Loading summary
Transcript54 lines
- [00:00]
A
The holidays are about family and quality time, right? But while we're carving roast beef, our dogs are stuck with dry kibble mystery meat. And yes, they notice it's time to make the switch to sundaes. Sundaes is clean, whole food based food made for the dogs we love. It's air dried and made in a human grade kitchen using the same ingredients and care you'd use to cook for yourself and your family. Every bite of sundaes is clean and made from real meat, fruits and veggies with no kibble, no weird ingred ingredients and no fillers. Because your dog deserves food made with care, not in the interest of cost cutting. And the best part, you just scoop and serve. No freezer, no thawing or prep, no mess. Just nutrient rich clean food that fuels their happiest, healthiest days. So you get more of them to share together. Sunday's holiday sale is going on right now. Go to sundaysfordogs.com acast50 and get 50% off your first order. Or you can use code acast50 at checkout. That's 50% off your first order at sundaysfordogs.com accast50 don't miss out on Sunday's best sale of the year@ SundaysForDogs.com Acast50 or use code Acast50 at checkout.
- [01:20]
B
Hello and welcome to a new episode of Legacy.
- [01:23]
C
So we've been talking about Greenland in January 2025, Afwa, something quite strange happened to the Danish flag. And for the first time in 500 years, and seemingly out of the blue, King Frederick changed the coat of arms. The coat of arms has four sections. The old design had one of the four in the bottom left hand corner depicting an arm, a polar bear, and above it, three crowns. These crowns are a little bit obsolete. They represent the Kalmar Union, something I love. The Kalmar Union, a personal union of Denmark.
- [01:56]
B
You're probably the only person listening who's heard of the cowboy.
- [01:59]
C
Anybody, Swedish or Danish, will know about it. The Norwegians always pretend that they don't know, but they all know too, for sure. So instead those three crowns are gone. And in their place we've got a polar bear added in that takes up a whole section that represents Greenland. And the Danish crown has also updated to include the Faroe Islands. The ram is no longer squeezed in with all the other symbolism around it, but occupies its own quarter. Why do you think this has been the case?
- [02:28]
B
Afwa well, it seems like a long overdue redesign given that the Kalmar Union hasn't existed since 1523. But unfortunately, it's not because of this introspection and how can we better represent more equity with Greenland? It's because there was a particularly heated exchange between the King of Denmark and one Donald J. Trump.
- [02:53]
C
Trump on Christmas Eve tagged the ambassador to Denmark, writing, for the purposes of national security and freedom throughout the world, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity. And Trump about to be inaugurated for the second time as US President, leader of the free world, the man with the biggest military at his disposal anywhere in the world, commander in chief of the US Armed forces. I think that that made people in Copenhagen sit up. And I was going to say concentrate. I'm going to say maybe panic.
- [03:31]
B
It's not very relaxing to have the person who commands the world's biggest military announce that he thinks that part of your country should be his. And then in his New Year speech, the King said, we are all united and each of us committed for the Kingdom of Denmark, for the Danish minority in South Schleswig, which is even situated outside the Kingdom and all the way to Greenland. We belong together. Now, for the avoidance of doubt, I don't think there has been much controversy around South Schleswig. I think that.
- [04:04]
C
Not since 1867, obviously.
- [04:06]
B
And of course, you know the date. This whole narrative was a way of saying, keep your hands off Greenland, America.
- [04:14]
C
Odd one, though, because if you're going to say that, it's quite gutsy to say. Also, by the way, people who don't live inside Denmark, they're obviously part of our country too. So we could be coming for you in South Schleswig. But. So one of the big questions geopolitically is will Greenland and Denmark stay together? That's important from a European point of view, from a Danish point of view, from a Greenlandic point of view, it's also important from a geopolitical point of view. Is Trump going to pull off the real estate deal of a lifetime and acquire or perhaps even invade the world's largest island to incorporate it into the United States? What does that mean for green lenders? And by the way, what does it mean for all of us?
- [04:53]
B
And what does it mean for NATO? Because until this recent development, NATO had at its core a partnership between Denmark and the United States, one of the strongest bilateral relationships within the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance.
