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.