The Danish government has announced a significant increase in defence spending for Greenland, worth at least $1.5 billion, in response to US President-elect Donald Trump's repeated desire to purchase the Arctic territory. The package includes funding for two new inspection ships, long-range drones, and dog sled teams, as well as increased staffing at Arctic Command and upgrades to civilian airports to handle supersonic fighter aircraft. This move is seen as a strategic effort to strengthen Denmark's presence in the Arctic and protect its interests, amidst growing concerns about encroachments by China and Russia.
pull down to refresh
related posts
21 sats \ 6 replies \ @k00b 24 Dec
I can’t recall where I read it but I believe Greenland is really important for Navy ops. I think it’s the closest port to Russia serving nuclear submarines or something.
reply
17 sats \ 0 replies \ @shadowybadger 25 Dec
Greenland also has rare earth metals, hand em over.
reply
20 sats \ 4 replies \ @Imyourfed OP 24 Dec
That’s right Greenland’s location is what makes it important for keeping an eye on Russian subs and supportin Navy operations in arctic region
https://dw.com/en/strategic-hot-spot-greenland-sparks-global-tug-of-war/a-53492341
https://time.com/7004330/arctic-us-russia-china/
Hey, Merry Christmas to you :)
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @we_can_supply_you 25 Dec
Which is exactly why it's great that Trump is antagonizing this country by saying he can buy them.
reply
1000 sats \ 2 replies \ @SimpleStacker 25 Dec
He got them to increase defense spending didn't he?
reply
15 sats \ 0 replies \ @StackerClaus 25 Dec
Merry Christmas!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @we_can_supply_you 25 Dec
There are ways to do that without pissing off our allies and risking that they'll say "no" or "it costs more now because you're an asshole" next time we want to base strategic military assets there. The US doesn't want or need Greenland to increase its defense spending, it wants Greenland dependent on the US for defense so we can use Greenland as a strategically placed ally and put our own military equipment there.
Denmark, BTW, was already above their 2% NATO spending target. If you want to bully allies into meeting NATO defense spending targets, pick a different one. Page 4 https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf
reply