- [05:11]
C
So I want to know what it also means for Gerard Butler. We talked about that movie Greenland. If, if, if Greenland is occupied by the United States, does that mean humanity that's trying to survive a Comet Strike will not be able to get there. You'll need to listen to episode one and you might need to watch that movie. It's a. It's a terrific. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't score as high as it should do. It's a great Sunday evening. Popcorn. Mo.
- [05:37]
B
Foreign.
- [05:41]
C
I'm Peter Frankenburn.
- [05:43]
B
I'm Afwa Hash.
- [05:44]
C
And this is Legacy, the show that looks at the most extraordinary people, places and movements in history and asks how and why they matter today.
- [06:03]
B
This is Greenland, the 51st State, episode two.
- [06:14]
C
I like that intonation effort. You've got to make sure you put that as a question mark.
- [06:17]
B
I mean, enough. Was it enough of a question mark?
- [06:20]
C
Yeah. Because to understand why the strategic control of the Arctic has become so important, we've got to think about things like climate change. We've got to work out why it is that Trump is so overexcited about Greenland. What does he think it holds that is key to the United States security? But let's think about the last, I don't know, 70, 80 years since the Second World War, and about why Greenland has quite often popped up into American thinking. Because Trump isn't the first American president or the first American leader who's thought about Greenland being a nice piece of real estate for Washington, D.C. to control. Right.
- [06:56]
B
And, Peter, you write books about the Earth, about Russia, Europe, the U.S. you advise NATO. This is very much your world. But for most people listening, when they think about the Arctic, they're going to be thinking about nature documentaries they've watched and explorers they've heard about in history, and maybe something they see when they fly from Europe to America out of a plane window. But they probably won't be thinking about one of the most strategic and increasingly militarized zones in, in the world. And I think, you know, for many of us, the importance of the Arctic and how much great powers are now struggling for military and strategic control is a really new situation. But actually it is historic. So 80 years ago, during the Second World War, Greenland was caught between North America and Europe as the Allies battled their German enemy. Peter?
- [07:51]
C
Yeah, so, I mean, I blame maps. I mean, I love a good map, don't get me wrong, but maps, they sort of don't. Well, first, they don't show you the size of anything, but most of us would think that Greenland is quite a long way north. But there's a reason why you're flying over Greenland when you fly to the us AFWA and I fly over, but I can't see out the window. That's Episode one. But it's because the Earth is spherical. And so the routes from the northern hemisphere across to each other are much faster going in that direction. So you should think about Iceland and Greenland as kind of stepping stones that link the North Atlantic altogether. And so of course there's territorial and strategic importance about who is going to be based there. But also, as the world starts to warm and we see a melting ice pack in the Arctic, then new routes are opening up that make transit through the Arctic and through the northern seas both much cheaper and easier. But not just for commercial vessels. That potentially has some benefits, but also for militarization. But even in the Second World War, there's an important role that Greenland plays, particularly as a weather based station to gather what's coming in terms of storm systems towards Europe. In fact, even the Normandy landings of 1944 in June are chosen, the dates are chosen based on weather conditions. And Greenland has been a really important meteorological warning station about what's coming towards the east, towards Europe. So it plays really important strategic roles beyond just thinking about what is happening in the world of today and tomorrow. They did in the past as well.
- [09:25]
B
If you live in Europe, Greenland has been regarded as a breeding ground for storms that affect the whole continent. So it's a really important information gathering hub. And during the war, as you were saying, Peter, it was, you know, before the era of the kind of advanced satellite, minute by minute weather information we have, Greenland was a site of gathering meteorological intelligence that was guiding things exactly like you said, as important as the Normandy landing. So it's an early indication of how who controls Greenland and who has access to data from Greenland has a strategic advantage in a much bigger theater of war. And then in April 1940s, the Nazis invaded Denmark and that put Greenlanders in a strange position.
- [10:10]
C
Well, because bit like when the Germans invaded France, then what happens to dependent colonies? Should they follow what happens to the motherland or be independent? Who gives you instructions? Where's the authority come from? And so the United States pay very close attention to Greenland. They extend, Roosevelt extends the US Neutrality zone to include Greenland, which effectively gives or takes the right for the US Navy to patrol the Western Atlantic and therefore to be able to track and broadcast the position of German ships, which is really important for supplies that are coming off to Britain and you know, as a result of the blockades by the U boats. So it's really important strategically because of its physical position. So in the 1940s, Greenland becomes a really important early warning station for the United States and In fact, at that time, it's about trying to give information and security for what's happening across the other side of the Atlantic. As it happens later during the Cold War, Greenland becomes a really important early warning station for things that might be coming back towards the United States, particularly in the age of nuclear missiles. But Greenland's also filled with nice stuff to exploit, isn't it? AFUA, Yep.
