Why America REALLY wants Greenland

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: UnHerd with Freddie Sayers

Episode: Why America REALLY wants Greenland
Date: January 7, 2026
Host: Freddie Sayers (UnHerd)
Guests: Henrik Dahl (Danish MEP), Professor Helen Thompson (Cambridge Political Economy), Dr. Pippa Malmgren (Economist, former US Presidential Advisor)

---

Episode Overview

This in-depth episode examines the increasingly heated, and now credible, proposals by the US Trump administration to acquire Greenland from Denmark. Host Freddie Sayers brings together diverse voices: a Danish politician for perspective from the nation that currently holds Greenland, a historian of energy and geopolitics for the big-picture strategic context, and an expert in Arctic and space race politics for a cutting-edge analysis of why Greenland suddenly matters so much. The discussion covers history, legal treaties, military and resource competition, sovereignty, and, centrally, the new frontiers of global confrontation—from rare earth mining to satellite dominance and the unraveling of transatlantic trust.

---

Key Segments & Timestamps

1. The Danish Perspective: Henrik Dahl on Sovereignty, Security & Sentiment

Starts at: 01:03

Main Points

• Public Anxiety and Historical Context

  • Renewed US interest in "getting Greenland" is not viewed in Denmark as an amusing sideshow—this time there is real anxiety, given US officials' persistent repetition of the idea.
    • Quote: "The reason we are more concerned this time is that the idea...has been repeated so many times. So there has to be some kind of substance to it." — Henrik Dahl (03:53)

• Emotional and Legal Bonds

  • Greenland is emotionally significant for Danes: centuries of relationship, kinship, and community—not just a distant territory.
  • Denmark’s legal claim: the 1916 US-Danish treaty transferring the Virgin Islands to the US, in which America formally recognized full Danish sovereignty over Greenland.
    • Quote: "There is a declaration...signed by Robert Lansing...stating that the United States fully recognizes Danish sovereignty over Greenland. So that's sort of the modern legal underpinning." — Henrik Dahl (05:31)

• Security Claims and US Criticisms

  • The Trump administration argues Denmark can’t secure Greenland against Russian/Chinese influence. Dahl says such claims are exaggerated and largely untrue; dangerous Arctic waters deter naval incursions.
    • Quote: "As far as the Russian and Chinese ships are concerned, they are wrong...It is very dangerous to navigate the Greenlandic waters. So that part...is just not true." — Henrik Dahl (08:56)

• US Military Presence

  • Oddly, US military installations in Greenland have shrunk in recent decades—if the US is so concerned, why haven’t they increased their presence?
    • Quote: "Why have you diminished your military presence in Greenland?...So if the whole thing is so important, why is your presence so small in comparison with 50 years ago?" — Henrik Dahl (09:53)

• Greenland’s Right to Decide

  • If Greenland votes for US sovereignty, Denmark would accept it, as it’s constitutionally Greenland’s right, but warns of massive economic downsides for Greenlanders.
    • Quote: "It's their constitutional right and we would not challenge their constitutional rights. So...if a majority of the Greenland population decided...we would accept that." — Henrik Dahl (12:13)

---

2. The Big Picture: Prof. Helen Thompson on History, Security, and Resources

Starts at: 16:51

Main Points

• Geopolitical Legacy: The Monroe Doctrine

  • US interest is longstanding—it’s anomalous and, to Washington, unacceptable for a European power to own territory in the Western Hemisphere.
    • Quote: "Greenland is essentially formally the territory of a European power, yet it is in the Western Hemisphere. And as far as the US has been concerned since the 19th century, European powers don't belong in the Western Hemisphere." — Helen Thompson (17:18)

• Security > Resources (for now)

  • The “Greenland, Iceland, UK gap” has always been vital in US defense calculations—especially during the Cold War, when Greenland was a potential vector for Soviet attack.
  • US-Danish agreements since 1951 give America near-complete military freedom in Greenland already.

• Sovereignty & Security Intertwined

  • Denmark’s inability to provide for Greenland’s defense raises questions—even in international law—about whether it should be considered truly sovereign there.
    • Quote: "To be a sovereign power means to be able to provide for your own security. And if you can't do that, you're not sovereign." — Helen Thompson (22:00)

• Resources and Rare Earths

  • Greenland has significant rare earth deposits; though currently mining is paused, the Trump administration has made clear it objects to Chinese involvement in extracting any Western Hemisphere resources.
    • Quote: "There are fairly abundant rare earths on Greenland...the US does not want China investing in resource extraction in the Western Hemisphere." — Helen Thompson (26:30)

• Is This Just Realpolitik?

  • Thompson cautions about seeing this as “business as usual”—the US, in competition with a resurgent China and in a post-liberal world order, is shifting towards more open, transactional, and forceful moves.
    • Quote: "I think it's a turning point...the United States rose...as imperial China...was entering its twilight years. Once you have the return of...China, then—almost by necessity—the United States is going to be a different kind of power." — Helen Thompson (31:40)

---

3. Rarely Discussed Drivers: Dr. Pippa Malmgren on Space & The Arctic’s New Role

Starts at: 35:58

Main Points

• Space: The Overlooked Driver

  • Control of the Arctic—including Greenland—is now crucial for space infrastructure. Satellite data and connections to subsea cables all converge near the poles; the main ground links are in Svalbard (Norway) and Greenland.
    • Quote: "The number one reason is never mentioned and that is space...Greenland has the second main space base after Svalbard." — Pippa Malmgren (36:28)
    • "[The Arctic] has become central to the global digital economy. Now we've just appointed in the United States, Jared Isaacson to run NASA. He has been crystal clear that space is no longer about just scientific discovery, it's about strategic security dominance." (38:14)

• Strategic Military Location

  • The “GIUK gap” (Greenland-Iceland-UK) is vital for monitoring Russian submarines and securing North Atlantic approaches—the US prizes control here.

