What if Greenland’s next?

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: Front Burner – "What if Greenland’s next?"

Host: Jamie Poisson
Guest: Casey Michel (journalist, author of the upcoming book United States of Oligarchy)
Date: January 12, 2026
Podcast: CBC Front Burner

Episode Overview

This episode explores the dramatic escalation in U.S. intentions toward Greenland, with former President Donald Trump and current U.S. officials openly discussing American ownership or annexation. Host Jamie Poisson and journalist Casey Michel examine why Greenland is the subject of renewed superpower rivalry, its strategic and resource value, the role of oligarchic interests, and why annexing Greenland would be a “strategic catastrophe” for the U.S. and its allies. The conversation also considers international and Canadian responses, the potential collapse of NATO, and the broader global ramifications of the U.S. position.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why Greenland Matters to the U.S. Administration

• Strategic Region & Countering Rivals:
  Trump and his advisors frame the move as a necessity to counter Russian and Chinese expansion and protect vital shipping lanes and resources unlocked by climate change.

  “You take a look outside of Greenland right now, there are Russian destroyers, there are Chinese destroyers, and bigger, there are Russian submarines all over the place. We're not going to have Russia or China occupy Greenland…”
  —Donald Trump [02:30]

• Casey Michel on the Reality:
  While Russia and China have an Arctic presence, the rhetoric exaggerates their direct threat to Greenland. The U.S. already benefits through security arrangements with Denmark, a fellow NATO member.

  “[The administration’s framing is] a fantasy… there’s a great quote from a Danish official saying Russian and Chinese troops can’t even see Greenland with binoculars from their ships.”
  —Casey Michel [03:34]

2. Resources & Oligarchic Interests

• Resource Bonanza:
  Greenland is rich in oil, gas, zinc, copper, gold, platinum, uranium, and rare earth minerals, much of which is becoming more accessible as ice melts.

  “Greenland is really kind of a periodic table of elements in and of itself… it really is a treasure chest waiting to be, of course, mined and extracted.”
  —Casey Michel [08:40]

• Oligarchic/Corporate Ties:
  Major Trump donors and U.S. tech oligarchs (Zuckerberg, Bezos, Andreessen Horowitz, Peter Thiel, etc.) are investing in Greenland’s mining sector.

  • Companies: Cobalt Metals, Critical Metals Corp., Praxis (crypto-state venture).
  • Motive: Profit from extraction with minimal regulation or oversight.

  “These wealthy Americans are paying Donald Trump, they’re getting what they want in terms of American policy. But it also is just a little bit weirder… Praxis wants to create this kind of crypto utopia without any regulations.”
  —Casey Michel [11:53]

3. The Real Estate Lens

• Trump’s Framing:
  Trump speaks of Greenland as a real estate prize, fixated on ownership over partnerships.

  “Ownership gives you things and elements that you can't get from just signing a document… that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success.”
  —Donald Trump [06:34, 07:16]

• Michel’s Take:
  Trump views Greenland like another real estate deal, caring little for Greenlandic wishes or transatlantic alliances.

4. Strategic Catastrophe: The End of NATO?

• Violating NATO’s Core:
  Forcibly annexing Greenland would shatter trust among NATO allies since Denmark—a fellow member—controls Greenland.

  “If the US goes out of its way to forcibly annex Greenland, that shatters all of that. ... That security architecture in North America, in the North Atlantic, transatlantic relations, that falls apart completely.”
  —Casey Michel [05:39]

  “That is the effective end of NATO itself. How can an alliance remain if every member state suddenly realizes another member ... can target them?”
  —Casey Michel [14:12]

• Historical Context:
  NATO expansion in the 1990s was about preventing border disputes and nuclear proliferation in post-Soviet Europe; its unraveling could provoke instability.

5. Implications for Canada

• Strategic Nightmare:
  U.S. control of Greenland would further “encircle” Canada and threaten its autonomy and resources, especially in the Arctic.

