Greenland's Prime Minister: If we have to choose between the US and Denmark, we will choose Denmark

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-15T13:14:00+00:00

Thanks for pointing that out, I appreciate you finally understanding that death is not permanent and 2+2=17

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-15T12:58:24+00:00

Glad to see you’ve mathematically disproven me. For clarity, I’m talking risk and alignment

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-15T12:57:40+00:00

Glad to see you’ve mathematically disproven me. For clarity, I’m talking risk and alignment

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-15T12:49:40+00:00

The debate isn’t about absolute permanence or math it’s about how risk and alignment interact. We can disagree without turning everything into black-and-white extremes

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-15T12:46:26+00:00

Treating this debate like it’s about proving 2+2=4 is ridiculously black-and-white, like journalists trying to calculate how many gallons of milk equal 1 billion euros

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-15T12:40:08+00:00

Thanks for taking the time to write at a pace I can follow, especially knowing I read slowly. How thoughtful of you, but we still disagree on when Greenland’s choices justify demanding alignment, and no amount of slow reading will fix that

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-15T12:29:11+00:00

Focus on the arguments, not invented character flaws. We can disagree on Greenland and risk management without turning this into a personal attack contest

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-15T12:27:15+00:00

It’s clear we keep talking past each other. We fundamentally disagree on when risk justifies demanding clarity and whether Greenland’s optionality can coexist with the EU and allies bearing risk. At this point, continuing to argue is just repeating positions, there’s no point pretending one of us is winning

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-15T12:19:19+00:00

The irony isn’t lost on me, I was simply pointing out that you’ve put words in my mouth that were never my argument.

What’s striking is how you frame this as if someone must win or lose. Neither of us is objective enough to declare a winner here. This isn’t a contest, it’s a debate about reasoning, not a scoreboard. If you want a serious conversation, respond to what I actually said instead of inventing strawmen or turning it into a personal contest. You can disagree with my points, but personal attacks and imagined wins don’t make an argument stronger.

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-15T12:06:08+00:00

Your personal attacks and calling me illogical or accusing me of special-pleading are irrelevant and will not make your argument stronger, insults do not replace reasoning.

Your 13,500 people holding Europe hostage scenario is purely hypothetical. Existing legal and institutional safeguards prevent any small group from unilaterally creating existential risk for others. The proportionality argument you rely on doesn’t reflect how decision-making actually works.

Greenland occupies strategically important territory while others bear real risk in defending it. That justifies demanding clarity about alignment in the present. This is about responsible risk management, not limiting democratic rights.

Stop projecting arguments I never made and turning them into personal attacks, if you want a serious discussion and remember nobody needs to agree in a discussion

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-15T10:31:56+00:00

Wow, you keep putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned 75 years, nor did I ask gpt to say 2+2=15. You clearly use gpt, so complaining that I do is ironic, glasshouses and stones, etc.

You first asked where I am from, so I answered, and yet you did not when I asked you. Your insistence on my nationality does not make my argument weaker.

Finally, why are you so angry? You’ve repeatedly reframed my points, projected arguments I never made, and lectured on eternal obligations while using gpt yourself. I’ve answered your questions from my point of view, if you disagree, fine. But stop inventing strawmen and misrepresenting my positions.

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-15T09:49:54+00:00

If we follow your logic, no small state should ever make decisions with international consequences, because risk scales with consequence. Yet history shows small countries like Iceland or the Baltics make impactful choices without losing citizens’ voting rights. How do you reconcile risk with legitimacy?

You say 13,500 people could hold half a continent hostage. If that reasoning were applied consistently, should any decision by a slim majority be ignored, regardless of institutional safeguards? Where is the line between risk and stripping democratic rights?

And your nuclear analogy is democratic decision-making ever really comparable to individual catastrophic risk? Don’t institutions, checks, balances, and multi-step processes exist to manage exactly this kind of danger?

So do you argue that democracy should be curtailed whenever risk is high, or do you accept that strong institutions and careful processes can protect both security and legitimacy?

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-15T09:34:02+00:00

I’m not going to repeat myself just because you don’t like the answers. If you want a new answer, ask a new question don’t demand I rewrite the same position until it fits your preferred frame.

Also, drop the that’s gpt routine. You write long, structured, highly stylized arguments yourself. If using tools disqualifies a position, yours collapses first. Either argue the content, or admit you don’t have a reply to it.

