sovereignty is not the norm.” I agree, but so what? Then you claim “but when people are dying you have to adjust.” Except people are not dying in Greenland, so maybe we don’t need to adjust?
Greenland is a free-standing autonomous protectorate of Denmark. Denmark has stood with in any fight we were in. They lost a greater percentage of their entire population than us in Iran and Afghanistan. And both Greenland and Denmark are NATO nations with all that allows, article 5 wise. You know, the NATO that has never been more capable thanks to Trump, according to Trump. This whole thing is a diversion away from ICEpsteinvenesuelaffordabilitydeportation crisis, what crisis?
Help me with how a takeover would work. Having said we won’t attack, we attack. But then article 5 kicks in and having attacked a NATO nation, we now have to attack ourselves? And really, who cares; this was a TACO job from day one and you must have seen it coming.
Not the norm, but not alone, and the US has military installations there too. The other territories with similar high-level autonomy while under another sovereign state include:
Faroe Islands which are also part of the Danish Realm, possess self-government similar to Greenland. We used to have radar station there, but moved to Greenland in 2007. Maybe we need to revisit for possible seizure; will be cheaper than Greenland.
Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten are constituent countries within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, enjoying high autonomy for domestic affairs. We have a small base on Aruba for drug surveillance. We have one of these of Curacao too. But not Sint Maarten, perhaps an opportunity when we take the other two island nations. And the Dutch are stupid windmill people that should not represent a problem.
Areas like French Polynesia and New Caledonia have significant autonomy, although their relationships with France differ in legal structure. We used to partner with France using their facilities on New Caledonia, but after dissing the French President’s sunglasses, good luck. Sunglass company got rich though. Good’s spouse is so well covered she closed the site to donate in Good’s name to worthy causes. I am guessing boxer-boy will be able to get a good silk union suit :>) Hate has it’s benefits, as does love.
Cook Islands and Niue are in “free association” with New Zealand, managing their own affairs but with a shared head of state, no US installations there.
While distinct in their specific legal rights, territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa are self-governing areas under the sovereignty of the United States. Wow, Joe, I guess we need to attack ourselves. And after we do it, due to article 5, we need to bomb ourselves again. However, unlike Greenland—which has an explicit path to full independence via referendum—these Amerikan territories have varying levels of integration and representation. And numerous bases that we might consider a stronger governance model. Never know when they might get frisky and ask for independence, or worse-yet, statehood since probably blue.
Sorry Joe, plenty of “Greenland-like” governance models, a number with US installations already.
VZ better off is news at 11; at this point we don’t even know what the plan is. GAZA is most certainly better of and now is controlled by Trump. Syria: was that Trump? Like VZ, didn’t he pick the wrong guy to lead? Venezuela, Gaza and Syria are all better off than they were before is debatable GAZA looked like the moon to me. Syria is not a democracy. Cuba and Iran will be better off before the end of Trump’s term is a nice wish. Then you guess that I have never been to a totalitarian police state so I don’t expect you to know such things. Except I put in some of the first IP Telephony in China, dealt with many expat’s living and making money there. Was in Hong Kong in 97 when the little guys in green suits and big guns arrived. And more, but too close to home for your site. You are off base on that one; you should not wing it.
“Trump will not be at the whim of his protectees” except he has, he will, it will not change dramatically except our allies do not trust us for more than window-dressing until this guy is out of office.
“Yes, Trump is reshaping the world, and it needs reshaping. Because China and Russia will do it if he doesn’t.” Joe, doing the right thing, the wrong way is never right. And this is not the right thing. We have based up there, I am sure we can get more. How does ownership make us safer than that? First it was Canada be our 51st state and when that smokes, it’s Greenland belongs to us, for the safety, no, the minerals, no, the safety. IF this was Biden, you would be screaming: dementia!!!!
I have no doubt you know more about diplomacy that I do. I am not very diplomatic as you might have noticed. My team used to call me “Atilla,” as one crazy bull inside the china cabinet. I worked hard to smooth the rough edges but fully admit it’s still my backup mode. I am also pretty sure I have forgotten more about business, product development (especially far out new stuff), managing large teams, skiing, tennis, and 70’s rock n roll, than you will ever know. So what?
Fact is Greenland is a diversion where no much will happen except announcing our victory and moving on to the next crisis.
