Greenland Crisis

Today I had some fun digging into the Greenland tech startup ecosystem, or lack thereof https://www.siliconsnark.com/the-first-ever-deep-dive-into-g...

NATO is unbelievably, stupendously critical to US security.

Several things: 1) the US will deploy substantial military assets to Greenland. Far beyond what it has now. That will include building massive radar arrays and missile defense systems. By controlling Greenland it won't need permission for anything it does. 2) The US will aggressively claim water territory around Greenland and use it to restrict transit by foreign military powers. Svalbard is on the table for invasion and annexation if the US goes the route of fascism or empire. If not, then the US will just push its water territory claims to absurd lines in the style of the South China Sea and use it for denial as much as possible. 3) Greenland puts the US drastically closer to the most important regions of Russia, the US will station nuclear weapons on Greenland. Owning Greenland gets the US massive territory 3,000 KM closer to Moscow.

The US only recognizes two threatening competitor powers in the world today: China and Russia. Russia is of course not what it was during the Soviet era. However a long-term partnership with China would change the dynamic a lot. Russian territory may come to host major Chinese ports in time. For the right price it's extremely likely that China can buy a multi port deal in the Arctic Ocean region from Russia. It'd be invaluable access & projection potential for China. Any superpower would want that realistically.

> Greenland is unbelievably, stupendously critical to US security.

And the US has had full access to it for defense purposes since 1951:

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp

At the end of WWII, the US had 17 military facilities on Greenland. By its own choice, it is now down to 1:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_in_Greenland

> As of 2020 Denmark's Arctic Command has one aircraft, four helicopters, four ships, and six dog sleds to patrol the entire island

Maybe you didn't notice, but it's 2026 now. Here's an update for you:

https://nordicdefencesector.com/en/article/denmark-invests-2...

> Greenland can declare independence on its own at any time

And wants to keep it that way. Considering what happened the last time secession was attempted in the US, and the legal aftermath which ruled it unconstitutional,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White#Majority_opinio...

that alone is enough to make joining the US a non-starter for them:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g3kw5ezepo

> there is always an uncertainty from having to depend on a foreign government

So "uncertainty" is now a valid reason to invade allies? Because maybe some day they might no longer want to be allied? Put it that way and it seems more like a "psychological need". Oh, wait...

https://people.com/donald-trump-wants-ownership-greenland-ps...

> Annexation would also simplify US access to Greenland's natural resources

Implied in that statement is that it would allow mining companies to ignore what the natives want. We've seen that movie before (and so have the Greenlanders):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act#Legacy

> it leeches €600 million from Copenhagen annually

And this is a problem for the US?

> with Denmark and the US paying for everything

What is this "everything" that the US is supposedly paying for, other than the upkeep of the single military base it's kept there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituffik_Space_Base

Personnel: 150. That is the measure of how important the US actually thinks Greenland is for its security. Needless to say, those 150 Americans are not there to defend Greenland; they are there to operate a US Space Force remote tracking station which provides early warning if something bad heads toward the continental US over the North Pole. You want the Greenlanders to pay for that?

> Greenland a) is inevitably going to gain independence—every single poll for decades has shown this

What the polls show is that the Greenlanders would like to become independent. They've had the option to do so since 2009, and they have not, because they know that Greenland

> b) is completely unable to function on its own as a bona fide independent country

Exactly. Now explain how you reconcile your (a) with your (b). Don't forget to explain why they would want to do so if they have "the best of all worlds now", which you claimed just before enunciating (a).

> I don't believe that the US would invade Greenland militarily; it will likely buy it

Which part of "no" don't you understand?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c338rm41y88o

https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idRW556309012026RP1/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/18/trump-consider...

> But let's say that the US does, and NATO dissolves.

Thus ending the security architecture which has kept Europe from blowing up the world a third time for nearly eight decades. In place of which you propose to put what?

> It comes down to net benefits. Would owning Greenland be more valuable for American national security, than the current NATO status quo of the US being willing to to accept its own cities being nuked if Russia invades Western Europe?

Quite obviously not. Let's say the US takes Greenland by force. First, this will happen:

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/19/politics/video/donald-tru...

Second, Russia would immediately follow the example and seize Svalbard while the West is busy tearing itself apart. And of course create a security zone around Murmansk; as you surely know, the Russian Northern Fleet's main base is less than 30 miles from the (current) Norwegian border:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapadnaya_Litsa_(naval_base)

Another little thing which would be taken care of quickly would be that corridor to Kaliningrad which they've been wanting since their latest imperial collapse:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suwa%C5%82ki_Gap

The Baltics would then be easy pickings.

At this point you have Denmark in a shooting war with the US; and Norway, Poland, the three Baltic states and most likely Finland + Sweden in a shooting war with Russia; the perfect moment for China to make its move on Taiwan, and for North Korea to "help" by attacking South Korea (incidentally seizing or destroying 90% of the world's compute production capacity).

Congratulations, you just started WW III.

And all because of a "psychological need" which could only be satisfied by turning half a billion friends into enemies who will never forget, let alone forgive, your betrayal.

Brilliant strategy.

They don’t have to. People will do it for free if you promise to cut their taxes and social services.