¡No Pasarán!: 2026

Sunday, January 18, 2026

In 2024, the EU Had a Surplus of 200 Billion Euros with the U.S., says Sébastien Laye; What This Means Is That the Europeans Need the Americans More than the Other Way Around

While Sébastien Laye believes that France’s economic collapse is inevitable and has been calling his country therefore nothing less than an Utter Merde-Show, the French-American member of Republicans Overseas France appeared in the pages of the Valeurs Actuelles weekly, interviewed by Éric Revel.

He points out one particular fact that has undoubtedly been in the mind (not to mention in the strategic plans) of Donald Trump for a very long time: In 2024, the EU had a surplus of 200 billion euros with the U.S.; usually, this would be — mindlessly (by economy-blind politicians and journalists) — presented in Europe as some kind of victory, but what it actually means is that the Europeans need the Americans more than the other way around.

Saturday, January 17, 2026

Bombshell Revelation! Lexington Institute Explains the Exact Event Which Caused Trump 45 to Want to Acquire Greenland; ADDENDUM: Here Is What Is Wrong with Greenland's Status Quo

In a Fox News interview on Thursday, Denmark's foreign minister [finally admitted that] Trump has a point on China and Russia's threat to Greenland. Indeed, none other than the intelligence service of Denmark itself warned last year about Russian and Chinese military goals toward Greenland and Arctic.

Let's be very clear: There is only one conclusion to be drawn from this: when Danish politicians, leaders, and media outlets mocked (or demonized) Trump administration leaders while pooh-poohing American worries about the threat from China and Russia as being "delusional", they were lying. They were lying to the Americans, they were lying to the Danes (to their own people), and (perhaps insert "and/or" here) they were quite possibly lying to themselves.

The Danish politician who compared the USA to China itself, saying one was as bad as the other, is not only lying, he might be batshit bonkers. (Shades of the Cold War, when leftists tried to ridicule the threat posed by the Russians — y'know, the people who, in the words of Sting, "love their children too" — and claimed that the two superpowers "var lige dårlige", were one just as bad as the other. For decades, the Finns and especially the Swedes boasted and bragged about how their countries were non-aligned and neutral, only to suddenly decide, when Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, that being allied to Uncle Sam wasn't that bad anyway.) (Qujanaq for the the Instalink, Sarah…)

Here is the bombshell revelation:

it turns out that in 2017, according to the Lexington Institute's Rebecca Grant,

Greenland’s prime minister flew to Beijing and asked China to bankroll new airports, according to The Wall Street Journal. [To its credit,] Denmark stopped the deal. If anything like that happens again, Greenland will be flying a U.S. flag.

This is a bombshell revelation: Indeed, the 2017 attempt sounds like it is undoubtedly what caused Trump-45 to want to acquire Greenland in the first place. Moreover, Beijing's plans to

Put Chinese submarines in the Arctic and U.S. military bases, data centers and more are suddenly in range. The U.S. will do whatever it takes to halt that threat.

Rebecca Grant does add that Denmark [does come] through when it matters. So the Danes are not all bad — which is not a bad thing to hear.

Now, if you are leaning left (whether American, Danish, or other) and wonder what the fuss is about Beijing building airports or, as the Chinese usually do, harbors, in foreign countries a post from last year explains everything:

You Cannot Understand Trump's Greenland-Panama-Canada Declarations Unless You Recognize the Extent of the China Threat. There is not only the military threat, not excluding that of China building military bases on the tiny islands in the China Sea and, indeed, enlarging them when possible, there is also the "soft" threat, i.e., the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

(By the way, you should check out this blog's China / Greenland posts, notably the one from Thursday on The Donroe Doctrine and Beijing's "Polar Silk Road": Last Month, a Report by None Other than Danish Intelligence Itself Warned About the Russian and Chinese Threat to Greenland and the Arctic (some of which this present post is repeating verbatim).)

The country of Hua Mulan has been engaged in entering into agreements with countries all over the world that turn out to be nothing but a Trojan Horse for penetrating a country's economy.

Beijing approaches a country with limited resources — mainly, but not uniquely, in Asia and Africa — and offers them very good deals with regards to investments. When the country cannot pay its bills, the offer turns out to be a Trojan Horse with Beijing taking over all or part of a city's infrastructure.

But it's not only countries with limited resources; the post about the Extent of the China Threat also mentions the countries in Europe where port terminals have been taken over, partly or wholly, by Beijing — from ports in Greece and Italy to ports in France and Germany.

People around the world were outraged after the 2024 election, when Donald Trump started speaking about his designs on Greenland, Canada, and Panama.

