this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2026
97 points (100.0% liked)

Pravda News!

454 readers
149 users here now

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
 

After appearing to back off earlier this year, President Donald Trump this week renewed his threats to seize Greenland. A Saturday report that a Texas oil company with ties to Trump had begun preparing to drill in the Arctic territory without permission has raised fresh concerns that his push for control of the island may already be moving beyond rhetoric.

As The Guardian reported, Greenland’s government issued a “strong warning” last week after learning that a Texas oil company called Greenland Energy had begun making unauthorized preparations for oil extraction in Jameson Land, a remote area of eastern Greenland, including bringing drilling materials ashore.

The company, founded last year, has claimed that Jameson Land may contain $1 trillion worth of crude oil and announced plans to drill two wells there—a project that requires approval from Greenland’s government.

The company also has ties to several Trump allies and associates. According to The Guardian:

Greenland Energy has retained Phil McGraw, better known as Dr. Phil, a prominent right-wing former chatshow host who served on Trump’s religious freedom commission, to make a documentary series that will “capture the mission of these modern-day wildcatters.”

It has also appointed as a director a US Navy veteran who is working on Golden Dome, the missile defense plan for which Trump says controlling Greenland is “vital.”

Larry Swets, Greenland Energy’s chair and a big shareholder, appears to enjoy access to Trump’s circle. He has said the oil project is “not related to American annexation.”

A Greenland Energy representative falsely claimed in June that the company had permission to place equipment on Jameson Land, before later saying there had been confusion.

But the following month, residents saw a barge arrive with drilling equipment. A Danish outlet confirmed that the delivery was intended for Greenland Energy.

Following the delivery, Greenland’s government said on July 30 that the company "did not have the necessary approvals from the mineral resources authority" and would receive a warning that "all future logistical matters must be advised and approved by the mineral resources authority—before they are carried out."

Two days later, Trump posted an ominious digitally altered image to Truth Social depicting himself as a giant looming over a Greenlandic town, captioned "Hello, Greenland!"

A day earlier, Trump had appeared on the right-wing network Real America’s Voice, where host Steve Gruber reminded him that he had predicted Greenland would be under US control by the time he leaves office in 2029.

“You’ll be right," Trump replied. "Greenland is important. Not from their standpoint, from our standpoint. You should make that bet.”

Before this week’s comments, Trump had spoken far less publicly about Greenland since January, when he threatened to use military force to take over the island if Denmark did not cede it. To pressure NATO allies, Trump threatened steep tariffs on several European countries, but backed off after Europe pledged retaliatory tariffs, causing panic in the financial markets.

"Let nobody think Trump has given up on taking Greenland," said John O’Brennan, professor of European politics at Maynooth University in Ireland. He added that Greenland Energy’s unauthorized activity "is the latest act of lawlessness his acolytes are engaged in."

Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, responded to the story by asking, "Has Trump’s invasion of Greenland already begun?"

Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat suggested it was possible. "Invasions," she said, "often start with 'technical' projects that justify the presence of operatives and 'technical experts' who are also doing recon and advance prep."

The Greenlandic government ultimately said it “would not be proportionate” to order Greenland Energy to remove the drilling equipment, a decision that The Guardian said underscored the difficult position facing its officials.

"They could grant permission for oil drilling, even though the planned wells appear to fall within a conservation area protected by the Ramsar convention on wetlands," the report explained. "Or they could refuse and, some worry, give Trump a pretext to advance his imperialist agenda."

Although the project has not been approved, a Greenland Energy representative said a vessel carrying additional drilling equipment would depart Canada in September, with drilling set to begin in October.

Jessica Berlin, a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, warned that allowing the equipment to remain would signal weakness that Trump could exploit.

"Don’t even think about allowing this," she wrote in a post directed to the Greenlandic and Danish governments. "If you give them an inch, they’ll take 100 miles. Kick them out now or accept that you just opened the floodgates."

"Like Putin, you can’t negotiate with Trump," she added. "Showing weakness will just guarantee the next outrage."

As part of the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland is covered by NATO’s Article 5 collective-defense clause, which obligates member nations to defend one another from armed attack. But NATO has no precedent for how Article 5 would apply if one member—the US—attacked another.

O'Brennan warned, "Europe—you are about to be seriously tested."


From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.

all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] OnyxRex@lemmy.dbzer0.com 41 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

Dear Greenland,

You cannot allow this. Whatever political moves you are thinking about making, whatever rebuff you are considering, this can't be allowed to happen.

I say this as an American. You can't reason with Trump by letting him violate your borders. I know it may be hard to envision, but you are the natives in a moment of imperial expansion. Your schools are better than ours; you should know what that means. Trump is taking moves from Putin, Hitler, and even the British fucking Empire. You're Hawaii, telling the fruit companies to fuck off, but with oil.

