The United States is openly threatening to take Greenland, a self-governing territory linked to Denmark and therefore to NATO.
That creates a crisis no one planned for. What happens when a NATO member threatens another NATO member?
This video explains why Donald Trump's claim has no legal basis, how extractive fantasies are driving geopolitical aggression, and why Europe now faces a choice between law and force.
If rules only apply when convenient, they do not apply at all.
But this is not about Greenland alone. It is about whether collective security, international law, and European sovereignty still mean anything. In political economy, this is a massive deal affecting all our futures.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Venezuela has been invaded.
Its President has been seized.
The international legal order is in disarray.
And what is Europe wanting to talk about? Greenland.
Greenland has become the epicentre of European concern over this issue because, well, Venezuela is a long way away, and Trump's threat to Greenland, made repeatedly, now feels very real, and it's an existential threat to NATO and to international law, and that makes it worth talking about.
Let's be clear. Greenland is enormous. It's about a quarter of the size of Europe, but it has a population of just 50,000 or so people, and that combination matters. It has a small population and a huge landmass. It's almost impossible to defend, but it has a strategic location, and that makes it of interest to Trump.
But there is no legal justification for the claim that he's making that the US must take possession of Greenland. It does not threaten US security. There is no conceivable UN mandate for the USA taking over Greenland, and there is, therefore, no lawful basis under international law on which he can claim the right to this territory. But Donald Trump keeps repeating the claim that he wants it, and that alone should alarm us.
The real motive that Trump has is, after all, about extractive fantasy. He wants Greenland because he believes that when the ice melts, which his friends in the petrochemical industry are doing all they can to help, there will be vast mineral wealth beneath the Greenland tundra. It does not matter that there may be no market by the time that the ice cap has melted. He believes there will be value, and that is what this is about. Even though the possibility of realising that value is next to zero, he wants to control it, and Greenland's current status as a self-governing territory of Denmark is, in his opinion, an impediment to that.
He wants to take control, but the fact is that Greenland is functioning very well as it stands.
Full independence would be very difficult for Greenland; let's be honest. There are economies of scale when it comes to states, and they do require shared institutions when they're small, and they do require allies. Denmark may not be the perfect ally for Greenland, but the EU apart, there is definitely no one better, and the United States would be worse.
As a consequence, there is a definite NATO problem here, because the critical point is that Greenland is linked, absolutely, to a NATO member state and under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, an attack on one member state is an attack on all of them, and then every member state is required to come to the defence of the one that is under attack. But the situation is that no one ever envisaged when NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, was created that the attack would come from another member state, and yet that is what the USA is planning; it is planning to attack a NATO member state.
Within this, there is a profound contradiction. What do we do? Is NATO still functional if one member state is now planning an attack on another member state? Whether that attack be by way of force or simply by way of expropriation, doesn't matter. The point is that NATO is a defence league, and it is meant to be a common defence league, treating all the member states as a unity for these purposes and yet quite clearly, that is no longer the case. The US is threatening a NATO member state.
So does that make the United States a pariah state?
And does collective security now mean anything in this situation?
After all, if rules only apply when they're convenient, they do not apply at all, and that is the implication of Trump's action.
And what does this anyway say about Europe? Could the EU defend Greenland? Would it want to? Would it risk confrontation with the USA? And if it would not, what does European sovereignty actually mean?
This is a test Europe can't avoid because the threat is very obviously real. We are seeing a situation where Europe is going to be challenged. I don't think there's any doubt that Trump is going to pursue this, and so what does Greenland think?
Let's not forget that the 50,000 people there have an opinion and a right to express it. Greenland might be both enormous and tiny and strategically central and politically vulnerable, but its future is not a side issue, most particularly for those 50,000 people. The evidence at the moment is that they will prefer Denmark to the USA, and they might prefer independence to either, but in that case, with some form of protection agreement. Now it is possible that the EU could provide that, but should the USA? And should that be determined by force?
Here is, obviously, the conflict in international relations, and it is being rehearsed in plain sight, and yet, where is our government? Where are the governments of Europe? Some are unambiguous. Denmark is of course taking the lead, and France, Spain and others are telling the US to back off. Even the UK, dithering as it is over Venezuela, is saying that the USA has no right to Greenland, but the point is, will we act?
Will we let power replace law?
