What Greenland Wants And Why Trump Can't Afford To Buy It
'We can give the people of Greenland way more money' than 'the 60,000 dollars per year per person' they get from the Danish government, Vice President JD Vance said in an interview on Newsmax on Thursday. But money is not the answer to what Greenland wants. And the more Trump and his team insist that the question of Greenland is about money, the harder they make it for themselves to win the Greenlanders over.
The same day JD Vance offered the Greenlanders 'way more money' than the Danish government, Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen held a press conference aboard the Danish Navy inspection ship Vaedderen in Nuuk, Greenland.
Flanked by Greenland's acting elected head of government Múte Borup Egede on the one side and the newly elected head of government Jens-Frederik Nielsen on the other, Frederiksen spoke directly to the American government in English, saying: 'You cannot annex another country, not even with an argument about international security.'
While the Trump team keeps saying that Greenlanders do not want to be part of Denmark, Greenlandic leaders keep standing side by side with Danish leaders, unanimously emphasizing that Trump will not get Greenland. Why is that? Is the Trump team wrong when they say that Greenland wants to be independent of Denmark? No. But they are wrong when they say it has to do with Denmark.
Greenland's wish for independence has to do with Greenland. Not Denmark. Not the United States. And not China as U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested when he said the Trump administration is 'not going to let China come in now and offer them a bunch of money and become dependent on China.' Unlike the Greenlanders, the question of Greenland is never about Greenland for Trump and his team. Money, yes. America's security, yes. International security, yes, so they say. But Greenland, no.
According to AP News, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen 'traveled to the strategically critical Arctic island as U.S. President Donald Trump seeks control of Greenland.' But neither Greenlandic nor Danish leaders think and talk about Greenland as a strategically critical island for the American president to seek control over. Nor do they think and talk about Greenland as JD Vance did when he told Newsmax that Denmark 'of course controls Greenland right now.'
For the U.S. government and media, the question of Greenland is about control, specifically whether Denmark or the United States should have control of the island. But for Greenlandic and Danish leaders, it is about Greenland's past, present, and future, specifically what it takes for Greenland to succeed as an independent country.
'We don't want to be Americans. No, we don't want to be Danes. We want to be Greenlanders. And we want our own independence in the future. And we want to build our own country by ourselves,' said Jens-Frederik Nielsen before he was elected as Greenland's new head of government in March.
Greenland subsequently put action behind Nielsen's words by forming a new government consisting of four of the five political parties in Greenland's parliament. Nielsen described the motive for a broad coalition this way:
'This is not the time for political tactics and internal disagreements. The situation for our country is far too serious for that. When someone threatens us, looks down on us or speaks badly of us, we stand together.'
In a joint statement, the Greenlandic leaders said, 'We – all party leaders – cannot accept the repeated comments about annexation and control of Greenland.' And when Trump earlier this week said, 'We'll Get Greenland. Yeah, 100%,' Nielsen shared this statement on Facebook (translated from Danish):
'President Trump says that the United States will 'get Greenland'. Let me be clear: The United States will not get Greenland. We do not belong to others. We decide our own future. We must not react with fear. We must react with calm, dignity and unity. And it is through these values that we must clearly, distinctly and calmly show the American president that Greenland is ours. That was the case yesterday. That is the case today. And that is the case in the future.'
Not a word about dollars, strategy, security, or control. And not a word about Denmark. Because no matter how much the Trump team would like it to be the case, Greenlanders are not fighting against Denmark. They are fighting for independence.
To give the Greenlanders what they want, Trump would have to do the opposite of what he says he wants: instead of gaining control, he would have to give up the idea of ever controlling Greenland. And he can't afford that.
As long as the question of Greenland is about money, Trump is in control of both the deal he is trying to cut and the narrative of why Greenland is important for him to 'get.' But the moment the question of Greenland is also about the Greenlanders and what they want for their country, Trump is on thin ice.
Trump's mandate is to 'Make America Great Again.' It's to care about American voters, not Greenlandic, Danish, or European. That's why Trump needs to be in control of Greenland: because if he is not, and Greenland is not part of the United States, he cannot afford to spend his time – and American taxpayers' money – on making Greenland part of the 'Golden Age' he has promised Americans.