• Transatlantic Distrust

  • Trump’s team increasingly sees Western Europe as politically antagonistic, with Denmark specifically viewed as obstructive and as having “let go” of Greenland by devolving power to it.
    • Quote: "Their view is that Denmark devolved political authority to Greenland over recent years...Trump is...reaching out to the Greenlanders who are fundamentally Inuit populations...Let's cut a deal." — Pippa Malmgren (44:13)
  • Behind the scenes, Malmgren links this to suspicions about European funding of US opposition movements and intelligence distrust.

• Espionage, Domestic Politics, & NATO

  • The US is re-evaluating intelligence cooperation with Europe, and some in Washington now view European governments as “part of their political enemy group.”
    • Quote: "The President is increasingly of the view that Europe is the main obstacle, that China, Russia, the Middle East can all come to some kind of an arrangement, but Europe won't allow it." — Pippa Malmgren (48:21)

• Chaos as Negotiating Tactic

  • Trump’s wild rhetoric about “taking” Greenland is seen as part of his style: “throw a grenade in,” create chaos, and then seek leverage in the aftermath.
    • Quote: "He literally throws a grenade into the room, lets it go off, creates a chaos, and then he walks in and says, let's talk." — Pippa Malmgren (45:55)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Henrik Dahl (on Denmark's anxiety):
  "There is general anxiety because we have heard the idea of acquiring Greenland before...The reason we are more concerned this time is that the idea...has been repeated so many times. So there has to be some kind of substance to it." (03:53)

• Prof. Helen Thompson (on rare earths):
  "The fundamental issue here is rare earths...the US does not want China investing in resource extraction in the Western Hemisphere...it has taken a decision I think to push back against that. That doesn't mean there's an immediate payoff for that. It's a statement." (27:00)

• Pippa Malmgren (on space):
  "You need to be in the Arctic, because...all of the communications that really matter, especially for strategic security purposes...feed to really one main connection point...Svalbard in Norway...Greenland has the second main space base after Svalbard." (36:28)

• Freddie Sayers (skepticism on US-Europe distrust):
  "If [Vice President] J.D. Vance thinks a big strategic threat is that the United Kingdom is going to have an Islamo-fascist government anytime soon...he's got his priorities all wrong because that's just not real." (42:15)

---

Concluding Thoughts

• All three experts agree: The US’s designs on Greenland—unthinkable for decades—are now very real, and motivated by a complex intersection of old geopolitics, new technology (especially space infrastructure), military rivalry, resource scarcity, and domestic political distrust.
• For Denmark and Europe: There’s anxiety, but also resignation—without US support, they can't defend Greenland, and the evolving US-Europe relationship is fraying.
• For America: Greenland is the tip of a strategic iceberg—the Western Hemisphere must be controlled, not just for oil or minerals, but as the linchpin for the battles of the 21st century: digital, space, and political.
• The rules-based international order? The guests suggest it was always partly an illusion, but acknowledge that the US-Trump turn is a historic shift, not an ordinary phase.

---

Table of Key Segments

| Segment | Time | Main Contributor | Key Theme | |----------------------------------|---------|----------------------|-----------------------------------------| | Danish View & Sovereignty | 01:03 | Henrik Dahl | Legal, emotional, security objections | | US Historical & Strategic Motive | 16:51 | Helen Thompson | Monroe Doctrine, Cold War, resources | | Rare Earths, Realpolitik | 26:16 | Helen Thompson | Resource strategy, US/China rivalry | | Space & Arctic Infrastructure | 35:58 | Pippa Malmgren | Satellites, subsea cables, space race | | US-Europe Distrust | 45:10 | Pippa Malmgren | NATO friction, intelligence, politics | | Conclusion | 50:12 | Freddie Sayers | Synthesis of key motives/drivers |

---

For New Listeners

This episode offers a comprehensive look at why Greenland—long viewed as remote and peripheral—has become one of the most contested chess pieces of global politics. It goes far beyond the headlines, moving from treaty history to Arctic militarization to the invisible infrastructure of the digital age, and reveals not just the raw power politics, but the psychic rift opening between America and its erstwhile European allies. A must-listen (or must-read!) for anyone trying to understand the drivers of uncertainty in the coming decade.

Transcript

[Commercial Advertiser]

Dreaming of getting the all new iPhone 17 Pro designed to be the most powerful iPhone ever.

[Professor Helen Thompson]

Then stay in bed and let a Boost mobile expert deliver and set it up for you.

[Henrik Dahl]

Oh actually they will have to get.

[Freddie Sayers]

Up and open the door. Oh right.

[Commercial Advertiser]

Delivery available for select devices [e-mail] terms apply.

BetterHelp Online Therapy bought this 30 second ad to remind you right now, wherever you are, to unclench your jaw, relax your shoulders, take a deep breath in and out. Feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self care. Imagine what you could do with more. Visit betterhelp.com randompodcast for 10% off your first month of therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax.

[Freddie Sayers]

Hello, welcome back to Unherd. It feels like every day there is a new massive story in the geopolitical realm. And attentions having been fully on Venezuela and the Trump administration's actions there just two days ago, are now turning to Greenland. Because not only President Trump himself, but but Stephen Miller, his top advisor and the vice president, J.D. vance, have all confirmed that taking Greenland or getting Greenland, that's the verb they use, is absolutely part of their plan and soon. So it suddenly seems very realistic that some kind of offer challenge situation that moves Greenland from being part constitutionally of the Danish Kingdom into being an American territory looks pretty likely. We think we really need to understand it. And so we've gathered today three absolutely key voices. Professor Helen Thompson you will know from our own these Times podcast and she's a regular Unherd contributor. She's probably the number one global expert on oil and how it intersects with geopolitics. So that's something we really need to understand. Look forward to talking to her. We're also talking to Pippa Malmgren, economist and geopolitical observer, but with a particular expertise on the Arctic and, and the strange subterranean politics that happens around rare earths, resources and security up in that most northerly part of the world. But first we wanted to hear from someone from Denmark because technically Greenland is part of Denmark. How do the Danes feel about this? We're joined down the line by Henrik Dahl, who is an author and politician. He's an MEP for the centre right Liberal alliance party in Denmark and. And he is a little bit concerned about what he's hearing from the Trump administration. Welcome to UnHerd, Mr. Dahl.

