Trump threatens 10% tariffs to Nato allies over Greenland deal

[Syne]

While the details of the deal are still emerging, it may be that [...] Trump decided to take a win on Arctic security and forgo a needless fight on Greenland’s sovereignty. 

No, it means his initial "big ask" and pressure to negotiate have achieved what he really wanted all along.

While Trump ruled out war to conquer Greenland, he did suggest, albeit obliquely, that continued US support for Ukraine and for NATO depended on European acquiescence in his demands for Greenland. “Now what I’m asking for is a piece of ice,” Trump said of Greenland. “It’s a very small ask compared to what we have given them for many, many decades,” he added about NATO. To underscore the point, Trump said several times in the speech that allies had not been there for the United States.

Yes, continuing to hold a strong negotiating position, even while seeming to compromise.

[...] Trump rightly pointed out that NATO nations have not devoted enough to defense. He also took credit, also rightly, for helping fix that problem by pushing for NATO’s decision at its 2025 summit in The Hague to set new, high targets for members’ military spending. But Trump cannot take a win on NATO defense spending and then demand that NATO members acquiesce to US aggression against a fellow NATO member.

He actually can do both. The threat of US aggression against a NATO member is actually just more motivation for member states to take their own collective security more seriously, with more funding and development.

[...] Though details so far are thin, the meeting between Trump and Rutte seems to have settled on just that sort of deal: some arrangement to bolster security in the Arctic and, one hopes, the United States backing off on meritless claims to Greenland. Trump could justly claim such an arrangement as a win for both US and allied security in the Arctic...

Because that was his end goal all along.

[Magical Realist]

"NOOOO!"

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1608026580622413

[Syne]

"NOOOO!"

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1608026580622413

Hope that's cathartic for ya.
God knows your ignorant takes aren't accomplishing anything.

[C C]

Could be shipping routes, too. 

https://www.brown.edu/news/2022-06-22/arctic

The prospect of shipping routes opening up really is the "gold" that's driving Russia to restore old military bases and once abandoned infrastructure in the region. As well as China getting aggressive in the Arctic. Greenland's minerals are primarily getting focus because of those future trade passages developing around or near the giant island. Even The Guardian admits there's a universal interest is Greenland, when they're not downplaying it to jab at Trump.

New shipping routes show the growing strategic importance of Greenland as Arctic ice melts under global heating
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/j...and-russia

[Zinjanthropos]

Could be shipping routes, too. 

https://www.brown.edu/news/2022-06-22/arctic

The prospect of shipping routes opening up really is the "gold" that's driving Russia to restore old military bases and once abandoned infrastructure in the region. As well as China getting aggressive in the Arctic. Greenland's minerals are primarily getting focus because of those future trade passages developing around or near the giant island. Even The Guardian admits there's a universal interest is Greenland, when they're not downplaying it to jab at Trump.

New shipping routes show the growing strategic importance of Greenland as Arctic ice melts under global heating
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/j...and-russia

Just my guess but I think that ICBM technology/range improves so much that it won’t matter where detection/intercept military bases are constructed on Greenland. Certainly before things really thaw out. Obsolete before you know it but I suppose it would look imposing. If the other guy feels threatened by US proximity in Greenland perhaps there’s a chance they work even harder at getting around an obstacle or taking them out.

[geordief]

Could be shipping routes, too. 

https://www.brown.edu/news/2022-06-22/arctic

The prospect of shipping routes opening up really is the "gold" that's driving Russia to restore old military bases and once abandoned infrastructure in the region. As well as China getting aggressive in the Arctic. Greenland's minerals are primarily getting focus because of those future trade passages developing around or near the giant island. Even The Guardian admits there's a universal interest is Greenland, when they're not downplaying it to jab at Trump.

New shipping routes show the growing strategic importance of Greenland as Arctic ice melts under global heating
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/j...and-russia

Just my guess but I think that ICBM technology/range improves so much that it won’t matter where detection/intercept military bases are constructed on Greenland. Certainly before things really thaw out. Obsolete before you know it but I suppose it would look imposing. If the other guy feels threatened by US proximity in Greenland perhaps there’s a chance they work even harder at getting around an obstacle or taking them out.

I have read(and it seems blindingly obvious) that the Golden Dome is entirely impractical as well as wrong headed.

Is it being used just as a spurious buttressing argument to the immoral and incontinent policies emanating from the White House  these days?

Perhaps if they can shift around Iceland and  Greenland in the ongoing 8d checkers game the mists will clear and  we can all share in the lightning bolt revelations in the head of US government.

[C C]

Could be shipping routes, too. 

https://www.brown.edu/news/2022-06-22/arctic

The prospect of shipping routes opening up really is the "gold" that's driving Russia to restore old military bases and once abandoned infrastructure in the region. As well as China getting aggressive in the Arctic. Greenland's minerals are primarily getting focus because of those future trade passages developing around or near the giant island. Even The Guardian admits there's a universal interest is Greenland, when they're not downplaying it to jab at Trump.