- [11:23]
B
There is a rare earth mineral called cryolite which is used in the production of aluminium. And there is a sense that there may be more mineral wealth in Greenland which a large power like the United States could exploit to not just its material wealth, but its strategic advantage. Because now, of course, we're in an era where access to materials like rare earth minerals allows production of new technology, of chips, of high tech devices, which is increasingly getting wound up into this war for advantage in, in the information age. So during, back in the war, the Allies were worried about the Germans disrupting crucial mines in Greenland. And now as more interest is amassing into what might not have yet been discovered or exploited there, there is this sense that who controls and has access to Greenland has many more advantages. Beyond that, the way in which the US has had a relationship with Greenland, short of any kind of official occupation or colonialism, is really important in understanding what's happening now because it's in the American mindset. There is this idea of a proximity to Greenland, a relationship with Greenland. So William Seward, who negotiated the acquisition of Alaska, which used to be part of the Russian Empire, as well as the Caribbean islands of St. John and St. Thomas, which used to be owned by Denmark back then, he thought the idea of obtaining both Iceland and Greenland was worthy of serious consideration. And a report produced at that time concluded that the US would benefit from possession of Greenland because of vast quantities of fish, good coal, cheaply mined, close to good harbors, and as he described it, vast mineral wealth. And the author, Benjamin Pierce, concluded this report with a strong recommendation that the US should purchase Greenland. This was an era when the US was going around purchasing territories like Alaska, like in the Caribbean. But these efforts ran out of steam in 1910 when the then U.S. ambassador to Greenmark, Francis Egan, presented the U.S. state Department with an audacious suggestion, namely the acquisition on our part of Greenland or otherwise an exchange of territories, as a result of which Denmark should surrender to the United States of America all her enormous possessions in Greenland, estimated to be more than 800,000 English square miles. That was not popular with the Danes, surprisingly enough. I can't think why they didn't want to just hand over Greenland to America. Peter Strange.
- [13:57]
C
I had to read through all of this stuff at the end of last year when Trump started talking about Greenland a lot. And the immediate reaction was, well, there's two questions always with Trump is who's he been listening to? What's his briefing been? That therefore he's suddenly got a bee in his bonnet. What's he been told that suddenly propels something up into his mind? And, you know, we know that Trump doesn't read, so it's always oral presentations. But of course, the rest of the mainstream all thought, well, Trump is just speaking out of turn and there's no sort of legacy, there's no history behind this. But I, as you start to dig back in, you can see that Trump wasn't even the first US President to think about buying Greenland. I mean, I guess afwa, buying land has got to be better than invading it. But all those attempts to acquire and expand the sort of real estate of the United States, I guess speaks about the mercantilism about the U.S. everything's for sale, everything must have a price. And Trump is the kind of apotheosis of the American dream that, you know, his checkbook allows him to say that he's going to buy places. So you mentioned in the early 20th century there were conviction of American administrations that they should buy it. It comes up again at the end of the Second World War. A State Department official called John Hickerson notes in a planning and strategy meeting the Joint Chiefs that practically every member who's there in the meeting of the most senior military figures in the United States agrees that our real objective as regards Greenland should be to acquire it by purchase from Denmark. And they conclude that if there's a commercial opportunity, given that money is plentiful now in the US and that Greenland is completely worthless to Denmark, that owning Greenland, this is a quote from 1945, is indispensable to the safety of the United States, and indeed not just indispensable, but could be categorized as a military necessity. So a formal offer is given to the Danish Foreign minister, Gustav Rasmussen. And that shows that what Trump has been briefed on has been something that's been thought about in the United States for 150 years. I mean, that comes as a bit of a shock, right?
