It’s a classic image from the Cold War: the United States, flush with cash and post-war ambition, looking north and trying to buy Greenland. We laugh about it now—the idea of just "buying" a massive, icy landmass and the 56,000 souls who live there. But when you actually look at the maps and the money, a much darker question emerges: What would actually happen to those people if the deal went through? To understand that, you have to look at the Geography of Support. Right now, Greenland exists within the Kingdom of Denmark. It’s a relationship built on something called "The Unity of the Realm." It’s not perfect—no post-colonial relationship is—but it’s built on a fundamental promise of equality. Even though Nuuk is 3,500 kilometres from Copenhagen, a Greenlander is, for all intents and purposes, a full-blooded Dane. They have two voting seats in the Danish Parliament. They have a "Block Grant"—an unconditional, multi-hundred-million-dollar infusion of cash every single year that ensures their hospitals are first-world and their schools are free. If a student in a remote fjord wants to become a doctor, they fly to Denmark, tuition is zero, and the government hands them a monthly stipend to live on. This is the Danish Model: High-cost, high-support, and full democratic dignity. Then, you look at Canada. We do something similar. We realized a long time ago that you can’t have "Northern Sovereignty" on the cheap. If you want people to live in Nunavut or the Yukon, you have to bridge the gap. We use Territorial Formula Financing to make sure that a heart surgeon in Iqaluit is paid for the same way one is in Toronto. A Canadian in the Arctic isn't a "territorial subject"; they are a voter, a citizen, and a full participant in the federation. But then... you look at the American model. And this is where the map starts to break. The United States has this category of land called "Unincorporated Territories." It sounds like a boring legal term, but for the 3.5 million people living in places like Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa, it’s a ceiling on their existence. Take Puerto Rico. There are more U.S. citizens living there than in twenty different U.S. states. They pay into the system. They serve in the military at incredibly high rates. But they have zero voting power in Congress. They have no say in who their President is. And the support? It’s hit-or-miss. In the U.S. mainland, if you’re poor or disabled, there’s a floor called SSI (Supplemental Security Income). In the territories? The U.S. Supreme Court has literally ruled that the government doesn't have to give it to you. In Guam, a quarter of the island is a military base—the "Tip of the Spear"—yet the people there face "Medicaid Cliffs" where healthcare funding just... stops. This is the American Model: Strategic value first, citizens second. So, when we talk about Greenland, or the Faroe Islands, or Nunavut, we aren't just talking about borders. We’re talking about a choice between two very different versions of the world. In the Danish and Canadian versions, the "parent" country recognizes that distance shouldn't diminish your rights. In the American version, the farther you are from the centre of power, the more your citizenship begins to fade. If Greenland had been "bought" in the 1940s or the 2010s, it wouldn't be the 51st state. It would almost certainly be another "unincorporated territory." The block grants would vanish. The voting seats in Parliament would be traded for a non-voting delegate in D.C. The free university stipends would be replaced by American-style student debt. Sovereignty isn't just about whose flag or military base is on the map. It’s about who has your back when the cost of living in the middle of the ocean gets too high. And right now, the North is showing the world that equality isn't just a mainland luxury—it's the only way a Kingdom, or a Country, actually stays together.Greenland Canada is a logistical nightmare (that's why it's retained it's sovereignty sofar), and then there is King Winter, the defenders protective saint.Americans probably put a kill switch in all the F35. So that if you attack them, you're going down as well. down
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
If Trump were just after Greenland as a 'defence' position, why not just say so. The wider world could at least understand that position given it's proximity to countries deemed 'potential enemies' in this reinvention of the cold war.
American foreign policy rarely makes sense to the wider world. Particularly those considered 'allies'. Just look at that tariffs list. But invading sovereign states without agreement from NATO; U:N or anyone else just makes you an occupying force invading sovereign territory for your own gain.
And that puts you in the same category as Russia; China; Afghanistan; Yemen; Somalia....
@Picklebobble2 "Defence" is his main excuse, and he usually says for his own country's security, not mentioning Greenland's, nor its neighbours, Canada and Iceland.
Turmp seems to think China and Russia his main enemies, despite his ambivalent relationship with Putin. I would agree but also point out they may be closer to the USA via the North Pacific, than from the Denmark Strait.
Alaska with its oil-fields, and the tip of Siberia, are only 70 miles apart across the Bering Strait, on the opposite side of the continent from Greenland; although the geography of both may make any attack from there unlikely.
Besides, these days warfare may involve far more than missiles, in ways that do not need worry about physical geography and could cumulatively be far more damaging.
.... Russia - USA? China too?
Bizarrely, Russia reportedly recently raised with Elon Musk - never a politician nor an engineer or geologist - the old chestnut of building a >60 mile long railway tunnel across the Bering Strait.
This new InterBering study presents a tri-national concept linking China, Russia, and the United States through the future Bering Strait Tunnel.
Oh, and via Canada. That is copied directly from
https://www.interbering.com.
Very elaborate hoax or worse, massive shares fraud, or what?
There are huge political, financial and technical obstacles, and I spotted an obvious omission in the engineering, and a mistake and significant omission in the geology. The scheme is far-fetched to say the least, but would require locking four major countries into co-operation into the indeterminate future.
So if not a hoax / fraud, what do the scheme's backers know? Who are they? Where are they? Why are they so cocksure about it in a time of considerable tension between the USA and the two dictatorships?
It's a largely Russian initiative, pushed by it founder Fyodore Soloview, a Russian businessman living in Alaska. If serious he's unlikely to have promoted it without some idea of Moscow, Washington and Peking encouragement. Even Ottawa's too: Canada seems mentioned a bit lightly.
Greenland? Look to your North-West, Americans.
For although Interbering's scheme is likely only fantasy its web-site tells us the Russians have big plans for developing their far-East, not ever so far from you....