[Henrik Dahl]

Thank you.

[Professor Helen Thompson]

Before we start this episode, a brief word from our sponsor, Charles Stanley Wealth Management. The economic tumult of the past month has forced many people to take another look at their finances and whether their retirement plans are on track. This is where having an experienced wealth manager can make all the difference, because it's not just trying to hit a number. It's about planning the life and lifestyle that you want to lead. Charles Stanley wealth management can help you chart your financial course, go guiding you on when you can retire comfortably, as well as how best to pass on your wealth to the next generation. Unless you're planning to spend it all, discover how partnering with a dedicated wealth manager can let you focus on what matters most. For more information, visit charles-stanley.co.uk today to schedule a free no obligation call to discuss your situation. And remember, investment involves risk.

[Freddie Sayers]

So first of all, what is the mood in Denmark about these quite surreal claims from the Trump administration? Is there genuine anxiety or is it a kind of raised eyebrow and a surreal atmosphere?

[Henrik Dahl]

There is general anxiety because we have heard the idea of acquiring Greenland before. In 2019, during Trump's first presidency, he proposed to buy Greenland method. Fredericksen, our present prime minister, was also prime minister at that time and she flatly rejected the idea, called it absurd. I think that was the exact phrase she used. So we have heard this before and the reason we are more concerned this time is that the idea of acquiring Greenland has been repeated so many times. So there has to be some kind of substance to it.

[Freddie Sayers]

What is the, would you say the Danish attitude to Greenland? I guess a lot of people would not know that. What is the best parallel? Is it like Britain thinking about Northern Ireland? Is it considered part of the kingdom of Denmark in a kind of emotional way by people? Or is it this sort of random, faraway place that people don't think about much?

[Henrik Dahl]

Well, I think people are kind of emotional because we have been living with Greenland for 300 years and many people have been there. People from Greenland come here if they need higher education. There are many marriages between ethnic Danes and ethnic Inuits and so on and so forth. Of course you have the division between separatists and unionists, but it has never been violent the way you bring up Northern Ireland, it has never been violent the same way. Basically, there is a sense of community and that's why we are concerned.

[Freddie Sayers]

When people in the Trump administration ask, as Stephen Miller did yesterday, what is the basis of Denmark's claim to run Greenland? What is the answer that Danish people give to that? Why should Greenland be Danish?

[Henrik Dahl]

There's a very long story with the Norsemen coming up to Greenland around the year 1000 and the personal union between Norway and Denmark from but we usually skip over that and Go straight to the year 1916 when the United States bought the US Virgin Islands from Denmark in connection with that agreement. There was also an agreement between the Wilson administration and the Danish administration that the United States would recognize full Danish sovereignty over Greenland. So if you go to our National Archives or the archives of the State Department in Washington, you will find a declaration signed by Robert Lansing, who was the Secretary of State of President Wilson, stating that the United States fully recognizes Danish sovereignty over Greenland. So that's sort of the modern legal underpinning.

[Freddie Sayers]

You've given me an idea there. Why not call Trump's bluff and speak in his terms and say, fine, you can have Greenland, but we want the US Virgin Islands in exchange. Since that was part of the same.

[Henrik Dahl]

Transaction, I don't think we want them back. So it would not be relevant. I think there are sort of two sets of reactions. There's a moral outrage and then there's sort of a more matter of fact approach. What can you do? And I think you should try to avoid the moral outrage and you should try not to get provoked by Stephen Miller saying that what is the legal underpinning of all this? Because of course he knows or he should know or people around him should know. So I think you should be very matter of fact and state the facts and explain to everybody that this agreement from 1916 has never been challenged or revoked or anything. So of course it's still effective.

[Freddie Sayers]

The reason I asked about how people in Denmark feel emotionally is because ultimately that's the test, isn't it? The political salience is would Danish voters want to risk real money or in extremists lives and soldiers to defend it? Or as Stephen Miller says, with great confidence? Is it the case that no one is going to fight the United States over Greenland, so it's theirs if they want it?

[Henrik Dahl]

I think everybody understands that if we had to fight alone against the United States, that would be impossible. So that's why I applaud the strategy of the government to line up as many allies as possible. I was very happy to see a number of heads of states, including Starmer, come out in a joint declaration in support of Denmark. Because the, the new currency underlying everything is just power and you have to see how much power you can muster. And so that's the game.

[Freddie Sayers]

Now, their charge to Denmark is that the Danish government has done a bad job of securing Greenland. That's the fundamental case that the Trump administration make. J.D. vance, when he visited Greenland, said in terms, he said exactly that Denmark has not done a good job That's a quote in securing Greenland. And Donald Trump said in the last few days that Greenland is, quote, covered in Russian and Chinese ships. What they're saying is there are major geopolitical threats. China and Russia are all over that area and Denmark is not a big enough or powerful enough country to secure it. And therefore, for the safety of the United States, they need to take it over. Are they wrong?

[Henrik Dahl]

As far as the Russian and Chinese ships are concerned, they are wrong. That's not the case. The waters are very difficult to navigate. I don't even know if the Americans can navigate the Davis Strait. The Canadians can and we can, but it is very dangerous to navigate the Greenlandic waters. So that part of it is just not true. It is true that there has been militarization of the Arctic and this is going against the so called ilulissat Declaration from 2008. But I would maintain that we have stuck to the agreements we have with the United States and the agreements that have been made in the Arctic Council. I don't think you can ask more of an ally than that. They stick with the agreements you have made, which we have.

