This is very simplistic way of interpreting what Trump said. I would advice to read a bit about the significance of the GIUK (Greenland, Island, UK) in view of warming climate and growing importance of Arctics - melting ice might provide a much better and faster route for trade.
The problem is who will control the entrance and exit to that route and GIKU is one of them. And here we are on the key problem: Denmark for years totally neglected building any security/military infrastructure on Greenland, which suddenly might become a crucial element of the World economy and trade.
Do you really want sadistic regimes like Russia or China to take control over key parts of the potential trade routes (80% of global trade goes through the sees and oceans)?
Whatever you think about Trump, he will be gone in 4 years, someone else can be elected if Trump/Vance fails to deliver. Do you think we can get rid of Putin and his dreams on conquests Europe that easily? Or Xi, who is speeding with extending military potential of China, including nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers? Try to guess why Xi is doing this.
Denmark is in NATO, US base is already in Greenland and I'm sure Danes would be open to add few more. There is no need to invade it. The moment it happens, Europe is lost to the US as an ally and NATO is gone.
You've not addressed threatening the territorial integrity of Denmark. If you're going to say we've misinterpreted him, please quote him. Verbatim, not cleaned up.
Without touching the argument if the end justifies the means, the master of the deal apparently has communicated very badly what his intentions are. Obviously, nobody in Europe understood him.
But let's just wait and see, actions speak louder than words, although given past actions that is not instilling great confidence in me.
Not to pick on your point about Denmark, but the fact is that there has been no aggressors and thus none to defend it against. The US did try to have a sort of covert base on Greenland many years ago, and in the end it failed.
Yes, someone could invade. But they didn't.
And if they did, they probably wouldn't have been able to stay there for long enough to actually get anything out of it long term, without it turning into a war against NATO.
It is my understanding that it has been agreed a few years ago that additional monitoring should be put in place. I don't think anything else than general tech incompetence of the Danish defense forces has prevented that from happening yet.
But on the hand, as far as I understand the matter, there is still too much ice for it to become a major trade route.
The problem is who will control the entrance and exit to that route and GIKU is one of them. And here we are on the key problem: Denmark for years totally neglected building any security/military infrastructure on Greenland, which suddenly might become a crucial element of the World economy and trade.
Do you really want sadistic regimes like Russia or China to take control over key parts of the potential trade routes (80% of global trade goes through the sees and oceans)?
Whatever you think about Trump, he will be gone in 4 years, someone else can be elected if Trump/Vance fails to deliver. Do you think we can get rid of Putin and his dreams on conquests Europe that easily? Or Xi, who is speeding with extending military potential of China, including nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers? Try to guess why Xi is doing this.