The Danes aren't concerned because there's enough interest, they're concerned because a violent, hegemonic imperialist superpower run by an unstable authoritarian regime has decided Greenland should be theirs, apparently just because, and historically speaking having something the US wants means your cities get liberated into smoking rubble.
> How is it unstable?
I'll bite - the guy taking office soon recently attempted a coup and his party backs him no matter what action he takes despite his rampant criminality.
There have been at least 2 assassination attempts on this individual recently (by folks who ostensibly supported him previously) and had one been successful who knows what his remaining supporters would have done in response.
The USA is teetering.
> recently attempted a coup
This is just more hyperbole and relies on a highly subjective interpretation of a single tweet and blithe expansion of the accepted definition of coup. The least generous but realistic interpretation of those actions is that through poor word choices he incited a riot. You can credibly debate that this was criminal and intentional but to call it an example of a "coup" is flatly absurd.
> his party backs him no matter what
There is astounding and readily available evidence to the contrary. I'm not sure why you think there hasn't been or isn't currently Republican Party members that despise him and openly attempt to undermine him. They're not particularly difficult to find.
> despite his rampant criminality.
It seems like the majority of his actions are within the law. I understand you disagree with his administrative prerogatives but this lens is extremely distorted.
> at least 2 assassination attempts on this individual recently
How that implicates "stability" of a nation is beyond me. Are you prepared to label all prior presidents with successful or unsuccessful assassination attempts as being "unstable?" Is that your bar? Do you not see any connection between your widely held extreme points of view and these extreme actions?
Finally.. what is the source of this instability? That he won an election? That's an odd understanding of politics. One that I think is projected by lazy "news" channels that find it easier to market outrage than they do facts.
> and had one been successful who knows what his remaining supporters would have done in response.
From hyperbole into historically detached flights of fancy.
> The USA is teetering.
All actual available evidence is to the contrary. The economy is strong and the social order isn't. Qui bono? Perhaps you shouldn't focus so much on domestic politics.
> You can credibly debate that this was criminal and intentional but to call it an example of a "coup" is flatly absurd.
The Jan 6 committee laid it out in detail but if not for Mike Pence having a shred of integrity trump's plan would have led to the state delegations in the House selecting the "winner" of the 2020 election. That's a coup attempt. It was well documented.
> they're concerned because a violent, hegemonic imperialist superpower
To be fair we learned it from watching Dad (England).
> unstable authoritarian regime
How is it unstable?
> apparently just because
Territorial waters and exclusive economic zone claims grant amazing access to the arctic.
> something the US wants
It's really just the moneyed interests inside of it. China and Russia seem to have the same bent for the same reasons. It was recently unusual in Iraq since the federal corruption had risen to such a level, enabled by 9/11, that lackies for these interests somehow found themselves directly employed by government.
I prefer nuance over hyperbole.