[Freddie Sayers]

So what is it that you think the United States is worried about? It's not just for fun. I mean, it would be a needless expense to start administering Greenland if there was no reason. What do you think the reason for their interest is?

[Henrik Dahl]

I think they are genuinely worried about the militarization of the Arctic because Russia has been militarizing the Arctic for many years and China is describing itself as a near Arctic country. So there has been a militarization and there has to be some kind of response to the militarization. But I could go back to the Americans and say, why have you diminished your military presence in Greenland? Because that's what they have done. The P2F space base is much smaller today than it was 25 or 50 years ago. The same thing goes for the Kangaloosuake Air Base, which is also the civilian airport in Greenland. The Americans themselves have very small military presence today. And my question to them would be, so if the whole thing is so important, why, why is your presence so small in comparison with 50 years ago?

[Freddie Sayers]

So the Danish answer then, as I understand it, is to say we are welcome to station more troops or more military installations in Greenland. There is already a military base and you would in fact like it to be bigger, not smaller. So if it's a question of projecting force against a kind of gathering Russian and Chinese presence in the Arctic, the Danes are saying you're welcome. Please do. So you don't think it needs to change sovereignty to do that?

[Henrik Dahl]

There is a base agreement from 1951 which is very favorable to the United States because they can pretty much do what they would like to do. It's a little bit more complicated than what I say now, but basically they just need to notify the Danish authorities. So my question to our American allies would be, why haven't you done anything? Because what they do at Pietrovik now is they receive satellite signals and that's really all they do. 50 years ago they had B52 in the Thule air base. They had nuclear weapons there. They decided they didn't want that.

[Freddie Sayers]

If there is some kind of offer to the Greenlandish population from the United States saying we're going to spend this much money, we're going to invest this much in extraction and you're going to get a cut, blah, blah, and then they proceed to do some kind of vote on it and a majority of Greenlanders support it. Do you believe that the Danes would then say, fair enough, the Greenland population has voted to become American?

[Henrik Dahl]

Yeah, it's their constitutional right and we would not challenge their constitutional rights. So if you follow the constitutional procedures and a majority of the Greenland population decided that they wanted to secede from the Kingdom of Denmark, we would accept that because it's a right they have. The reason they haven't done so far, I believe, is that it has a very, very serious economic downside if they decide to do so.

[Freddie Sayers]

Because at the moment the Danish government is subsidizing Greenland to a huge extent. It's nearly half of their national income, is that right? So for the United States there's a big bill to pick up.

[Henrik Dahl]

You have direct subsidies, but we have taken over some of the functions that a state would normally have such as police, the court systems, higher education, hospitals. So they would also have to build an education system, a health system, run a police force, run a judicial system, which is all very costly.

[Freddie Sayers]

Hendrik Dahl, thank you so much.

[Henrik Dahl]

Thank you.

[Commercial Advertiser]

Here at Blue Apron we know exactly how hectic school nights can be. That's why we created Assemble and Bake delicious one pan meals that make family dinner simple. Just assemble the pre chopped ingredients and put the pan in the oven to bake. Then you're free to help out with that last minute diorama shop. Assemble and [e-mail] get 50% off your first two orders with code apron50. Terms and conditions apply. Visit blueapron.com terms for more.

Are you still running your business with one creaky old phone system, missing calls, losing track of messages, and scrambling to keep up with your team? It's time to break up with the past and say hello to Kuo. Kuo is the number one business phone system with 4.7 stars across 3,000 reviews on G2. Quo brings all your business phone calls and texts into one app for your team. No more juggling devices or being tied to a landline. Quo's built in AI logs calls, creates summaries, automates follow ups, and can even answer and route calls so you never miss an opportunity. Whether you're a solo operator or leading a growing team, Quo keeps you connected and helps you deliver standout customer experiences. Join over 90,000 businesses using Quo and see why it's the one business phone system for customer satisfaction. Level up your workflow with quo get started free plus get 20% off your first six months at quo.comtech that's quo spelled q u o.com tech and if you have existing numbers with another service, quo will port them over for free. Quo no missed calls, no missed customers.

Everywhere you turn, it's new year, new Me. But growth isn't a glow up trend. It's a practice. Grow Therapy helps you do the real work with licensed therapists who meet you where you are, not where anyone else says you should be. Whether it's your first time in therapy or your 50th, grow makes it easier to find a therapist who fits you, not the other way around. They connect you with thousands of independent licensed therapists across the US Offering both virtual and in person sessions, nights and weekends. You can search by what matters like insurance, specialty, identity or availability and get started in as little as two days. And if something comes up, you can Cancel up to 24 hours in advance at no cost. There are no subscriptions, no long term commitments. You just pay per session. Grow helps you find therapy on your time. Whatever challenges you're facing, Grow Therapy is here to help. Sessions average about $21 with insurance, and some pay as little as $0 depending on their plan. Grow accepts over 100 insurance plans, including Medicaid in some states. Visit growtherapy.com acast today to get started. That's growththerapy.com acast growtherapy.com acast availability and coverage by state and insurance plan Tired.

Of your car insurance rate going up? Even with a clean driving record, you're not alone. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry compares rates side by side from over 50 top insurers and helps you switch with ease. Jerry even tracks market rates and alerts you when it's best. Best to shop. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Switch with confidence. Download the Jerry app or visit Jerry AI Acast today.

[Freddie Sayers]

Our next guest is Professor Helen Thompson. She is professor of Political Economy at Cambridge and is literally one of the number one, two or three experts in the world on oil, energy and how it intersects with geopolitics. So thanks for joining us. Helen. Great to see you again.

[Professor Helen Thompson]

Pleasure to be here.

[Freddie Sayers]

Freddie, what do you think this Greenland rhetoric is about and why do you think the United States government seems to want it?

