Thank you for your thoughtful and informative piece. I’m grateful that our national security and military leaders are focused on the larger strategic picture and thinking long term. This reinforces my view that learning from the lessons of history are critical to our survival as a free nation. Your article brings this into focus. While we may not all agree on the strategy or how the President and his team approach the problems and risks, there are strong arguments for putting the issues relating to the Arctic and its strategic importance on the table now and looking for longer term solutions. And clearly there are complex, multi-faceted issues to solve.
Yes sir. Our goal at SpyTalk is to attempt to illuminate the dark corners of complex topics, because like you say an informed democracy is a stronger democracy. We get better with every engagement with subscribers like yourself. Thank you.
Thank you for a cogent analysis of why Greenland is strategically important. What remains opaque to me is why Trump is pursuing the maximalist strategy that he is undertaking. It seems that he is intent on needlessly splitting the western alliance. He has rejected for now the off ramp afforded by the 1951 treaty. I don’t think this can be sanewashed. He’s nuts. We’re watching a slow motion train wreck of 80 years of diplomacy. What am I missing?
There is a far simpler way to understand Trump's press to acquire Greenland, than that it is some deceptively clever geopolitical strategy to achieve a number of subtle ends that will only be revealed in the decades to come. Then we'll be able to say, "That Donald Trump, he was one sneaky tactical and strategic guy! Wow!"
No, the far simpler explanation is that Trump is bonkers.
It doesn't make any sense to rattle sabers at Denmark. If Trump stormed Copenhagen today and said, "We demand that you permit us to establish 10 bases on Greenland, dredge a new port on the east coast of Greenland, and place 25,000 troops on those bases!", do you know what Denmark (and Greenland) would say?
Denmark and Greenland would say, "sure, why not. let's work out the details, it'll be great."
It was the US which *unilaterally* has been emptying its ten or so Greenland bases in the past 40 years. It's not like Denmark kicked us out. Denmark would probably *like* to have a US-paid-for military presence on Greenland. All we have to do is say, "would this be okay?" and Denmark would simply say, "of course."
The simplest explanation of all of this present smoke and noise is that Trump is bonkers.
Don't make this more complicated than it needs to. be.
Everyone is saying Trump is a maniac now. It is so very obvious. Paul Krugman talked about Sundowning a part of dementia where you are much worse at night. Isn't that when he gets on Truth Social and spews out the most craziness like all night long? In any case, a benevolent hacker might just shut it down at night and protect the US and the world from Trump's crazier rants. Of course, that is not going to stop him in Davos today. I am sure that will be a much reported talk.
Ken, thoughtful article but (isn’t there always a ‘but’?)
I would argue that your assumption that Arctic Ice is melting and will soon allow freedom of navigation in the Arctic is not founded on actual trends and science.
The truth is that the Arctic ice cover is not much different than it was 30 years ago (despite Al Gore and others claiming it will be ‘ice free’ in 2010, 11, …2020 … 2030… 2040). Is it were the case that the Arctic will soon be navigable, why is Russia investing so heavily in nuclear powered Ice Breakers, and why is the US having a crash build out of ice breakers. Arctic Ice cover is cyclical and extrapolation of trends linearly is not valid. The only scenarios that show an ice free Arctic before the 23rd Century are the high emission ones, like RPC 8.5, that are proving to be highly improbable and do not come close to actual trends.
What's missing in your Arctic Ice cover commentary is this: although the area covered by winter ice hasn't changed particularly rapidly, the "old ice" --- multi-season ice --- has thinned dramatically. Although it is alarming that Russia has a nuclear-powered icebreaker (and the US has a paucity of ice breaking capacity in the Arctic), the simpler fact is that Russia's nuke-icebreaker is rapidly becoming obsolete --- because the Arctic is shedding its "old ice". For the Arctic that we're facing, a nuclear powered icebreaker is (exaggerating a bit) like bringing out the howitzer for mosquitos.
It *is* *absolutely* true that the US has neglected its icebreaker fleet, but it's going to be easier to produce Arctic-capable icebreakers today that can handle today's Arctic rather than the Arctic of 50 years ago.
