╌>

The Idiocy of Seizing Greenland

  
Via:  John Russell  •  10 months ago  •  10 comments

By:   dianeravitch (Diane Ravitchs blog)

The Idiocy of Seizing Greenland
Foreign Policy, a distinguished publication for leading scholars of foreign affairs, published an article by staff writers Keith Johnson and Christina Lu asserting that Trump's lust to control Greenland is just plain nuts. They wrote; Seeking additional barrels of oil in Venezuela or digging for rare earths in ice-covered Greenland makes no sense from an economic or security point…

Sponsored by group SiNNERs and ButtHeads

SiNNERs and ButtHeads


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


By dianeravitch January 22, 2026 // 2

Foreign Policy, a distinguished publication for leading scholars of foreign affairs, published an article by staff writers Keith Johnson and Christina Lu asserting that Trump's lust to control Greenland is just plain nuts.

They wrote;

Seeking additional barrels of oil in Venezuela or digging for rare earths in ice-covered Greenland makes no sense from an economic or security point of view. And yet U.S. President Donald Trump persists, even though the costs massively outweigh the benefits.

In reality, naked resource grabs explain a lot about Trump's dizzying foreign policy, perhaps even more so than other explanations that have been proposed. It seems Trump may have reached back even further in time for his guiding light than tariff-happy William McKinley and big-stick imperialist Theodore Roosevelt to the British and Dutch quasi-state mercantilist corporations that introduced much of the world to rapacious capitalism starting in the 17th century. The British and Dutch East India Companies did grab much of the world, usually at gunpoint. At least they got pepper, spices, and tea. All we have here is sulfurous oil and neodymium.

Gunboat diplomacy is back, only this time without the diplomacy.

Trump's obsession with natural resources that the companies paid to extract them refuse to touch does raise several questions. Are these even the right resources to be grabbing? Is any of this legal? And most importantly, is any of this a remotely good way to promote the security of the United States?

WHEN IT COMES TO OIL, which has been a Trump obsession for decades, the answer is clearly no.

Oil demand is a tricky thing to project into the future. Some forecasters expect global demand for oil to peak within five years, while others reckon fast-growing developing economies will still be thirsty into the next decade, requiring more wells and more production. Either way, oil from Venezuela and Greenland is not the answer.

Venezuela's oil woes have been amply demonstrated. It's an expensive thing to produce in a place with little security and less rule of law, especially with oil languishing in the mid-$50s a barrel. The chairman and chief executive of ExxonMobil, Darren Woods, told Trump at a White House meeting last week that Venezuela was "uninvestible." Trump then said he would ensure that Exxon was kept out of any U.S.-led Venezuela ventures—and Exxon's stock rose on the news.

Greenland, too, is rumored to have oil: billions of barrels of it. It's not clear if that is actually the case, because decades of exploration have hit only dry wells, but on paper, Greenland could have 8 billion barrels of oil hidden under the tundra and the whitecaps, or nearly 3 percent of Venezuela's unattractive reserves.

But there are some daunting challenges. Most of those estimated oil resources are north of the Arctic Circle, and mostly offshore. That is not easy to access, even with climate change stretching summer on both ends. Even the oil on land is not easy to tap. There are fewer than 100 miles of paved road on an island the size of Mexico. Deep water ports, airports, pipelines, oil-export terminals, housing, clinics—all are on somebody's to-do list to build, but not that of oil majors.

Also relevant: Since 2021, Greenland has banned further oil exploration due to environmental concerns. The only current play, a land-based oil-exploration operation on the island's east coast with U.S. backing, relies on a grandfathered lease from years ago. That legal stricture, in the absence of a complete annexation, could complicate further U.S. efforts to tap Greenland's possible oil.

BUT WHAT ABOUT GREENLAND'S rare earths, which Trump officials have suggested are one of the primary reasons the U.S. president is so interested in the island?

While those who focus on rare earths mining simply say the plan is "bonkers," the real issue is that rare earths are not rare—processing facilities and magnet factories are. Which makes a race for ice-bound dodgy mining prospects in somebody else's territory all the harder to understand.

"It certainly doesn't make any sense as a rare-earth story," Ian Lange, a professor in the mineral economics program at the Colorado School of Mines, recently told Foreign Policy.

Rare earths, or a set of 17 metallic elements with obscure names like neodymium and samarium, have catapulted in geopolitical importance because they power everything from F-35 fighter jets to Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. China overwhelmingly commands their global supply chains, giving it powerful leverage in its ongoing trade spat with the United States.

Sure, Greenland may have some sizable rare earth reserves, according to the U.S. Geological Survey—but so do many other countries. And a big economic question hangs over potential operations in Greenland, where no rare earth mining has ever taken place and mining itself remains a fraught and divisive issue.

The biggest problem with Trump's resource grabs is not their lack of economic foundation, which is nil, or their legality, which is none, but with what they do for U.S. security, which is little or worse.

Also, the bulk of Greenland's land—a whopping 80 percent—is estimated to be covered in ice. All of those factors are certain to make establishing crucial mining and processing infrastructure, already a difficult and hefty financial endeavor, even more costly and challenging.