Will we allow the power of extractive financial capital to override a duty of care to the people of Greenland?
And will our alliances end up being worth anything?
After all, if the rules of law collapse, only force remains.
So Europe must choose: is it going to choose law over might? Cooperation over coercion? And care over exploitation? Or is it going to allow power to prevail?
The one thing that we do know is that in this situation, silence is not neutrality; it is consent.
So are voices going to be raised? Is noise going to be created? Are we going to shout out for Greenland? It's a question that needs an answer, and as yet we don't know it, but the answer will determine a great deal of our international future for a long time to come.
Poll
Loading ...Taking further action
If you want to write a letter to your MP on the issues raised in this blog post, there is a ChatGPT prompt to assist you in doing so, with full instructions, here.
One word of warning, though: please ensure you have the correct MP. ChatGPT can get it wrong.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
As in the Baltics it would be possible to post a small international ‘tripwire’ force to help defend Greenland and ang aggression against them by the US would be an act of war against the states that send those soldiers.
Agreed
A practical problem for the US and the rest of the world. When the Greenland ice cap melts it will push sea levels up by 27/29 feet. Europe and the UK will also lose the benefit of the Gulf Stream.
If the US takes Greenland what is stop China moving on Taiwan, Russia on the Baltic states?
Trump’s team is saying that the US will keep any future revenue from the sale of Venezuelan oil and effectively drip feed whatever it decides to Venezuela. More economic pain for the people of that country.
The EU nations will need a fundamental rethink on what is the future purpose of the EU.
Perhaps the EU has to accept that it is by itself, with no more US military support and it must stop buying US arms?
The alliance with the US in arms has to end, asap.
In practice it will, anyway. Sometime, I suspect, the US will stop supplying them.
I agree but Zack has got a lot of criticism for saying this. His words have been twisted to say he wants to leave NATO, when he has really said that the US is an unreliable partner. Hence we should look to stronger ties with Europe and no longer expect to rely upon NATO for our defence.
Agreed
Perhaps we need to transform NATO into EATO (East Atlantic Treaty Organisation). Then invite Canada to join.
If we, as Europe as a whole do not acting in dependently, we will for a long time be beholden to another Stronger Economy.
we need to rebuild our collective manufacturing base. China has done it most recently, Japan and Germany did it after WWII.
For the 21st century, Europe needs to become self sufficient in basic manufacturing, but also in Internet, energy supply, food, transport and health.
I think most of our problems in the UK are fundamentally down to an establishment that acts as if it always is and will be subservient to the US irrespective of the Party in power.
A lot to agree with
That process is under way.
See S.A.F.E. now also involving Canada (full member) and latest (Jan 4th 2026) applicants, Japan, S Korea, Australia, New Zealand.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250527-eu-approves-150-billion-euro-loan-scheme-to-rearm
The UK is eligible to join if we choose to.
Indeed Robert, we should be part of it.
The only non-European NATO states are Canada and the USA. And Canada is aligning with Europe.
America has not been invaded since the war of 1812 and its forces are expeditionary forces for overseas deployment and in two theatres -Europe/Middle East and the Far East.
European forces are designed for national defence with Britain and France having a small capacity for out of Europe operations. Some countries made contributions to Afghanistan. ( Denmark suffered some of the highest per capita losses of the NATO forces.)
When the alliance worked it made sense for the US with its huge budgets to provide for long range surveillance, long range strike and heavy logistic lift. They could use economies of scale to provide those contributions. Without them the effectiveness of the European forces is reduced in any larger conflict. Those things can’t be brought into existence over night so I can see why there is a reluctance to directly confront Trump.
We have to accept if we want to replace those American contributions, it will take further integration of forces, especially at 3C level, Command, Control and communication, a lot more expenditure and time. The question is does Europe have the will?
We do not know the answer to that as yet
There’s a CNN video report by Kaitlan Collins termed EU Defence Program Update: 4 giving an excellent explanation of what this move by the Europeans is doing, with s timescale. Highly recommended
Aditya Chakrabortty has a sobering reminder here:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/08/trump-new-world-order-chaos-falling-ratings
We have served this bullying rogue American junta for decades – only now it is impossible to pretend that we were defending peace, freedom and democracy. We weren’t. We aren’t.
