Greenland

Something dark keeps growing in the Greenland ice. And it’s melting the frozen mass at an unexpected speed

by

Greenland was for centuries synonymous with immobility, a territory that seemed oblivious to the passage of time, protected by an ice sheet so vast that even polar explorers could see it. like something eternal. From the first Inuit settlements to the European expeditions of the 19th century, the island was more a symbol of resistance than change, a place where the landscape imposed its own rules. Precisely for that reason, any alteration On its surface today it has a historical weight that goes far beyond what appears at first glance. A dark spot on the ice. Something seemingly insignificant is growing on the immense Greenland ice sheet, but with a disproportionate effect: microscopic algae that dye the snow green, red or grayish brown and reduce its ability to reflect solar radiation. In a warming Arctic up to four times more faster than the rest of the planet, this so-called “dark zone” accelerates the loss of hundreds of billions of tons of ice each year, directly contributing to sea level rise and adding a new layer of complexity to an already destabilized climate system. Dust, nutrients and a cycle. counted the new york times last week that much of the latest research shows that the wind blows phosphorus-rich dust from the rocky fringes discovered on the margins of Greenland into the ice, fueling algal blooms. Here’s the crux of it all, because as the ice melts, also releases trapped nutrients for decades or centuries in its deep layers, creating a kind of vicious cycle: one where more melting releases more food, algae proliferate, the ice darkens and melts even faster. This mechanism, time and time again, turns warming into a self-accelerating process that is difficult to stop once it has started. The measurable impact of a microscopic phenomenon. In southwest Greenland, one of the fastest melting regions, algae already explain about 13% of runoff water generated by summer thaw. In fact, studies published in journals such as Environmental Science and Technology and Nature Communications have shown that even minute amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen, released from the ice or transported through the air, are enough to sustain these biological communities, suggesting that the phenomenon could extend to areas much wider of the cap. A climate problem. Plus: ice darkening does not occur in a political or economic vacuum. The retreat of sea ice around Greenland is opening new sea routes and facilitating access to mineral, oil and gas resources, increasing the strategic interest for the region. Any additional industrial activity could release, for example, soot and particles that further aggravate the darkening of the ice, accelerating a process that, in the worst case scenario, could contribute to a global rise in sea level of up to seven meters if the ice sheet completely disappeared. What is known… and what is not yet. The scientists match in which algae are not the cause of global warming, but rather a consequence which amplifies its effects, while underlining that the root of the problem continues to be the burning of fossil fuels on the planet. However, it is still unknown precisely to what extent this “dark spot” can expand and how to integrate your impact in sea level rise models. Meanwhile, Greenland seems to offer us a most ominous warning (another one): that even the smallest changes, those invisible to the naked eye, can tip the balance of one of the largest and most fragile systems on the planet. Image | Jenine McCutcheon/University of Waterloo In Xataka | Why we find 50,000 meteorites in Antarctica if they fall the same all over the planet: ice has the answer In Xataka | Antarctica launches its “Doomsday Vault”: a sanctuary at -50 °C to save the memory of the glaciers

The biggest geopolitical risk on the planet is not Greenland. It’s a smaller island with a disturbing neighbor: Taiwan

by

Throughout the cold warthere were points on the map whose real value was not measured by their size, but by what could be triggered if someone tried to force the situation. Today, one of those places once again concentrates gazes, calculations and uncomfortable silences among the great powers. and it is not in Greenlandbut on a smaller island. The global risk enclave. The tension between United States and China is concentrating increasingly evident in Taiwan, a territory small in size but enormous in strategic consequences. While Washington allows itself dramatize scenarios secondary in the Arctic, Chinese military maneuvers around the island they have been become routineincreasingly aggressive and similar to real blocking or maximum pressure tests. The absence of clear and quick responses from the White House projects a dangerous sign in a context where deterrence depends less on formal declarations than on immediate political reflections. The deterrence that is called into question. The contrast between Trump’s political lukewarmness and the warnings of the US military apparatus itself has opened a visible crack. The Telegraph said that Pentagon commanders have been warning for some time that China is preparing to be able to fight and win a conflict over Taiwan before the end of the decade, although that diagnosis does not always translate into credible public messages. This dissonance reduces the perceived cost of a Chinese action and leaves open the possibility of a calculation error on Xi Jinping’s part, especially if he interprets American caution as a lack of will. Taiwan as a key piece. Taiwan’s importance to the United States is not symbolic, but rather structural. We are talking about an advanced democracy in a region dominated by authoritarian regimes, one that houses the core of world production advanced semiconductor and is part of the first island chain that limits military projection China in the Pacific. From that perspective, the fall would be a direct blow to the global economy, Western technological superiority and Washington’s strategic credibility in Asia. Taiwan Navy It’s not 1996 anymore. Unlike previous crises, when American naval and air superiority was overwhelming, today the balance is much tighter. China has built a navy larger than the American in number of ships, an air force with hundreds of fifth generation fighters and, above all, a massive arsenal conventional missiles capable of hitting bases, ports and fleets at great distances. Although the United States continues to spend more on defense, lower Chinese industrial costs and its geographic proximity to the theater of operations significantly erode that advantage. The “logistics” weapon. The New York Times recalled in a column that one of the factors that moderated Beijing’s behavior for years was its dependence on critical raw materials from countries aligned with the West, especially Australian iron ore. That brake is weakening as China secure supplies alternatives from Africa, reducing their vulnerability to sanctions or blockades in the event of conflict. The result: an environment in which the economic costs of a war over Taiwan, while enormous, are already They are not so deterrent for Beijing as they were in the past. No clear winner. The open simulations and internal leaks From Washington they agree on a most uncomfortable diagnosis: if necessary, a war over Taiwan it would be devastating even for those who managed to impose their immediate objective. China could fail in invasion, but the United States and its allies would pay a military price not seen since World War II, with massive losses of aircraft, ships and personnel. Taiwan, even if it managed to resist, would be deeply damaged as a country and as a global economic engine, dragging the world into a prolonged crisis. The island that weighs the most. All this explains why Taiwan is, by far, the increased geopolitical risk of the planet at this time and a strategic priority, surely far above scenarios like greenland. It is not about territory, or not only, but about credibility, balance of power and stability of the international system between two superpowers. And, on that board, every gesture of ambiguity counts, and every sign of weakness can bring closer a conflict that no one would win on paperbut whose consequences would affect everyone. Image | Pexels, 總統府 In Xataka | China has just shown the world that it “plays” in another league: it only needs one soldier to control 200 drones in combat In Xataka | China’s best weapon doesn’t fire a single bullet: 300km ‘moving wall’ to close sea routes instantly