- [15:58]
B
It is better to try and buy something than to just take it by force. But for Greenlanders and thinking about the Greenlandic perspective, they're trying to buy something from someone else who invaded it. So I don't know if that's going to feel a whole lot better, but it's interesting, and I read about this on your substack Peter Global threads, which I highly recommend listeners. It was interesting to hear Trump's language because it echoes the language of the 1940s and the 1910s. And you can see he's kind of like Trumpifying these earlier messages. So Trump says Greenland is hurting Denmark very badly because they're losing almost 700 million a year carrying it. So they're carrying it at a great loss strategically for the United States. It would be nice. And we're a big ally of Denmark. We help Denmark, we protect Denmark. I mean, it's so gaslighty. It's like, Denmark, we're going to do you a massive favor by taking this terror territory of yours that you don't want to give us, but we're telling you you do want to give it to us. You just don't know what's good for you. And we're so kind, we're going to help you work it out. And all this, of course, is also unbearably colonial, because Greenland is a place whose people have their own ideas, who have their own struggle against the already colonial relationship with Denmark. So this assumption that this is just territory that can be bought and traded and negotiated without any reference to what the people want. And ultimately, Trump has begun appealing to what he thinks Greenlanders want will come to that. But the way he's talked about it in those kind of bilateral spaces suggests that he really regards this as a deal that should be done between those two countries.
- [17:28]
C
But he's been talking about for a while. So at a dinner in 2019, he turned to his dinner party companions and said, what do you think? What do you guys think about that? I was going to do the. What do you guys. I could almost go on. No, I can't, I can't. I'm so tempted. And so it's been something he's been thinking about for a while, and it's because of the changing world that we live in that Greenland is more significantly important, for what it's worth, I guess, if you're a Greenlander, and please, if you are living in Greenland, listening to this, let us know. You know, I guess you've got three choices, one, which is full independence for Greenland, in which case one of the questions is, how do you have a sustainable economy? And you're going to have to have outside interests to come and develop and exploit heavy infrastructure, let's say, for critical minerals or the relationship with Denmark that, as we've talked about, has been, you know, pretty traumatic, or perhaps there are merits to join the United States, but it's about what. What's the right answer for you? And Trump turning up has been quite good at exploiting the fact that there are lots of different views in Greenland about what Greenland's future should be. So, I mean, we mentioned that the US has had a long term interest in Greenland as a military base. We've talked a bit about how Denmark has got its relationship with Greenland maybe a few decades or centuries out of date, but it has, it is still today part of the Kingdom of Denmark. It has enjoyed home rules since 1979, and in fact, in 1985, it decided to leave the European Economic Community, the EEC, that's the precursor of the European Union. So Greenland is trying to work out what it is that it wants and which direction it should go. But a lot of that is to do with why the United States wants control of Greenland. Right now.
- [19:20]
D
AI is transforming customer service. It's real and it works. And with fin, we've built the number one AI agent for customer service. We're seeing lots of cases where it's solving up to 90% of real queries for real businesses. This includes the real world, complex stuff like issuing a refund or canceling an order. And we also see it when FIN goes up against competitors. It's top of all the performance benchmarks, top of the G2 leaderboard. And if you're not happy, we'll refund you up to a million dollars, which I think says it all. Check it out for yourself at fin. AI.
- [19:50]
C
Oh, the car from Carvana's here. Well, will you look at that. It's exactly what I ordered. Like, precisely. It would be crazy if there were any catches. But there aren't, right?
- [20:03]
B
Right, because that's how car buying should be with Carvana. You get the car you want, choose delivery or pickup, and a week to love it or return it.
- [20:11]
C
Buy your car today with Carvana.
- [20:15]
B
Deliver your pickup. Fees may apply. Limitations and exclusions may apply. See our seven day return policy at Carvana.com. So let's talk about the bigger picture. The situation in the Arctic, the changing climate conditions. Peter. And why Greenland has been propelled right to the center of the global conversation.
- [20:45]
C
Well, again, that map doesn't help because it doesn't show how close places are, but it's a choke point and a jumping in point. So as the ice starts to recede in the Arctic, the ability of ships to move around changes, where those will be, what those routes will be, will come into effect. Some of us think that the Arctic will be ice free as early as 2035. So, you know, we're coming into a world which is changing very dramatically. And that means that choke points, places where you can observe or block or challenge, suddenly become quite important. And one of those is the so called Duke Gap, which is a transit route that forms a gateway between northern Europe and the broader Atlantic. It's a bit like the English Channel, but that means that there's an opportunity to both reinforce your own position, but also to block out competition.