Starmer and his MPs have a stark moral choice. Are they prepared to openly, unavoidably declare themselves on the side of genocide, war crimes, piracy, theft, greed and thuggery? Because their cover is blown. Any attempt to continue this alliance with the government of the USA is a public declaration that the United Kingdom is onside with the criminals.
If the American people themselves are successful in freeing their state from its oligarch overlords, they may not look kindly on those who collaborated openly with the criminals.
Perhaps Starmer and his MPs need to read https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2016%3A1-13&version=CEV – and get out there and make some new friends, very quickly indeed.
A good article by Aditya – I had just read it before getting to your comment.
EU has a trade surplus with the USA in goods, but a massive trade deficit in services (mostly tech-bro related). Leverage could be applied.
In the case of arms, with the exception of the F35, Europe has weapon systems as good if not better than the US (Kongsberg – Norwegian – supplies the air defense systems for the White House) and in terms of drones tech, Ukraine is streets ahead. The EU has implemented SAFE which means that most weapons purchases in future in the EU will be European. The US stands to lose (& is losing) north of $400bn in weapons sales.
US corps have offered fealty to the capo di tutti capi – I wonder what happens when their sales go into free fall, ditto their share price. Doctorows “Enshitification” book offers lots of examples where the screws could be turned on a wide range of US corps. Indeed, another blog notes that a stock market crash is coming – the EU – through its actions could define when this happens & the ones most vulnerable: Amazon, Apple, Tesla, Microsoft, Google etc etc. Fight on terrain of your own choosing – Trump wants to fight wrt Greenland – shift the focus to where it could most hurt US corps. The USA has for more than a century treated Europe as… somewhere to go on holiday & sometimes join in a war or two for material advantage. EU needs to recognise this.
Thanks Mike. Appreciated.
Armida Vn Rij in today’s Guardian points out the European dependence on US tech giants. One commentator on Chakraborrty ‘s article claims they could cut Europe off from the Cloud so that our debit cards would no longer work. I really don’t have the knowledge to comment. In the wider sense, the US holds most of the cards so it depends how we play the ones we’ve got.
She does end
“Europe cannot stand up to the US alone; its only option is to urgently deepen and strengthen partnerships with countries who share its values and interests in a rules-based order, to build a viable political and military bulwark against the US’s new order.” ( Australia, Canada, South Korea, Japan )
Trump and his allies are encouraging far-right elements in Austria, Hungary, Poland and Germany to pull away from the EU. The Heritage Foundation -Project 2025- is seeking allies in Europe. Farage and his party are another.
But we need to do a lot to be independent. Faced with those costs would the electorate just opt for a quiet life?
It depends on the leadership of both ‘sides’ and how we respond.
I argued in 2008, and have maintained the position ever since, that we should have reacted to the global financial crisis of that year by creating our own payment systems, as well as our own credit card infrastructure to replace those on which we are dependent, whether nationally or internationally, with such platforms being under state control and to be provided as part of public infrastructure for the common good. The need to do this now, it’s very urgent.
Richard, I fully agree with your persuasive advocacy of the “Caring “economy. I was fortunate to have experienced the sense of personal wellbeing, civic unity, and educational opportunity provided by the welfare state from the ‘50s to the ‘70s. The difficulty I have now is in seeing how the increasing militarisation promoted by EU and NATO leadership can do other than block the reemergence of the “Caring” economy. Such militarisation is an expression of the primary objective of the military industrial complex: the manufacturing of perpetual enemies for financial gain. In this view of society, if you are poor, you can make yourself available for military service and support conscription. Nation states have lost their autonomy in these organisations. We should welcome the collapse of the EU and NATO to free ourselves of this military entanglement if we are to have any chance of creating the Caring society. As for standing up to the international gangsterism of Trump, the EU and NATO are hopelessly compromised and enfeebled. We need to start again to create a coalition of the free among governments who care for their people, and respect their neighbours and the planet.
Please accept my apologies for taking time to respond to this comment. In practice, I think I will address it in a blog house which is likely to be published tomorrow morning, and I hope that is acceptable to you. I admit, I will also broaden the themes.
In many ways it seems an opportunity to get the global bully that is the U.S. out of NATO which is just a client base for it’s greedy monopolistic arms industry.
My desire would be for no Starmerism in NATO – no vacillation whatsoever, and what is needed is an adherence to international law and principle that highlights the illegality of U.S. intentions. The U.S. must be isolated on the point of illegality. I’m all for states ‘opting out’ and making their own arrangements to avoid dealing with the U.S. anyway or put them at arms length, but not if they put themselves above international law. I think even the American people themselves will see this.
