 | Source: CBC |
| Greenland is a two million square kilometers island. It lies between the Arctic and Atlantic oceans. It is an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. It is then fully part of the EU and NATO. But since 2019, Trump has claimed that Greenland should be under U.S. control. These claims have been reiterated after the recent capture of Maduro. The U.S. does not exclude taking Greenland by force if needed. Denmark, the EU, and Greenland strongly oppose that stance. | Why does Trump want Greenland so badly? | Trump's interest in Greenland is rooted in geopolitics, military strategy, and resources. In the context of the great power competition in the Arctic, Greenland sits at a crucial strategic crossroads. Polar routes become more accessible due to ice melting. This opens opportunities for transport in global trade. But also, for the exploitation of resources. These new opportunities in turn raises great powers' interests. | Natural resources and rare-earth elements (REE). Greenland owns large and untapped resources. These include: | - REE, | - Uranium, | - Oil and gas, | - Minerals. | These resources are crucial to many industries such as electronics, weapons, green tech. The U.S. are highly dependent on China for REE. China uses them as leverage. Securing an access to those resources through Greenland would reduce that vulnerability for the U.S. | New shipping routes. As polar ice melts, new shipping routes emerge for global trade. These routes shorten travel time between Asia, Europe, and North America. A control over the Arctic chokepoints becomes vital on an economic and strategic point of view. Greenland's position and coastline give access and influence over the global trade corridors. | Rising Arctic rivalry. Russia is expanding its military bases, icebreakers fleet, and missile systems across the Arctic. China calls itself a "near-Arctic" state. It invests in shipping routes, mining projects and scientific stations. For the U.S., it is a matter of countering these expansions. | Military value for the U.S. On top of all the above, the U.S. also operates an airbase in Greenland. The Thule Air Base is a key U.S. site used for missile early-warning, space surveillance and Arctic defense. A control over the entire land would strengthen America's northern shield and optimize national security. | | | | "Forget AI" Says Reagan's #1 Futurist |
While everyone's chasing the same AI plays, George Gilder is focused on something completely different.
He says a 4-nanometer device that's 80 MILLION times more powerful than the chip he gave Reagan is now being made in America for the first time.
And he's identified 3 companies that control this technology.
Get the details before this BOMBSHELL announcement changes everything.
|
|
| | What are the options? | Trump approaches geopolitics like a business deal. It is therefore not surprising that the best option evoked by the Secretary of State was a purchase of Greenland. The U.S. already expanded its territory that way. It bought Louisiana from France and Alaska from Russia in the 19th century. That option would require approval by Congress and the EU, which seems unlikely. Trump could try to use security guarantees for Ukraine as leverage to influence the EU and gain greater influence in Greenland. But again, it is unlikely that the EU will fold. | Another option would be to buy off Greenlanders. A large part of the population there seeks independence from Denmark someday. But they still rely on the funds from Denmark. Trump could try to play its cards by proposing more fundings than Denmark. This option is also unlikely to succeed. Greenlanders stand firm on the fact that their land is not for sale and that they do not want to be integrated to the U.S. | The last option is force. Indeed, the White House did not exclude it. But an invasion of Greenland by the U.S. army would have terrible consequences on multiple levels: Greenlanders themselves, diplomatic relations, NATO's unity, and global geopolitics. | What would be the consequences? | One big question raised by Trump's threats on Greenland concerns NATO's future. A move on Greenland, especially a military one, would disrupt diplomatic relations with Denmark and the EU. But it would also breach international law and NATO's principles. Indeed, Greenland belongs to Denmark and Denmark is part of NATO. A NATO member simply taking by force part of another NATO member's territory seems rather unlikely. But if it did happen, how could NATO react? | NATO's Chapter 5 relies on the core principle of collective defense. This means that if one member is attacked, all NATO members consider it as an attack on themselves and can respond to help the attacked country. But will any country really retaliate against the U.S.? It is unlikely and Trump's backers are counting on that. Still, it would impact the alliance unity and create a major crisis. | Plus, such as move could create a dangerous precedent. If the U.S. can just get its hands on Greenland, what will stop China from doing the same with Taiwan and the South China Sea? Or Russia with Ukraine? Or any other territorial disputes? | There might also be risks of shifting allegiances. Russia and China know how to surf on fears of U.S. imperialism. Some states, initially pro-U.S., might shift away from the American influence if they fear they cannot rely on the U.S. anymore. | Finally, occupying a country never turned out very well in history. Local population most often reject the presence, more or less violently. | Considering these elements, it is unlikely that the U.S. will try to take Greenland by force. Plus, it is unlikely that the U.S. citizens would be thrilled by billions of dollars spent on an invasion or a purchase of territory. It is also unlikely that Denmark and Greenlanders agree to cede or sell this land. The status quo is more likely to remain. | Decoding geopolitics isn't a job. It's survival. | Joy |
|
0 التعليقات:
إرسال تعليق