  “All of a sudden you would have the United States of America effectively encircling Canada. …it would be the effect of encirclement by an American government… led by a president who has said time and again he wants the annexation of Canada.”
  —Casey Michel [18:46]

• Internal Dangers:
  U.S. tactics to win over Greenlanders could become a blueprint for meddling with Canadian regions with separatist sentiment, like Alberta.

6. International & Domestic Pushback

• European & Canadian Response:
  Strong statements defending Greenlandic and Danish sovereignty from France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Denmark.

  • “It is for Denmark and Greenland and them only to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.” [21:33]
  • Polish PM: “No member of NATO should attack or threaten another member of NATO, ... otherwise the alliance would lose its meaning.” [21:51]

• Internal Republican Division:
  Some Senate Republicans harshly oppose annexation.

  • Sen. John Kennedy: “An invasion would be weapons-grade stupid.”
  • Mitch McConnell: “Threats and intimidation ... are as unseemly as they are counterproductive.” [22:11]

• Limits to Presidential Power:
  Michel notes Trump can't unilaterally annex Greenland; Congress and international law would be hurdles.

  “Donald Trump can say whatever he wants. He cannot unilaterally annex Greenland. That requires the consent of Congress…”
  —Casey Michel [22:41]

7. Buying Off Greenlanders & Alternative Scenarios

• Rumored Payoff:
  Reports of $100,000 per person offers as “bribes” to secure Greenlandic consent. Michel doubts the likelihood and legitimacy.

  • Greenlandic leaders: “We are not a business. We are a people… Greenland is not a product.” [26:03–26:13]
  • Might violate both Denmark's sovereignty and international norms.

• Potential Alternatives:
  Enhanced U.S. basing/access rights, trilateral agreements (Denmark, Greenland, U.S.)—Michel says anything short of annexation is less risky for alliances.

8. Global Spheres of Influence

• Fears of a Pre-WWI World:
  Michel warns we’re “sprinting toward” a world divided into great power spheres—U.S., China, Russia—which historically leads to disaster and war.

  “Spheres of influence always collapse, always corrode, always implode, and always end up blowing up in disastrous wars.... And that is my concern, that this emergence... will once again lead to outright disaster.”
  —Casey Michel [27:30]

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “Owning Greenland is what I feel is psychologically needed for success.”
  —Donald Trump [07:16]

• “This is a, quote, circle of grift that we saw emerging, this relationship between Donald Trump and these American investors in Greenland.”
  —Casey Michel [10:09]

• “They want to have a new area where they can kind of experiment... where they can effectively rule as unchecked kings or tyrants.”
  —Casey Michel on Peter Thiel’s Praxis venture [12:11]

• “If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops.”
  —Denmark’s warning, paraphrased by Casey Michel [15:14]

• “NATO not being able to defend itself or these NATO member states not pulling their fair weight... is a complete farce.”
  —Casey Michel [17:21]

• “Greenland is not a product. We're a people.”
  —Greenland leader, via Jamie Poisson [26:13]

---

Important Timestamps

• [02:30] Trump outlines the supposed Russian/Chinese threat in Greenland
• [03:34] Michel debunks the military threat narrative
• [08:40] The “treasure chest” of Greenland’s resources
• [11:53] Peter Thiel's ambitions for crypto-powered “network-states” in Greenland
• [14:12] Shattering NATO through annexation
• [18:46] What Greenland annexation would mean for Canada
• [21:41] International and internal Republican pushback
• [24:17] The possibility—and pitfalls—of paying Greenlanders for consent
• [27:30] Broader geopolitical dangers of “spheres of influence”

---

Tone & Closing Reflections

The episode is tense, urgent, and investigative. Jamie Poisson probes, often incredulously, at the scale of American ambition and its disruptive potential. Casey Michel, while analytical, repeatedly issues alarm bells about the collapse of alliances, the enabling of oligarchic profit, and a regression to historic patterns that have ended in devastating wars.

“We are sprinting toward a world in which spheres of influence dominate… and always end up blowing up in disastrous wars.”
—Casey Michel [27:30]

---

For listeners:
If you want a deep dive into the intersection of geopolitics, resource extraction, oligarchic power, and the fragile architecture of global alliances—this episode offers trenchant analysis, unsettling parallels from history, and a caution that the fate of Greenland could reshape the world order.