But apparently we need Greenland, right? Despite the fact that, if the US approaced Denmark and said, "we'd like to bring in 200 C130 flights per year to Kangerlussuaq (*), and build an icebreaker port at Sarkak and Ittoqqortoormiit..." the Danes and Greenlanders would probably say, "sure, we can work with that"
(*) I've flown into Kangerlussuaq on a C130. The airport is gigantic. And something that would probably please Trump: Kangerlussuaq has a golf course.
Thank you for taking the time to write and for engaging so thoughtfully with the piece. You are absolutely right that the science is not “settled” in the sense that many people casually use that phrase, and serious people can and do disagree about the scale, pace, and specific mechanisms involved.
From the perspective of how the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff think about the world, however, the operating principle is not to wait for perfect certainty. When I was working in and around the Joint Staff, the institutional mindset was always to avoid uncertainty and, above all, strategic surprise. That means maintaining current strategic, operational, and tactical contingency plans for a very wide range of possible scenarios - including many that may never happen, but would be catastrophic if they did and we were unprepared.
In other words, national security planning is not a referendum on whether any single hypothesis is “proven” beyond all doubt. It is a disciplined exercise in asking, “If this turns out to be wrong, what is the cost? And if it turns out to be right and we did nothing, what is the cost?” Serious institutions plan against downside risk, not just against consensus.
I appreciate you contributing to the conversation in exactly this spirit. Whatever one’s views on climate specifically, we are all trying to make sense of a rapidly changing world, and it is readers and subscribers like you who make SpyTalk an intellectually honest marketplace of ideas rather than an echo chamber.
Thanks again for taking the time to write and for engaging.
How long did it take us to leave Afghanistan? Is it better off with our having been there? Not now it isn't.
The Greenlanders that my friend was telling me about were saying that if the US comes they will move to Denmark. One woman said she would be leaving her parents behind.
Ken
Thank you for your thoughtful and informative piece. I’m grateful that our national security and military leaders are focused on the larger strategic picture and thinking long term. This reinforces my view that learning from the lessons of history are critical to our survival as a free nation. Your article brings this into focus. While we may not all agree on the strategy or how the President and his team approach the problems and risks, there are strong arguments for putting the issues relating to the Arctic and its strategic importance on the table now and looking for longer term solutions. And clearly there are complex, multi-faceted issues to solve.
Yes sir. Our goal at SpyTalk is to attempt to illuminate the dark corners of complex topics, because like you say an informed democracy is a stronger democracy. We get better with every engagement with subscribers like yourself. Thank you.
Did Trump admit we used sound wave weapons in Venezuela during his Economic Forum speech today? At approx minute 25
Added yes I recorded it, Im such a 🤓
It's right after "I'm not supposed to talk about it" LOL
Epstein, Epstein, Epstein !
Thank you for a cogent analysis of why Greenland is strategically important. What remains opaque to me is why Trump is pursuing the maximalist strategy that he is undertaking. It seems that he is intent on needlessly splitting the western alliance. He has rejected for now the off ramp afforded by the 1951 treaty. I don’t think this can be sanewashed. He’s nuts. We’re watching a slow motion train wreck of 80 years of diplomacy. What am I missing?
Yeah. I think he wants Greenland for his AI power plant projects
Tom, you are a “critical thinking” citizen. Thank you for your post.
Good, sensible, and thoughtful analysis. If President Trump lightened up on the rhetoric, I’m sure he’d get what he wants.
Keep up the good work.
There is a far simpler way to understand Trump's press to acquire Greenland, than that it is some deceptively clever geopolitical strategy to achieve a number of subtle ends that will only be revealed in the decades to come. Then we'll be able to say, "That Donald Trump, he was one sneaky tactical and strategic guy! Wow!"
No, the far simpler explanation is that Trump is bonkers.
It doesn't make any sense to rattle sabers at Denmark. If Trump stormed Copenhagen today and said, "We demand that you permit us to establish 10 bases on Greenland, dredge a new port on the east coast of Greenland, and place 25,000 troops on those bases!", do you know what Denmark (and Greenland) would say?
Denmark and Greenland would say, "sure, why not. let's work out the details, it'll be great."
It was the US which *unilaterally* has been emptying its ten or so Greenland bases in the past 40 years. It's not like Denmark kicked us out. Denmark would probably *like* to have a US-paid-for military presence on Greenland. All we have to do is say, "would this be okay?" and Denmark would simply say, "of course."
The simplest explanation of all of this present smoke and noise is that Trump is bonkers.