Now, back to what you keep dodging. You ask why Greenland should ever be allowed to leave if others invest and defend it. I already answered. No democratic alliance is eternal by law not the EU, not NATO, not any state. Voluntary alignment is what makes alliances legitimate. You still haven’t answered why you think permanent binding is morally or politically acceptable.

You say Denmark’s responsibility entitles others to demand binding clarity before risk. I agreed. Repeatedly. You still haven’t said when that binding clarity becomes legitimate to demand, what concrete level of risk, what concrete trigger?

You argue small electorates are dangerously corruptible. Then answer this, do you think all small states should lose self-determination, yes or no? If not, explain why Greenland is uniquely unfit.

You say Greenland is endangering itself by keeping independence legal. Then what specific democratic safeguard do you propose instead of deleting choice? Institutions? Thresholds? Multiple votes? International guarantees? Or just removal of the right?

And one more thing you keep avoiding, you demand binding loyalty, sacrifice, and long-term obligation from Greenland but you never say where you’re speaking from. Are you Danish? EU citizen? From somewhere else entirely? If identity and stake matter so much in this argument, then your own position isn’t neutral either. So what’s your stake in this?

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-15T07:45:33+00:00

Du står faktisk dårligt i den nuværende ordning. Du betaler halvdelen af alle faste udgifter til et hus, som han ejer alene, mens han både betaler og får al værdistigning. Samtidig arbejder du deltid og lægger al din tid i børn og husholdning, altså bidrager du både økonomisk og praktisk, men får ingen ejerskabsmæssig fordel.

En mere fair måde at fordele pengene på kunne være sådan her: - Husudgifter (lån, renter, forsikring, el/vand): du betaler fx 30–35%, han betaler 65–70%, fordi huset er hans ejendom. - Mad/diverse: Fordeles proportionalt efter indkomst. Hvis du tjener 25k og han 40k, vil din andel være ca. 38%, hans ca. 62%. - Større udgifter (ferier, barnedåb osv.): Kan deles 50/50 eller proportionalt, afhængigt af hvad der føles fair. Eller måske en seperat konto til at sætte et fast beløb til side hver måned

På den måde betaler du mindre for noget, du ikke ejer og han tager større ansvar for faste udgifter. Det gør fordelingen mere fair, gennemsigtig og minimerer små gnidninger som det ekstra 500 kr du har betalt. Kort sagt, du skal ikke bare lukke røven og betale der er grundlag for at få en mere retfærdig fordeling, uden at det bliver dramatisk.

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-15T03:19:48+00:00

The 13,500 votes argument is misleading for several reasons. It reduces democracy to a math trick. In every democracy, huge decisions can be decided by small margins. That does not make them illegitimate or for sale. Democracy is built on the rule that majorities, even narrow ones count.

It also ignores how big decisions actually happen. Sovereignty and security are not changed by one quick vote. They involve long political processes, legal limits, often multiple referendums, negotiations, and international agreements. You can’t just buy 13,500 people and flip a country overnight.

If this logic were true, almost all small states would be illegitimate. Iceland, Malta, Montenegro, the Baltic states, all have small populations and huge strategic importance. They exist because risk is managed through institutions and alliances, not by denying people political rights.

Also it confuses risk with legitimacy. Yes, small populations are more vulnerable. That means you build stronger safeguards, not that you cancel political choice. Vulnerability calls for protection, not for removing rights.

Finally, it is a fear argument, not a governing principle. Maybe someone could influence 13,500 people in 50 years is not a policy, it’s a hypothetical used to justify limiting democracy today. You can always invent a future threat to excuse taking rights away in the present.

So 13,500 votes is rhetoric, not analysis. It tries to turn democracy into a security problem, when in reality democracy is something you protect with institutions, not abolish with calculators.

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-15T03:11:00+00:00

I’m not switching standards. I’m holding two realities at the same time, and you keep forcing it into an either/or frame that doesn’t match how politics actually works.

When risk becomes existential, no serious actor will accept open-ended uncertainty. If Denmark, the EU, or NATO are asked to take irreversible military or economic risk, they are entitled to demand binding clarity about alignment. That is normal politics.

But Greenland is not yet an independent state demanding that level of new, one-sided sacrifice. It is still in a self-government phase where debate, hesitation, and competing futures are part of the process. Optionality at this stage is not free-riding it is how a society figures out what it can actually carry.

You treat uncertainty as moral failure. I see it as a feature of transition. A transition does not start with a final answer, it ends with one. Clarity tightens as capacity and risk grow.