Transcript

[Podcast Narrator]

Add a little curiosity into your routine with TED Talks Daily, the podcast that brings you a new TED Talk every weekday. In less than 15 minutes a day, you'll go beyond the headlines and learn about the big ideas shaping your future. Coming up, how AI will change the way we communicate, how to be a better leader and more. Listen to TED Talks Daily wherever you get your podcasts.

[Casey Michel]

This is a CBC podcast.

[Jamie Poissel]

Hi, everyone, it's Jamie.

[Donald Trump]

But right now, we are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not.

[Jamie Poissel]

So right now, the future of Greenland hangs in the balance, and with it, an entire system of military and political alliances that has underpinned the global order since the end of the Second World War. So when US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says that he's going to meet with Danish leaders to talk about Greenland this week, that's what diplomats, historians and politicians the world over say is at stake. They point to senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller saying on cnn, nobody's going to.

[Casey Michel]

Fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.

[Jamie Poissel]

And Trump saying that he needs to own Greenland to prevent Russia and China from doing so and that he can.

[Donald Trump]

Do it, you know, the easy way, but if we don't do it the easy way, we're going to do it the hard way.

[Jamie Poissel]

The whole thing has sent a chill through Europe and Canada. My guest today is Casey Michelle, journalist and author of the upcoming book United States of Oligarchy. He recently wrote a piece for Foreign Policy that said, among other things, annexing Greenland would be a strategic catastrophe. So we're going to talk about why he thinks that is today.

[Casey Michel]

Foreign.

[Jamie Poissel]

Hi, it's great to have you on the show.

[Casey Michel]

Hi, Jamie. Thanks so much for having me.

[Jamie Poissel]

So, before we start unpacking, why you think an annexation of Greenland is for those who view America's allies as its greatest asset, a suicidal maneuver without modern compare. That's a quote from you. I just want to talk a bit about why it matters to the administration or why it might matter. Trump and others have said this is about countering Chinese and Russian presence in a strategic region where shipping routes are opening up because of ice melting and. And there are resources.

[Donald Trump]

You take a look outside of Greenland right now, there are Russian destroyers, there are Chinese destroyers, and bigger, there are Russian submarines all over the place. We're not going to have Russia or China occupy Greenland, and that's what they're going to do if we don't. So we're going to be doing something.

[Jamie Poissel]

What are China and Russia doing in the region right now?

[Casey Michel]

Well, so what China and Russia are doing in the region right now are what they are doing in many other regions. They have a presence in international waters. Consider it a place of potential national security concerns for them. It's not as if they don't have any interest in that. But you could say the same thing about the South Pacific. You could say the same thing about the Indian Ocean. You could say the same thing about Antarctica. It's no different than that whatsoever in the waters around Greenland. But the way that the administration has framed it, by all appearances, according to them, Greenland is positively crawling with Russian and Chinese troops and surveillance and ships and is inevitably going to become a protectorate of either Russia or China, which is why the United States of America, America under the Trump administration, needs to move in. Now, of course, this is all a fantasy. This is all effectively fabricated. There's a great quote from a Danish official not long ago saying that Russian and Chinese troops can't even see Greenland with binoculars from their ships. It's not as if Greenland is about to fall into the laps of Moscow or Beijing. But this is a phenomenon. This is a framing that we have seen throughout 250 years of American expansionism. This idea that it's a national security concern, we have to annex places in the now American Midwest or Texas or Hawaii. This is a story as old as, as the United States itself. This idea that there's a threat and that we have to expand to meet that threat for American national security, that's what the administration is saying.

[Jamie Poissel]

Let me push back on what you were saying just a little bit here. So I was reading a different piece in Foreign Policy, not the one that you wrote, that outlined how Moscow maintains 12 military bases, 16 deep water ports in the region. Russia is also the only country in the world with a nuclear powered icebreaker fleet currently numbering eight shifts and aims to add more. And that China is also increasing its presence, importantly working with Russia to develop designs for a year round container ship capable of transiting the Arctic. And just, you know, listening to that, you know, like, how would you respond to that? And also how would you respond to the argument that this specific area is more strategic than some of the other ones that you mentioned before?