Jessica Berlin is right. Remove or destroy those machines now. The moment you let the US break ground, you have signaled your own defeat.

[–] WaxRhetorical@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

As a Dane, this is not Greenland's decision. They're 50k people. Denmark and the EU as a whole needs to take this fight, Greenland doesn't have the power to say no in any serious capacity.

[–] OnyxRex@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago

True enough, I looked up the population a while after making this comment but I was afk. I don't see the EU taking up the fight though. I guess papa putin gets another thing he wants. NATO getting pulled apart.

[–] logi@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

I assume that a Danish frigate is being moved into position. Is Vædderen perhaps coincidentally lounging in Reykjavík?

[–] architect@thelemmy.club 1 points 2 weeks ago

They better do it fast.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 11 points 3 weeks ago

It's a really complex situation, but ultimately I think you're right.

Even between two willing and eager trading partners, sovereign nation or not, just showing up with your gear without an inked contract is an overstep. It's entirely appropriate to say "hey load that gear back on to your boat within 3 days", lest you end up with a fait accompli.

[–] Maiq@piefed.zip 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Trump is also desperate to stay in power. With midterms fast approaching uncertainty of his power grows. This is a dangerous time. Trump is willing to do anything and I mean anything to stay in power. All out world war is certainty on the table.

This might just be the catalyst he wants.

[–] architect@thelemmy.club 2 points 2 weeks ago

Policing yourselves because a psychopath might use it as an excuse to escalate is a losers play. He doesn’t need the excuse. He’ll do it if he wants and make one up.

[–] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 21 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This should be seen as an invasion, but I doubt anyone is willing to stand up to him. I doubt carney will do anything.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 8 points 3 weeks ago

And as a rape. He's got experience.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Although the project has not been approved, a Greenland Energy representative said a vessel carrying additional drilling equipment would depart Canada in September, with drilling set to begin in October.

Sounds like Canada needs to put those elbows up for once, and stop that equipment from leaving port.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's not really how ports work though? Authorities don't need to approve the purpose and destination of outbound ships.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

That's exactly how ports work. If Canada suspects that a ship is transporting cargo to an unauthorized location, they can absolutely seize the ship.

[–] ignominous_wombat@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Canada will never meaningfully stand up to the USA. We will talk a big game and do small things that are nearly worthless, but nothing of real substance. We are their vassal state.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

And you're apparently ok with that?

[–] fizzle@quokk.au -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I dont think that's generally true.

Its up to the port of arrival to reject an incoming ship or specific cargo. In some cases the the destination may have an arrangement where by the port of departure allows the destinations customs officers to pre-screen departures.

Ports of departure can't seize outbound ships carrying corporate non-trade cargo because it's unclear whether they will be able to land at their purported destination. That's not a thing.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, no. It's up to both ends to make sure that what's on those ships, is legal. You need to file paperwork with both ports, making sure that what you are loading, is going to a place that you are legally allowed to unload.

Imagine the shit-storm that would come our way, if Canadian ports simply "allowed" cargo containers full of weed to be shipped to China. What's the problem? It's legal here, so who cares where it's going, right?

No. It can't be allowed to leave, if it doesn't have a legal destination. We have obligations to observe international shipping laws. If we didn't, then every ship leaving Canadian ports would need to be searched and possibly seized, just in case...no matter where they are going, or what's on board.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Its as though you didn't read my comment.

Seizing a ship with non-trade goods would cause an international incident.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So would allowing them to use a Canadian port to once again violate international law. By launching an illegal drilling operation from Canadian soil, they would be making Canada at least somewhat complicit. It's not like Canada can pretend they didn't know what was happening.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It's absurd to suggest that ports of departure are responsible for the ships that leave their ports.

If that's how things worked, that vessel would just log a plan to return to somewhere in the US.

The vessel is carrying industrial equipment. There's no clear and present risk of imminent harm.

Yes, if Canada was aware that the ship was carrying weapons of mass destruction, or biological pathogens, they might have a responsibility to detain the ship.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What's also absurd is Canada allowing its ports to be used as a staging ground for what is essentially the opening salvos of a US invasion of one of our other allies. This isn't "just some ship carrying industrial equipment". It is a hostile expeditionary force, intent on illegally occupying a Canadian ally's territory.

Doing nothing in this case would put Canada on the wrong side of events that could potentially lead to a conflict with the rest of NATO. This is not an accident. Allowing the US to use Canadian ports like this, would put Canada in an impossible position with the rest of our allies in Europe. It cannot be allowed.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's just not true. If it were a hostile invasion then Canada couldn't them. If there are no weapons then it's not hostile - precisely why it's been et up this way.