[Professor Helen Thompson]

If you look at it from a long term historical perspective for the United States and I think a lot of Trump's understanding, intuitive as it might be of geopolitics, actually does reflect long history. Weirdly, even if he doesn't understand it him. Greenland is essentially formally the territory of a European power, yet it is in the Western Hemisphere. And as far as the United States has been concerned since the 19th century is European powers don't belong in the Western Hemisphere. There are several anomalies, if you like, from their point of view left over from their first assertion of the Monroe Doctrine. One of them is the Greenland. The other of them actually is the Falklands. If you are from the point of view of Washington, serious about the United States asserting its primacy in the Western Hemisphere, then you don't want a non sovereign US Territory that is a potential threat in terms of security to the United States and Greenland's geography and the fact that the Chinese are a commercial presence in Greenland and Russia's general military dominance in the Arctic means that Greenland is a threat to US Security in these terms.

[Freddie Sayers]

Because you hear two sort of strands to the argument. You hear talk about the fact that there are increasing security installations and excursions from both Russia and China into the Arctic area and that is somehow threatening the United States. And then you also hear talk of resources. Are there rare earths in Greenland? Is there potentially oil? Are there other assets that they're hoping to exploit? Which of those do you think is most important?

[Professor Helen Thompson]

Well, I think in the short term that the geographical position of Greenland in relation to Russian and Chinese assertiveness is the most important. And that goes back to this question about the Western Hemisphere. And I think you can see this quite clearly if you look at the last period which actually really created the present configuration arrangements between the United States and Denmark over Greenland, when Greenland, in relation to US Security was to the fore, and that's the Cold War. Once formally in 1946 and once informally 1955, the United States tried to buy Greenland from the. From Denmark. And it did so because in Cold War terms, with the assertion of Soviet power, as Washington understood it then, that passage of water between Greenland, Iceland, uk, what's called the Greenland, Iceland, UK like passage, was seen as a means by which the Soviet Union could, if it wanted to attack the United States on its eastern seaboard, do so. So in order to defend the United States in a Cold War context, Greenland had to be defended. And Denmark is not a state that's capable of doing that. And really, from 1951, when an agreement was made between the United States and Denmark over Greenland, the United States has de facto, I would say, had military sovereignty in Greenland. It can effectively do as it likes, or its military can do as its likes, because Denmark has accepted that Greenland is vital to the security of the United States.

[Freddie Sayers]

Yeah, but if they can already do what they want, they already have a military base there. In fact, we had an MP from Denmark on earlier who was complaining that they've actually reduced the size of their military base over the decades. The Danes want more US military in Greenland, but the. The US is not investing in it. They've already got the capacity to secure it. Why would they need sovereignty?

[Professor Helen Thompson]

Well, I think this raises a really interesting question. I mean, one of the reasons, just on the question of the reduction in the importance that the US has given to Greenland, if you look at that, it essentially wanes with the Cold War, which is exactly what you would expect. The Soviet Union dissolves, like in 1991. Russia is a much weakened power. Greenland starts to become important again from about 2007, which is interesting, near the same year that Putin gave his Munich security speech and starts to say that Russia is going to assert itself as an Arctic power. So if you get the return of the Arctic, Greenland being very much part of Arctic politics, to geopolitics, you would expect a return of the Greenland question. And it's now being complicated by China's desire, which will come to the resources thing in a moment to be present on Greenland. For that reason. If you then turn to the Danish argument, I think the thing is you can just flip it around the other way, which is to say that, look, if you are the sovereign state, then that means that you are responsible for the security of Greenland, that to be sovereign is to be the provider of security for the territory over which that you're sovereign. If you are saying to the United States, we can't do that, you have to do that, and you have an interest in doing that because it's actually more important to your security than it is to our security, then you can see that there's a logic that says, well, actually, why is Denmark sovereign in this territory? Why isn't the United States sovereign in this territory? And if you go back to what de Gaulle was saying as his critique of European limitations in the 1950s and the 1960s, that's at the center of it, saying, to be a sovereign power means to be able to provide for your own security. And if you can't do that, that you're not sovereign. Now, I'm not saying that I think that that justifies what Trump is doing, but I do think that there's a certain disingenuousness in the Danish and the European position on this, which goes to the heart, in some ways of the whole question about NATO.

[Freddie Sayers]

Well, quite. I was going to say, if the definition of sovereignty is that you can provide for your own security, then not much of Europe looks sovereign either.

[Professor Helen Thompson]

Absolutely.

[Freddie Sayers]

The only thing is the argument you've just made, which is that there are legitimate questions about the sovereignty of Greenland because the Danes aren't providing proper security for it, which is pretty much the argument the Trump administration makes. It's almost a woke kind of argument. I think it's an unpicking history and trying to renegotiate things that have been settled for a long time? I mean, there's almost a sort of anti colonialist tone to it. You know, you get Stephen Miller, the advisor to President Trump on cnn, saying, what right do the Danes have to claim Greenland? As if, you know, they're these sort of evil conquerors and the Trump administration are going to rescue the Greenlanders. Am I not right in saying there are actually very clear treaties, and more than one of them over the past century, that unambiguously confirm that America recognizes Danish sovereignty? So even in Trump's own real estate way of thinking, he has no claim to Greenland. He's sold it already.

[Professor Helen Thompson]

I'm not sure that it is woke or the equivalent of woke, because I do think there is something, at least in this argument, which is that you can't really separate the military question and the sovereignty question. And I think that regardless of whatever we think of Trump's means for pursuing this and whatever we think of the rhetoric that's deployed in doing so, I think that if you just looked at it historically, you would Expect that in a context in which the Arctic is a center of geopolitical tension, and I think it has been for the last two decades, and particularly actually in the last five years or so, that the Greenland question would come into play, because every time that that has previously been the case for one reason or another, particularly actually in US Russia relations. So the year in which the United States first tried to buy Greenland, 1867, is also the year in which it bought Alaska from Russia. So reconfigured US Russian relations in the Western Hemisphere, the US Claim to Greenland will come into play. And that's why it comes into play in the First World War. But even more importantly, it comes to play in the Cold War. And I think if you even just think about the name NATO, Freddie, like North Atlantic, that tells us how important this issue was in the early years of the Cold War. And that in that sense, it's not surprising that both under a Democratic administration, Harry Truman, under Republican administration, DWIGHT Eisenhower, the U.S. made bids to try to take Greenland as its own.