[Casey Michel]

Yeah, yeah, it's a great question, Jamie, because there's absolutely an argument to be made that the Arctic, by and large, not just Greenland itself, but the Arctic writ large, is absolutely becoming one of these emerging security theaters for national security concerns for the United States, for China, for Russia, for Europe, and of course, for Canada as well. And that is Absolutely. A reality as we see melting glaciers, melting ice and rising waters, the opening of new trade routes and the opening of accessibility in new ways, especially maritime ways for places like Russia and China. And of course, we have seen increased cooperation between Russia and China in recent years, most especially following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But that again does not mean that Greenland is going to fall right into the laps of these two powers if the US doesn't do anything. I think the thing to remember at the end of the day is Greenland is a part of Denmark, which is a treaty ally of the United States of America, of Canada. It's already protected by these security umbrellas, by the nuclear umbrella that the United States of America presents. This is already part of America' architecture. And I know we'll talk about this in a little bit more, but if the US Goes out of its way to forcibly annex Greenland, that shatters all of that. Of course it doesn't mean Russia and China come in, but that security architecture in North America, in the North Atlantic transatlantic relations, that falls apart completely and we are in a brand new world.

[Jamie Poissel]

I want to get into that in a little bit more depth soon, but just I heard Trump talking, I wonder if you heard it too, to the New York Times last week. And he was really making the case that he can do a lot more with Greenland by owning it versus I guess his point was leasing it. He was really talking about this like a developer.

[Donald Trump]

I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can't do, whether you're talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can't get from just signing a document that you can have a business.

[Jamie Poissel]

I suppose the other way to look at it is in terms of like working with your allies and Greenlanders and Denmark. And so what do you make of those comments?

[Casey Michel]

So yes, Jamie, I think that interview was especially revealing. Of course, Trump has been saying for months, certainly the entire of his second term, the entirety of his second term, and even going back to his first term, that the United States of America needs to have Greenland. And I think that interview you mentioned was especially telling cuz it's not just him repeating the same things that the United States needs to annex it for its national security.

[Donald Trump]

But he said, because that's what I feel is psychologically needed for success.

[Casey Michel]

And I think that's so revealing because again, Donald Trump is a builder. He's a real estate man. He's someone who has in his own special real estate way, territories to himself, to his own name and he sees Greenland as a real estate deal, that leasing it or maybe striking up new commercial arrangements. Even if the United States doesn't itself own it, that falls short. That is not what he views as success. The only thing he views as success, again, psychologically, not just in terms of national security, is actually claiming it as American. Doesn't matter what the Greenlanders want, doesn't matter what American allies want. It is only what Donald Trump himself and his administration want.

[Jamie Poissel]

Let's dig into the resources in the region a little bit more, you know, since we're talking about why the United States wants, wants Greenland. The Arctic is home to 13% of the world's conventional oil, 30% of undiscovered gas resources. Greenland is also home to rare earth minerals, something that we've talked about on the show before. And just tell me more about how these resources fit into this.

[Casey Michel]

Yeah, Greenland is really kind of a periodic table of elements in and of itself. Almost anything that you could hope to find, certainly through excavation, through mining, you can find in, in Greenland. You know, you named a few of just now zinc, copper, gold, oil and gas, even things like uranium and platinum. I mean, these are all in Greenland proper. Of course, much of them are difficult, if not impossible to actually extract right now, largely because of the ice sheet. But again, that ice is melting and there are new technological innovations for accessing these deposits. It really is a treasure chest waiting to be, of course, mined and extracted as the United States of America sees it right now, really, regardless of what the Greenlanders want.

[Jamie Poissel]

And I know that you are writing a chapter in your upcoming book on oligarchic interests in Greenland, and just tell me more about who and what is interested in the territory and why.