Regarding Panama, what shocked me was not only that the Panama Canal's two harbors on either side of the isthmus were at least partly under Chinese Communist control but that previous administrations had apparently acquiesced to this and, moreover, that no outlet of the mainstream media in any country had seemingly thought that worth reporting. As it happens, it turns out that China is not only trying to junk the Monroe Doctrine, it wants to establish itself as the head of the OAS.

So it sounds like Donald Trump, who is perhaps not as deluded as his critics (both inside the USA and abroad, notably in Denmark itself and in Greenland itself) have been mindlessly repeating, was unwilling to have Trojan Horses on the doorsteps of North America (see also Maduro's Venezuela and its neighboring countries).

If you are still upset about the "paranoia" about China, recall how, after the Civil War, Secretary of State Seward successfully bought Alaska from the Russians. (Imagine how the Cold War might have turned out had the purchase not been successful and had the Russians or, after 1917, the Soviets, been able during the Cold War to post troops, tanks, and missiles on the North American continent. Maybe all Europeans, and even all North Americans, would be speaking Russian!)

In the second half of the 1860s, Seward also attempted to make two other purchases, both from Denmark: The Virgin Islands and, yes, Greenland. Those did not go through (although there was a vote in Saint Croix, Saint John, and Saint Thomas in which the inhabitants voted in favor of U.S. annexation). Fifty years later, Washington tried again. Why would they try at precisely that time? World War I was raging, a conflict that Denmark remained neutral throughout, however the tiny country could never be sure that one belligerent — to wit, the Kaiser's Germany — would not violate its territory and attempt to invade the country.

The fear, for both the Danes and the Yanks, was that if Denmark were defeated and had to surrender, Germany would have access to Denmark's possessions in the New World. Just like Donald Trump does not want the Chinese as his neighbors (whether troops, sailors, or — alleged — civilians), America in 1917 did not want the Germans as theirs (and don't forget that the Germans weren't even Nazis at that time), especially not a navy base so close to the Panama Canal. And so (after discussions during which America had not even entered the war yet), they agreed on the purchase (by a strange coincidence, exactly 100 years before the Greenland government's attempt to invite Chinese onto their island).

The (happily) unfulfilled fear of German invasion during World War I did turn real 25 years later, when Denmark and Norway became Hitler's second and third targets (after Poland) during World War II. As the Danish government came partly or wholly under German control (it's complicated), the country's ambassador to Washington decided — along with, more or less willingly, the two governors of Greenland (North and South), one of whom was my grandfather's cousin — decided to declare his independence from Copenhagen and turn the island into the hands of Washington. (Meanwhile, Britain decided to take control of Denmark's other Atlantic island, Iceland — which, to everybody's surprise, decided to declare its independence a year or so later.)

Why Can't the Americans Simply Continue with the Status Quo Which Has Worked So Well Until Now?

But all of this begs the question — repeated endlessly in Danish circles — of why the Americans cannot simply be, and remain, satisfied with the status quo, which has worked so well for all parties concerned for the past seven or eight decades.

An answer has been provided in a Facebook Post by an author by the name of Michael A Rothman has written on why the 1951 agreement between Washington and Copenhagen doesn't work in the modern age. It appeared in my feed as well as in the feed of many others. Pay particularly attention to 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟭𝟵𝟱𝟭 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹 and what, especially with regards to the 2017 attempt to invite the Chinese to Greenland, 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀.

A few readers, incidentally, have proposed what the ultimate solution for Danish-American relations regarding Greenland should entail. Here is that by one Jessie Cartlidge:

