Trump, Greenland, and the Dangerous Return to Imperial Thinking

[eTorro]

A growing, deeply concerning narrative is emerging from Donald Trump and several of his senior officials regarding Greenland. What is being framed publicly as a matter of “national security” increasingly resembles something far more troubling: a willingness to override international law, national sovereignty, and ethical restraint in pursuit of strategic and economic gain.

Greenland is not an unclaimed territory. It is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a sovereign state and a NATO ally. More importantly, Greenland belongs to its people. International law is unequivocal on this matter. The UN Charter explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Any attempt—explicit or implied—to annex, coerce, or militarily seize Greenland would constitute a clear violation of these principles.

The security argument does not hold up under scrutiny. The United States already maintains a military presence in Greenland, and both Denmark and Greenland have repeatedly stated they are open to cooperation on legitimate security concerns. There is no evidence supporting claims that Greenland is “surrounded” or imminently threatened by foreign adversaries. When security rhetoric is detached from facts, it becomes propaganda rather than policy.

What does make sense, however, is the economic subtext. As climate change accelerates ice melt, Greenland is becoming more accessible to vast reserves of rare earth elements and strategic minerals—resources critical for future technologies, energy systems, and global economic dominance. This reframes the issue not as defense, but as extraction. Not protection, but control.

History offers a clear warning here. The logic being used echoes 19th- and early 20th-century imperialism: powerful states claiming moral or security justifications to dominate weaker or smaller ones for resources. That mindset has led repeatedly to war, instability, and long-term global trauma. The modern international system was designed specifically to prevent this pattern from repeating.

There is also a deeper, more philosophical issue at play—one especially relevant to a community like Actualized.org. Conscious leadership requires recognizing that might does not equal right. True strength is not the ability to impose one’s will, but the discipline to respect boundaries, sovereignty, and collective agreements even when power allows otherwise. A world where major powers openly threaten annexation is not a more secure world—it is a less conscious one.

If NATO members begin treating each other as potential targets rather than partners, the entire foundation of post-war global stability erodes. International law only works if it is upheld consistently, not selectively. Once exceptions are made for “strong” countries, the system collapses into raw power dynamics.

Greenland is not a chess piece. It is not a commodity. It is a home, a culture, and a sovereign territory governed by law and consent. Any future that involves coercion rather than cooperation is not progress—it is regression.

This moment deserves serious reflection, not tribal politics. Because if international norms fall here, they fall everywhere.

[Hojo]

Seems hes just using these as a coverup while he focuses on other things. 

[aurum]

Humanity never evolved beyond "might makes right".

[museumoftrees]

Great post but it feels like AI wrote it. Am I wrong?

[Staples]

1 hour ago, museumoftrees said:

Great post but it feels like AI wrote it. Am I wrong?

Haha—you're absolutely right—and it's funny you mention it because I've noticed AI-generated text is obsessed with em-dashes—like, suspiciously obsessed—to the point where spotting three em-dashes in two sentences is basically a dead giveaway. Guilty as charged—I'll work on sounding more human next time!

[Staples]

Stephen Miller Asserts U.S. Has Right to Take Greenland

“We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power,” he said. “These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”

In my view, the Greenland invasion threat is a tactic to distract from Venezuela. It's obvious it would be suicidal for the US to attack Europe. It's like sticking a knife at a bystander while you rob someone blind. It's an attempt to project force even while you are busy.

Just that threat alone should prompt Europe and Nato to consider expelling US army bases. You don't threaten your allies.

[Lyubov]

He’s testing the waters on everything. 

2028

greenland 

one party rule 

ending elections 

He puts it out there and sees how much support he gets from his base and internally for it. 

[Breathe]

22 minutes ago, Staples said:

In my view, the Greenland invasion threat is a tactic to distract from Venezuela. It's obvious it would be suicidal for the US to attack Europe. It's like sticking a knife at a bystander while you rob someone blind. It's an attempt to project force even while you are busy.

Why would we need to distract from Venezuela? What do you think we are doing there that we don't want others to know about?

It may not be a distraction through. The US will bail on NATO eventually. We are Putin's bitch, and maybe the time has come.

[Staples]

Just now, Breathe said:

Why would we need to distract from Venezuela? What do you think we are doing there that we don't want others to know about?

It may not be a distraction through. The US will bail on NATO eventually. We are Putin's bitch, and maybe the time has come.

Distract might not have been the right word. The point is there is value in making empty threats.

[Breathe]

It's strategic, we'll see what happens

[Breathe]

Billionaires want their resources, the military wants the strategic geography, and Putin wants the end of NATO.

There's a lot going on there.

[Breathe]

[AerisVahnEphelia]

If you don't remove it now from presidency it's world war 3. 

Congratulation to all the fucking retards who elected this idiot.

I thought it was a joke to ask gpt if France could nuke 60% of the USA. ( Hint : it can )

Also what's going to happen that this moron don't understand is that EU will rather bow to China if this goes more retarded.

Survival would require way too much and the USA is going to loose everything because trump can't understand chess after moving the first line of pawns.

[Breathe]

@AerisVahnEphelia  Destruction is what gets him off the most. He wants to see the world burn.

 

Sarah Kendzior also says:

[Breathe]

He was hired to destroy:

[Staples]

1 hour ago, Breathe said:

Oceania, Eurasia, and East Asia.

Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four - Wikipedia

[Elliott]

Perhaps Mamdani(stage yellow) could talk Trump out of this.

[ted73104]

Come on, why would we want Trump to get talked out of what he's planning to do? We all want to see Trump reap what he sows. Karma will catch up to him.

[Basman]

If the US wants to take Greenland, there isn't much that can be done about it. 

I have Greenlandic relatives and I have to mentally prepare for a reality where it'll lose it's sovereignty and the lives of those will be complicated and potentially put in danger.

Edited yesterday at 12:41 PM by Basman

[Basman]

3 hours ago, Lyubov said:

He’s testing the waters on everything. 

2028

greenland 

one party rule 

ending elections 

He puts it out there and sees how much support he gets from his base and internally for it. 

These moves come at cost of diminishing trust and influence abroad. Even if it is just talk it throws NATO among other things into uncertainty. It makes America a less powerful and influential country ultimately.

An empire in decline.