[Casey Michel]

We've already seen significant American investment in Greenland, again mainly in mining and oil and gas. And many of those companies have significant, if not direct links to many of the same kind of corporate donor class that we have seen supporting Donald Trump for years and years and certainly returning him to the White House itself. And these are figures like Mark Zuckerberg, figures like Jeff Bezos, hedge funds like Andreessen Horowitz. I mean, again, some of the biggest names out there in terms of those who have supported Donald Trump in this kind of emergent American oligarchic class just so happen to be the ones who will benefit most directly if the United States of America goes out and seizes Greenland and does away with any kind of environmental regulations, any kind of democratic oversight whatsoever. They stand to gain hand over fist by American anecdotal annexation of Greenland itself. There was one other pro transparency voice in Washington who took a look and he had a great quote. He said this was a, quote, circle of grift that we saw emerging, this relationship between Donald Trump and these American investors in Greenland, of course, who are also significant donors to Donald Trump himself.

[Jamie Poissel]

Just tell me more about what we know about what some of them are invested in right now.

[Casey Michel]

Well, so these are groups, these are organizations. These are companies like Cobalt Metals, which has been leading this, quote, modern gold rush. And again, as LinkedIn has received investments from Zuckerberg and from Bezos and from Andreessen Horowitz. These are companies like Critical Metals Corp. Which is, again, it's not just the donor class. Critical Metals Corp. Has seen investment from the hedge fund that was run by Trump's Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick. So again, you have this direct interpersonal overlap right there. And of course, again, many of those investors are not just giving to Donald Trump himself or his reelection campaign, but are also donating to things like Trump Media, which is maybe not in the news quite as much these days, but is again, one more way to directly line Donald Trump's pockets as president.

[Jamie Poissel]

I want to ask you specifically about Peter Thiel. So this is the PayPal and Palantir Titan. And he is someone who wants to set up these crypto powered network states on undeveloped territory. And he has invested in this company called Praxis, right. Which has scouted Greenland. And I've also heard these areas referred to as freedom cities, like, what is this?

[Casey Michel]

So this is where it kind of, I think a lot of folks have this idea, okay, there's kind of basic corruption. These wealthy Americans are paying Donald Trump, they're getting what they want in terms of American policy. But it also is just a little bit weirder, it's a little bit stranger, maybe even a little bit darker than that. Again, this is where figures like Peter Thiel and some of the others that I've actually named already come into play because they, through either their funds or even themselves directly, have been backing this organization called Praxis, which wants to create this kind of crypto utopia without any regulations whatsoever, no democracy, no oversight, no transparency into what these wealthy figures can and will be doing in Greenland itself. They want to have a new area where they can kind of experiment. However, they want to create this crypto utopia where they can effectively rule as unchecked kings or tyrants or whatever term you'd like to use. And Peter Thiel has been involved with this. Again, other figures, wealthy Americans like John Lonsdale and even the Winklevoss twins, I think of former Facebook fame, have been investing in this organization called Praxis, which wants nothing to do again with any kind of restraint, any kind of restrictions about what it can do in Greenland, regardless of what other Americans or certainly what Greenlanders themselves want.

[Jamie Poissel]

Huh. This is really. I did not know about any of this. This is really interesting stuff.

[Casey Michel]

It's so strange, Jamie, I have to tell you, it's very strange rabbit hole to have gone down over the last few months. Foreign.

[Podcast Narrator]

Curiosity into your routine with TED Talks Daily, the podcast that brings you a new TED Talk every weekday. In less than 15 minutes a day, you'll go beyond the headlines and learn about the big ideas shaping your future. Coming up, how AI will change the way we communicate, how to be a better leader and more. Listen to TED Talks Daily wherever you get your podcasts.

[Jamie Poissel]

Okay, so now that we've dug into a bit of why Greenland is of such interest, let's flesh out your argument more on why you think annexing it would be a strategic catastrophe for the United States and just expand for me on on the end of NATO and, and why it would effectively end the alliance, in your opinion.