[Freddie Sayers]

Let's talk about energy alongside. I mean, you've said you don't think that's the imminent motivation, but it's there in the background. What possible resources does Greenland have that the US could be interested in?

[Professor Helen Thompson]

I mean, the fundamental issue here is rare earths. It's well known that there are fairly abundant rare earths on Greenland. There's been various projects to try to extract these rare earths from an Australian company. The Chinese have been involved in that Since, I think, 2021. There's been an effective moratorium on rare earths mining in Greenland because it can't be done without mining uranium. And the mining of uranium is presently banned, though it's politically contested between the parties. The issue is that obviously mining in the Arctic is an incredibly difficult and expensive like exercise, even if you leave out the Democratic politics of it in terms of Greenland. So there's many people who would express considerable doubt as to whether these rare earths are actually realizable on a commercial basis. And I think that's why it's quite hard to run a strong, like it's all about rare earths argument where Greenland's concerned. Having said that, if we look at the Trump administration's policy more generally in the Western Hemisphere, it is pretty clear that they do not want China investing in resource extraction in the Western Hemisphere, that this administration regards the resources of the Western Hemisphere as not necessarily belonging to the United States, but the United States having the first claim on them, and therefore that it is not going to sit by and allow Chinese companies to be investing in mining, whether it's in Greenland, whether it's in Canada, whether it's in Venezuela or Argentina or any of these, or any of these places. It has taken a decision, I think, to push back against that. That doesn't mean there's an immediate payoff for that. It's a statement, I think as much as anything to China to say the Western hemisphere is ours and you need to back off.

[Freddie Sayers]

Do you predict that by the end of this Trump administration there will be an actual move to get Greenland, as he calls it, one way or the other?

[Professor Helen Thompson]

Yes, I do. They would much prefer, I think, to buy it than to invade it. Any invasion of Greenland obviously will put the NATO question into urgent existential territory, but I don't think they're going to let the Greenland question go most broadly.

[Freddie Sayers]

Helen, when you see actions like the abduction of the sitting, maybe not democratically legitimate, but sitting president of Venezuela and now talk of taking over what has been a sovereign territory to another democratic country for hundreds of years, does this worry you? There are the sort of liberal commentators who are exercising up in arms and you might say hysterical that international law is being shredded and the, you know, the global order is being upended and so on. And then the normal critique to that is, oh, don't be so silly. Twas ever thus. This is just real politik. And they were kind of, there was nice talk around it, but countries have always acted in their own interests and using the power they have available and you know, get over it. Which of those camps do you fit in?

[Professor Helen Thompson]

I have pretty little sympathy with the thesis that there's been a rules based liberal international order since the, the Second World War. I think that there are places, areas where that applies for some of the time, I think most clearly in regard to trade, particularly since the creation of the World Trade Organization. But that is also under very, very severe strain. And I think that's the one place where you said there was clear international law. I think you can say in regard to shipping law also it's meaningful, I think in other areas, the ones where those who are most convinced that there was a norms based order, let's now use that language in the big picture in which the United States sometimes ignoring it perhaps, but largely upheld. I just don't think that's a very realistic interpretation of the period from 1945 onwards. And I think when it comes to energy questions and resource questions, it's pretty much non existent. Having said that, I don't sign up really either to the view that there's nothing new going on here, because I think that the way in which the United States has come to exercise power to some extent this was true under Biden as well, and perhaps even under a little bit under Obama. But it's very clear in the Trump case, More so in Trump 2 than in Trump 1. But it was clearly there in Trump 1 is a turning point. And I think it's a turning point for this reason is in the entire time that the United States has been the world's dominant power. And one can start arguing as to whether that was really after the end of the First World War, after the end of the Second World War. But it clearly was ascendant at least through the first half of the 20th century, is the United States was able to take for granted its primacy in the Western Hemisphere. It wasn't like there were never any threats to it. Think about the Cuban missile crisis. But it wasn't a big structural problem that it faced. That isn't true any longer. And I think it goes back to the fact that there's this historical coincidence which might perhaps not have to have been this way, whereby the United States rose as a geopolitical power at the moment in which imperial China, the end of the 19th century, was entering its twilight years. So actually the United States position in the world, I think, was dependent historically upon imperial China's profound weakness at that moment. And once you have the end of, let's call it China's century of humiliation and the return of China, then I think almost by necessity the United States is going to be a different kind of power. Now, when you then have that happen like we have at this present moment of time when somebody who's not straightforward politician had not been a long standing member of the US Political class, at least in terms of being an actual politician, is the person who's the president and is very transactional and has a completely different kind of rhetoric to past presidents, then I think that something actually is profoundly changing. So it's a kind of it's a strange conjunction of Trump's personality and who he is and what he represents. In that sense, with what I think is a structural shift almost, if you like, in world history particularly, or at least in a geopolitical sense that's playing out. And in that respect, it's not just like business as usual from in the way in which the United States has exercised power since 1945.

[Freddie Sayers]

So in other words, even though it might be true that realpolitik has always been there. And the real rules based order was hardly as kind of universal as people pretend. Something new and something very profound is still happening here.

[Professor Helen Thompson]

That's what I think. Yeah.

[Freddie Sayers]

Helen, thank you so much for your time.

[Professor Helen Thompson]

Pleasure, Freddy.

[Freddie Sayers]

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.

[Professor Helen Thompson]

AI.

