EU chief says EU should abandon caution after Bessent calls Denmark 'irrelevant'(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
EU chief says EU should abandon caution after Bessent calls Denmark 'irrelevant'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jan/21/europe-donald-trump-davos-speech-greenland-denmark-latest-updates
55 comments
[deleted]
> On top of all of that you then have the European Union, in which the majority of members will also put support behind one of its members (notwithstanding the likes of Hungary, and perhaps Slovakia with its latest government).
Please take time to check how different EU countries responded to US threats against Denmark. It is not uniform, even if you exclude Hungary and Slovakia.
Please take time to check how different EU countries responded to US threats against Denmark. It is not uniform, even if you exclude Hungary and Slovakia.
Its so bad that these day such posts are flagged in HN and you cannot have any discussion about it. Feels like censorship and HN not doing anything about it to be at least transparent about providing some stats how many times something got flagged and how flagging algorithm works so we at least have some confidence that it's not abused by bots
Escalate to deescalate.
Trump doesn’t understand that Greenland is a ~country~ self-gorverning territory in itself in the Kingdom of Denmark. Just like Australia is country in itself in the Commonwealth.
England would never be able to sell Australia to the US, just as we in Denmark are not able to sell Greenland.
The only way forward is trade war it seems and it would be better to escalate it quickly in order for Trump to understand the message.
Trump doesn’t understand that Greenland is a ~country~ self-gorverning territory in itself in the Kingdom of Denmark. Just like Australia is country in itself in the Commonwealth.
England would never be able to sell Australia to the US, just as we in Denmark are not able to sell Greenland.
The only way forward is trade war it seems and it would be better to escalate it quickly in order for Trump to understand the message.
> Just like Australia is country in itself in the Commonwealth.
That’s really not even close. Greenland isn’t even remotely self sustainable without Danish funding. It also has MPs in the Danish parliament. So yes while it technically has self-rule it’s still effectively a colony
That’s really not even close. Greenland isn’t even remotely self sustainable without Danish funding. It also has MPs in the Danish parliament. So yes while it technically has self-rule it’s still effectively a colony
> So yes while it technically has self-rule it’s still effectively a colony
Being self sufficient or not isn't part of the definition of a colony
Being self sufficient or not isn't part of the definition of a colony
Greenland is a colony, Austrália is not. The comparison makes zero sense
> Greenland is a colony
But it literally isn't...
> On 1 July 1979, Greenland became a rigsdel (an autonomous territory) within the Kingdom of Denmark.
But it literally isn't...
> On 1 July 1979, Greenland became a rigsdel (an autonomous territory) within the Kingdom of Denmark.
I’m just trying to explain how absurd the proposition is seen from a Danish perspective, and why we from Danish side will continue to say no, as and refer to the same thing as our PM’s have said again and again: this is for Greenlandic people to decide. They would have to vote for it, but all the parties in Greenland are against joining the US.
So whatever proposal or threat of breaking down NATO that Trump will come up with will be met with a no from Danish politicians. It is simply not for them to decide. His only option seen from a Danish perspective is to use the military.
So whatever proposal or threat of breaking down NATO that Trump will come up with will be met with a no from Danish politicians. It is simply not for them to decide. His only option seen from a Danish perspective is to use the military.
Greenland is not a country, it is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark.
Puerto Rico is not a country, today, but is analogous to Greenland. They could vote to become closer to the US or vote to distance themselves. Similar to all less-than-independent regions held by larger countries. Remnants of the age of exploration or before, or the crumbs left from wars.
Pushing the me-strong logic to the (absurd?) limit, why isn’t California a country? Or New England? Or the red state swath of the US?
Pushing the me-strong logic to the (absurd?) limit, why isn’t California a country? Or New England? Or the red state swath of the US?
I will correct that, but my point stands that we in Denmark just can’t sell Greenland. It is not for us to decide the future of Greenland.
I don't understand. Are you implying that Greenland can decide to sell itself then?
They can, but they made abundantly clear that they don't want have anything to do with the US
Greenlanders could vote to be completely independent, yes. That is the situation right now.
However, Trump has done everything to turn Greenlanders away, and not done anything to convince them of independence would be good for them, so a vote for independence will likely fail catastrophically right now. Independence is many decades away, as they would really have to build a stronger economy to make it happen, but that is the direction Greenlanders would like to go, at least if you asked them 2 years ago.
However, Trump has done everything to turn Greenlanders away, and not done anything to convince them of independence would be good for them, so a vote for independence will likely fail catastrophically right now. Independence is many decades away, as they would really have to build a stronger economy to make it happen, but that is the direction Greenlanders would like to go, at least if you asked them 2 years ago.