If a war starts, the people of Greenland will no longer exist. The free-standing autonomous protectorate of Denmark takes up about 20 square miles of the 800,000 of greenland.
Your very long rant shows that A you don’t understand the issues, B you don’t understand politics at its worst, and C you think that agreements are always kept which is naive in the extreme. And if you think that Epstein is an issue, you need to look up Larry’s articles on it.
If length of response determined A; issue comprehension, B: politics (you’re right since politics has little to do with this: both parties think he’s bat-shit crazy on this one, C: whether people keep their word (we are talking Trump still, right?) Your logic is less than compelling.
The issue with Epstein is it sure looks like a cover-up given the order was given for over a month ago and it sure seems like he’s tossing a lot of “dung” into the blogosphere not even caring if it sticks. What does population density have to do with it. because it that’s your measurement of value, you gotta love NJ.
PS: might be too long for the slow of reading, but was not a rant but a careful retort showing you being wrong on Greenland being sovereignly unique, it isn’t. Showing we have military installations in many places we do not OWN, and a number of places just like Greenland. Why pick on Greenland, Aruba would be my vote :>) And that these folks, Denmark, have given their lives, freely, for us many times. We should honor that, not pick their pockets.
Perhaps my response to your rant-full closing could be considered, but the rest seems pretty cogent to me.
Bottom line: you believe we must own Greenland for our protection; that a life-time lease will not do. I disagree and posit this is all about diversion; nothing will happen except the claim of victory in the art of the no-deal deal Like NAFTA name changed, Kennedy Center rebranding for better arts, sure, the crisis and chaos is unending.
Greenland is much ado about nothing. Makes for great TV. Next episode please.
FYI: The Epstein issue is that over 1,000 victims deserve that the data sees the light of day; let the chips fall where they may. Trump promised this before and after the election. Bondi had the list on her desk. Sorry, can’t sweep that one under the rug with diversion. Ross investigation too; that one is more certainly looking more like a coverup every day.
Based on that and all the other stuff, how does Greenland even hit the radar as a priority? How about solving deportation (which he can never fulfill his promise), Or finishing GAZA, VZ, and Ukraine. Why push for Iran, Cuba (Cuba, why do we want Cuba?), Syria and more. Enough of this America first.
Politics has EVERYTHING to do with this. If you actually read the article you would have been reminded that we lost massive capability in the philippines, because of politics. And ask the people of Hong Kong about “lifetime” leases.
And Epstein is a distraction. If you had read Larry’s articles you would know that and you would know why.
I think you need to contact your elementary school and explain to them that you have trouble reading. See if they have a refresher course.
Joe, really, you felt obliged to be tacky? I would have read the entire article, but it was sooo long. An expert in discovering the truth once said: “your very long rant shows that A you don’t understand the issues, B you don’t understand politics at its worst, and” C: you never fess up when contradicted by facts. The article seemed very long.
In the end, we will disagree on the need to own Greenland to be safe, and hopefully, neither of us will get to prove our point in reality. I did show that we do this all the time, even in places like Greenland. I agree there’s more risk and expect our leadership to factor that in.
Even if he’s doing the right thing, he is doing it the wrong way. You know he could of easily inked a deal that made the base US soil with all the protections that entails, but where’s the distraction and fireworks in just quite diplomacy.
I did ask the people of Hong Kong since I was there as the little men in green suits and big guns hit the streets. I did not see you there :>) I say little men to note the I stand out in a crowd over there. I loved Hong Kong, fascinating people of two minds: UK/China. Special place and people. Not to mention home of Jackie Chan: I visited his “school.” Our work was on the mainland and it was slightly in a grey area legally; to say I was freaked out about the whole affair would be an understatement, but “baby needs new shoes,” so off I went. We were using the internet to arbitrage LD with point-to-point digital tie lines to hop on, hop off, the telcom network to the internet. Phase 1 of internet telephony and laws not really written yet. FYI: project was a bust but pioneered the total market technology takeover that followed. Cool. At that time, the people of Hong Kong I dealt with envisioned very little change, expected China to become more Hong Kong over time not the other way around. There was cautious optimism it could work. Did not. Today, they are more restricted than these folks expected, the number leaving grows, one reason because Hong Kong is rich and they can afford to. Never travelled too deep into the mainland; as a businessman, I shied away from third world which they seemed to be in the 90’s.