What is more worrying for me is the sabre rattling towards China. It both makes me smile and worries me about how the Chinese get up U.S. noses. The U.S. desire to win and convert other countries to the American way is axiomatic here – they just can’t handle it can they, when someone wants to be different? Why? Because it stops their expansionist and acquisitional raping of foreign assets and industry which is what the international markets championed and set up by the U.S. are supposed to do anyway.
There is something else that needs to stop. It is this idea of competing for resources. We should just accept that we need to co-operate for resources? Are we happy of the prospect of war just so that someone gets to have all the precious metals that make mobile phones and games consoles?
I mean what an epitaph – wiping out potentially millions of people so they could ‘play’ football on a poxy games console or manipulate images on their mobile phone? Wow, what an advanced species we are, eh?
The U.S. however loves to dominate. All we can do is point out that it is not doing so legally but I wish that we’d done more in the past not to tolerate their covert interference’s. You could argue that someone like Trump was always going to be the next step up.
Thanks
Much to agree with
“What is more worrying for me is the sabre rattling towards China. It both makes me smile and worries me about how the Chinese get up U.S. noses.”
If you make the effort to truly understand how China’s elite operates you’ll realise for ordinary working people it’s little different from the American one. Both elites effectively cooperate to deliver a lack of democracy to their respective populations.
Schofield – you’ve opened this comment rather rudely. But let’s put that aside and stick to the historical quantification shall we?
So Schofield, you’re saying that China should have been the next Russia are you?
That China should have just let the U.S. Neo-liberals in and let their ‘shock-doctrine’ do its work? So that we’d end up with a Chinese version of Putin maybe? Or a Chinese Yeltsin? And subjected the Chinese people to what exactly? What we saw in Moscow in the 1990’s, the sort of stuff you can see in Adam Curtis’ ‘Trauma Zone’ documentary? Hmmm? Lets not forget that the Chinese kicked the U.S. and us out. The Opium Wars? The 1949 revolution – all driven by Western exploited China?
China has its own problems – like we do here – hungry children (definitely here) and all that, a lack of democracy and fairness, a failure to provide and regulate even and political corruption too, also picking on Muslims and suppress dissent like we do held in Quaker buildings! Sounds familiar? Are we that different to China? Personally I don’t think so mate.
They’ve impressed me with their commitment to develop their country’s internal infrastructure and they seem to have kept the U.S. government and its corporate masters at arms length in doing that. Their form of rule, like U.S. democracy – is an ongoing experiment.
Our form of rule in the UK has ground to a halt and is going backwards – where we have a ‘choice’ of parties that……..all basically think the same – the ‘single transferable party’ we call it here. So much for ‘democracy’ eh? And the U.S. has achieved that reversal even more quickly than us. And now the Chinese have to deal with the West calling them a threat only because they wish to stand alone and develop on their own terms. The same West that sold off all its manufacturing kit to them to make things more cheaply and increase their profit margins and were not too concerned about the Chinese’s single party system at the time? Lovely!
I have only 400 words, but I do hope that I have got over to you that I have made an effort to understand quite a lot about this issue than you think?
Maybe this is a bit simplistic but I think in psychological terms, and I won’t be upset if you don’t publish this, as perhaps I am stating the obvious! Either way, thank you for all your work and giving us a way forward…
Since neoliberalism reinforces behaviours that characterise narcissistic/sociopathic/antisocial personality disorders I see it as an inevitable outcome that people like Trump rise to the top in such a system. Such people don’t respect rules. They positively thrive by disobeying rules and pushing boundaries. They only respect consequences. Pussy footing around will continue to leave us wide open to exploitation.
No problem with that observation. I think it is right.
And thank you.
I don’t see what international law can do to stop the US. A lot of international law institutions are dependent on the US. Without the US cooperation there is no international law.
So, we sanction and isolate the USA
I think that whether international law is adhered to or not, the law remains to be quoted if it has been broken without prior agreement. And I mean quoted consistently by all non-U.S. members for as long as this lasts.
My worry is that NATO will not cohere on this issue and we will have the back door changing of international law under U.S. bullying – which has always been their ‘art of the deal’. That is a real threat.