In his pursuit of rare earths, industry experts say, Trump will likely have an easier time looking elsewhere.

AND THEN THERE'S THE QUESTION of the legality of how Trump is going about his resource grabs. Abducting heads of government to seize resources is not anywhere sanctioned in the U.N. Charter, nor is threatening to invade a NATO alliance partner to forcibly annex their territory. But rogue states are hard to red team.

Trump has waved aside centuries of international law, telling the New York Times "I don't need international law," because his own "morality" was the only check or balance required.

It's not an abstruse debate. For centuries, the West has sought to paint a patina of law over the anarchy of the international system, and even today, tomes are written about revisionist powers seeking to pervert international law for their own ends. Until very recently, the United States was not among the revisionist powers.

But there's little to be done on that front. Trump's installed successor in Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro's former vice president and now also acting president Delcy Rodriguez, who has been under U.S. sanctions since 2017 for human rights abuses, is according to Trump "a terrific person." Also not entirely legal is storing the proceeds of Venezuelan oil sales the United States has carried out in an offshore account in Qatar.

THE BIGGEST PROBLEM with Trump's resource grabs is not their lack of economic foundation, which is nil, or their legality, which is none, but with what they do for U.S. security, which is little or worse….

The great advantage the United States had, until recently, was its network of alliances: NATO, Japan, South Korea, and a multitude of others. That's all gone now, or nearly. It is surely a sign of bungled foreign policy when Sweden dispatches troops against you.


Red Box Rules

Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that are known plagiarists, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt/deflect the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted.  Any use of the term "Brandon", "Traitor Joe", or any variations thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted.  Right wing trolls can expect to have their irrelevant questions and comments deleted. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion. Use of the terms "leftist" or "lefty" will also be subject to deletion. ©

 


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    10 months ago
BUT WHAT ABOUT GREENLAND'S rare earths, which Trump officials have suggested are one of the primary reasons the U.S. president is so interested in the island?

While those who focus on rare earths mining simply say the plan is "bonkers," the real issue is that rare earths are not rare—processing facilities and magnet factories are. Which makes a race for ice-bound dodgy mining prospects in somebody else's territory all the harder to understand.

"It certainly doesn't make any sense as a rare-earth story," Ian Lange, a professor in the mineral economics program at the Colorado School of Mines, recently told Foreign Policy.

Rare earths, or a set of 17 metallic elements with obscure names like neodymium and samarium, have catapulted in geopolitical importance because they power everything from F-35 fighter jets to Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. China overwhelmingly commands their global supply chains, giving it powerful leverage in its ongoing trade spat with the United States.

Sure, Greenland may have some sizable rare earth reserves, according to the U.S. Geological Survey—but so do many other countries. And a big economic question hangs over potential operations in Greenland, where no rare earth mining has ever taken place and mining itself remains a fraught and divisive issue.
 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Participates
1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  JohnRussell @1    10 months ago

Donald probably thinks that the estimates are underestimated, and as soon as he melts all that ice with a massive infusion of greenhouse gasses he will prove it.  If he’s wrong, what does he care?  He’s got solid air conditioning in maralardo, and besides, he’ll be gone soon - the fate of the rest of earth’s population means less than nothing to him.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.1    10 months ago

I have the feeling there will never be rare earth mining in Greenland. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Participates
1.1.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    10 months ago

Knowing that there is nobody with a spine or a brain surrounding him at all times, he just riffs off the recent thing he heard from his QAnon bubble or whatever.  There’s as much coherent thought to his policy initiatives as there is for any of his other brain farts.  Remember when he suggested nuking a hurricane?  He had some people around him capable enough to squash that.  They’re not there anymore.  How scary is that?

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Junior Quiet
1.1.3  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.1.2    10 months ago

Oh you silly people, it's Iceland, not Greenland. Trump says so, often !

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Participates
1.1.4  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Igknorantzruls @1.1.3    10 months ago

Hey!  That’s not the official bald face lie.  There is ice in Greenland, so he now calls it Iceland, because nobody has ever named a country Iceland before so it just made sense.  Remember, this is the genius that congratulated the great state of Kansas on the Chiefs Super Bowl win.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  seeder  JohnRussell    10 months ago

I want to go off topic for a second

G_SG1p-XMAAZkss?format=jpg&name=small

That is a new picture of Trump's hand.  And people are suggesting it indicates serious illness.  

I have had such "bruises" myself , although maybe not as big, and they are not indicative of serious conditions, in fact they are generally considered benign. 

It is a condition of the elderly related to thinning skin.   And yes, I showed them to my doctor and asked about it. 

About 30% of people over the age of 75 develop such "bruises". 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @2    10 months ago

All I have to do is scratch my arm and I get bruises like that. Some of them are actually quite pretty. I had one shaped like a heart one time where my sister grabbed my arm

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Expert
2.2  Gsquared  replied to  JohnRussell @2    10 months ago

Thin-skinned is definitely a condition Trump suffers from.  Bigly.  Like no one has ever seen.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @2    10 months ago

senile-or-actinic-purpura-l.jpg

This condition is actually fairly common and I think it may be what Trump has. It is not considered serious. 

 
 

Who is online



122 visitors