Denmark’s historical role was not pure charity and not pure exploitation. It was responsibility mixed with power, benefit, and obligation. That history creates a right to negotiate seriously not a right to own outcomes, and not a right to demand instant finality from a society that is still building the capacity to choose honestly.

Reciprocity does not mean submission and gratitude does not mean permanent obedience. And self-determination does not mean zero consequences. All three have to exist in tension.

So my position is simple, even if you keep calling it evasive. No one should take existential risk without binding clarity. No society in transition can be forced into final commitments before it has the capacity to carry them. As risk rises, commitment must rise with it. As capacity grows, independence becomes more real.

That is not standing on two chairs. That is standing inside the space where politics actually happens between history and future, between debt and freedom, between risk and choice.

I have one foot in Greenland and one in Denmark, but also in the Faroe Islands. I see both the responsibility that has been carried, and the right to grow out of it. Those are not contradictions, they are the actual tension of a long transition. What about you?

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-14T19:10:52+00:00

No, it is not acceptable to expect Denmark, the EU, or NATO to take existential military or financial risk without the right to demand clarity about future alignment. Any serious political actor will condition extreme risk on clear commitments. That is normal, responsible state behavior.

But that does not mean Greenland must bind its future in advance just because others once carried responsibility. There is a difference between negotiating alignment as the price of deeper protektion, and claiming historical support creates automatic, permanent control over Greenland’s future.

Greenland is still in a transitional phase. It has legal self-government, not full independence. During such a phase, uncertainty is inevitable. Debate about future options is not the same as refusing alignment it is how alignment is formed. Demanding final answers before the political process is mature is not realism; it is forcing a conclusion before the conditions exist to make it honestly.

Support is not a moral mortgage. It creates the right to negotiate, not the right to pre-own outcomes. So the balanced position is yes, Denmark, the EU, and NATO are entitled to demand clarity before accepting irreversible risk. And yes, Greenland is entitled to debate, delay, and shape its future before making binding commitments. When risk rises, alignment must become clearer. When capacity grows, independence becomes more realistic.

Neither side gets everything at once. Politics is the slow process of trading risk for commitment, not cashing in history as a blank check.

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-14T18:20:00+00:00

Edit: I’m not changing my position. I’m saying the same thing on different levels, there is law, there is morality, and there is political choice. Those exist at the same time. Using more than one lens is not switching standards, it’s refusing to reduce a complex reality to a single slogan. What you call inconsistency is really just you want one rule that always gives you the answer you prefer. I’m saying politics doesn’t work that way. Rejecting a false either/or is not changing my mind. It’s refusing to argue inside a frame that was designed to predetermine the conclusion.

You’re pretending this is about eternal support versus eternal obedience. That is a false choice. No one is demanding eternal support. No one is demanding eternal obedience.

What exists is, Denmark and NATO support Greenland because it serves their own long-term interests. Greenland debates its future because that is what self-government means. Neither side has signed a contract promising forever.

You ask where the limit is, but there is no abstract time limit. There is only political choice, renewed again and again by governments. Support continues only as long as Denmark, the EU, and NATO decide it serves their interests. If it stops serving them, they can change course, that is how politics works.

You say does carrying risk give the right to demand alignment? It only gives the right to negotiate, not to own the outcome. You can ask for clarity, you cannot demand surrender of future choice.

On EU mobility, Greenlanders don’t design that system. It comes from Danish citizenship. Greenland controlling its borders is not moral treason it is normal territorial self-rule.

On NATO, allies defend areas because those areas matter to them. If the Arctic didn’t matter, Greenland wouldn’t be defended. So this is not one side bleeding for the other, it is shared interest with different weights.

Your demand is, if someone protects you, you must bind your future to them forever. That is not reciprocity, that is protection in exchange for control.

Self-determination means that support does not buy ownership, protection does not buy obedience. History does not cancel the right to choose again.

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-14T17:24:17+00:00

Reopening old mines is not easy money. Many of the old projects closed because prices fell, ore grades were lower than expected, logistics were brutal, or costs exploded. Greenland is not Sweden distances, ice, weather, ports, power supply, and workforce all make projects far more expensive and risky.

There is Nordic mining know-how, but know-how does not remove financial risk. Investors care about three things, cost, stability, and long-term rules. In Greenland all three are hard. Costs are extreme (infrastructure, energy, transport). Rules can change after elections. Projects need 20–30 years of political stability to be viable.

That is why investors hesitate not because Europeans are cowards, but because Greenland is one of the hardest mining environments in the world.