- [21:33]
B
So can we just dig into that a bit for people who aren't familiar with the kind of strategic advantage of different shipping routes, but basically, if you want to sail goods at the moment from Europe to North America, how do you get there? And why would it be better to be able to go through this gap around Greenland?
- [21:53]
C
In fact, we don't sell many goods from Europe to America because we're not really an exporting manufacturing hub anymore. So most global shipping is coming out of of the Far east, in particular from China. So if you can find a route that goes over the Arctic, from ports in China, over the northern coast of Russia, down into Europe, then you're saving somewhere between 10 to 12 days, which costs less fuel. It means that your cruise can be more efficient, you can use your ships more and therefore costs come down.
- [22:23]
B
So we're talking billions of dollars in saving if you could shorten that shipping route.
- [22:27]
C
Billions. But that suddenly means that the orientation of, let's say the United Kingdom, where typically we tend to think we're the northern fringe of Europe and that we look south towards our friends in France and Germany and then Italy and then beyond. That sudden orientation means that that space upwards from the Orkneys and the Shetland Islands, the out Hebrides, suddenly looks like it's wide open to a whole new set of actors that will start to need infrastructure, will start to be there more often. And we've got to work out what does that mean to us from both a commercial point of view and also from a military and strategic point of view. So that change is really significant. I mean, it'll take a lot of time because the northern coast of Russia is very poorly inhabited. It's expensive to build stuff up there, whether it's ice free or not. It's still cold, even if it's not icy. And the Russians at the moment are not particularly wide open to too much investment from the Western world because there are sanctions in place, and China is quite reluctant to be plugged into Arctic Circle stuff in a way that ties its own hands. So there's a lot of reasons why the Arctic has been a sort of frozen barrier, I guess, that shields everybody, lots of people from threats. But there's a whole new geopolitical great game going on about militarization. So we've seen, for example, in Svalbard, one of the Norwegian islands up in the Arctic Circle, a very dramatic reinforcement of Russia's military position and different kind of language about Svalbard, where the Russians have a base through cooperation with Norway. And I think that's just one of a series of potential flashpoints all around the world of great powers try to compete with each other. And that poses a lot of existential questions for NATO and also for the United Kingdom, but also for all of us in Europe.
- [24:10]
B
So, as I understand it, you know, as that melting Arctic means that Russia is exposed in the Arctic, whereas before it had the shield. But it's also able to expand, as you were describing with Svalbard. And there's a lot of concern in the west, isn't there, Peter, about Russia's strike capability, you know, in the event of a conflict, that if it is able to intensify militarization in the Arctic, that brings it that much closer. Closer to Western Europe, to North America.
- [24:37]
C
Yeah. I mean, you know, if you've studied Russian history, one of the kind of great challenges for Russian military, and particularly naval thinking and strategy, is how do your navies get out to sea? So they either come out through the Black Sea, through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, which is difficult and insecure. And as it happens, the Russian Black Sea fleet has been very heavily degraded by Ukraine. You have a Pacific fleet based in Vladivostok, which has some access to the Pacific, that's fine. And then you've got the Baltic coming out through the Baltic, through the Straits of Bornholm and into between Denmark and Sweden, which is tricky. And so the primary Russian bases for Europe are in Murmanskhangelsk and in the north. And like you said, that means that those vessels can get out more easily, but also they can be targeted more easily, too. So the problem is we're also living in a world of big technological change. And again, some of my colleagues and friends think that the days of giant floating platforms and big ships may be coming to an end because of drones, automation, undersea activities. But Russia obviously has a pose towards the rest of the world that is reasonably hostile at the moment, particularly in the west, and very ambitious, too. So that means there's a lot of demand for change and a lot of need to respond. So the United States has two icebreakers at the moment, for example, Russia has more than 50. So just being able to navigate these seas at the moment means that there's a strategic asymmetry that means that places like Greenland start to become quite important.