99 year lease with right of first refusal.. Denmark is guaranteed 10% of mineral rights profits. USA gets full unabridged use of land air and sea with duty to protect and defend greenland as. Sovereign territory.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝟭𝟵𝟱𝟭 𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗘𝗡𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗔𝗚𝗥𝗘𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧 — 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗜𝗧 𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗞𝗘𝗗, 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗜𝗧’𝗦 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗘𝗡𝗢𝗨𝗚𝗛 𝗔𝗡𝗬𝗠𝗢𝗥𝗘, 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗪𝗛𝗬 𝗪𝗔𝗦𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗚𝗧𝗢𝗡 𝗜𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗞𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗕𝗜𝗚𝗚𝗘𝗥
⠀
Let’s rewind to 1951.
The United States and Denmark signed a defense agreement over Greenland during the early Cold War.
Not a land grab.
Not colonialism.
A security pact.
⠀
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲:
Denmark retained sovereignty.
The United States assumed responsibility for defense.
Thule Air Base became the crown jewel — America’s northernmost strategic installation.
⠀
𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗗𝗲𝗻𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗯𝘃𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀:
Denmark couldn’t defend Greenland alone.
The Soviet Union was a real threat.
NATO needed early warning and Arctic reach.
⠀
Greenland benefited.
Infrastructure.
Jobs.
Investment.
Protection under the Western security umbrella.
⠀
America benefited even more.
Missile detection.
Radar dominance.
Arctic power projection.
A strategic bridge between North America and Europe.
⠀
That agreement did its job.
It helped win the Cold War without firing a shot.
⠀
𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝗯𝗼𝗱𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗹𝗼𝘂𝗱:
That 1951 agreement was built for a world that no longer exists.
⠀
Here’s a thought exercise — and this is where Washington’s head is right now.
⠀
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝟭𝟵𝟱𝟭 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗲𝘀:
A single primary adversary.
Predictable missile trajectories.
Limited Arctic traffic.
Minimal great-power competition.
A cooperative host nation aligned by default.
⠀
𝗡𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲.
⠀
𝗧𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆’𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆:
Russia is re-militarizing the Arctic.
China calls itself a 𝘯𝘦𝘢𝘳-𝘈𝘳𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳.
Arctic sea lanes are opening.
Rare earth minerals matter more than oil did in 1951.
Space, hypersonics, and undersea cables now define security.
⠀
𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟭𝟵𝟱𝟭 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹:
The U.S. is responsible for defense — but doesn't control sovereign decisions.
⠀
𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀:
Political shifts in Denmark or Greenland can constrain U.S. action.
Foreign investment decisions can invite adversaries closer.
Permits, courts, and domestic politics can slow urgent military needs.
Defense without ownership creates friction — and friction kills response time.
⠀
Now add what we know from D.C. today.
This isn’t theory.
This is how the Pentagon, intelligence community, and defense planners think.
⠀
𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆’𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴:
Chinese infrastructure probes.
Russian Arctic bases.
Mineral dependency vulnerabilities.
NATO allies struggling to keep pace.
Climate-driven access changing the map faster than treaties can keep up.
⠀
So why does ownership even enter the conversation?
Not because America wants land.
Because America wants certainty.
⠀
𝗢𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀:
Permanent denial of adversary influence.
Unrestricted defense posture.
Guaranteed control over critical resources.
Long-term strategic clarity instead of renewable agreements.
⠀
This isn’t about empire.
It’s about removing ambiguity in a world that punishes hesitation.
The same logic that justified the 1951 agreement now exposes its limits.
⠀
The agreement assumed stability.
Today’s world is about acceleration.
⠀
𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴:
Geography doesn’t negotiate.
Security doesn’t wait for committee votes.
Great powers plan decades ahead.
⠀
Ignoring Greenland doesn’t make America virtuous.
It makes America reactive.
History tells us how that ends.
⠀
The Arctic is the next frontier of power.
The question isn’t whether Greenland matters.
The question is whether the U.S. wants to lead — or scramble later.

Thursday, January 15, 2026

NOT SO DELUSIONAL — The Donroe Doctrine and Beijing's "Polar Silk Road": Last Month, a Report by None Other than Danish Intelligence Itself Warned About the Russian and Chinese Threat to Greenland and the Arctic

With Danish blood running through my veins, and having a familial connection to Greenland — my grand-father's cousin was one of the governors of the colony in the 1930s and in the 1940s, i.e., during World War II, and it was said Aksel Svane who walked down to the harbor of Godthaab (Good Hope, since rebaptized Nuuk) to welcome the first U.S. Navy ships in 1941 (prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor) — I cannot deny to being not entirely happy with the recent developments in the situation regarding the status of the planet's largest island.

At the same time, I understand why the Americans don't want — or, at least why Donald Trump doesn't want — to have another Cuba-type island among their neighbors, especially one of Greenland's size. (Indeed, it seems clear that Trump thinks that the 1960s "agreement" to leave the Castro dictatorship alone is madness, or at least utter weakness — especially now that China is not only trying to junk the Monroe Doctrine, it wants to establish itself as the head of the OAS — and that he is determined to ensure that Havana be the next socialist adversary to fall…)

Hardly strange, therefore, that Denmark's foreign minister says Trump has a point on China and Russia's threat to Greenland. Madison Colombo ofFox News:

