'We Are Not for Sale': Greenland Once Again Rebuffs Trump Call for US Ownership
https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-greenlandOpen linkView original on lemmy.worldSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.worldhttps://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-greenlandOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
19 replies
Greenland has the nearest coastline to the North Pole, and Denmark argues that the Lomonosov Ridge is in fact an extension of Greenland.
According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, this would mean that through the extension of it's continental shelf, Greenland basically has control of the seabed of most of the arctic ocean and deep into russian waters. This gives it exclusive rights to resources on or below the seabed of that extended shelf area.
Greenland thus is not only important for the control of northern trade routes that are opening up because of climate change, but because it comes with the control over huge swathes of resources on or below the arctic seabed.
It's all about oil and minerals.
Greenland also has a very large amount of the world's fresh water above ground and that's going to be a highly valuable commodity in the not-too-distant future. Especially in the U.S.
https://theweek.com/environment/groundwater-crisis-united-states
Is that the sound of Nestle fapping that I am hearing?
The point is to water down and normalize the concept of imperialism to serve Russia.
The same thing they did with "impeachment" and "coup" and pardons.
Probably not the intention, but the effect will work well.
Can’t criticise someone who does the same thing as you.
It's the same play they've run constantly for twelve years. I only named three, but there's plenty more.
"Biden crime family", Obama playing golf all the time, Biden as a sex pest.
It's always cover for what they're actually doing. And the "they" in this case happens to not be the US directly.
Genuine question. Why would anyone want greenland?
With climate change opening up more routes through the arctic seas, it becomes a strategic place to set up shop and control all that traffic (read: tax.)
Incidentally we already have a base there. (I believe it’s for launching rockets into polar orbits. Don’t quote me on that.)
I didn't think that's true, at least for NASA. According to their site California is the preferred launch location for polar orbits .
https://public.ksc.nasa.gov/lspeducation/launch-operations/
Apparently I conflated a few things. In any case it’s a Space force base
Ah, that does make sense. Easy to conflate the air force with NASA.
I refuse to acknowledge Trump's "space force". Childish, I know.
Probably lots of untapped natural resources under so that ice.
Which is probably gonna be melting soon. Once that ice is gone all those minerals in the Greenland archipelago are gonna be up for grabs.
It's an incredibly lucrative land for minerals and such, they already had to give Denmark a slap on the wrist for screwing over the local Greenlandic population.
Good strategic placement as the arctic ice pack melts for new shipping routes and opportunities for oil exploration
I always joked about some billionaire becoming president and just buying other countries but, like... I imagined they had money. And weren't complete morons.
what we should really slurp up is russia. its a distrested property so we could likely get it for a steal.