The "independence" of Greenland under Trump would be identical to the "independence" of Venezuela following the US' abduction of its leader & murder of 100 people during the operation. Whatever Greenland's opinion on independence is, what's on offer by Trump would only be worse in every way than what they currently have.
Countries can be sold?
Not in a meaningful way which Greenlanders would submit to. There would be constant unrest and civil disobedience, nothing would function, and bringing in your own people (including the armed forces) to keep things barely working wouldn't be a solution either.
Unfortunately Greenland as a whole has 50.000 people in total of which 20.000 live in largest city and the rest scattered across 19 others.
Thats about the size of a small town in the US, the country may be big in territory but not in population.
It happens all the time. America and the EU are bought and paid for. The funniest part is that they’re being paid for with the very money the buyers plunder with the left hand, only to use the right hand to purchase the treasonous dominant class.
It’s like a sleight of hand magic trick pulled on an infant that is then gleeful for the deception.
It’s like a sleight of hand magic trick pulled on an infant that is then gleeful for the deception.
If you’re part of an independent kingdom can you decide to become part of another kingdom?
Asking for an kingdom I know.
Asking for an kingdom I know.
You can even become your own kingdom (see california, Hawaii, texas, ...) before becoming part of another kingdom.
It may not be straightforward, however; as Linebarger states:
> Formally, war may be defined as the "reciprocal application of violence by public, armed bodies."
> If it is not reciprocal, it is not war, the killing of persons who do not defend themselves is not war, but slaughter, massacre, or punishment.
> If the bodies involved are not public, their violence is not war. Even our enemies in World War II were relatively careful about this distinction, because they did not know how soon or easily a violation of the rules might be scored against them. To be public, the combatants need not be legal—that is, constitutionally set up; it suffices, according to international usage, for the fighters to have a reasonable minimum of numbers, some kind of identification, and a purpose which is political. If you shoot your neighbor, you will be committing mere murder; but if you gather twenty or thirty friends, together, tie a red handkerchief around the left arm of each man, announce that you are out to overthrow the government of the United States, and then shoot your neighbor as a counterrevolutionary impediment to the new order of things, you can have the satisfaction of having waged war. (In practical terms, this means that you will be put to death for treason and rebellion, not merely for murder.)
> ...
Note that this advice was from the mid-XX; in the XXI not all kingdoms seem to recognise the Geneva Conventions anymore!
These days it's probably a case of conjugating irregular verbs?
It may not be straightforward, however; as Linebarger states:
> Formally, war may be defined as the "reciprocal application of violence by public, armed bodies."
> If it is not reciprocal, it is not war, the killing of persons who do not defend themselves is not war, but slaughter, massacre, or punishment.
> If the bodies involved are not public, their violence is not war. Even our enemies in World War II were relatively careful about this distinction, because they did not know how soon or easily a violation of the rules might be scored against them. To be public, the combatants need not be legal—that is, constitutionally set up; it suffices, according to international usage, for the fighters to have a reasonable minimum of numbers, some kind of identification, and a purpose which is political. If you shoot your neighbor, you will be committing mere murder; but if you gather twenty or thirty friends, together, tie a red handkerchief around the left arm of each man, announce that you are out to overthrow the government of the United States, and then shoot your neighbor as a counterrevolutionary impediment to the new order of things, you can have the satisfaction of having waged war. (In practical terms, this means that you will be put to death for treason and rebellion, not merely for murder.)
> ...
Note that this advice was from the mid-XX; in the XXI not all kingdoms seem to recognise the Geneva Conventions anymore!
These days it's probably a case of conjugating irregular verbs?
I am a (dissident turned) freedom fighter
You are a (perfidious) combatant
They are (drug-running) terroristsSadly we, the "good guys", created a dangerous precedent in the balkans when Kosovo unilaterally split from Serbia, under foreign (NATO) occupation moreover.
International law does not promote nor support unilateral secessions. If a region or autonomous republic wants to secede it should only do so in accordance to the host country laws. E.g. the Quebec and Scotland referendums were made in accordance to the host countries of Canada and UK.
But then we created that dangerous case where now every region can secede from their host one unilaterally, even if it's occupied by foreign forces. And in practice, the "legality" of it, really depends on international recognition and the undergoing narratives.
International laws have always been pleasantries, as there's no real ways to enforce them, but there were powerful incentives for everybody to play by the rules.
International law does not promote nor support unilateral secessions. If a region or autonomous republic wants to secede it should only do so in accordance to the host country laws. E.g. the Quebec and Scotland referendums were made in accordance to the host countries of Canada and UK.
But then we created that dangerous case where now every region can secede from their host one unilaterally, even if it's occupied by foreign forces. And in practice, the "legality" of it, really depends on international recognition and the undergoing narratives.