"There's absolutely no Chinese footprint in Greenland," Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said on "Special Report" Wednesday. "Having said that … there's always a bit of truth in what he [Trump] is saying.
… "We definitely share the concern that [the] Arctic is not any longer a low-tension region. And, of course, we have to be aware of that. And that's why we have invested almost $15 billion U.S. dollars last year in capabilities in Greenland."
… Former U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Carla Sands rejected Rasmussen's view, saying Denmark lacks the resources needed to defend the territory against adversaries. She warned both Russia and China are actively seeking to establish footholds in the region.
"Greenlanders will go independent in the 21st century," Sands said on "The Ingraham Angle" Wednesday, pointing to Iceland’s separation from Denmark in the 20th century.
"President Trump's making sure they don't fall into the lap of China or Russia."
… "The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of national security," Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Wednesday.
He has said Greenland is integral to the country’s Golden Dome project, a proposed U.S. missile-defense shield. Trump added that if the U.S. does not secure the territory, "Russia or China will" and called on NATO to back U.S. efforts to take control of Greenland.

Indeed, it turns out that in 2017, according to the Lexington Institute's Rebecca Grant,

Greenland’s prime minister flew to Beijing and asked China to bankroll new airports, according to The Wall Street Journal. [To its credit,] Denmark stopped the deal. If anything like that happens again, Greenland will be flying a U.S. flag.

This may be a bombshell revelation: Indeed, this 2017 attempt sounds like it is probably what caused Trump to want to acquire Greenland in the first place. Moreover,

Put Chinese submarines in the Arctic and U.S. military bases, data centers and more are suddenly in range. The U.S. will do whatever it takes to halt that threat.
Denmark is a Capable Ally
Denmark [does come] through when it matters.

In that perspective, you should check out this blog's China / Greenland posts, notably You Cannot Understand Trump's Greenland-Panama-Canada Declarations Unless You Recognize the Extent of the China Threat, a significant part of which quotes a number of articles from The Economist:

… the London weekly points out that
Mr Trump’s allies point to China’s “Polar Silk Road”, a spree of infrastructure-building in the Arctic, as a threat … It is undeniable that Greenland is important to America’s national security. The shortest route for Russian nuclear missiles to reach America’s east coast goes right over the island: Pituffik Space Base in the territory’s north-west hosts part of America’s missile-early-warning system. The so-called Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap plays a central role in the high-stakes submarine contest between NATO members and Russia. … An independent Greenland could be vulnerable to coercion and be an unreliable ally.

An article linked by Instapundit reports that Danish intel warned last year about Russian and Chinese military goals toward Greenland and Arctic.

Denmark's politicians are downplaying Trump's claims of Russian and Chinese threats to Greenland. But Danish intelligence [itself!] warned about Russia and China in stark terms.

Thus writes Jerry Dunleavy at Just The News.

While Denmark’s leaders downplay the threat to Greenland posed by Russia and China amidst President Donald Trump’s outspoken desire to acquire the frozen island, Denmark's Danish Defense Intelligence Service (DDIS [or Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste (FE)]) recently released an assessment bluntly warning of Russian and Chinese military ambitions toward and expansion around Greenland and the Arctic.

Trump said last week that the U.S. needs Greenland “from the standpoint of national security” as he argued that the frozen autonomous territory owned by Denmark was “covered” with Russian and Chinese ships. Top Danish foreign policy and defense officials quickly sought to push back on Trump’s claims, claiming there are not Russian and Chinese ships near Greenland and going so far as to say that it is “delusional” to think Russia and China pose a threat to the massive frozen island.

Chinese propaganda outlets and its foreign ministry echoed the Danish denials and claimed the U.S. was acting out of a sense of self-interest, not based on security concerns.

But the "Intelligence Outlook 2025" report on the security of the Kingdom of Denmark, released just last month, had warned at great length that “China is preparing for a military presence in the Arctic” and that “China’s long-term Arctic interests include Greenland.” The report highlighted Chinese air-based, seaborne, and submersible activities in the Arctic.

The Danish intelligence report had further assessed that the militaries of China and Russia were collaborating more closely in the Arctic, displaying the growing “DragonBear” alliance between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin. … The Pentagon’s Arctic Strategy — penned in 2024 during the Biden Administration — also warned about growing Russian and Chinese military cooperation in the Arctic. …

Danish politicians — and China’s foreign ministry — push back on Trump’s concerns

… Trump added over the weekend, “If we don’t take Greenland, Russia or China will take Greenland — and I’m not letting that happen. … One way or the other we will have Greenland.” The president said on Sunday that “you have Russian destroyers and submarines, and Chinese destroyers and submarines all over the place” near Greenland.

This has prompted a flurry of pushback from Danish politicians who downplayed the threat posed by Russia and China, with the Chinese government and its propaganda arms directly echoing some of the denials by the Danes.