Don't make this more complicated than it needs to. be.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ranjita-weiss-wendt-b67053288_trump-said-he-reached-a-framework-for-a-activity-7419909533675741184-np3i?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAAXnUrIB7ijcycJnXNAuUGUR1ktO5EFW-9E
Trump mistakenly referred to Greenland as Iceland at least four times today in Davos.
Everyone is saying Trump is a maniac now. It is so very obvious. Paul Krugman talked about Sundowning a part of dementia where you are much worse at night. Isn't that when he gets on Truth Social and spews out the most craziness like all night long? In any case, a benevolent hacker might just shut it down at night and protect the US and the world from Trump's crazier rants. Of course, that is not going to stop him in Davos today. I am sure that will be a much reported talk.
Ken, thoughtful article but (isn’t there always a ‘but’?)
I would argue that your assumption that Arctic Ice is melting and will soon allow freedom of navigation in the Arctic is not founded on actual trends and science.
The truth is that the Arctic ice cover is not much different than it was 30 years ago (despite Al Gore and others claiming it will be ‘ice free’ in 2010, 11, …2020 … 2030… 2040). Is it were the case that the Arctic will soon be navigable, why is Russia investing so heavily in nuclear powered Ice Breakers, and why is the US having a crash build out of ice breakers. Arctic Ice cover is cyclical and extrapolation of trends linearly is not valid. The only scenarios that show an ice free Arctic before the 23rd Century are the high emission ones, like RPC 8.5, that are proving to be highly improbable and do not come close to actual trends.
What's missing in your Arctic Ice cover commentary is this: although the area covered by winter ice hasn't changed particularly rapidly, the "old ice" --- multi-season ice --- has thinned dramatically. Although it is alarming that Russia has a nuclear-powered icebreaker (and the US has a paucity of ice breaking capacity in the Arctic), the simpler fact is that Russia's nuke-icebreaker is rapidly becoming obsolete --- because the Arctic is shedding its "old ice". For the Arctic that we're facing, a nuclear powered icebreaker is (exaggerating a bit) like bringing out the howitzer for mosquitos.
It *is* *absolutely* true that the US has neglected its icebreaker fleet, but it's going to be easier to produce Arctic-capable icebreakers today that can handle today's Arctic rather than the Arctic of 50 years ago.
But apparently we need Greenland, right? Despite the fact that, if the US approaced Denmark and said, "we'd like to bring in 200 C130 flights per year to Kangerlussuaq (*), and build an icebreaker port at Sarkak and Ittoqqortoormiit..." the Danes and Greenlanders would probably say, "sure, we can work with that"
(*) I've flown into Kangerlussuaq on a C130. The airport is gigantic. And something that would probably please Trump: Kangerlussuaq has a golf course.
Thank you for taking the time to write and for engaging so thoughtfully with the piece. You are absolutely right that the science is not “settled” in the sense that many people casually use that phrase, and serious people can and do disagree about the scale, pace, and specific mechanisms involved.
From the perspective of how the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff think about the world, however, the operating principle is not to wait for perfect certainty. When I was working in and around the Joint Staff, the institutional mindset was always to avoid uncertainty and, above all, strategic surprise. That means maintaining current strategic, operational, and tactical contingency plans for a very wide range of possible scenarios - including many that may never happen, but would be catastrophic if they did and we were unprepared.
In other words, national security planning is not a referendum on whether any single hypothesis is “proven” beyond all doubt. It is a disciplined exercise in asking, “If this turns out to be wrong, what is the cost? And if it turns out to be right and we did nothing, what is the cost?” Serious institutions plan against downside risk, not just against consensus.
I appreciate you contributing to the conversation in exactly this spirit. Whatever one’s views on climate specifically, we are all trying to make sense of a rapidly changing world, and it is readers and subscribers like you who make SpyTalk an intellectually honest marketplace of ideas rather than an echo chamber.
Thanks again for taking the time to write and for engaging.
Best regards,
Ken Robinson
Love this thoughtful, educational exchange. That's what SpyTalk is for. Thanks to all.
How long did it take us to leave Afghanistan? Is it better off with our having been there? Not now it isn't.
The Greenlanders that my friend was telling me about were saying that if the US comes they will move to Denmark. One woman said she would be leaving her parents behind.