[Commercial Advertiser]

Are you still running your business? With one creaky old phone system, missing calls, losing track of messages, and scrambling to keep up with your team, it's time to break up with the past and say hello to Kuo. Kuo is the number one business phone system with 4.7 stars across 3,000 reviews on G2. Quo brings all your business phone calls and texts into one app for your team. No more juggling devices or being tied to a landline. Quo's built in AI logs calls, creates summaries, automates follow ups, and can even answer and route calls. So you never miss an opportunity. Whether you're a solo operator or leading a growing team, Quo keeps you connected and helps you deliver standout customer experiences. Join over 90,000 businesses using Quo and see why it's the number one business phone system for customer satisfaction. Level up your workflow with quo. Get started free, plus get 20% off your first six months at quo.com tech. That's quo, spelled Q-U-O.com tech and if you have existing numbers with another service, Quo will port them over for free.

[Henrik Dahl]

Quo.

[Commercial Advertiser]

No missed calls. No missed customers.

[Freddie Sayers]

Our Next guest is Dr. Pippa Maugren. She is a author, a commentator, she's an economist, former advisor to President George W. Bush, among many other things. And why she's most relevant today is that she's one of the foremost experts on Arctic politics and the kind of tensions that are building up in that part of the world. I'm delighted she's made some time for us. Welcome to Unherd, Pippa.

[Pippa Malmgren]

Oh, thank you for having me, Freddie.

[Freddie Sayers]

Why do you think the United States seems to be so keen on Getting.

[Pippa Malmgren]

Greenland, I think the number one reason is never mentioned and that is space. So you've got to understand that we are in a massive space race between the United States and China in particular, but Russia as well. And why? Because space represents unlimited energy, unlimited resources, and unlimited Internet connectivity. Now, to do space, you need to be in the Arctic, because in simple terms, if Earth is spinning, this part is stationary. And so all of the communications that really matter, especially for strategic security purposes, from the mega constellations of satellites, the data feeds to really one main connection point, and that is Svalbard in Norway, which is inside the Arctic Circle. And that is why when you go to Svalbard, it's mobbed with NATO ships. And if you recall, in recent years, and I've written for unheard about this, we've had a number of attacks on the subsea cables there because the place where the satellites connect to ground stations is also where they connect to the subsea cables. So if you want your phone to work so that Uber Eats actually functions, you need that umbilical cord of data flowing from space around the world via these subsea cables. So the Arctic has become central to, to the global digital economy. Now we've just appointed in the United States, Jared Isaacson to run NASA. He has been crystal clear that space is no longer about just scientific discovery, it's about strategic security dominance. And the Pentagon has said the most important war fighting domain is space. By the way, let's not forget Ukraine is our first real space war, because there's no way Ukraine could manage the offensive or defensive actions without the help of Starlink. Which is why the Chinese, for example, have said, well, we're going to designate Starlink as a military entity, not a private company. And they're building satellite networks that have the capacity to damage or destroy Starlinks. So suddenly space is central in every way. And what are the main connection points? They need to be in the part of Earth that is stationary, relatively up at the top. Greenland has the second main space base after Svalbard, and that is the Petufic space base in Greenland. So let's begin with understanding the immense strategic importance because of modern technology that the Arctic Circle is about the space race. So that's point number one.

[Freddie Sayers]

And why in that case are they not going for Svalbard?

[Pippa Malmgren]

Well, Svalbard is already clearly under NATO control, arguably under US control. But the issues with Greenland are more than just this. So the second issue, which was outlined in the National Security Strategy, is that the administration is clearly worried about two Big things in national security. One is that if we are going to be in any kind of confrontational mode with Russia, which is more likely because the Europeans in general are opposing any peace deal, then you need to track what Russians are doing, not only with regard to the space race, which means again, being in the Arctic, but also in terms of their submarines, their ships. And where are you going to track all that stuff? It's in something called the Gyuk Gap. Now, most people don't remember the Giuk Gap, but it means the Greenland, Iceland, UK gap. So when you look at a map, it's the space between Greenland and the UK because that's where obviously Russian submarines, nuclear submarines, nuclear loaded submarines would be making their way into the Atlantic to be a strategic security threat for the United States. So it's not enough to have Svalbard in long bearing. You need to have the whole Duke gap covered. So that's a second reason. A third then issue is tied to what's happening in the United States right now with the discovery of the various networks that have been funding both opposition to President Trump domestically and the funding of various massive fraud networks. And the administration's view is that this is about this whole sort of antifa movement, anti fascist movement, as they're calling it in the United States, is not just in the United States, but also in Europe. Their view is a lot of the funding mechanisms are coming from European nations. So this is why JD Vance, whether we agree with it or not, recently said we don't know who's going to be controlling the nuclear arsenals in Western Europe because the public is voting in parties that are very hostile to President Trump. And so therefore keeping track of what is happening from a strategic security point of view. Because after all, it's over the Arctic, where you would expect ICBMs to appear. Right? They're not going to come any other way. Intercontinental ballistic missile nuclear weapons. So when you hear the Vice President, United States say we're worried about who actually will be in charge of the strategic security landscape of Western Europe and whether they're hostile to the US or not, you can begin to understand. So even if we disagree with this view, that is a driver of this process.

[Freddie Sayers]

Could I just. Sorry to interrupt, Pippa, but on that last point, I mean, my personal view would be that Vice President J.D. vance spends too much time on Twitter and has a somewhat caricatured impression of what is going on in Europe and in the UK in particular. And if he thinks a big strategic threat is that the United Kingdom is going to have a Islamo fascist government anytime soon that are going to direct warheads against the U.S. he's got his priorities all wrong because that's just not real.