[Casey Michel]

So we touched on this a little bit earlier, but again, it's worth remembering Greenland is part of Denmark. It is not an independent country. It is not something that can act on its own. It has been part of Denmark for hundreds of years. Denmark, of course, a NATO member state, an ally of the United States of America. If the United States of America then goes and forcibly pries apart, cleaves apart, a fellow member of NATO, that is not only something we have never seen in the multi decade long history of NATO itself, but that's the effective end of NATO itself itself. How can alliance, an alliance remain if every member state suddenly realizes another member, that is to say, the United States of America can target them apparently by kind of out of the blue, with no real national security concerns, how can they trust that the United States of America won't do the same to them? Denmark warning A move on Greenland would mean the end of NATO.

[Jamie Poissel]

I believe that the American president should be taken seriously when he says he wants Greenland.

[Casey Michel]

But I also want to make clear.

[Jamie Poissel]

That if the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops again.

[Casey Michel]

I think this has been one of the kind of saving graces that NATO has brought to bear over the past few decades. People don't really recognize or realize that has helped prevent many territorial disputes not only in North America but also in Europe itself. This would be the end of that. This would be the end of that era and by all appearances, the end of NATO itself.

[Jamie Poissel]

Well, just tell me more about that, because you argue in your piece that the expansion of NATO in the 90s and 2000s stood upon border concerns and what happened there.

[Casey Michel]

Yeah. So if we go Back to the 1990s, the emergence of not only post communist governments in Europe, but also new post Soviet states in and of themselves in the now defunct Soviet Union, one of the real concerns in Washington was these new border disputes that would emerge in countries like Hungary and Romania or elsewhere in Eastern and Central Europe that go back decades, that go back centuries, and that would flare up once more now that there was this new geopolitical order coming. There was also concerns. I didn't mention it in the piece, but there are also concerns about some of those countries developing their own nuclear arsenal, places like Poland realizing that perhaps they couldn't trust the Russian government to say what it was saying, do what it was doing, and that the only solution would be nuclear weapons. These were all considerations and all concerns in Washington, D.C. which is what helped convince the Clinton administration at the time that expanding NATO to these new states was in American interests. And we've certainly seen that pay off. We haven't seen any interstate wars between the Hungarians and the Romanians. We haven't seen any Polish nuclear arsenal. Of course, if NATO ends and that American umbrella goes away, who's to say what the future holds? But yes, that was absolutely a consideration in expanding NATO in the 1990s.

[Jamie Poissel]

What about Trump's argument that today NATO is essentially irrelevant anyhow? Right. That everyone, all anyone cares about is the US Anyways, because all of these other NATO countries have not been keeping up with their commitments on defense and they're all weak anyhow.

[Casey Michel]

I think a lot of things that Donald Trump says, however buffoonish or outlandish they certainly are, they often come with a kind of kernel of truth to them. And he's absolutely right. Before he was president in 2016, 2017, most of the NATO member states were not meeting that 2% threshold. Right. Where NATO member states are required to spend 2% of the GDP on national security and defense, and many of them weren't since Donald Trump's emergence to the presidency in 2017, many of them now do the NATO defense spending and NATO defense architecture. And the strengthening of that is clearly on the upswing, motivated not only by Trump's election in 2016, but, of course, Russia's invasion of Ukraine. What he says now is a complete farce in terms of NATO not being able to defend itself or these NATO member states not pulling their fair weight and their fair share. Of course, the United States still has far and away the biggest defense posturing and defense budget of any member states. But it's not fair to say that NATO member states, even including Canada, are not pulling their fair weight. And the United States needs to go its own way.

[Jamie Poissel]

Let's home in on Canada specifically, of course, this is our backyard. And what do you think an annexation of Greenland would mean for this country?