- [26:01]
B
So this is really important context for understanding what's happening now. Until quite recently, Nordic countries had been reinforcing their relationships with, for example, the American and British Navy, understanding that threat and wanting to cooperate more closely with their Western allies. So Norway recently invited the US and UK navies back. Each of the Scandinavian countries recently concluded their own agreements with the US to allow more flexible movement and stationing of troops. And in Denmark's case, it consistently cut defense spending year on year. And part of the reason for that is that it was comfortable in its membership of NATO and its relationship with the us, that it had allies that it trusted would come to its defense. And a huge part of that arrangement of allies was the us. So for there to be a new area of tension, even conflict, between a country like Denmark and the US is a really big deal because it's disrupting years of a status quo in which that was a relationship of allies who were defending each other and who felt this collective threat from a changing, melting Arctic. Trump has thrown a major spanner into the works of that whole situation. Peter?
- [27:10]
C
Yeah, I mean, I think where Trump has probably not been wrong has been that Europeans have all been sloppy and fast asleep and have thought that, well, not just American taxpayers should pay for their defence, but not investing enough in dealing with what, what the real world looks like. Now, sometimes what Trump says is to get a reaction. I think in the case of Denmark, it's a bit more complicated. I don't think he's trying to shock the Danes into spending more money, but it's no question Denmark as an Arctic state has. Has significant skin in the game and has a real significance for, you know, making sure that there are significant defences, particularly in places like Greenland, for early warning systems, for air bases, for infrastructure, and also a population that's not going to be hostile. You need your inhabitants to be on side and happy to be not just paying for, but living alongside military establishments. So, you know, that, I think, is a part of the piece in all of this about getting Europeans to face what reality is. And then, of course, China has become more active globally. China declared itself a few years ago as a Near Arctic state. If you take a look at the map, whichever way you hold it up or down, China is really nowhere near the Arctic. But those definitions are designed to give China some form of voice in forums where new types of treaties are being negotiated, to be an observer, to have an opportunity to be involved in some of the decisions that get made, because it has an impact on China's economic development. And I think that that doesn't have to be malign and dangerous and hinting at global domination. But no question, the fact that China is involved in some of these discussions are paying quite close attention to Greenland, Iceland and the Arctic is in itself quite significant because the major fault lines, I guess, in the world today are a Western US Led order, if that's not disintegrating, and perhaps a Chinese alternative. I mean, there are lots of discussions that we can have about that too. But I think that the process of how China fits into Russia, us, NATO, whatever, is a really interesting and important.
- [29:12]
B
One, and it's not always been contested. So Denmark actually encouraged Chinese investment in Greenland. And 15 years ago, Denmark had a wider strategy of courting Asian states to invest in not just Greenland, but also the Faroe Islands, hoping that that would bring in much needed capital that would improve its own relationship. Earlier, we were talking about Denmark having really underinvested in Greenland, the grievance of Greenlanders that they don't have the infrastructure and health and education facilities they need. And Denmark therefore, trying to see how it could raise that investment and those facilities from elsewhere, including Asian states in general, China specifically. And China was also granted observer status in the Arctic Council in 2013. So there's been quite a lot of Chinese activity in the area. But this realignment of geostrategic relationships means that that's all starting to look a little different.
- [30:09]
C
Yeah. And I think some of it is the kind of reds under the bed scare where I think United States bipartisan antipathy towards China is so strong that any sort of sign that China may be gaining a foothold creates extremely strong pushback and reactions that may not be unfair, may not be unjustified. But I think the anxiety that Greenland in the hands of slightly soft Europeans who can't spend money, don't want to spend money, are willing to cut deals with China, perhaps in return for access to Chinese markets, that that might be a national security threat to the United States, that's part of it. And Greenland is a very important location in terms of inbound defense and missile shields. So Trump has obviously had a briefing about the fact that Greenland there are grievances. The United States has been interested in this part of the world for a long time, and that there may be a deal to be done. I mean, we've had J.D. vance saying, look, if the President says he wants it, you can't just ignore what the most powerful man in the world says, which is not, as far as I'm aware, how international law or cooperation works. But I think it's a sort of totemic location for kind of, why are these big states arguing with each other about this particular location? And there are some perfectly understandable reasons for it. For what it's worth, we don't see many Chinese ships in green landing waters, as it happens. There's kind of lots of reports that they're there often turn out to be wrong. So, you know, but I think it's a sort of fear of what might be around the corner, and so lining up the houses is what matters. But, I mean, you don't think that there's a chance of a military invasion, therefore, do you?