New shipping routes show the growing strategic importance of Greenland as Arctic ice melts under global heating
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/j...and-russia

Just my guess but I think that ICBM technology/range improves so much that it won’t matter where detection/intercept military bases are constructed on Greenland. Certainly before things really thaw out. Obsolete before you know it but I suppose it would look imposing. If the other guy feels threatened by US proximity in Greenland perhaps there’s a chance they work even harder at getting around an obstacle or taking them out.

The new shipping lanes will need to be patrolled by conventional Western military presence in the arctic region, otherwise they'll be appropriated in a manner similar to the Northern Sea Route. That will primarily become the burden of the US, Europe isn't going to build extensive bases. The US has to expand its Navy, though, if it wants to ironically play world policeman again in an era of supposed deglobalization. Aircraft launched from future Greenland bases isn't sufficient (Trump recently sent some to Pituffik.)

The "Golden Dome" distraction is ultimately akin to South Korea's monster missile trophy stuff. Whatever rival counter developments are going on between nuclear powers (both offense and defense), they're rarely anything but deterrent window dressing, anyway. There's no favorable aftermath to nuclear war to be garnered. Stalin had to be poisoned by Party members to avoid WWIII, because he started delusionally entertaining that the USSR had an advantage -- a miracle of sorts, since no "dog" in the Russia, China, NK, Iran, etc sphere has successfully been put down since.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

(April 9, 2025) Putin’s Arctic ambitions: Russia eyes natural resources and shipping routes
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/uk...ng-routes/

EXCERPT: Russia’s Arctic ambitions are similarly evident in the country’s current maritime doctrine. Russian control over the Northern Sea Route, which runs through Arctic waters along Russia’s northern coast and serves as the shortest shipping route between Europe and the Pacific, is vital for the Kremlin’s plans. With this in mind, Putin is currently prioritizing an enlarged and modernized military presence in the Arctic region including enhanced naval capabilities.

Moscow sees the Northern Sea Route as part of Russia’s national transport infrastructure and has sought to control access for shipping from other nations. This is particularly controversial as the Northern Sea Route covers a vast area that is expected to become increasingly navigable in the coming years due to changing environmental conditions. Some of the areas currently claimed by the Kremlin are situated well beyond the territorial waters of the Russian Federation.

With Russia militarizing along the Northern Sea Route and laying claim to large parts of the Arctic maritime zone, the scope for potential future conflict is huge. Geopolitical tensions are likely to be further heightened by the deepening regional involvement of China in partnership with Russia. The two nations have identified the Arctic as a key area of cooperation, both as a trade route linking China to Europe and as a source of the natural resources that Beijing needs to fuel its economy.

In the years ahead, the ports of the Northern Sea Route could become increasingly important for the projection of Chinese and Russian naval power on the international stage, both in the Arctic region and beyond. This could allow both countries to enforce their claims to Arctic resources and overwhelm other regional nations with less powerful navies such as Canada, Denmark, and Norway. This is leading to security concerns over a number of isolated and vulnerable islands throughout the region.

Allowing Russia to gain the ascendancy in the Arctic would lead to unpredictable geopolitical consequences. Control over the oil and gas resources of the Arctic region could dramatically increase Russian state revenues. Past experience indicates that this windfall would likely be used by the Kremlin to finance military spending, potentially setting the stage for fresh acts of aggression. Limiting Russian access to the Arctic should therefore be viewed as matter of international security.

As the struggle for dominance in the Arctic heats up, it is already clear that NATO member states need to dramatically strengthen their presence and capabilities in the region. It would also make sense to call upon international bodies such as the International Court of Justice to request clarification regarding the regime that Russia has arbitrarily established in the waters of the Northern Sea Route.

[Syne]

I have read(and it seems blindingly obvious) that the Golden Dome is entirely impractical as well as wrong headed.

Vacuous opinion.

Is it being used just as a spurious buttressing argument to the immoral and incontinent policies emanating from the White House  these days?

Again, no actual argument expressed in that opinion.

Perhaps if they can shift around Iceland and  Greenland in the ongoing 8d checkers game the mists will clear and  we can all share in the lightning bolt revelations in the head of US government.

Iceland and Greenland serve different strategic purposes.

[stryder]

Arctic isn't just shipping routes, it is also air traffic. Air corridors tend to try to aim to keep aircraft near land encase there is a problem. So controlling the land controls the corridors. That can lead to problems, as if one company gains ire over another in regards to "tariffs" etc, they'll be forced to use a longer route (which costs more)

[Syne]

Only if Russia shuts down its own airspace, like in the Cold War. I doubt they would risk attacking international flights directly. The Arctic is largely international waters.