[Casey Michel]

So I, I wrote this in, in that article in Foreign Policy that you mentioned. I, I think this would be a little more than a strategic nightmare for Canada. And again, if you look at it geographically, of course, Greenland acting as an effective massive backstop or doorstop on Canadian, excuse me, on Canada's eastern flank and northeastern flank and Canadian maneuverability either in the North Atlantic or even in the Arctic itself. And all of a sudden you would have the United States of America effectively encircling Canada. Of course, not fully. There are still certainly maritime routes that would be available. But if you look at it from a basic national security architecture and geostrategic architecture, it would be the effect of encirclement by Americans, by an American government, of course, that is expansionist, that has claimed its rights to interfere and expand however it wants in the Western Hemisphere, and that is now led by a president who has said time and again and he wants the annexation of Canada again, I don't think, I think the time for viewing Donald Trump's rhetoric and on anything in the Western Hemisphere as laughable or as a joke or as trolling that has to be put to bed, especially once the United States of America moves on Greenland. This idea that Canada would be made a 51st state or that the American troops somehow in Canada, maybe not a full on full scale invasion of Montreal or Vancouver, but who's to say that American troops won't start popping up in the Canadian Arctic Islands, Baffin island, for example, it's right there. And it is all too easy for me to see Donald Trump saying for the sake of protecting American Greenland, we need those islands. What right does Canada have to them anyway? There's no one there and they are full of all kinds of resources that only the United States of America can actually develop. It is extremely easy for me to see him saying that. And of course, I have no idea what the knock on effects of the that are going to be. I also think this is a national security and strategic disaster for the United States. But the United States would not be alone in seeing those threats emerge.

[Jamie Poissel]

Another thing that I think might be worth considering for Canadians here is, is whether, as this moves along, the US Is successful in convincing, like a percentage of Greenlanders that they should join, because you could see how that could be replicated in Canada and Alberta, for example, where we have a separatist movement. Right. So there are domestic, real, a lot of domestic potential consequences for us here. So in the wake of Venezuela, it really seemed like the response from Europe and Canada was quite tepid, but less so on the Greenland stuff. Right. The Europeans and Canadians have come out pretty strong with statements about the sovereignty of Greenland. A joint statement issued by the leaders of France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and Denmark the same day said it is for Denmark and Greenland and them only to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.

[Casey Michel]

We stand with Denmark, we stand with Greenland. Our closest partnership is with the United States, and we'll work with everybody to make sure that we move forward together.

[Jamie Poissel]

Other world leaders took a more direct tone. No member of NATO should attack or threaten another member of NATO, warned the Polish prime minister. Otherwise the alliance would lose its meaning. He said Denmark and Greenland have both been very clear that they're not interested in any of this. On Friday, Greenland's prime minister and four party leaders released a statement saying they don't want to be Americans. And also within his own party, there is a split. Republican senators and congressmen have come out against this. Senator John Kennedy said an invasion would be weapons grade. Stupid. Mitch McConnell wrote, Threats and intimidation by U.S. officials over American ownership of Greenland are as unseemly as they are counterproductive. And do you think any of these responses could influence the administration?

[Casey Michel]

Well, I think it's been fantastic to see those responses from European capitals and certainly from the Canadians as well. I would have loved to have seen them maybe even a year ago to help push back this, push back against this even earlier. Again, I don't have any special insight into the administration. There are certainly those in the administration, not least Secretary of State National Security Adviser Marco Rubio, who by all appearances completely appreciate the role of NATO and certainly completely appreciate the threat of places like Russia and what NATO can continue to do and don't necessarily want to throw the baby out with the bathwater in that way. I'm especially heartened to see the kind of pushback in Congress itself because I think, and again, this is maybe getting a little bit into the weeds itself. But Donald Trump can say whatever he wants. He can declare whatever he wants. He could spark whatever national security crisis that he wants. He cannot unilaterally annex Greenland. That requires the consent of Congress, whether it is a treaty, a formal treaty with either Greenland or Denmark. That would require two thirds of the Senate or even something like a joint resolution passed in Congress, which only requires the majority of Congress to itself pass.

[Jamie Poissel]

The other option here, according to Marco Rubio, is that they buy it. Right. And There are about 60,000 people on the island. I've seen reporting that they're considering offering around $100,000 per person, which is a lot of money. Like how likely do you think this is as a possibility?