Now that we know what is going to happen in Greenland, the most surprising thing is the name of the winners: Russia and China

by

If the Trump’s words in Davos are confirmed, it seems that “nothing” is going to happen in Greenland. This leaves another reading that is beginning to gain strength among analysts: that the threats from the United States to force control of Greenland they have opened a crack which, without needing to fire a single shot or lift a single finger, immediately benefits two nations. The geopolitical gift. While Washington has presented the move as a maneuver to stop your rivalsin Europe it is interpreted as a direct threat to the sovereignty of an ally and to the very credibility of NATO. Meanwhile, in Moscow and Beijing it is read as proof that the Western order no longer holds about shared rules, but about impulses, blackmail and force. In this climate, the simple debate about “who’s in charge” and “how far the American umbrella extends” erodes the cohesion that for decades had been the main strategic brake (at least on paper) for Russia in Europe and the biggest structural obstacle for China in its global struggle. Russia far ahead. It we have counted before. In the Arctic, Russia is not starting from scratch or playing for the future: it is already installed and has been operating for years with a material and geographical advantage that the United States can’t match quickly. Moscow has a consolidated military presence in the north, with bases, infrastructure, operational experience and an integrated defense logic around its sea routes, its resources and its strategic deterrence, in addition to key assets such as its Northern Fleet and the symbolic and technical weight of having used the region as a space for testing and projection since the soviet era. So when Washington turns Greenland into an open crisis, Russia watches. two things at the same time: the opportunity to weaken Western unity and the risk that the Arctic will go from being a terrain of contained competition to a zone of direct confrontation, one in which any miscalculated move accelerates militarization and possible escalation. The Russian method. The Russian reaction to the tension over Greenland has been marked by a combination of irony, enthusiasm and cold calculation, like someone who suddenly finds a perfect lever to improve your position without visible effort. The message that is repeated around the Kremlin is transparent: the best thing that can happen to Russia is for the United States and Europe to dedicate themselves to fight among themselvesbecause that, first of all, distracts from Ukraine, poisons cooperation and pushes allies to distrust American leadership. In that framework, they counted in AP that Russian propaganda allows itself the luxury of celebrating that “Atlantic unity is ending,” of joking that Europe has no real tools against Washington and to present the entire episode as a didactic scene in which Russia’s rivals tangle themselves. Greenland as a smoke screen. One of the most immediate benefits for Moscow is that focus shift political and media: when the European agenda is filled with Greenland, Ukraine loses diplomatic oxygen and negotiation space. The tension is forcing European leaders to put out internal fires rather than focus on the war, and that rreduces pressure collective action on Russia just when Moscow is seeking concessions or relief in any negotiation process. Furthermore, the simple fact that NATO is discussing whether or not to “block” American expansion introduces a disturbing idea: that the alliance is not an automatic pact of trust, but rather a kind of club where the strongest can change the rules if it suits them. Putin and Trump. Russia, furthermore, seems to be watching your tone with the White House because his priority is not to clash with Trump while he tries to obtain advantages over Ukraine and rebuild his relationship with Washington. That is why he avoids openly condemning the pressure on Greenland (a few hours ago Putin said that they care about “zero”) and, instead, wraps it in a comfortable ambiguity. It is a position that, although passive, in reality It’s strategicbecause it lets the conflict cook within the Western camp without Moscow appearing as the instigator. At the same time, introduce a dangerous idea in the debate: that international legality is secondary to the will of a great power, something that Russia knows well and cynically exploits when it suits it. China doesn’t need Greenland. From Beijing, the opportunity is not so much in “winning” Greenland, but in observing how the United States fights with its allies and devalues ​​the system that gave it a strategic advantage over China. They remembered in the Guardian that, in Chinese eyes, the ideal scenario is not to conquer Arctic territory, but see how it breaks the discipline of the Western bloc, because the great multiplier of American power has always been its network of alliances. China may have interests in polar routes, research and resources, but its biggest prize It’s political: a Europe more distrustful of Washington, open to its own balance and more tempted to take refuge in trade as a lifeline in a world of tariffs and blackmail. The Polar Silk Road. It we have counted before. China has been building an Arctic story for years that presents it as a legitimate actor, with official roles where it defines itself. as “almost arctic” and with the promise of a Polar Silk Road supported by melting ice, new sea routes and faster transport between Asia and Europe. There is concrete signs of that ambition, such as the use of Northern Maritime Route to drastically shorten travel timesalthough that route depends largely on Russia and its control over the corridor. In that sense, each crisis between the United States and Europe is not only a political problem: it is an economic window for Beijing, because it messes up rules, pushes Europe to look for alternatives and gives China room to present itself as a “stable” trading partner, although that stability may be more rhetorical than real. Davos and a resignation. He clash over Greenland It is aggravated … Read more