International laws have always been pleasantries, as there's no real ways to enforce them, but there were powerful incentives for everybody to play by the rules.
It's hardly a precedent, probably half of the countries worldwide have been formed by seceding from some other country against its will. U.S. would be in this half.
It's the first country to do so under foreign military presence since UN inception.
The only precedents of unilateral secession were Slovenia and Croatia from Yugoslavia and Bangladesh from Pakistan but none did so under foreign military presence.
The only precedents of unilateral secession were Slovenia and Croatia from Yugoslavia and Bangladesh from Pakistan but none did so under foreign military presence.
All of the Arab countries have basically seceded from Ottoman empire under an occupation of this or that European country.
"Unilaterally" is not easy to define. Sometimes there is a long and violent struggle for independence and the metropole eventually gives in and signs some paper, sometimes it is stubborn and doesn't sign anything - the difference is not that important in my opinion.
"Unilaterally" is not easy to define. Sometimes there is a long and violent struggle for independence and the metropole eventually gives in and signs some paper, sometimes it is stubborn and doesn't sign anything - the difference is not that important in my opinion.
Pre UN.
Citizen_Lame(1)
Thank you.
This is a very insightful answer to my snarky cynic comment.
And you’re right, of course. We dug our own grave.
This is a very insightful answer to my snarky cynic comment.
And you’re right, of course. We dug our own grave.
France could do an atmospheric nuclear test. That would probably wake the senile idiot up.
I am happy that some Hacker News commenters are not running countries. One wacko is more than enough.
The risks are totally not worth it and there are a million better ways to increase pressure (like the trade bazooka).
The risks are totally not worth it and there are a million better ways to increase pressure (like the trade bazooka).
Literally Hitler is murdering civilians in broad daylight and threatening to start WW3 by invading friendly territories! Oh but also, we should stay calm and issue strongly worded statements and trade declarations.
This is an incoherent position. If the threat is as real as claimed, a simple weapon test should be merited. France's official nuclear doctrine permits first strikes anyway.
This is an incoherent position. If the threat is as real as claimed, a simple weapon test should be merited. France's official nuclear doctrine permits first strikes anyway.
Literally Hitler is murdering civilians in broad daylight
That is for Americans themselves rise up against. The rest of the world can decide to sanction this behavior, etc. But nations are sovereign.
by invading friendly territories!
We are still in the I am going to tariff you, because I want to buy Greenland-stage. Sure, he has threatened to invade Greenland if that fails, but that's why it is important to make the US feel the pain by employing (initially parts of) the trade bazooka. Then US citizens, congress, the brolichargy or however feels hurt can try to put the government back in check.
Don't forget that for a lot of US tech companies, the EU is the second largest market. Losing control of that hurts the Microsofts, Metas, and Amazons of this world enormously. Some already get nervous without the tariffs or counter-measures started:
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/20/business/video/microsoft-...
a simple weapon test should be merited
Wargame simulations show that there are no winners in nuclear tit-for-tat.
That is for Americans themselves rise up against. The rest of the world can decide to sanction this behavior, etc. But nations are sovereign.
by invading friendly territories!
We are still in the I am going to tariff you, because I want to buy Greenland-stage. Sure, he has threatened to invade Greenland if that fails, but that's why it is important to make the US feel the pain by employing (initially parts of) the trade bazooka. Then US citizens, congress, the brolichargy or however feels hurt can try to put the government back in check.
Don't forget that for a lot of US tech companies, the EU is the second largest market. Losing control of that hurts the Microsofts, Metas, and Amazons of this world enormously. Some already get nervous without the tariffs or counter-measures started:
https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/20/business/video/microsoft-...
a simple weapon test should be merited
Wargame simulations show that there are no winners in nuclear tit-for-tat.
[deleted]
I feel bad for Xi Jinping the man has been non stop drinking champagne for the last 2 years.
I'm sure that every polititian in the EU is deeply concerned, isn't it enough?
The aggressive nature of the response drops off a cliff after the second paragraph. Hard to take all this seriously.
Cautiously abandon caution
With the Nordic Council it becomes 22 million people with a GDP of US$ 2.2 trillion, the same GDP as Canada, close to Italy, Russia, and Brazil.
You piss off Denmark and the rest of the Nordic Council members will support it.
On top of all of that you then have the European Union, in which the majority of members will also put support behind one of its members (notwithstanding the likes of Hungary, and perhaps Slovakia with its latest government).
It's really sad to watch this rhetoric unfold from the USA, it starts with the heads but now we see it creeping into comments here on HN. It's bizarre how easily American public opinion is manipulated.