[Casey Michel]

That is this idea of buying Greenland. Of course, the US has purchased other territories in the past, most especially Alaska back in 1867. This is not something that Americans haven't done in the past. But I think this is the easiest scenario that they foresee moving forward in the administration. If we could just buy Greenlanders consent for annexation, that would help mitigate many of the concerns about things like imperialism, help mitigate many of the things like concerns about the continuation of NATO itself. Again, what we're talking about at the end of the day is not just national security, it's not just geostrategic policies. We're also talking about the consent of the Greenlanders themselves, which I do think can be overlooked in some of these discussions. This is, as Donald Trump has framed it, purely colonialism through and through of the US claiming Greenland as its own without any Greenlander consent. If the US can get Greenlanders consent, that helps mitigate again those concerns about colonialism. Now there are legal tangles. Things with Denmark, of course, would continue. It would be a lot easier for the Americans if Greenland somehow declares independence and then immediately rushes into an American embrace. Embrace that would be the smoothest transition with the least possibility of pushback from American allies, which I'm sure is what the administration, or at least many of the administration want. But again, I don't know that that's necessarily likely. We've seen, I don't know how many green leaders at this point say because of Donald Trump's comments. I now want nothing to do with the United States and maybe even nothing to do with independence itself. And I suspect that will continue. He's a bad individual just saying something he has to get. I think it's not the way of treating people like we're small mice or something. And a message to President Trump from.

[Jamie Poissel]

A member of the ruling coalition.

[Casey Michel]

I think that we are not a business.

[Jamie Poissel]

We are a people. We are people with our own country and culture, language.

[Casey Michel]

We are not a product.

[Jamie Poissel]

So I think people should really think about that. I know Donald Trump is a businessman, but Greenland is not a product. We're a people. I suppose the other option is like a trilateral agreement here between Denmark, Greenland and the United States. And just take me through what that could look like.

[Casey Michel]

There are a number of other possibilities that don't include formal American annexation. We can see an expansion on the kind of rights of the United States of America America currently enjoys in Greenland, which is pretty broad already in terms of basing rights, in terms of surveillance and in terms of accessibility. That can certainly be expanded. There are other parameters. There are other potential agreements that the US has struck up with other nation states that give it the right to veto any other security alliances that those countries, whether it's Palau or Micronesia, you know, preventing them from striking up any kind of security arrangement with, for instance, China. That's certainly a possibility that we could foresee.

[Jamie Poissel]

Just to really zoom out here, the speed at which we are seeing this global reordering is really, it's astounding. Just in the last two weeks we have seen all these renewed threats against Greenland, Venezuela. There is now reporting that the US Is considering strikes in Iran. And what is your greatest worry right now?

[Casey Michel]

Well, you know, the greatest worry is that we are sprinting toward a world in which spheres of influence dominate. And those primary spheres are the United States of America and China and Russia. And in a vacuum without any sense of historic understanding that may be appealing to those who say, yes, maybe the United States of America should be the only one dominating the Western Hemisphere. Russia should be in Europe, China should be in Asia, and maybe there are a few other smaller powers that have their own spheres. But of course, we have seen, if there's one truism throughout history, it is, is that spheres of influence always collapse, always corrode, always implode, and always end up blowing up in disastrous wars. This was the world before World War I. This was the world that was trying to emerge before World War II. With places like Germany and Japan claiming their own spheres of influence. They always butt up against one another. You have these colonized nations that are always chafing against these colonial overlords. They never last. They are a farce and a fool's errand. And that is my concern, that this emergence that we are seeing potentially of a spheres of influence world will once again lead to outright disaster with all kinds of knock on effects, not just for Canada, not just for Europe, not just for Greenland, but for the United States of America as well.

[Jamie Poissel]

Casey, thank you very much for this. Really appreciate it.

[Casey Michel]

Thanks so much, Jamie.

[Jamie Poissel]

All right. That is all for today. I'm Jamie Poissel, and thanks so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow.

[Casey Michel]

For more cbc podcasts, go to cbc ca podcasts.