25 million dollars and a commitment to Greenland

by

Ironies of history, it is more likely that Donald Trump’s wish incorporating Greenland into the United States will be more surprising to us, the citizens of 2026, than to those of a century ago. The reason: by then Americans and Danes were more than used to reading news about the sale of overseas territory from the European kingdom to Washington. Of course, more than a century ago the focus was not on Greenland, but on much warmer waters and with a strategic value that the Arctic island completely lacked at that time. The land in dispute was Virgin Islands. Nothing new under the sun. The protagonists, the context, even the tone change, but not the background. Although the Europeans of 2026 will be shocked expansionist plans of Trump and his desire to seize Greenland from Denmark (well through a “purchase”pulling a checkbook, or asserting its military power) the truth is that it is not the first time that both countries have been involved in a dispute for Danish territory to remain under American control. It actually happened not so long agobetween the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, although the focus at that time was on the warm waters of the Caribbean. The Danish Western Islands. To understand it you have to travel to the other end of the Atlantic and go back to late 17th centurywhen Denmark took control of a group of islands in the Caribbean Sea. Over time its domain extended to the insulas of Saint John, Saint Thomas, Saint Croix and dozens of islets and cays that formed what was called Danish Western Islands. Although the archipelago in question was thousands of kilometers from Copenhagen, for a time its domain represented a lucrative business based on two big legs: slaves and sugar plantations. From good business to heavy burden. That changed over time. In 1848 the territory lived a revolt which ended up leading to the abolition of slavery in the colony, which added to other economic factors (such as the fall in the price of sugar) made the archipelago less attractive. At least in the eyes of the metropolis, which continued to face the costs of its administration. That was the situation when in 1867 the US Secretary of State, William H. Sewardknocked on the door of Denmark interested in the ownership of the islands. A long tug of war. “After the Civil War it was time to consider strategic conditions in the Caribbean and Seward focused on both the annexation of Mexico and possible expansion into the Caribbean,” explains to BBC the historian Hans Christian Berg. In principle, the winds were favorable for Washington: Denmark’s power was declining and the US faced a new stage, convinced that it had to reaffirm its regional power and erase European influence. For a time the pact to acquire the Danish Western Islands seemed to go ahead, crystallizing in a treaty that contemplated the sale in exchange for 7.5 million of dollars in gold. However, both parties were left wanting. The agreement ended up foundering in the US Senate. The reason actually had little (or nothing) to do with the Virgin Islands. The controversy over the recent purchase of Alaska and Seward’s support for the president Andrew Johnson took their toll on the operation with Denmark, which did not achieve the necessary political support. It wouldn’t be the first time. In 1900 both countries signed a new treaty which also went to waste when it did not obtain the endorsement of the Danish Upper House. It took a global conflagration for that to change. The fateful RMS Lusitania. Things changed at the beginning of the 20th century, during the First World War. To be more precise (and as you recognize the US State Department itself) the turning point was the wreck of the RMS Lusitaniaa British ship that was torpedoed by a German U-Boat submarine while traveling from New York to Liverpool. That episode not only influenced American public opinion regarding the First World War, it also made it understand how much was at stake in controlling the Caribbean Sea. “The purchase of the Danish West Indies once again became an important issue in US foreign policy. The president W.Wilson and Secretary of State Lansing feared that the German Government might annex Denmark, in which case the Germans could secure the West Indies as a naval or submarine base from which to launch attacks against shipping in the Caribbean and Atlantic,” explains the US Department of State Archive. By hook or by crook. No sooner said than done. In 1915 Lansing sounded out Denmark to facilitate (once again) the purchase of the Caribbean archipelago. The new attempt did not go down well in the European metropolis, leading Washington to adopt a tone reminiscent of that assumed by Donald Trump today: “Concerned by recent events and Danish reluctance, Lansing suggested that if Denmark was not willing to sell, the US could occupy the islands to avoid their confiscation by Germany,” remember the file. It was enough for Copenhagen to agree to the sale, which crystallized in a treaty signed in New York in August 1916. The agreement received the blessing of the Lower Houses of both countries and months later it was submitted to a Danish plebiscite (note, not in the Danish Virgin Islands, affected by the decision). Once all the procedures were closed and with the approval of Cristian X, the archipelago was under the control of Washington in March 1917. To this day the renowned US Virgin Islands remain a “unincorporated territory” from the USA. 25 million dollars… and something more. In exchange, the US paid Denmark 25 million dollars in gold coins, which would be equivalent, according to Bloomberg estimatesto 630 million today. In the last days there are who has remembered However, another point of the pact signed by Copenhagen and Washington. As remember the BBCthe US promised not to interfere with Denmark extending “its political and economic interests” … Read more