We need NATO and the other bodies upholding international law to be resolute on this and hold the line.
Russia seems to want to ‘reclaim’ lands it sees as traditionally its own and we have found that to be unacceptable. And here is the U.S. wanting land that it has no territorial claim to whatsoever. No history of involvement at all in terms of governance etc.
Whilst I’m at it, I want to reassure any American readers that I am not anti-American. But there is something seriously wrong with your politics which promised much and has not delivered. Your government’s behaviour is no better than what the founding fathers left these shores for. And that is a real shame.
Having said that, I still have more hope for America in asserting real democracy than this genuflecting fiefdom I live in.
Thanks.
Trump is busy sanctioning and isolating the USA himself. Tariffs are effectively sanctions on the US population, and Trump is currently pulling the US out of various internation organisations, especially climate change related ones.
His mind is a fascinating case study in cognitive dissonance – on the one hand he doesn’t believe in climate change, but on the other he wants Greenland because the ice is melting and might eventually lead to possible mineral exploitation.
I don’t know enough behind all the politics but surely there are more good than bad in the world and why do countries and leaders not call out evil for what it is. What should and could the leaders of the world who oppose this do collectively. The world is watching. What do we do?
Start by calling out the bad
No one else will
Why has it come to this? I’m not a military or diplomatic expert and I have no idea what the right answer is.
Realistically are the rest of NATO even capable of defending such a huge, unpopulated territory from the US Empire? And at what human cost? I think we have to do something, but what?
In the long term I think it’s right that we look to Europe for a defensive alliance and walk away from the US.
In the short term in response to this brewing crisis I think we need to *something* with our other allies and that whatever that something is we must do it before US launches an invasion – make them think twice basically.
What I think will happen instead is that we will be gutless vassals and let Trump have his way. We’ll excuse the fact that it is “only” ~50k people living there to cede strategical territory to a fascistic imperial power.
Given that we could fall out with them soon, do we need to talk more about the americanisation of our lives? I feel like they dominate us in many, many ways: Our reliance on their tech, their poisoning of our political discourse, their increased ownership of UK assets and so on. How do we begin to untangle ourselves?
Europe, judging by the words and actions of its leaders, is rearming using European industry. This is akin to the situation Britain and France faced in the late 30s with Germany. Then they rearmed while trying to hold Germany back and keep it in check. Now they’re doing it again in the face of Russian and American agression. Back then they sold out Czechoslovakia to delay the inevitable. They will sell out Greenland if they have to and for the same reason.
Unlike the 30s, nearly every world leader of substance would rather sit atop a mountain of skulls than back down. A good number of them have and would use nuclear weapons rather than back down.
I hope our leaders can step back from this, but I doubt it. The egos are too big and the desire for power and control too strong. I hope I’m too pessimistic and am proved wrong.
Interesting video from November*, that puts the Arctic capabilities of the US and the rest of NATO into perspective. Run time <18 minutes:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D8hdthsG8tks&ved=2ahUKEwjl2Iir-fuRAxVLVEEAHY4gIK44ChCjtAF6BAgKEAY&usg=AOvVaw3ZYGMP4fTdL-bIKUuS_crH
*Some points from the introduction and conclusion are already dated, such is the world we live in.
It seems to me that the liberal international world order is dissolving before our very eyes. Hoping steps will be taken to deal with Trump’s actions that essentially appeal to a future predicated on things returning to “normal” is beginning to seem wishful thinking.
I came across this recent article in the Journal of International Organisation which gives an account of the possible emerging international order. The authors argue that Trump, and other autocratic leaders, operate within an emerging system they describe as “neoroyalist”: one in which sovereignty is treated less as a legal principle than as a form of personal or national property, diplomacy becomes overtly transactional, and alliances function as conditional favours rather than mutual commitments. Within this framework, actions that appear erratic or norm-breaking instead follow a coherent internal logic.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/further-back-to-the-future-neoroyalism-the-trump-administration-and-the-emerging-international-system/ABB12906CA345BBCA5049B544363D391
With regard to what UK/Rest of Europe can do to protect Greenland’s sovereignty, I’m afraid I am quite cynical in that I would not be surprised if U.S. demands over Greenland, whatever they eventually turn out to be, are the price Europe must pay for their support in Ukraine. That support will fall a long way short of what is required though, but will be better than nothing at all. I wish we were not faced with this situation.
