Why Trump will get Greenland

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible. Financial geniuses. Monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Because Progressive offers discounts for paying in full, owning a home, and more. Plus, you can count on their great customer service to help you when you need it, so your dollar goes a long way. Visit Progressive.com to see if you could save on car insurance.

Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations. 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 slash special offer. Terms apply. 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 Stephen Miller, his top advisor and the Vice President J.D. Vance have all confirmed that taking Greenland or getting Greenland which 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 Unheard 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 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 he is a little bit concerned about what he's hearing from the Trump administration. Welcome to Unheard, Mr. Dahl. Thank you.

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, 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. 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? 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. Mette Frederiksen, 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.

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 the 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? 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.

course, you have a 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.

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? 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 third.

But we usually skip over that and go straight to the year 1916, when the United States bought the U.S. 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. 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 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. 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 extremist 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?

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 new currency underlying everything is just power, and you have to see how much power you can muster. And so that's the game 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? 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 Street. 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 a militarization of the Arctic, and this is going against the so-called Ilulisat 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. 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? 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 P2Fix base base is much smaller today than it was 25 or...

50 years ago. The same thing goes for the Kangalusuak Air Base, which is also the civilian airport in Greenland. The Americans themselves have a very small military presence today. And my questions 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? 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 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. 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 P2FIG now is they receive satellite signals. And that's really all they do. 50 years ago, they had B-52s in the Thule Air Base. They had nuclear weapons there. They decided they didn't want that. 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? Yeah, it's their constitutional right, and we would not challenge their constitutional right. So if you follow the constitutional procedures, and the 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. 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. 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. Henrik Gahl, thank you so much. Thank you. This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible.

Financial geniuses. Monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Because Progressive offers discounts for paying in full, owning a home, and more. Plus, you can count on their great customer service to help you when you need it, so your dollar goes a long way. Visit Progressive.com to see if you could save on car insurance. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company & Affiliates. Potential savings will vary.

Not available in all states or situations. Cashflow crunch on deck. Small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat with flexible draw. transparent pricing, and control over repayment. Get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondeck.com.

Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondec or Celtic Bank. Ondec does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval. Want to obscure on one of the most effective ad channels out there?

With ACAST Ads Academy, you can learn everything you need to plan and run podcast advertising campaigns completely free. Whether you're new to audio or ready to sharpen your skills, our self-paced courses fit your schedule and finish with an industry-recognized certification. So if you want to grow your expertise and stand out in a competitive industry, head to go.acast.com forward slash academy.

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. Thanks for joining us, Helen. Great to see you again. It's a pleasure to be here, Freddie. What do you think this Greenland rhetoric is about? And why do you think the United States government seems to want it?

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 himself. 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. 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? Well, I think in the short term...

that the geographical position of Greenland in relation to Russian and Chinese assertiveness is the most important. 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 formerly in 1946, and once...

informally, 1955, the United States tried to buy Greenland 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. Denmark is not a state that is 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 it likes, because Denmark has accepted that... Greenland is vital to the security of the United States. 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 US is not investing in it. They've already got the capacity to secure it. Why would they need sovereignty? 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 interestingly 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.

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 centre 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 suffering. 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. 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.

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, and the Trump administration are gonna 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. 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 centre of geopolitical tension, and I think it has... been for the last two decades and particularly actually in the last five years um also 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 can 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 in that sense, it's not surprising that both under a democratic administration...

Harry Truman under Republican administration Dwight Eisenhower, the US made bids to try to take Greenland as its own. 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? 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... 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...

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 realisable on a... 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. 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? Yes, I do. They would much prefer, I think, to buy it than to... 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 Green Line question go. Most broadly, 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...

exercise and up in arms and you might say hysterical that international law is being shredded and the global order is being upended and so on. And then the normal critique to that is, oh, don't be so silly. It was ever thus. This is just realpolitik and there was nice talk around it, but countries have always acted in their own interests and using the power they have available and get over it. Which of those camps do you fit in?

I have pretty little sympathy with the thesis that there's been a rules-based liberal international order since 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 and 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, you know, 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 i just don't think that's a very realistic interpretation um of the the period from 1945 onwards and i think when it comes to like energy questions and resource questions it's pretty much like 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 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...

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 or 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 a straightforward politician had not been a longstanding 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...

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 so in other words Even though it might be true that realpolitik has always been there and the rules-based order was hardly as universal as people pretend, something new and something very profound is still happening here. That's what I think, yeah.

Helen, thank you so much for your time. Pleasure for it. Not sure if you have the experience to start your dream job? Good news. These days, it's the skills that count. Udemy can help you get those in-demand skills. Want to be an AI mastermind? Learn with us. Game developer? We've got you covered. AWS-certified cloud practitioner? We can help you prep.

You'll learn from real world experts who love what they do so that you can love what you do. Go to Udemy.com for the skills to get you started and get set for your dream job. With endless scroll algorithms and AI flooding feeds, podcasting stands out. They're sought, not served. Audiences actively choose to hear trusted voices on topics they care about.

In fact, 72% of listeners say podcasts shape cultural conversations. For marketers, that means podcasts shift brand perception like no other channel. ACAST's Podcast Pulse 2025 report has the proof. Get all the insights at podcast pulse 2025.com. Our next guest is Dr. Pippa Maungren. She is a author, a commentator. She's an economist, former advisor to President George W. Bush, among many other things.

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 Unheard, Pippa. Oh, thank you for having me, Freddie.

Why do you think the United States seems to be so keen on getting 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 cable. 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 the global digital economy. 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

destroy starlings. 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 Patufek. 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.

And why in that case are they not going for Svalbard? 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 Jiyuk Gap. Now, most people don't remember the GI-UK 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 Russia is.

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. It's not enough to have Svalbard and Longbirian. 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 J.D. Vance, whether we agree with it or not, recently said, we don't know who's going to be controlling the nuclear arsenals.

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. That's that's they're not going to come any other way. Intercontinental ballistic missile, nuclear weapons. So when you hear the vice president of the 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. 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 an Islamofascist government anytime soon that are going to direct warheads against the US, he's got his priorities all wrong because that's just not real. 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 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... 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 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.

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 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. 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. Part of this language over Greenland of taking it, of... even hinting at 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. The Steele dossier and all of that. That's the Steele dossier and all of that.

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 is 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, 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? 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 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?

This is why you have to remember in the U.S., we're in this extraordinary moment where the president of the United States is on the brink of accusing, of bringing legal charges against. former heads of the intelligence agencies, and former presidents. Wow. Well, there's a lot to get into there and a lot to think about. But Pippa Malmgren, thank you so much for your time today. Thank you.

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 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. Did you know Tide has been upgraded to provide an even better clean and cold water? Tide is specifically designed to fight any stain you throw at it, even in cold. Butter? Yep. Chocolate ice cream? Sure thing.

Barbecue sauce? Tide's got you covered. You don't need to use warm water. Additionally, Tide Pods let you confidently fight tough stains with new Coldzyme technology. Just remember, if it's got to be clean. It's got to be tied.