AEMET has set an expiration date on Borrasca Harry. But what’s coming from Greenland is about to begin

by

On January 17 and 18, AEMET issued a series of special warnings due to a Mediterranean storm that has been causing problems in the Balearic Sea for days. But, in those notices, there was something else: a problem. And no, it’s not just that we are going to the most unstable week of what we have had in winter. And then? In those noticesAEMET describes a blocking pattern that was elongating a trough and favoring a retrograde DANA. That was Harry, a high-impact storm forming in the Mediterranean (and already is leaving snow near the coast). According to AEMET estimatesthe accumulations can be on the order of 200 liters in 48 hours in the Girona area and more than 20 centimeters of new snow in southeastern Iberian. But Harry ends tomorrow and that’s where the problems begin. The jet returns. Because, in parallel, the anticyclonic blockade between Greenland and the Scandinavian peninsula will interrupt the zonal flow and force the polar jet to lower latitude. In fact, it will descend so much that it will focus directly on Spain, guiding fronts and cold masses from the north. Or, rather, we are talking about cold advection with synoptic trajectories. These models still lack consistency, of course: but the models and outputs are converging in this scenario. What should we expect? Right now, the point of greatest risk It is the Mediterranean coast. Although Harry already has an expiration date, it is a storm that can be very intense locally and can cause problems in short basins (with rapid floods). Not to mention the difficulties at the coastal level and the gusts of wind. Then, if we are a little lucky, it will be reactivated.Atlantic storm machine and a train of storms will begin to enter from the west. If we are unlucky, the cold will return. But, well, at the gates of February it is still within what is expected. Image | ECMWF In Xataka | After the cold comes something much more problematic: the explosive cyclogenesis that AEMET predicts for the Mediterranean

The US invaded Venezuela with perfidy. A letter suggests that there is something simpler and more primitive with Greenland: vendetta

by

The greenland crisis has ceased to be a diplomatic scuffle and has become an open pulse between Washington and its allies, and that means an accelerated deterioration of trust within NATO. While Denmark has sent more troops to the islanda letter points to an idea that was not in the pools: that the germ of everything comes from a question of revenge. The Atlantic Rift. The positions at the moment are clear: Trump insists that the United States must “acquire” a strategic island rich in minerals, while Denmark and Greenland repeat that not for sale and they warn of a climate in which the threat of force is no longer taboo. For its part, Europe is beginning to speak not only of political indignation but of economic responses and security, because what seemed like a campaign eccentricity is becoming a structural crisis regarding sovereignty, alliances and credibility. Meanwhile, Russia observe with popcorn and from the sidelines how the Western bloc is fracturing from the inside. From perfidy to vendetta. The most disturbing element is not only the objective, but the real motive that Trump has hinted at: if in other recent scenarios Washington was able to resort to perfidy (the engineering of deception, the calculated movement, the operation that is disguised as something else) here something simpler, cruel and primitive appears, the vendetta. We don’t say it, Trump himself has linked his determination not to have received the Nobel Peace Prize in a letter to the Norwegian minister, as if a symbolic humiliation was enough to break the mental brakes and justify him no longer feeling obliged to “think purely about peace.” That emotional turn turns everything in unpredictable: It would no longer be a cold dispute over the Arctic, but a personal reckoning elevated to doctrine, an explosive mix of wounded narcissism and state power that degrades any rational alibi and leaves its allies without stable ground on which to negotiate. The economic threat and the language of blackmail. The escalation takes shape in a pressure scheme that sounds more like an ultimatum than diplomacy between partners: as we counted yesterdayTrump threatens 10% tariffs on Denmark and several European countries, with the promise to raise them to 25% if there is no agreement. Not only that. In parallel, he reserves the “no comment” when asked about the use of forcea silence that functions as a threat in itself, because it allows each gesture to be interpreted as preparatory. Europe, for its part, is beginning to speak of countermeasures and activate pressure instruments commercial, making it clear that he understands the movement as political extortion. In other words, sovereignty becomes a currency, and the economy becomes the mechanism to bend the will of an ally. Nuuk The gesture that turned everything on. counted the financial times A revealing story this morning. Apparently, the spark that lit everything is almost ridiculous because of the size of figures: the dispatch of a British soldier, two Finns and small Danish, French and German detachments arriving for an exercise conceived as a sign of commitment to Arctic security and solidarity with Copenhagen. The European message intended to be reassuringas if to say that the region is not neglected and that the allies take the northern flank seriously, but Trump interpreted as a challenge responding with commercial retaliationas if this symbolic presence were an anti-American provocation. There appeared a central problem of the crisis: what for some is a defensive gesture, for the White House becomes an affront that would confirm its story that Europe stands up to it. The island is militarized. Faced with this aggressive reading, Denmark has upped the ante on the ground with a more visible and politically charged reinforcement. sending more soldiers of combat and the head of the Army himself to Greenland. They add to the approximately 200 troops already deployed between Nuuk and Kangerlussuaq in the framework by Arctic Endurancewhich is also accelerated and intensified precisely by the Trump’s verbal escalationas if the exercise went from routine to warning. In parallel, the images of soldiers patrolling the center of Nuuk and the presence of a Danish warship patrolling the coast They project the feeling that the island has entered a new phase, where normality is militarized without the need for shots. NORAD moves pieces. The TWZ analysts They also emphasized another movement that occurs at the same time. NORAD advertisement sending troops and aircraft to Greenland to support “long-planned” and “routine” activities, stressing that they are not linked to the current crisis. The timing may be real, but the political effect is inseparable from context: In the midst of escalation, any American movement on the island seems like a message, and any explanation sounds like a textbook formula. The “security argument.” As the weeks passed, in addition, the Trump’s strategic pretext It is beginning to sound increasingly hollow, because Europe is trying to cover the same need (reinforcing the Arctic) and yet American pressure does not relax. In fact, for many observersthe European shipment uncovers the real reason, because if the problem was that Greenland was exposed to Russia or China, then a greater allied presence should be the solution, not the trigger. Chagos as ammunition. The Guardian had a few hours ago another way: Trump has reinforced his vision of the world using the case of the Chagos Islands as a moral example in reverse, calling of “great stupidity” for the United Kingdom to cede sovereignty to Mauritius even if it maintains the island of Diego García leased 99 years for the joint base. In his story, that act shows weaknessand that weakness is what China and Russia “only understand” as opportunity, so Greenland “must” be acquired for national security reasons. The logic is simplistic: neither law nor history rules, but force, and what is given by agreement is interpreted as a kind of shameful concession, even if it is an arrangement to sustain a military installation. Meanwhile, in Greenland. dSince the beginning of the crisis, … Read more