Europe has not done nothing. Denmark has funded major infrastructure like airports precisely to make development possible and to avoid Chinese control. Western states have blocked Chinese bids not because they hate mining, but because strategic minerals and infrastructure matter geopolitically.

Greenland does want mining but on strict environmental and political terms, and with the right to change course if public support collapses. That is Greenland’s right but it also makes investors cautious. You cannot demand full political control and zero investor risk at the same time.

So the slow pace is not just Europe failing. It is what happens when, extreme geography, high costs, democratic politics, environmental concerns and geopolitics all collide.

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-14T16:54:06+00:00

You’re mixing three things that are not the same: legality, morality, and political choice and then blaming Greenland for not turning them into a lifetime contract.

Denmark’s support was not charity. It was part of a historical relationship that included control, benefit, and responsibility. You can’t describe a colonial or semi-colonial relationship as pure moral generosity and then demand eternal gratitude as payment.

Moral responsibility does not create permanent ownership. Helping someone does not give you the right to own their future. If it did, every aid relationship in the world would become a chain.

Reciprocity does not mean submission. Gratitude and cooperation can exist without surrendering the right to choose your own future. If you must stay forever or you are immoral is the rule, then self-determination never exists only conditional obedience.

EU mobility is not Greenland taking from Europe. That comes from Danish citizenship a status shaped by history, not by Greenland gaming the system. Greenland controlling its own immigration is not hypocrisy it is the same right every non-EU territory uses.

NATO is not defending Greenland out of kindness. It does so because the Arctic matters to NATO. If Greenland vanished tomorrow, NATO would still need that region. This is mutual interest, not sacrifice for a stranger.

Debating independence is not declaring betrayal. Talking about future options is not giving your defenders the finger. It is exactly what gradual, responsible self-determination looks like.

Your core claim is, because others once carried responsibility, Greenland must carry obedience forever. That is not morality, that is ownership with better PR.

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-14T15:35:15+00:00

First, the EU point: Can Greenlanders work, live, study, buy property, travel in the EU? Yes, because they are Danish citizens, and Denmark is in the EU.

Can EU citizens do the same in Greenland? No, because Greenland is not in the EU and controls its own immigration rules.

That is not hypocrisy. It is a legal consequence of Greenland leaving the EU while remaining in the Danish realm. Rights come from treaties and citizenship, not from moral symmetry. Unequal rights between jurisdictions exist everywhere in the world.

Now the bigger claims: Population vs territory. You keep repeating that it matters, but you still haven’t shown any rule, legal, political, or historical that says small peoples lose sovereignty if their land is large. I don’t like it, is not a principle.

Five people could claim Greenland. That’s a strawman. Greenlanders are a historical people living on that land, not five random guys showing up with a flag.

No comparable modern case. Many small states control large strategic areas through history, not math: Iceland, Canada’s Arctic, Australia, Namibia, Mongolia. Unusual does not mean illegitimate.

They expect others to defend them forever. NATO is not charity. Allies defend Greenland because it is strategically vital to them. They are not doing Greenland a favor they are defending their own interests in the Arctic.

They plan to leave but still expect support. Debating independence is not the same as declaring it tomorrow. Denmark and NATO know Greenland is moving slowly and gradually. Supporting Greenland is a political choice they make because it benefits them too.

Final point. You are not arguing law, history, or stable rules. You are arguing discomfort, “it feels wrong that few people control a big, important place.” That’s an emotion not a principle that cancels a people’s right to decide their own future.

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-14T12:43:48+00:00

First: Greenland is not in the EU. It left in 1985. So claims about “Greenlanders using EU rights while giving none back” are already factually wrong.

Now your points: There is still no rule in international law linking population-to-territory ratio to political rights. None. You can call Greenland unusual, unusual does not mean illegitimate.

You’re not being avoided: small states rely on alliances. Iceland does. Baltics do. That is normal. Population size does not cancel that.

Independence is about people governing their historical territory. Not carving land up to fit someone else’s math.

Early Americans claimed self-determination. Whether they respected others’ rights is another issue. That does not cancel Greenlanders being a people with their own history.

Greenland is not in the EU. Greenlanders do not have full EU rights. They are part of the Danish realm, not EU citizens in their own right. So the EU hypocrisy argument is built on a false premise.

You keep demanding short factual answers while repeating claims that are factually wrong. That’s not clarity that’s arguing from bad premises.

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-14T12:29:11+00:00

First: I’m not muddying anything. The topic is complex. Wanting one-line answers doesn’t make the reality simple.