- [31:51]
B
Well, let's just think about the American perspective, because we've talked a lot about the Nordic perspective, the kind of Western perspective, this sense of changing shifting allegiances and threats from the US Perspective. Can we make this make sense? So imagine if Greenland did become the 51st state. Would that work? How would it work? So it's got a small population. I mean, there's been talk, for example, of, and it's, I think, deliberately triggering, but of adding Canada to the US as the 51st state. So that, by contrast, would give Trump an immense landmass, but also the less desirably bring one of the most liberal electorates in the world into North America. So if Canada was the 51st state, it would be completely unsuitable for Trump to push ahead with his domestic political restructuring of the U.S. by contrast, Greenland also an immense landmass, but only 57,000 people, people who have the lowest level of education of all the Nordic countries, where there's a great need for investment. And liberal thinking is a bit of a luxury because there are real matters of survival and urgent infrastructure. So you can see how from Trump's perspective, this is like he would gain a lot and lose a little. But there's the minor issue of whether Greenlanders want to be part of the US and so far, they have far from demonstrated that. Peter?
- [33:14]
C
No. So Vice President Vance went there early in 2025, and the reaction was so negative, he basically didn't leave the US Military base, you know, for fear of being pelted and shouted at. And that always looks bad. You know, forget about personal security. I'm sure the US can handle that. But, you know, you don't want people in the streets with placards saying how that you should go back home. So, you know, I think that tells you something. But I think that from Trump's point of view, who's highly unorthodox, doesn't see the world's in the same conventional way that the bureaucrats might do. So Trump, as a real estate man, fundamentally, I think, believes everybody has got a price and what will that cost be? And, you know, and I think that there is some view that Greenlanders have had a pretty rough ride, that they do need to have significant increases in their standards of living. And what's the best way to get that? Now, I don't there's any question at all that Greenlanders want to join the United States. But higher levels of investment from multinationals, if they can get the structure of the commercial side right, is obviously going to be quite helpful for the population of Greenland. I think, like any former colony, the problem now is that what comes out of Greenland has benefited the center. So a lot will depend on what kind of agreement and can be struck with not just the US Government, but with multilateral multinational companies around the world. And so Greenland probably, if we were living there now, and please, again, let us know, you probably think that the next 10 or 20 years might start to deliver some really nice uplifts if you can get that structure right. You know, the fact that people are paying attention to Greenland and throwing their hands up in horror about what Trump is saying has centered attention on Greenland. It has passed like we've been talking about it for that reason, but also to think that with capital flowing in, critical mineral development, strategic value, maybe things might be about to get quite a lot better. And small populations have the benefit of there not being that many people to keep happy. And so if you can do that, then things will work potentially quite well.
- [35:20]
B
What I find fascinating is Trump repositioning himself in this very specific, limited context as the friend and ally to indigenous people who's horrified by the historic wrongs committed against them by Denmark. So Trump, usually known for being quite hostile to anti racism, being quite hostile to indigenous rights movements, you know, advocating drilling for oil in protected lands in states in America, in Alaska. But on this occasion, he is trying to weaponize the real grievances Greenlanders have against them. Mark, to say they don't love you, they don't care about you, you'll do better by us. We want to spend money and give you better opportunities. And you can see how to people that have been colonially abused, there's an element of kind of my enemy's enemy is my friend. And there's also an element of how much worse could it be, Right? We've had a really rough time under Denmark. We might as well try something new. I don't think that Greenlanders have really been fooled by that. However, if you look at what happened in their referendum where they didn't, and they emphatically rejected the idea of becoming part of America, that they, they know they have leverage. And so exactly as you were saying, Peter. So what they could get out of this is more of the investment and the rights and the transition towards independence from Denmark that they want without surrendering sovereignty or kind of switching it from being part of Denmark to part of the US So if they get it right, they could win. But the reality is they are vulnerable. Small population, incredibly strategic position. If there is this increase in militarization and action in the region, they will need allies and friends. And it's quite scary for a small country to go against the explicit desires of not just the president of the most powerful country in the world, but a man who's shown himself to be pretty petty, vindictive, and not to cope very well with not getting what he wants. And by the way, I think that applies to Denmark as well. So, as I was saying, I went to Denmark earlier this year and interviewed Metta Fredrickson, who is the prime minister of Denmark. She's the leader of the Social Democratic Party. She's formed an alliance which is controversial for many reasons. It's swung quite far to the right in its stance on immigration. But one of the things that did impress me was the forthrightness with which she said her message to Trump was essentially, get your hands off Greenland. And, you know, for Denmark, which is itself a small country, I think we said the population is about 5 million, which is dependent on its membership of NATO, has historically, you know, sprung to the side of the US in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, considered itself a reliable ally. To say in totally unequivocal terms that they not only reject any offer for Greenland, but that they regard it as unacceptable behavior, I thought was really interesting. And to see a woman in the position of the person standing up to that kind of hyper masculine, aggressive posturing that we've seen Trump and Vance offer, it was. It was ballsy, I have to say, and I think it's a real risk in a way, because you really don't want to be in the crosshairs of the United States and you really don't want to be firing shots into NATO at a time when the war in Ukraine, all these other threats, are kind of pushing the alliance further than it has been pushed in years.