What the war in Ukraine has not achieved, Greenland has done. Europe has taken out its “commercial bazooka” against the US: Ozempic

by

For more than a year, Europe has become accustomed to living trapped in an uncomfortable balance where depends on the United States for its security through NATO, to sustain the Ukrainian effort and, ultimately, for the strategic architecture that has protected it since the Cold War. Now Greenland has done jump into the air part of the rhetoric. Europe and the counterattack. The crisis has erupted when Trump has returned to ignite a trade war using Greenland as an excuse and as an ultimatum: either some type of “agreement” that brings the island closer to the United States is accepted, or tariffs arrive first from 10% and after 25% a group of European countries designated by a minimal but symbolic gesture, to participate in Arctic maneuvers with Denmark. What until recently many in Europe preferred to interpret as bravado or negotiating tactics becomes an explicit message of political pressure that no longer leaves room for the fantasy of appeasement. And there appears the real change: what the Ukrainian war had not completely achieved (a frontal European response to American reprisals) Greenland is doing itbecause the coup is not against a geopolitical adversary but against alliesand because it puts Europe before a brutal choice: accept the blackmail and normalize it, or respond even if it hurts, even knowing that it continues to depend on Washington for its security and to contain Russia. The European bazooka. There is no doubt, the European reaction It is not born from enthusiasm, but from the feeling that there are no longer many other solutions: Greenland cannot be “handed over”, nor can Denmark sell an autonomous territory against the will of its population, and the very idea that an acquisition could be forced due to commercial threats opens a pandora’s box that affects the entire continent. In this context, Brussels dusts off for the first time his toughest tool, the so-called anti-coercion instrumentdesigned precisely to punish political pressures through rapid and forceful economic measures. on the table two paths appear that mark a leap in mentality: reactivate a package of tariffs worth of 93,000 million of euros already prepared and, if the escalation continues, go further of goods and target services, investment and even access to the European market for large American companies. The European message tries to be twofold, seeking a de-escalation that avoids an open clash, but making it clear that, if Trump turns trade into a method of extortion, Europe can also respond strongly. The crash that nobody wanted. The most disturbing thing about this episode is not only the economic impact of a tariff war, but the strategic fracture that it implies: Europe knows that a serious trade conflict with the United States will would infect NATOto Ukraine and the entire deterrence architecture against Russia. That is why the continent moves cautiouslycalling emergency meetings, preparing the ground for talks in Davos and even delaying previously agreed trade detente measures. But the core of the problem is that Trump is not negotiating a percentage or a clause: you are elevating a territorial objective to a national priority, presenting it as a requirement to “improve the security” of the Arctic, and implicitly denying that Europe can guarantee it. In this framework, Europe tries not to break the bridge, but assumes that it can no longer behave as if the bridge were indestructible. The sovereignty of Greenland. We’ve told it before: while Washington talks about “acquisition,” Greenland insists that its future belongs to them, that many they want more independencenot change flag. This point is essential because it explains why Europe doesn’t want to give in: it is not just about Danish pride or formalisms, but about sovereignty and democratic legitimacy, as well as an explosive precedent within the Union itself. The tariff threattherefore, works as an attempt to isolate Denmark and make it the weak link, although it has the opposite effect: it reinforces the idea that if you are attacked over a strategic issue, you will be respond as a block. And therein lies the paradox: instead of dividing, the pressure forces coordination, especially between Paris and Berlin, which push a harder line while others ask for time to see if Trump offers a “way out” before the punishment is activated. The “Ozempic bomb”. Amid the noise of bases, submarines and Arctic routes, the unexpected weapon appears: Denmark is not a commercial giant, but it exports products to the United States that directly affect the pocket and everyday lifeand that turns any tariff into a kind of political boomerang. The half of its sales Recent visits to Washington focus on medicines, vaccines, insulin and related products, because Novo Nordisk is there, the Danish economic engine and the factory of the global phenomenon Ozempic and Wegovy. That dependency converts Denmark in a kind of de facto “pharmaceutical state”: Your private growth and employment largely revolve around that industry, and any trade turbulence impacts both sides. If Trump makes these medicines more expensive, the blow will not stay in Europe: it enters the US market like health inflation and social unrest, just where the political margin is most fragile. And that is why Ozempic, more than a product, works as symbol of interdependence reality that makes a tariff war not just a lever, but rather a grenade. Lego and other reminders. The same effect is seen with Lego and other products Danes beloved in the United States, or with less visible but critical sectors such as hearing aids and certain medical equipment. In the real world, supply chains do not respect emotional boundaries: many parts are manufactured in different countries, assembled in others, and sold in markets that depend on global logistics. This means that tariffs punish not only the “enemy” exporter, but also companies, distributors and consumers. Trump can imagine squeezing Denmark to bend it, but the pressure leaks out in prices and disruptions in the US market itself, and also erodes the relationship with an ally that already offers military access in … Read more