[Pippa Malmgren]

But unfortunately, the recent National Security Strategy paper released by the Pentagon does hint at this being a genuine strategic security concern of the United States. Again, we may disagree with that, but that's what's in the document. And not only that, but we've seen the deterioration of, of intelligence sharing between the five eyes nations, which also kind of hints that there's trouble between these, these parties. And then let's add to the picture the Danish specific issues, where again, the administration's view is that Denmark has been at the forefront of not only supporting Ukraine in the war with Russia, but blocking any possibility of a peace negotiation going forward. So they're seen as obstructive to the administration's wants and desires. And again, we can argue about whether that's appropriate. Not appropriate. Within reason. Not within reason. But if you understand where the administration is coming from, that's it. And finally, their view is that Denmark devolved political authority to Greenland over recent years, partly to reduce the cost of supporting Greenland, which was estimated at massive, massive numbers, what it cost the Danes to support Greenland. Plus there's a long and troubled history of Denmark and the people of Greenland. So Trump is effectively reaching out to the Greenlanders who are fundamentally Inuit populations, they're indigenous people, and saying, how about, let's cut a deal. How about you get a privileged status with the United States, our economy, your economy become more integrated, integrated and tied. You're not answering to the Danes to the degree that you were before, so you have the freedom to cut these deals. And now Denmark is saying, no, no, no, but the fact is that they did devolve these authorities and it is a Greenland decision, not a Danish decision, although there's going to be a huge argument about that too. But that, I think then begins to sum up what the driving issues are, at least from the administration's point of view.

[Freddie Sayers]

The strand in all of that, that really jumps out at me. I mean, the question of space is, you're quite right, not talked about enough. And you've done, you know, a lot of work trying to bring that to the fore. But within all of this talk of hemispheres and strategic areas of dominance and all the rest of it, there is a hostility to Europe or there is a, let's say, lack of trust between the US Administration and Europe that really is at the heart of all this. Because if they were really feeling close. They would not be saber rattling and talking about taking one of the NATO countries territories. So you must be right to point out that through all this you see a real degradation of the relationship across the Atlantic.

[Pippa Malmgren]

Let me just say two points on this. One is, look, President Trump's negotiating style is very consistent. He literally throws a grenade into the room, lets it go off, creates a chaos, and then he walks in and says, let's talk. So part of this language over Greenland, of taking it, of even hinting it, annexing it feels to me like this is the grenade, right? This is designed to get everybody off balance. And it's what we've seen in every single negotiation he's ever done, including all his property deals. Second, this much larger question of the relationship between Western Europe and the US is now a central focus in Washington. For example, two subjects, Russiagate, where the administration clearly believes that Russiagate was originated, instigated either in the UK or in collaboration with British intelligence officials. And so that the field and all of that, that's the Steele dossier and all of that, which again, I think the key is nobody ever imagined that all those emails would ever be declassified. But the President and Tulsi Gabbard, the office of the Director of National Intelligence came in and said, unless it's the nuclear codes, we're declassifying everything. So suddenly all the dirty laundry is in view and actionable. And so the US Is in the midst of addressing that. And that of course is then creating suspicions about the nature of the relationship between European leadership and the opposition, the domestic opposition to the President in the United States. And now it's no longer just a political matter. It has moved into the realm of, as the White House keeps saying, sedition, treason, these are very heavy charges. And so I come back to the peace deal in Ukraine. The President is increasingly of the view that Europe is the main obstacle, that China, Russia, the Middle east can all come to some kind of an arrangement, but Europe won't allow it. And when I say Europe for Americans.

[Freddie Sayers]

That includes Britain, the administration basically views most European governments as part of their political enemy group. They basically side with kind of woke leftists, democrats, people who want to defend the old rules based international order that they say never existed and was just a cover for all sorts of nefarious transactions and they're not interested. So they've basically lumped Western Europe in as one of their political enemies. Do you think that's exaggerating it?

[Pippa Malmgren]

I don't think the right way to put it is lumped in. I think that they feel they are increasingly identifying the sources of opposition and undermining efforts to their efforts to prevent World War III from breaking out. I think, you know, that's a different thing from just lumping them in because it implies there aren't genuine issues. And I think there are some genuine issues. And especially once we get into things like the Soros networks, funding the non governmental organizations which were very deeply rooted and active throughout Western Europe and you know, were they really doing what they said they were doing or were they part of a racket that was actually shipping money back to the opposition to the President? And this is why you have to remember in the US we're in this extraordinary moment which where the President of the United States is on the brink of accusing of bringing legal charges against the former heads of the intelligence agencies and former presidents.

[Freddie Sayers]

Wow. Well, there's a lot to get into there and a lot to think about, but Pippa Malmgun, thank you so much for your time today.

[Pippa Malmgren]

Thank you.

[Freddie Sayers]

That's it. That is our deep dive into the Greenland question. We heard from Denmark, the people who own Greenland. We heard from Helen Thompson who really just gave some history there and her view of whether this so called rules based international order was ever real. And I thought fascinating by Dr. Pippa Malmgren there, the third speaker we had bringing ideas like space and the degrading place political relationship between the Trump administration and Europe as the true drivers of all of this rhetoric around Greenland. I learned a lot. Hope you did too. This was unheard.

[Commercial Advertiser]

The new year brings new health goals and wealth goals. Protecting your identity is an important step. Your info is in endless places that could expose you to identity theft leading to lost funds. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Resolve to make identity, health and wealth part of your New year's goals. With LifeLock, save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com SpecialOffer Terms Apply. Hello listeners. Meet Lisa.

Hey there.

Lisa runs an online boutique specializing in sustainable fashion. With Acast, she found a whole new way to reach eco conscious shoppers.

Yep, I recorded a quick ad targeted listeners interested in fashion and sustainability using Acast's audience attributes targeting feature and set my budget. Before I knew it, people all over.

[Professor Helen Thompson]

Were hearing about my shop.

[Commercial Advertiser]

Now that's a smart way to grow your business.

[Professor Helen Thompson]

Hey Lisa, what's trending right now?

[Commercial Advertiser]

Shopping sustainably.

And my sales, of course.

Start reaching your ideal audience through podcast ads With Acast, visit go.acast.com advertise to get started.