And that's why the Trump team doesn't talk about Greenland's independence, but about Greenland's independence of Denmark: because the question of independence is dangerous for the Trump team. When JD Vance says, 'Yeah, I think they want to be independent from Denmark, and then once they do we can have a conversation about the relationship we will have between the United States and Greenland,' he elegantly omits to get into the independence part. Because if Greenland's wish for independence is actually about independence, American control of Greenland is just as problematic as Danish. And no amount of U.S. dollars will ever change that.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This Woman Is Going Viral For Hilariously Explaining The Brutal Truth About The US's Student Loan Crisis
I doubt it'll come as a surprise to anyone under 45, but according to nearly "one in six adult Americans" has federal student loan debt, and the New York Times reports that millennials hold the bulk of that debt. Back in May, President Trump resumed collections on previously defaulted student loans, which had been paused since 2020. Combined with the government allowing loan servicers to report late payments to credit bureaus again (which had also been on pause), the New York Times said that millions of people have seen their credit scores drop, and "a record number of borrowers are [now] at risk of defaulting by the end of the year." Student loans have continued to be a point of contention politically as well, with many conservatives arguing against student loan forgiveness, saying it's akin to getting something for free. However, younger people contend that the loans are predatory, unaffordable, and feel impossible to pay off, sometimes even after they've been making regular payments for years. Zoë Tyler, aka thezolyspirit, recently went viral in a video where she jokingly laid out exactly what the student loan crisis looks like in reality. Zoë started out the video satirically, in a perfect mid-Atlantic accent, with a text overlay that says, "What boomers think the student loan crisis is...": "Oh, yes," she said, "Well, I, I know I said I would pay back those student loans, but I... I've decided I don't want to," she said with a smile. "I don't ever want to grow up. I want to stay a child forever." @thezolyspirit / Via Then, she switched immediately back to her normal speaking voice with a text overlay that says "What it actually is..." as she began imitating a one-sided phone call. "Hi, yes, um — so, I have my student loan pulled up here — I've been making the minimum payment on time for 10 years, and I now owe more than I took out. So I just… I was wondering what's that about?" she asked. @thezolyspirit / Via "The interest accrues faster than you can pay it off? Oh, that's…that's you guys are able to do that." "What is the interest, by the way? I can't… It's 13%? Okay. That makes sense, that…that it would be that." Then, Zoë begins a new conversation. "Hi! I just graduated, and I noticed that my student loans are way more than I originally took out. It was accruing interest while I was at school? Uh. Hmm. But it says the principle is more than I took [out]..." @thezolyspirit / Via "When I graduated, you combined the accruing interest into the principle, so now… I took out $55,000, and it's saying that it accrued $20,000 while I was at school. So now, instead of taking the 10% interest off of $55,000, you're taking 10% interest off of $75,000? Wow!" @thezolyspirit / Via The video ended with Zoë signing off the call. "All right, well, uh, thank you. What was your name, sir? One more time? Beelzebub? Okay, thank you." People in the comments were quick to back Zoë up, pointing out that they'd had similar experiences with their own loans. "I borrowed $17k and they want $60k back. They need to be fr lmao," said one person. "My husband, after paying for 13 years, checked his student loan breakdown. Turns out, of the 350$ a month he has been paying on time for 13+ years, only .16 CENTS a month goes toward the principle balance." "atp my student loans are an issue between the government and god." Others pointed out how much costs have changed since the baby boomers were in school. "Tuitions and Fees have gone up 133% since the 80s." U.S. News & World Report confirms this statistic, with the qualifier that it is in regard to in-state tuition and fees at public national universities, and is not adjusted for inflation. "My FIL [father-in-law] paid for his college and his living expenses for the entire year by working an entry level construction job in the summer. No way anyone could do that now-a-days. A summer job wouldn't even cover books and fees." The conversation made its way over to Twitter (X) as well, when the video was shared with the comment, "A TikTok that explains the student-loan crisis better than any politician or journalist can, in 93 seconds." Quoting a response to the original tweet, they also said, "This is not 'basic finance,' these are exploitative non-negotiable terms which makes this a form of predatory