Greenland has 1.5 million tons of rare earths. The problem is that there are no roads to get to them.

by

The geopolitics of the 21st century has found a new and icy epicenter. After the capture of Nicolás Maduro In Venezuela earlier this month, Donald Trump’s administration has turned its diplomatic aggressiveness northward. The goal It’s an old longingtake control of Greenland, which the White House defines as an “ingot” of strategic resources. However, the physical reality is inescapable since beneath a complex geology lies an absolute lack of basic infrastructure that turns any extraction plan into a logistical chimera. The 93-mile wall of asphalt. Since the Republican Party introduced the Make Greenland Great Again Act In 2025, pressure on Denmark has escalated to even suggesting the use of force. As explained by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)Washington has elevated Greenland to the category of “national security” need. This position, which some analysts already call the “Donroe Doctrine”, seeks to secure the hemisphere as an exclusive sphere of influence against Russian icebreakers and Chinese expansion. But obsession collides with engineering. According to CSIS dataGreenland—a territory three times the size of Texas—only has 93 miles (150 kilometers) of roads in total. There are no railways and the settlements are isolated from each other by land. Diogo Rosa, researcher at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, warns in Fortune that any mining project must create these accessibilities from scratch. This includes ports capable of handling industrial volumes (Narsaq port barely moves 50,000 tons a year) and local power plants, since the current electrical grid is unable to sustain a large scale mine. The enigma of eudialite. Even if roads were built to reach neodymium and terbium, the mineral itself poses an unprecedented technical challenge. Greenland’s rare earth elements are typically encapsulated in a complex type of rock called eudialite. Unlike carbonatites that are mined elsewhere in the world with proven methods, no one has developed a profitable process to extract them from eudialite, as explained by analysts. For this reason, experts like Javier Blas describe the enthusiasm of the Trump administration as a “Optimistic PowerPoint”. Blas maintains that the island is not a Wonderland of raw materials: if after decades of exploration no large mining company has operated successfully, it is because the processing costs—which would exceed 1 billion dollars—devour any profits. Added to this is that deposits as Kvanefjeld They are co-located with radioactive uranium, which has generated massive social rejection and environmental laws that block the projects. The mirage of mining wealth. Currently, Greenland only has two active mines: an anorthosite mine and the Nalunaq gold mine. The latter, operated by the Canadian Amaroq Minerals, managed to produce 6,600 ounces of gold in 2025, exceeding its own forecasts. But as Scott Dunn, CEO of Noveon Magnetics, points out, in Fortunethe success of gold (a high-value, low-volume mineral) is not scalable to rare earths. While Washington makes long-term plans in the Arctic, companies like Dunn’s are already producing magnets in Texas with materials sourced outside China, demonstrating that the solution to technological supply could be closer to home than the Polar Circle. The China factor: the silent owner. The great strategic obstacle to the “Donroe Doctrine” is not only the ice, but that Beijing is already there. China controls near the 90% of global supply of rare earths and has known how to play its cards in the Greenlandic subsoil through litigation. The company Energy Transition Minerals (ETM), with significant Chinese capital, holds an arbitration international against Greenland, demanding historic compensation of $11.5 billion — four times the island’s GDP — following the ban on uranium mining in 2021. This legal dispute places the island in a geopolitical clamp: Washington wants control to expel Beijing, but the latter is already blocking the richest deposits through business actions and prior exploitation rights. The navigable Arctic: an unexpected ally? Paradoxically, the hoax Climate change is what is accelerating the White House’s plans. Greenland is warming much faster than the rest of the planet, and melting ice is transforming the Arctic into a strategic trade corridor. As the New York Times reportsthe Polar Silk Road is no longer a projection: in October 2025, a Chinese ship reached Great Britain from the north in just 20 days, saving 40% of the time compared to the Suez Canal. This new connectivity turns Greenland into an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” in the middle of new sea routes. However, sea ice melting does not solve the problem on land. In the north of the island, extreme weather continues to force any mining machinery to hibernate for six months a year, maintaining profitability like an “optical illusion.” The treasure behind the ice wall. The attempt to take control of Greenland seems to hit a wall of environmental laws, hostile geology and, above all, a total absence of basic infrastructure. The Trump administration has invested hundreds of millions in mining companies, but the results remain buried under layers of permafrost. As Anthony Marchese summarizes in Fortune: “If you go to Greenland for its minerals, you’re talking about billions of dollars and an extremely long time.” While the White House sells the island as the definitive trophy of the new technological Cold War, the technical reality of 2026 dictates a simpler sentence: the island’s greatest treasure remains protected not by weapons or treaties, but by the lack of a road that reaches it. Image | Unsplash Xataka | The US has decided that Europe is its problem in Greenland. Germany wants to convince him that the problem is Russia

