Number of the day

66 

That’s how many international organisations the US will now leave following a directive from President Trump. Some on the list — like the UN’s population agency and climate treaty — were long in Trump’s crosshairs. Others are more of a surprise, like the longstanding effort to counter piracy in Asian waters, known as ReCAAP.

Land grab

Exactly a year ago to the day we asked, “Why’s everyone talking about Greenland?”. That was when incoming Trump 2.0 had taken a blowtorch to global headlines by reviving the idea that acquiring Greenland (a semi-autonomous territory of fellow NATO-member Denmark) was “an absolute necessity” for the US. 

A year later we’re still talking about it, but suddenly everything seems more serious.

What happened exactly? 

Somehow, it again all starts with a tweet. This time, hours after the stunning US capture of Maduro, conservative activist and wife of top Trump advisor Katie Miller tweeted a map of Greenland covered by the US flag with the caption ‘SOON’.

That triggered a verbal Europe-US escalation, culminating in the White House confirming that it’s “currently talking about what a potential purchase would look like”, but “of course, utilising the US military is always an option at the commander in chief’s disposal.”

So to recap, that’s the US (technically still Europe’s primary security guarantor) declining to rule out using force to take a NATO ally’s territory. 🙂 

Why the focus on this icy territory? 

Greenland sits on the motherload of minerals, but this is realistically more about location. Sitting at the intersection of the Arctic and Atlantic, it’s perfect to…

• Prevent rivals China and Russia from dominating the strategic Arctic

• Monitor critical shipping lanes, including new ones via melting icecaps, and

• Control the airspace as the likely path for any Russian nukes targeting the US.

This isn’t new, which is why the US has explored taking Greenland since at least 1867. What is new(ish) is the quiet accumulation of announcements and speculation around rival ‘dual use’ activity on Greenland (like China’s proposal for a ✌️climate research✌️satellite ground station), plus Russia’s northern fleet ramping up submarine patrols around the strategic ‘GIUK Gap’ (a key Greenland-Iceland-UK chokepoint).

So the argument seems to be… everyone knows Greenland is critical, and regardless what its ~50,000 inhabitants or the Danes 3,550km (2,205mi) away prefer, it’ll eventually fall into Chinese, Russian, or American hands. So let’s just cut to the chase and make it American.

Of course, critics note that a) the US already has a big base with unfettered access, b) the US could just reverse its massive post-Cold War drawdown there, c) the Danes are also welcoming the US to (re)build more bases under their broad 1951 treaty, d) maybe just write a letter or pick up the phone instead of humiliating an ally, and e) if this is really about Russia, then just help Ukraine end Putin’s neo-imperialist delusion once and for all.

So… how would a US takeover of Greenland even work?

Option 1: Buy it.

That’s what Rubio is telling US lawmakers — Trump’s sabre-rattling is just an Art of the Deal-style move to pressure Denmark into selling Greenland (Copenhagen previously declined US offers in 1867 and 1946). 

Of course, Greenland itself would have to agree to any sale, but its PM has continued to reiterate, “our country is not for sale.” Polls back that up, with most Greenlanders still eventually wanting independence from Denmark, but 85% still against joining the US.

And bear with us here, but that brings us to a related possibility: the US could also make some kind of offer direct to the Greenlanders, like (say) a million bucks each if you vote to join the US. That’s $50B, which sounds like a chunk of change, though it’s less than what the US government spends on dialysis-related treatment in a year.

Option 2: Treaty it.

This would mean pushing (presumably via covert influence) independence from Denmark, then a ‘compact of free association’ with the US, like those already in place with the Marshall Islands and Palau. In practice that means the US provides financial and other support in return for exclusive strategic control over their territory.

Option 3: Take it.

The Greenlanders have no standing army, and the Danes have a few hundred troops stationed there permanently (similar to the current US force up at Pituffik Space Base). But the massive US runway at Pituffik is one of the largest in the Arctic and could easily handle a rapid ramp-up — the base has a capacity for 12,000 troops.

Yet the reality is… there’s not really anyone (other than allied Danes) to fight. So in practical terms it might amount to hoisting a US flag and issuing a declaration.