Domestically, one can already imagine sovereigntist or Atlanticist voices arguing that the UK should stay out of any confrontation and simply align itself with the United States. Of course such arguments would ignore the fact that Europe also provides over 40% of FDI, remains a major source of food, energy and raw materials and collectively is our biggest export market.
When over 30% of FDI into the U.K. comes from the United States alone, never mind our reliance on the U.S. in military technology e.g. Trident missile key maintenance, no matter who is in power our government’s options seem tightly constrained.
I note the paper, and that these people can create what they believe to be coherent arguments in support of their position, but fantasists have always been able to do that.
What worries me is your conclusion. You presume that FDI is necessary, as is Trident. Why? One extracts value from this country, and the other threatens our total well-being, and even survival. Why do we need them?
Thank you for your reply. I do agree with you.
With regard to “neo-royalism,” I merely referred to the paper as one account, among several differing accounts, attempting to make sense of current developments. I hope they are wrong.
My conclusion, which I accept was not clear, was about the constraints created by existing structures. Those constraints are tightening, not loosening, and Trump’s re-personalisation of power makes reducing dependence on both FDI and abhorrent nuclear weapons more costly, as he could make it very difficult for us to exercise our sovereign power to effect the changes we want.
To be clear, I am not arguing that we need to accept these dependencies or weapons: only that, given their current integration into our economy and defence posture, disengagement in Trump’s new world order, if it persists, might turn out to be far more difficult and risky than it might have been previously.
We have no choice at the end of the day: we break with Trump or we sink with him.
“Why do we need them?”
To prevent us being bullied and possibly annexed by Russia
Please don’t be stupid.
They can never be fired without mutually assured destruction. What sort of defence is that?
If Starmer can’t form an opinion and take a stance on Greenland, how will he act if/when President Milei starts to reassert Argentina’s right to the Falkland Isles/Mavinas? Trump is gifting huge sums of US dollars to Argentina, or is he doing so merely to keep a hard-right President in place? Either way, given Trump’s behavour in Venezuela and his threats of annexing Greenland, I’d guess it’s only a matter of time before Milei starts threatening to annexe the Falklands.
Oil would be the explanations for that.
@Michael Rossi
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2026/01/08/is-nato-about-to-collapse/comment-page-1/#comment-1062030
We do not have an independent nuclear deterrent, so we don’t even need to discuss “MAD” as if we did.
We need Trump’s permission to maintain Trident (and it isn’t being properly maintained at present), and we need US consent to fire it. Trump, unreliable, chaotic malignant geriatric Trump and his terrorist rogue administration, could remove that tomorrow. Our very dependant, US controlled, US supplied nuclear deterrent is in the hands of an unreliable rogue state. Who stops Trump bullying us? Russia?
Trident has always been an expensive con trick. Now it is also a very very dangerous one. The USA is a very dangerous ally and has been for quite a few years.
Much to agree with
What Tim is describing — and what your reply gets to, Richard — is the central paradox of the current moment. The very structures that were sold to us as “guarantees of security” have quietly become mechanisms of dependence. FDI that extracts more than it contributes, military systems we cannot operate without external permission, supply chains we do not control, and a political culture that treats alignment as inevitability rather than choice — all of these narrow our room for manoeuvre precisely when we need it most.
The point isn’t that disengagement is easy. It’s that the cost of staying dependent rises every time the international order becomes more transactional. A system built on predictability can tolerate asymmetry; a system built on unilateralism cannot. In that environment, the question stops being “can we afford to reduce these dependencies?” and becomes “can we afford not to?”
Sovereignty isn’t a flag or a posture. It’s the practical ability to act in your own long‑term interests. If the structures we rely on now prevent that, then rebuilding autonomy — economic, industrial, technological and diplomatic — isn’t optional. It’s the precondition for any meaningful strategy in the world that’s emerging.
Why is the current U.S.A. Government’s premise/pretext for the theft of Greenland based on security by distance?
1) Alaska and Russia are 55miles/88km apart and the Russian Big Diomede Island is all of 2.5 miles from the Ameican Little Diomede Island?
2) Should Greenland beome part of the U. S. A., the border of the U. S. A is considerably nearer to Russia
P.S. Might the aim of the U.S. A be to have Greenland as a sacrificial nuclear insulator?