The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice

US Motives and Imperialism Framing

• Many comments see US interest in Greenland as naked resource imperialism, likening the rhetoric to past justifications for interventions: WMD, narco‑terrorism, “bringing democracy,” security concerns.
• Some explicitly compare it to Crimea or the Falklands; others argue the historical and ethnic parallels are weak, but agree the underlying “great power takes what it wants” logic is similar.
• There’s cynicism that public narratives (terror, drugs, human rights) are just legacy theater overlaying open pursuit of oil, gas, and strategic positioning in the Arctic.

Sovereignty, NATO, and Legal Mechanics

• Thread notes Greenland’s self‑government, state land ownership, and mineral licensing regime; question: why not just buy mining rights instead of territory?
• Many respond that a territorial transfer would allow the US to rewrite all rules and “bulldoze” Greenland’s sovereignty, rather than work within its laws.
• Speculation that ownership might also be about enabling a future US exit from NATO while preserving full military access to the Arctic.
• Several outline scenarios where a forced takeover triggers NATO crisis, EU–US sanctions, US withdrawal from NATO, and long‑term strategic decoupling.

European and Nordic Perspectives

• Some Europeans describe this as an existential shock: realization that “Europe has no allies” and that US might treat Europe like previous peripheral targets.
• Others push back: Europe has frequently opposed US wars, and “Europe” itself is fragmented; elites and populations differ.
• Nordic commenters are divided on how much Denmark “cares” about Greenland, but stress Greenlanders themselves want more independence; Denmark’s annual subsidy and defense guarantees are central constraints.
• There is talk of Nordic military coordination around Greenland, but also recognition they cannot militarily confront the US.

Markets, Power, and Oligarchy

• Several participants say recent events (Venezuela, Greenland) shattered faith in free‑market ideology: unregulated competition leads to oligarchs and geopolitical predation, not peace.
• Long subthreads argue that:
  • Markets require a prior social contract and strong regulation (anti‑monopoly, externalities).
  • Power concentration in corporations and billionaires erodes law, norms, and “shame.”
  • Others counter that interstate aggression predates capitalism and is driven by power politics, not markets per se.
• Debate extends to individualism vs collectivism, corporate “citizenship,” and whether monopolies and regulatory capture are inherent to free markets.

Feasibility and Environmental Concerns

• Some note that Arctic mining is technically and economically difficult: brittle materials, darkness, unstable permafrost, expensive logistics, and harsh working conditions.
• A commenter argues most Greenland resources are speculative under deep ice; prices would need to rise ~30% and stay high, and operations would have to replace Denmark’s substantial subsidies.
• Others highlight the climate irony: by the time much of this becomes accessible, rising seas may devastate populated coasts—yet political logic still favors “the factory must grow.”

Broader Mood

• The thread is saturated with anxiety and anger: talk of “historic event fatigue,” European disgust with US politics, fears of creeping authoritarianism, and calls for Europe to decouple and rearm.
• Some hope institutional checks, elections, or economic blowback will prevent or reverse any extreme moves; others think trust in US reliability is already irreparably damaged.