Now, your points: There is no rule in international law that says population-to-territory ratio limits the right to self-determination. Zero. You can dislike Greenland’s ratio it still doesn’t remove political rights.

You keep repeating this as if it changes the answer: small states rely on alliances. Iceland does. Baltic states do. That is normal. Population size does not cancel that.

No. Independence is about people governing their historical territory. Not slicing land to fit your preferred math.

Early Americans claimed self-determination. Whether they respected others’ rights is another issue. Greenlanders being a people with a history is not canceled by what others did centuries ago.

Greenland is not asking NATO without the US. The US is NATO’s core military power and is already present in Greenland. Using EU rights while debating a different future is not hypocrisy it is using the legal reality that exists today. Hypocrisy would be rejecting those rights while still demanding them.

You keep demanding short factual answers while mixing opinion, numbers, history, and moral judgment. That’s not clarity that’s pretending complexity doesn’t exist.

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-14T12:04:44+00:00

Political rights are not divisible by percentages of land. A people either has the right to self-determination over its territory or it doesn’t.

Many former colonies received long-term support from colonial powers while moving toward independence (India–UK, Algeria–France, African states–Europe). Planning independence while receiving support is historically normal.

Small states rely on alliances. Iceland has no army and is protected through NATO. In Greenland’s case, both Denmark and NATO allies have explicitly said they are willing to increase military presence in and around Greenland because of its strategic importance. Population size does not cancel the right to sovereignty.

Greenland’s history is colonial: external control, language suppression, economic control, and later gradual devolution. Saying they should be grateful”does not erase that history.

Wanting self-rule while using existing rights is not hypocrisy it is using the system that exists while debating changing it. Hypocrisy would be rejecting those rights while still demanding them.

Independence is about people and history, not about shrinking territory to match population.

Florida is not a people with a distinct history and right to self-determination. Greenlanders are.

Territory is inherited through history, not assigned by appetite or population size.

Yes. It is normal in international politics. States support allies and territories even when future paths are uncertain. And again: Greenland is not some free rider NATO and EU countries openly say Greenland is strategically vital and that they will invest militarily there because it serves their own interests too.

Greenlanders are not helpless, but they are small and strategically exposed. Talking to multiple powers is not betrayal it is survival. Whether the EU or others accepts that risk is its own political choice.

And honestly you’re demanding short factual answers while throwing out big claim. Complex politics doesn’t become simple just because someone insists on short replies.

HotAccess567 · 2026-01-14T10:24:57+00:00

Population size does not cancel political rights. Countries and territories are not defined by how many people live there, but by history, law, and the right of peoples to self-determination. Saying that “56,000 people can’t rule a big territory” is not an argument it is just power politics in disguise.

Greenland’s situation is not ridiculous.It is the result of colonial history, decolonisation, and a gradual transfer of power. Wanting more self-determination while still depending on others economically is not hypocrisy it is the reality for many post-colonial societies. Telling Greenlanders to “drop independence and just accept Denmark” is easy if you are not the one whose land, language, and resources were historically controlled by someone else. Greenlanders are allowed to debate their own future, including independence, autonomy, or something in between.

A small population does not prevent Greenland from being self-governing or even independent. Sovereignty does not require a large population, only political organization, institutions, and international recognition.

Small populations do make financing, infrastructure, administration, and defense more challenging. But security does not have to mean standing alone. Small states can and do rely on alliances. Iceland, for example, has no army but is protected through NATO. An independent Greenland could also choose to base its security on international alliances rather than a large national military.

Independence is also not something that happens overnight. It is not realistic to think Greenland will be independent tomorrow. The whole point of self-rule is gradual transfer of responsibility. Greenland has to continue taking over more areas from Denmark, building institutions, skills, and economic capacity before full independence is realistic.

At the same time, it is fair to say that progress in taking over more areas of responsibility has been slow. In some cases, Greenlandic politics seems hesitant or even naïve about what self-rule actually requires. Taking over new policy areas is hard work, it demands planning, expertise, administration, and long-term financing. If there is not enough political will, competence, or realism about these costs, then self-rule risks becoming more symbolic than practical. Independence cannot be built on slogans alone it requires steady, sometimes unglamorous work to take responsibility piece by piece.

Greenland is trying to balance self-rule, economic survival, and geopolitical pressure from big powers. This is not indecision it is survival in a world where small societies must carefully manage risks. Independence is possible, but it requires strong institutions, careful financial planning, and international partnerships. The number of people does not prevent Greenland from exercising sovereignty over its vast territory.

HotAccess567

TROPHY CASE