- [38:39]
C
Look, I'll give you my sort of three bullet points. To conclude, our series on Greenland is number one, Trump's concentration span is not the longest in the world. So all that noise about Greenland that sent feathers flying earlier in 2025 has all sort of more or less calmed down and he's moved on to other things. Doesn't mean he won't come back for it. But, you know, I think always the pinch of salt of what Trump thought he was going to do and people writing long articles about how the US army was going to be put on standby to invade Canada, Greenland, and don't forget Panama, by the way. So, you know, I think that the noise and the signal are two different things with Trump. Second, you know, what was particularly bad timing about Trump doing that is we're also in a world where there are significant military interventions, most, I guess, significant here, Israel in Gaza and Russia in Ukraine, where sovereign states are taking it upon themselves to act in unilateral ways militarily, and for the US to say that it's considering using force or annexing or buying, all of which Trump talked about, those kinds of things, I think, drive home the point that we're living in a world where state on state violence and the respect for international law, one is rising, one is falling. And so I think the fact that Trump chose this time to talk about it, I think was very unsettling for lots of people working in policy, space and international relations. I guess the third thing is that, look, the Danes have a complicated history with the Greenland. Probably what Trump has done inadvertently, as quite often happens in the world, by shining a light on Greenland and making everybody get extremely anxious and stressed about, he's probably helped the Greenlandic peoples because their equity and the way in which they're being paid attention and supported and funded from Copenhagen has gone up because Mette Fredriksen and others can't afford not to listen to political leaders in Nuuk. So, you know, I think that that has been really quite significant. I mean, like you said, there was an election in Nuke 2025 where Mutabura Egeda, who is the prime minister, took a bit of a knocking. But I think that that has given Greenland a better opportunity to negotiate what its future might look like. So that might be a sort of turning point in a funny way, that helps put some of those colonial problems that we talked about back into the shadows. So those kind of, I think, would be my three takeaways of don't take it too seriously, what Trump says until he decides to then send the army in, that the timing of it was extremely disruptive. But actually in a funny way, maybe he's done a favor by mistake inadvertently to Greenlandic peoples to give him a chance to prepare better and have a better future than they would have heard if he hadn't been talking about it.
- [41:22]
B
So let me just get this straight. By becoming completely non credible because he makes all these threats that he doesn't follow through, he's actually helped empower, what can you say, country of predominantly indigenous people to reinforce their rights.
- [41:37]
C
History is a complicated thing. That, that's, that's the weird, the weird, the weird thing. There's, there's no better goal than a known goal, right? When someone, someone achieves not just what they were hoping to do, they score one against themselves. So, so Trump, ironically, is going to make Denmark better at negotiating with Greenland. Yeah, you could make it up.
- [41:56]
B
Who said MAGA was a waste of time? You've been listening to our series on Greenland Legacy is hosted by me, AFWA.
- [42:04]
C
Hersh, and me, Peter Frankenpaum. And we will see you soon.
- [42:27]
E
Hear that? It's holiday cheer. Arriving at Ulta Beauty with gifts for everyone on your list. Treat them to fan favorite gift sets from Charlotte Tilbury and Peach and Lily. Go all out with timeless fragrances from ysl, Ariana Grande and Carolina Herrera. And you can never go wrong with an Ulta Beauty gift card. Head to Ulta Beauty for gifts that make the holidays brighter and even more beautiful. Ulta Beauty gifting happens here.