Europe had few options in the face of the US threat in Greenland. Until Germany has remembered Russia with an unprecedented plan

by

Growing pressure from the United States to take over Greenland has transformed a hitherto latent issue into a problem political and strategic of the first order for Europe and NATO, by explicitly placing for the first time the risk of an internal clash between allies. It was known that there were a couple of options on the table as a defense. Germany has just presented another unprecedented one. An unprecedented crisis. The insistence of the US administration on presenting control of the island as a necessity of national security, accompanied by rhetoric increasingly harderhas forced European partners to react not only in defense of Denmark’s sovereignty and Greenland’s right to self-determination, but also to protect credibility of an alliance designed precisely to prevent force from prevailing among its members. The problem is not only territorial, but systemicbecause it raises the extent to which NATO can manage a crisis caused from within without eroding its own foundations. Germany and the allied response. Faced with the difficulty of directly confronting Washington, Berlin has emerged as the actor in charge of articulating a solution that combines political firmness and strategic containment. Germany has chosen to channel the response through NATO. As? proposing a joint mission in the Arctic that makes it possible to strengthen regional security without turning the conflict into a bilateral battle between the United States and Denmark. The initiative seeks to save time, reduce tensions and offer an institutional alternative that frames American concerns within a collective logic, while sending a clear signal that Greenlandic sovereignty is non-negotiable. This German role reflects a commitment to multilateral management of the conflict and to prevent the crisis from leading to an open fracture within the alliance. From the Baltic to the Arctic. The German proposal takes as a direct reference the operation Baltic Sentrylaunched to protect critical infrastructure in the Baltic Sea from sabotage and covert activities linked to Russia and its ghost fleet. The idea is to replicate this scheme in the Arctic through a hypothetical “Arctic Sentry” missionwhich would include Greenland and allow increased surveillance, naval presence and allied coordination in an increasingly disputed region. This approach has a double function: on the one hand, respond to the security concerns raised by Washington about the Russian and Chinese presence in the Arctic, and on the other, prevent those concerns from being used as a pretext for unilateral action. Turning the Arctic into a space of collective management seeks to deactivate the security vacuum narrative that fuels American aspirations. The shadow of Article 4. Although it has not yet been formally activated, the idea of invoke Article 4 of the NATO treaty, which provides for consultations when an ally perceives a threat to its territorial integrity or security, has gained weight in diplomatic debates. The mere possibility of Denmark resorting to this mechanism reflects the seriousness of the situation and the growing nervousness in European capitals. Invoking Article 4 would not imply an automatic military response, but it would force the alliance to address it head on. an internal crisis that many would prefer to manage in silence. The underlying fear is that, if not managed institutionally, the conflict sets a dangerous precedent that normalize pressure between allies and voids the founding principles of NATO. Diplomacy, deterrence and limits. Beyond the military dimension, the European Union has explored diplomatic and economic options to contain the United States, from the reinforcement of political dialogue to the theoretical threat of instruments commercial pressure. However, Europe’s dependence on the American technology, defense and security umbrella drastically reduces the credibility of these tools. Economic sanctions, although powerful on paper, are perceived as unrealistic in a context marked by the war in Ukraine and the need to keep Washington engaged with European security. This imbalance reinforces the idea that the most viable path is to offer shared security solutions, such as the proposed Arctic mission, rather than a direct confrontation that Europe could hardly sustain. Greenland as autonomy. The economic dimension It adds another layer of complexity to the conflict, as Greenland relies heavily on Danish transfers and warily watches American promises of massive investment. From Brussels we study increase financial support European to prevent the island from being trapped in a relationship of dependency with Washington, especially with the prospect of future independence. This effort not only seeks to counteract American economic influence, but also preserve the social and political model that the Greenlanders might want to keep. In this context, the crisis reveals that the battle for Greenland is not only fought in the military field, but also in that of investment, legitimacy and the projection of soft power. A stress test. Altogether, the American pressure over Greenland has exposed the internal tensions of a NATO designed to deter external threats, not manage territorial ambitions of one of its members. The german initiative of transferring the problem to the field of collective security, inspired by the Baltic model, is an attempt to preserve allied cohesion and avoid an existential crisis. However, the simple fact that mechanisms are being considered like Article 4 It demonstrates the extent to which the alliance faces an unprecedented scenario, one in which unity no longer depends only on stopping external adversaries, but on containing power impulses within its own ranks. Image | Program Executive Office Soldier, pathanMinistry of Defense of the Russian Federation In Xataka | After the Nazi occupation, Denmark signed a pact in 1951. Since then, the US can ask for whatever it wants in Greenland In Xataka | Greenland has become an obsession for the United States for a simple reason: they believe in global warming

