While trying to keep on top of the news from different points of view, I was reading a European paper that tried to make a sensational story out of nothing. It falsely claimed that European troops had recently left Greenland early.
I wish that newspapers would have experts on staff that understood political science or at least consulted with them to check facts. No wonder people are confused.
There was a recent deployment of military from various NATO countries in Greenland. This is not unusual. They are mostly intelligence and reconaissance, training together. These type of maneuvers have been happening for decades. Every country does things a little differently, so learning with and from eachother is exactly what NATO is there for. Some countries do not permit a permanent military base. Denmark permitted a US base in Greenland primarily for strategic reasons, but in the end no matter how good the relation, visiting army are always considered guests.
Nato was founded in 1949 primarily out of concern that the Soviets were expanding. It has one purpose; to come to the defense if another one of its allied members is attacked or invaded. The emphasis is on defense, if all other means of negotiation and diplomacy fail. It allows military bases in host countries mostly as a deterrent and the potential to launch weapons quickly.
People complain about the cost. In a perfect world we'd just trade and leave eachother alone. That is wishful thinking. But for the last 8 decades deploying a warship in a certain area was often enough to deescalate. Until 2014 when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea (part of Ukraine) then invaded Ukraine in 2022. Since Ukraine is not a Nato member it couldn't be defended. Europe is being dragged into a war that could escalate.
Countries that managed to stay neutral during ww2 joined nato recently for protection. Finland in 23 and Sweden in 24.
Greenland is a potential part of that.
It's autonomously governed but all Greenlanders are Danish citizens. Denmark spends close to a billion per year for Healthcare and infrastructure and all Greenlanders have access to Danish postsecondary education. They've been a part of Denmark for 500 years.
Greenland was likely settled in part by inuit that migrated from what is now Canada. Like Canada it cannot be annexed because it was never owned by Murica. An invasion of Greenland is declaring war on Europe. The only other option is for a referendum in which the majority of the country wanted to become Muricans.
It makes no economic sense. The cost of war would far outweigh the cost of a mining company willing to invest there. Considering the adverse weather conditions even that might not be that lucrative.
To end on a more positive note here's a fun video by a group of youtubers that put themselves in extreme experiences. This one on taking a survival course with the Finnish military known as the Ghosts of the Snow. (It's an hour, but the first 10 minutes are interesting).
https://youtube.com/watch?v=9HHI2EuZoWc
As always feel free to comment without insulting any politicians.
I appreciate the calm and matter of fact information that you provide in a world that is confusing.
ReplyDeleteCarl
Codex: Thank you, that's kind of you. I try.
DeleteYes to more clear and credible voices, like yours.
ReplyDeleteCodex: Thank you DB. Carney gave a sobering speech.
DeleteThe desire of you know who to own Greenland is simply that, desire to own whatever he wants. There is no strategic benefit since we already have a military base there. I read recently that the economic reason re it's resources is also a boondoggle. Because of its topography, weather, etc, mining would be expensive and difficult negating the benefit of acquiring the minerals. Which is why it isn't already being done. And then there's the irony of the statement by another you know who that just because they landed a boat there 500 years ago does not grant them ownership. The only bright spot re Greenland is that for certain Rs that's going too far.
ReplyDeleteCodex: It's a bit more complex then that. You're not wrong, but Russia is a serious threat. Right now any military response needs the approval of the Danes and Europeans don't want another war. So they're slow and careful. Any mining also needs the approval of the EU due to environmental protection. And that is a simplified version.
DeleteThere's also the possibility that it won't melt as fast as the rest of the Arctic. It's a mess.
P.S.@Ellen I don't know enough about geology and mining to really give any facts, but am also reading that it might be at least 50 years before anything can start (due to ice) and there might be Uranium mixed in which makes it unusable.
DeleteAn invasion of Greenland would end NATO as currently constituted, weakening all parties catastrophically. Could this be the ultimate goal of shadow players? Or have I read too many espionage thrillers. Truly it makes no sense to me most days.
ReplyDeleteCodex: Russia would benefit. The US would have to leave Nato first to invade. I think the interest is mostly expanding the base. I have a previous post as an introduction. Thrillers get inspired from somewhere, so there may be a strategy no one is aware of. Who knows. I wish I could just think about art and books.
DeleteOften folks don't understand the complexities of why International Relations and Investment in Protecting one another is vital. I often think such folks aren't exposed to much so they're basing most of their opinions on ignorance and misunderstandings, so they can easily be Gaslit and Believe the Spin of faulty Media information. I've just been shocked by what so many have come to Believe that is total BS and not tethered to Reality at all, or that some would rather Believe a Lie becoz they can't handle the Truth.
ReplyDeleteCodex: Exactly. I couldn't have said it better. It goes beyond protecting. Trading is important and has given us prosperity we took for granted.
Delete