Of course, the Danes would ordinarily seek NATO help if someone pulled that stunt, but this stunt would of course be courtesy of NATO’s own ‘big daddy’ (NATO’s words, not ours).

That’s why Denmark’s Frederiksen is warning if this happens, it means the end of NATO. But of course, this is arguably the most NATO-sceptic US president in history, so that might not be the warning it sounds like in Europe (though Trump has now tweeted “we will always be there for NATO”). Plus with Russia banging at Europe’s door, one might wonder whether the Danes would actually leave NATO, though the hurt would last generations: the Danes lost soldiers fighting with the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So… what is Europe doing about this? 

Oh, you know, just the youshe: a meekly-worded joint statement that not even every NATO member has bothered to sign.

The statement reads more like a trembly plea for the US to remember its role as a security guarantor. Trump responded by doubling down on his desire for Greenland. 

Meanwhile, the French and German leaders are reportedly working on a contingency plan if the US moves on Greenland. Perhaps another spicily-worded message of concern?

Intrigue’s Take

This whole saga nods to several important points:

First, the US the world thought it knew looks gone. Or perhaps more accurately, the pre-WWII US is now back: exceptionalist, transactional, and unapologetic. Or maybe this was always there, just behind a more benign and internationalist veneer.

Second, European leaders still haven’t figured out how to respond. The default stance seems to be a hope this fever-dream passes next election — US voters don’t seem to like this Greenland play (nor the Venezuela or Canada ones), but elections turn on other issues, particularly when the alternative doesn’t cut through. Maybe what finally wakes the continent up to its new strategic reality is not Russian expansion, but American disdain.

Then third, sure, maybe this augurs some new golden age in America — Greenlanders and Danes be damned. But history shows the US can suffer hubris, and with big flexes against Iran, Venezuela, and Greenland, Donald Trump does seem a tad close to the sun.

Sound even smarter:

• The opposition party that came second in last year’s Greenland election is more open to dialogue with the US. The party’s leader remarked this week, “the US can’t do anything to us that Denmark hasn’t done already.”

• The Danish Defence Intelligence Service labelled the US a security risk last year.

Meanwhile, elsewhere…

Extra Intrigue

The geopolitics of sports

• 🎿 Ski: The International Ski and Snowboard Federation has fined Armenian skier Mikayel Mikayelyan after he covered the ‘Azerbaijan’ sponsor logo on his racing suit during Tour de Ski in Italy.

• 🏏 Cricket: Bangladesh is now refusing to play any T20 World Cup cricket matches in India, after an Indian Premier League team ditched a Bangladeshi star player amid reports of violence against Hindus in Bangladesh.

• ⚽️ Soccer: FIFA has announced it’ll now use AI-powered 3D avatars to improve offside calls at this year’s US-Mexico-Canada World Cup.

TV of the day

Netflix has quietly pulled a hit Chinese romance (Shine On Me) from its Vietnam catalogue after Hanoi spotted an unwelcome cameo: not Nicholas Cage, but the nine-dash line. One episode includes a map showing Beijing's vast (and unlawful) claim over the South China Sea, prompting an angry Vietnam to (again) demand it be taken down.

We say ‘again’, because you’ll recall it was also Vietnam that objected after a similar map made a cameo in (of all places) the Barbie movie.

Today’s poll

Yesterday’s poll: Do you think Maduro's capture will embolden or deter other autocrats?

✊ Embolden (53%)
😰 Deter (42%)
✍️ Other (write in!) (5%)

Your two cents:

• ✊ C.O: “In the long term, embolden, but it is hard to say. Trump's action appeared to take the Chinese and Russians wildly off guard, which always instils a sense of caution.”

• 😰 S.L: “For years, countries ‘condemned’ dictators, then did nothing. Dictators were not worried about handwringing speeches. Now the USA actually did something about repressive dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere.”

• ✊ C.R: “‘Embolden' isn't the right word… more likely that other autocrats will be moved to take advantage of the chaos reigning in the West.

• ✍️ S.Z: “Powerful autocrats will be emboldened. Weak autocrats will be deterred.”