“I am head of the defence committee in Denmark. It is my job to be on top of security in Greenland and I get all relevant information about it,” Rasmus Jarlov, the Chair of Denmark’s Parliamentary Defense Committee, said on X over the weekend. “I can assure you that your fantasies about a big threat from China and Russia against Greenland are delusional. You are the threat. Not them.” …

China to Trump: "Stop using so-called China threat"

… But the Danish intelligence report painted a much more complicated picture than the denials from Danish politicians would suggest, laying out Chinese and Russian military objectives in the Arctic and interest in the Greenland region in particular as well. The report also found that the Russians viewed the ocean to the east of Greenland as key in any future war with NATO, and that China was eyeing Greenland for long-term strategic purposes as well.

… “Although Chinese companies have shown interest in investing in Greenland, this has so far not produced tangible results,” the Danish report added. “Nevertheless, China’s long-term Arctic interests include Greenland, and it is expected to continue pursuing cooperation with Greenland, particularly in research but also in commercial ventures.”

The intelligence assessment noted that “for the United States, the Arctic represents the first and most crucial line of early warning in the event of a great-power conflict with Russia or China.” …

Danish intel maps detail Russian and Chinese moves in Arctic and near Greenland

… Relatedly, the intelligence assessment made it clear that “China is Preparing for a Military Presence in the Arctic” as it stressed that “Chinese icebreakers and research vessels operate in the Arctic and have conducted joint patrol exercises with Russia in the region” and that “China aims to develop the capacity for independent military operations in the Arctic.”

… This map also detailed joint patrol flights carried out by Russia and China north of the Bering Strait in 2024, Russian and Chinese coast guard vessels jointly patrolling the Arctic ocean the same year, and Chinese research vessels conducting Arctic expeditions in 2025, which demonstrated “China’s ambition to operate both surface ships and submarines in Arctic waters.” …

China seeks parity with Russia and U.S. sub-launched missile capabilities

The intelligence report highlighted Russian and Chinese intentions for the Arctic region — including securing prime submarine locations to launch their nuclear weapons at the U.S. in the event of war. …

U.S. assessments also warn of Russian and Chinese threats in Arctic and near Greenland

… The Defense Department’s Arctic Strategy, published in the final year of the Biden Administration, also warned … that “the PRC and Russia are collaborating in the Arctic across multiple instruments of national power” and that “their growing alignment in the region is of concern.” …

Trump continues push for Greenland

Trump said Sunday on Air Force One that Greenland should make a deal with the U.S. as he criticized Denmark’s ability to protest [sic] the autonomous frozen island.

While RTBF's Annick Capelle turns to history to ask why Greenland belongs to Denmark in the first place and while Frank Gaffney explains why Greenland must be secured, Alexander B. Gray (a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who served as chief of staff of the White House National Security Council, 2019-21) chose the Wall Street Journal to publish A Defense of the Donroe Doctrine in Greenland (Mange tak til Hr. Vincent Bourdonneau), stating that

Greenland can’t be allowed to fall under the sway of adversaries. … Mr. Trump’s bold action in Venezuela, and his commitment to the defense of the Western Hemisphere, will have a salutary global effect by restoring the U.S. deterrent. An assertive America confident in its power and role on the world stage is the surest guarantee of peace..

Richard James adds that

Greenland’s security is critical. It sits in North America, exposed to Russian and Chinese ambitions. Denmark and the EU have neglected defence and investment; with a tiny population and immense strategic value, US control is the only credible guarantee..

As for Frank Gaffney, he turns to view the sorry state of the situation in Europe:

"Denmark and other European nations that have proven indifferent to the ongoing invasions of their countries by sharia-supremacists are denouncing our President’s resolve. But NATO also requires Greenland to be in safe hands and cannot otherwise assure it will be."

Related: • The Systematic Destruction of Denmark's Military Over 30 Years: "Ships that cannot sail; Planes that cannot fly; And cannons that cannot fire — Everything is missing"

• Avoiding the NATO Burden: "Denmark has made the skill of tricking the US into an art" Writes Danish Editor; "Denmark Deserves No Respect from America"

• Beijing's Road & Belt: China is not only trying to junk the Monroe Doctrine, it wants to establish itself as the head of the OAS

Greenland’s security is critical. It sits in North America, exposed to Russian and Chinese ambitions. Denmark and the EU have neglected defence and investment; with a tiny population and immense strategic value, US control is the only credible guarantee.. https://t.co/l5XiIJjgh4
— Richard James (@skisidjames) January 8, 2026