There's every chance they will be granted peermission to dig before they arrive in Greenland.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So you think Canada just "playing dumb" will convince people that we didn't know what the US was doing?

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Mate we're two idiots on social media discussing what the US is doing. Everyone knows. There's no playing dumb.

My point is, Canada is unable to seize ships sailing under a foreign flag without a legal pretext.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Mate we're two idiots on social media discussing what the US is doing. Everyone knows. There's no playing dumb.

That was my point. Canada can't just pretend they don't know what's going to happen if that ship is allowed to bring that equipment to Greenland. Which means they either allow our ports to be used by the US to invade another country...or they don't.

Allowing our country to be used as a staging area for the illegal occupation of an ally's territory should be all the "legal pretext" we need to tell the US to go fuck themselves. If we let them drag our country into this, then our government just put us on the wrong side of whatever inevitably comes next.

Do you honestly think Canada will side with the US over the rest of NATO? Or even just sit back and watch them invade Greenland, and pretend like there was nothing we could have done to at least distance ourselves from the conflict, by telling the US they can't use our ports for this?

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Its not an invasion.

Quite obviously, if it were a military convoy that would be a different situation.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So, now we're back to pretending we don't know what the US is doing? This is an invasion, just with extra steps.

Step 1: Set up an unauthorized drilling site in someone else's territory, knowing that the local government is going to say, "You can't do that."

Step 2: The local government says, "You can't do that."

Step 3: Send troops to "defend" US equipment and personnel from potential retaliation by the local government...even though that was never a real threat.

Unauthorized civilian incursion = inevitable military occupation. "Playing dumb" just makes us look either complicit, or hopelessly stupid. And no one is that stupid.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That's a fairly odd way to look at things.

An invasion is a specific thing well defined by international treaties and history. You can't just label an approaching vessel with industrial equipment as "an invasion" based on the vibe.

In the delicate tête-à-tête of global politics each move needs to be carefully and cautiously considered.

Canada can't simply seize a US vessel because they don't like the intentions of it's owners. If you did, the owners would simply say they had no intention of landing without proper authorisation.

Also, the US can't deploy it's military to protect civilian equipment. That is very clearly an act of war.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

An invasion is a specific thing well defined by international treaties and history. You can't just label an approaching vessel with industrial equipment as "an invasion" based on the vibe.

Ummm...no, man. An invasion is when you take control of land that doesn't belong to you. It can also be called an "annexation" or an "occupation". And no one needs to "declare" anything. You just have to cross the border into someone else's territory with your military, and then "not leave".

As for "acts of war", do you believe Putin when he says that the invasion of Ukraine and the war they've been fighting for the last few years, was just a "special military operation"?

And are you seriously arguing that Canada has no control over who is allowed to come and go from our own ports? That the US can simply move whatever they want through them, for any reason, and Canada has no say in the matter? Seriously? Canadian ports don't belong to the Americans. They are not international property.

Canadian authorities stop, board and size cargo from departing ships all the time, if they are carrying unauthorized cargo destined for somewhere it isn't allowed to go. They don't just look the other way, and say, "Oh well. That's their problem", and let it go.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

An invasion is when you take control of land that doesn’t belong to you

So according to your own definition, no invasion is underway.

if they are carrying unauthorized cargo destined for somewhere it isn’t allowed to go

... and by this test, Canadian authorities have no reason to intervene in this matter.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I guess I'll just repost what I wrote earlier, since you didn't actually read it...

So, now we're back to pretending we don't know what the US is doing? This is an invasion, just with extra steps.

Step 1: Set up an unauthorized drilling site in someone else's territory, knowing that the local government is going to say, "You can't do that."

Step 2: The local government says, "You can't do that."

Step 3: Send troops to "defend" US equipment and personnel from potential retaliation by the local government...even though that was never a real threat.

Unauthorized civilian incursion = inevitable military occupation.

"Playing dumb" just makes us look either complicit, or hopelessly stupid. And no one is that stupid.

As for the last part...the US is not authorized to drill in Greenland. How does that not fit the criteria of "unauthorized"?

[–] BiteRabbit@reddthat.com 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It reeks of new military base

[–] logi@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

They don't need any of this bullshit to set up a new military base. For one thing, they can just move back into one of their many old military bases. For another, there is an agreement with Denmark from the 50s that they can set up as many bases as they like. That's why this particular stream of manure emanating from Trump's mouth is particularly ridiculous.

[–] Poppa_Mo@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

Yep. This is the same way Halliburton and KBR rolled in the middle east.

[–] crispbacon99@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 weeks ago

So this is where the stolen Venezuelan funds was put towards

[–] Maeve@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago

“You’ll be right," Trump replied. "Greenland is important. Not from their standpoint, from our standpoint. You should make that bet.”

Poly market says what?

Jessica Berlin ☝️🤓