By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration is pursuing a plan to annex Greenland, offering each resident approximately $10,000 annually in lieu of Danish subsidies. This initiative, involving multiple cabinet departments and the National Security Council, prioritizes persuasion over coercion, though military action remains unofficially considered. The plan’s financial feasibility is under review, exploring potential revenue from Greenland’s natural resources to offset annexation costs. Despite Greenland’s rejection and Danish criticism, the U.S. continues its pursuit, evidenced by Vice President Vance’s recent controversial visit.
Read the original article here
The Trump administration’s reported consideration of offering $10,000 to each person in Greenland in exchange for annexation is, to put it mildly, a highly questionable proposition. The sheer audacity of the proposal – a supposed “deal” based on a paltry sum – immediately raises eyebrows. It’s hard to imagine a scenario where this would be seen as anything other than insulting.
The idea that paying people off is the only way to achieve anything seems to be the underlying logic. This is a troubling mindset, suggesting a fundamental misunderstanding of diplomacy and international relations. It’s a transactional approach that prioritizes short-term gain over long-term stability and good will, and ignores the complexities of cultural identity and national sovereignty.
Even from a purely financial perspective, the $10,000 offer is laughably inadequate. The annual support Denmark provides to Greenland is significantly higher, approximately $511 million, translating to around $9,000 per inhabitant. This means the proposed offer barely exceeds one year’s current support, and doesn’t account for the substantial value of Greenland’s healthcare system, which would likely be disrupted under American control. Many have pointed out that the loss of healthcare alone would far outweigh any monetary benefit.
Furthermore, the cost-benefit analysis is wildly skewed. Greenland’s GDP is $3.2 billion, while the estimated cost of the buyout, based on a population of approximately 56,000, would be only $560 million. This represents a drastically undervalued purchase, especially considering the vast potential of Greenland’s natural resources, estimated to be worth between $30 billion and $70 billion. The proposal’s financial incompetence is as striking as its diplomatic ineptitude.
The idea is also riddled with practical challenges. Beyond the financial inadequacy, the very notion that Greenlanders would willingly trade their sovereignty, their culture, and their established systems of healthcare and education for such a minuscule sum is absurd. The suggestion is deeply insulting to the people of Greenland and disregards their right to self-determination.
The comments express widespread disbelief and anger at this proposal, with many questioning the intelligence of the administration behind it. People point to the potential loss of valuable social programs, like free healthcare and education, as major deterrents. The concern is not only the immediate financial impact but also the long-term consequences of potentially diminished social safety nets.
The proposal also highlights a broader concern: the apparent inability of some to grasp the limitations of transactional approaches to international relations. This is not a business deal; it’s a matter of national identity and self-governance. The idea that the offer would even be seriously considered by the people of Greenland is met with disbelief, bordering on outrage.
Even the most optimistic estimates show that this proposal would be a catastrophic failure, a testament to poor judgment and short-sighted thinking. It’s not just the money; it’s the disrespect, the underestimation, and the utter lack of understanding inherent in this grossly inadequate offer. The likelihood of its success appears to be zero.
Ultimately, this episode serves as a cautionary tale, exposing the dangerous potential for hubris and miscalculation in international affairs. The Trump administration’s proposal, if it ever was a serious consideration, is a deeply flawed and ultimately unworkable idea, one that underscores the importance of respecting national sovereignty and avoiding the pitfalls of transactional diplomacy. The entire episode reads like a bizarre, almost comical miscalculation, yet carries with it significant implications.