China has turned the Arctic into its own “Panama Canal.” And that explains the US obsession with Greenland

by

It seems like it was centuries ago, but until not too long ago the Arctic was seen as an inhospitable territory, more associated with school maps and scientific expeditions than with great power disputes. However, accelerated thaw and the changes in routes navigation have turned that apparently marginal region into one of the most sensitive spaces on the geopolitical board, one where decisions made today can define the economic and military balance of the coming decades. Stop being peripheral. Yes, for decades, the Arctic was a space remote, frozen and secondary in global geopolitics, a natural border that separated blocks rather than connecting them, but accelerated thaw has transformed that white void into a strategic corridor where trade, resources and military deterrence overlap. What was once a physical boundary is now an emerging highway that shortens thousands of kilometers between Asia, Europe and North America, and that simple climate change is reordering strategic priorities of the great powers at a speed that has caught many governments off guard. China and the Polar Route. China has identified before anyone else the potential of these new routes and has integrated them into its long-term vision as a “Polar Silk Road”conceived as a functional equivalent to the Panama Canal or the Suez Canalbut under much more flexible conditions because the rules are not yet set. Chinese research vessels, experimental freighters and icebreakers they are already browsing through the High North, collecting oceanographic data, mapping seabeds and testing routes that reduce by half travel times between Asia and Europe, while establishing a presence that, as happened in the South China Sea, begins as scientific and commercial and ends up having inevitable military implications. Submarines, data and war under the ice. The most disturbing element for Washington and its allies is not only trade, but the underground: The Arctic Ocean offers ideal conditions for underwater warfare, with layers of water, variable salinity, and natural noise making sonar detection difficult. The dives of Chinese research submarines under the ice, together with the deployment of “civilian” vessels that in practice function as covert military platforms, point to a clear objective: break the historic American submarine superiority and prepare the ground so that, in the future, Chinese nuclear submarines can operate near the North American continent with greater freedom and less risk. The Sino-Russian alliance. Chinese expansion in the Arctic is amplified by its understanding with Russiawhich provides experience, technology and access to already exploited routes along its northern coast, while receiving in return key industrial and technological support to sustain its war in Ukraine. This axis turns the Arctic into a space where two nuclear powers They coordinate in their own way air, naval and potentially submarine patrols, opening the door to a scenario that was unthinkable during the Cold War: Asian forces with the capacity to rapidly project themselves towards the Atlantic without passing through easily monitored bottlenecks. Greenland as a hinge. In this context, Greenland stops being a frozen and sparsely populated island and become the hinge that controls the eastern flank of the Northwest Passage, the gateway from Europe to that future Arctic highway. Whoever has decisive influence over Greenland can monitor, condition or even block maritime and submarine traffic in one of the most sensitive routes of the 21st century, in addition to housing radars, airports and key sensors for the defense of the American continent. The emergencies. Here comes the Trump’s renewed interest to take over Greenland, which does not respond to an eccentricity or a nineteenth-century imperial impulse, but rather to the recognition of an emerging strategic vulnerability. Washington watches how Beijing advances in the Arctic the same way he did in other settings: arriving early, coming to the table when the rules do not yet exist, and securing positions which then become almost impossible to reverse, which explains the pressure on Denmark, the enlargement of icebreaking capabilities and closer integration of the High North into NATO planning. No locks. In summary, and unlike the Panama Canal, the Arctic is not a closed infrastructure nor regulated by consolidated treaties, but rather a space under construction where the early presence defines future power. For the United States to allow China to consolidate a dominant position on these routes would be to accept that its geographic and naval advantage can be eroded without a single shot, simply by letting the ice melt and others write the rules. Greenland thus appears as the last piece of a bigger puzzle: one where it is not about buying or invading an island, but about deciding who controls trafficsecurity and the balance of power in the next great axis of global trade and war. Image | RawPixel In Xataka | A document clarifies “the Greenland thing” since 1951. Hitler’s Germany made an agreement possible for the US to do whatever it wants In Xataka | The gold of the 21st century is not in Venezuela: China and Russia know it and that is why the US wants Greenland no matter what

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.