lending." "If you get a 7-year car loan and make the minimum payment every month, the loan will be paid off in 7 years... It's literally only student loans that are like this." Unsurprisingly, there were commenters who felt that borrowers were the ones responsible for their debt. "Crying about being responsible for your choices just shows how out of touch that generation is," said one person. "What this tik tok explains really well is that people didn't learn the right things in college." "Do not sign don't understand. Especially don't do that and then try to make it other people's problem." But others pushed back, pointing out that people took these loans out when they were still teenagers, usually with a promise that going to college would help them earn more money later. "Worst part is people will see this and say 'well you as a 17/18 y/o should have realized how predatory it was.'" "Telling 18 year olds that they have to go to college to be successful and not fully explaining to them what loans are like is diabolical." "a lot of us were just shuffled through a line and told to sign a sheet of paper so we could go to school, all with minimal explanation of any of it." And finally, this commenter summed it up best: "But make sure you pay them off whilst also buying a house, paying for a wedding, and having children all whilst earning proportionally less than they ever did because wages are stagnant, ok? You can do it if you just cancel your Netflix." You can see Zoë's full video below: @thezolyspirit / Via And now I have to know: What do you think? Are you still paying off student loans? Do you feel they should be forgiven, or at least reduced after a decade of payments? Let us know in the comments. And if you'd like to remain anonymous, you can use the form below.
Buzz Feed
29 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
This Senator Made A Very, Very Good Point About Trump's Weird Comment About Gold
A bunch of Donald Trump's new tariffs went into effect on August 7. But there's one thing that won't be hit with a tariff, and that's gold. Yep, gold is off the table! Some people pointed how that this could be because of all of the gold in the Oval Office. Other people compared him to an Austin Powers villain. And this person said, "I miss when the federal government wasn't a meme." But one reply to Trump's post is going more viral than the rest, and it's from Senator Chris Coons of Delaware. Here's what he said: "Trump could have cancelled tariffs on groceries, clothing, back-to-school supplies – any one of a number of things that would have reduced costs for American families. Instead, he chose gold." NextGen America responded to that comment, "Trumponomics, simplified: More golden ballrooms for him, more tariffs for the rest of us." Thoughts?
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump tells Europe he won't negotiate territory with Putin, say leaders
European leaders said President Trump on Wednesday said he would not negotiate territorial issues with Russian President Vladimir Putin at their summit in Alaska this week, saying it is an issue that must be discussed between Ukraine and Russia. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and French President Emanuel Macron both said Trump made the comments during a virtual meeting with European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Wednesday. Merz made the remarks alongside Zelensky, who came to Berlin for the call. The German leader said Trump told them that he wouldn't negotiate territorial issues and pledged to ask for an immediate ceasefire in the meeting, the Wall Street Journal reported citing two sources on the call. Macron similarly told reporters that Trump agreed with European leaders during the call that any talks on territorial concessions must involve Ukraine. Trump described the call with European leaders as 'very good, I would rate it a 10' when speaking to reporters at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. He said there will be consequences for Putin if he does not agree to stop the war after their meeting in Alaska on Friday. Trump also sought to set expectations for the meeting, saying he didn't believe he has the power to get Putin stop attacking Ukrainian civilians. 'I've had that conversation with him, I've had a lot of good conversations with him and then I go home and I see that a rocket hit a nursing home, or a rocket hit an apartment building and people are laying dead in the street… but I guess the answer to that is probably no.' While Trump set an Aug 8 deadline for Putin to stop the war or face sanctions, the president allowed that deadline to pass in exchange for the face-to-face summit. Trump said the first meeting with Putin is an attempt to feel out the Russian leader's commitment to negotiations to end the war, but that the goal is to move toward a second summit with Zelensky, and possibly Trump too. 'There's a good chance we'll have a second meeting that will be more productive than the first – because the first I'll find out where we are and what we're doing,' he said.