Joe, my first nationalization was before I came of age when Zambia took the copper mines leaving me 25 cents on the dollar. More recently, Chinese cooked books wiped my homeopathic drug investment moot. Then again, American companies today are trending to shedding divisions for focus and sure seems like nationalization to me: same end result of “holding the bag.” It’s called risk Joe, and good managers factor it in. Bad managers do what I did with the Chinese drug company, my bad. In the case of the Philippines, yes, they legally gave us the boot; the volcano threatening one base helped too and that is not politics, but risk is risk. We moved to Guam and Singapore, both about 3.5 hours away by plane. That’s next door in the Pacific. And left investment? We left two toxic waste dumps and refused to remediate.
What you left out was today, the Philippines and the US signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), effective unless terminated by either party by giving one year’s written notice: we operated out of nine bases. Seizing sovereign lands works, leaves a bit of a bad taste the world over, but diplomacy can work too. The only “politics” was from the Philippines unless you are making the claim we should have taken them too?
Point is using someone else’s land always has risk. But as I noted, and you seem to refuse to accept is removing the land risk offers the new risk of taking over, and Trump said might hostile takeover, has yet another set of risks. Plus, we do it all the time. I told you that we operate the United States operates approximately 750 foreign military bases in around 80 countries and colonies where it does not hold sovereignty, with the host nation retaining legal control over the land. Any one of these could be nationalized, just give us the boot, or a foo-bird might shit on it. I do not think “fool me once” comes into play; it’s just a necessary risk unless you want to own the world.
We see no difference from Greenland 750 times in 80 different US countries. You seem to think Greenland is special because of it’s relationship to Denmark. I listed a handful of countries with similar governance models, some of which have US military installations on them. Didn’t budge your feeling that Greenland is special. But they are not, they all have the risk of having land owned by other nations. The risk may be adjusted accordingly.
So, leasing, treaties, etc. have risks. Duly noted. We take the risks 750 times, why is Greenland special? We even take the risk with countries with similar governance models as Greenland, why is Greenland so special. And IF Greenland is so special, why wasn’t it a major, or even minor plank for Trump’s 2024 campaign? Or in Project 2025. Yes, Trump has muttered about it before, but who takes his mutterings seriously, on anything? If we did, his enemies list would be hanging from the yard arms across the land.
“I think you need to contact your elementary school and explain to them that you have trouble reading. See if they have a refresher course.” What a douche bag thing to say. At least that’s what I heard from someone. Joe, I would love to have more conversations with you, but really, do we need to interject this crap for cuteness? Or are you just that weak in your confidence in your argument? On this one, I understand what you say, I read it, but disagree both on the facts that Greenland is special versus just a distraction for the sheeples.
Let’s clean up VZ, GAZA, and end the war by defending Ukraine with real force. Maybe they will cede us some land for a base and Vlad can chew on that 😊
Nothing in this latest tome has any bearing on the issue. The point stands, Trump needs control to do what is needed to protect the U.S. and NATO. This is not a billion dollar base. This is a $200Billioin defense system.
Everything I said does have bearing on the subject which you conveniently weasel changed to another subject not covered in the story.. It was about real estate and sovereignty; now it’s about an undefined defense system, aka Trump tries to be Reagan with the Trump dome that I am sure you can’t define why a “forever” installation is needed.
Where else or just Greenland?
Why?
Where is this stated as a subject in the article?
Most important; what about the other 750 foreign locations of our bases? Which and how many of these included. Because no matter what it is, and you have shed zero transparency into that; it’s hard to imagine that all we need is Greenland.
And if only Greenland is needed, only Greenland will do; the design sounds flawed before the alpha test. FYI: the iron dome not applicable for us. We are testing two batteries, one in Guam which as I pointed out, replaced Philippines and is structured like Greenland for governance.
Ironic eh?
Dunger said “ gotta love a guy “. Is he coming out of the closet?
Joe (Larry). One of the most ignorant tomes ever written on the windbag post. You live in the past, but the era of colonialism is over. The era where countries take over other nations to plunder their resources is over. Trump’s demand for Greenland has nothing to do with security and everything to do with the resources under the ice in. Most of the country realizes that this attempted takeover of another country is not who we as a nation claim to be, unfortunately you (and other idiots commenting) do not remember what we as a nation have strived to achieve since WWII, and turn somersaults to agree with what the most ignorant president (and worst) president in American history…