I think we can forget climate change as a mean for more easy access to the goodies in Greenland's interior. Even if the mean temperature should rise 5°C, it would take millennials to make a serious dent in Greenland's ice sheet (that is, unless a new ice age arrives in the mean time)
Thanks Stephen. A couple of comments. I. I don't think anyone should forget how the Danish government has historically treated the Greenlanders. Re. The forced sterilization of Greenland women in the 1960s and 1970s. The block grant and a weaselly apology last year by the Danish prime Minister doesn't right that wrong.
2. The US has an enormous technology gap to close with the Russians wrt their nuclear ice breakers. How will this technology gap be closed? How will the US police a trade route that it can't access or assist keep open?
3. The minerals.. are these proven resources? And what happened to the much published Ukraine mineral riches?
USA bought Alaska for approx 7 Mio $ that was equivalent to approx 340 thousand ounces of gold. Today, that's about 1 billion $. However, atm we don't have a gold-backed currency as then. If this were the case, the updated price could be 3-5 billion $. That Russia sold it so cheap was probably the result of the Crimean war - I think they feared Britain would snatch it from them and make it part of Canada.
I don't see why USA would need to pay 700B$ for Greenland. If they gave every Greenlander 3 Mio$ - which would be king's ransom - it would only run into 150 Billion $. Imagine you are a married with two kids Inuit and get 12 Mio$. Even if you then live on dividend income of 1.5%, that's more than 180k$. No average Danish houshold lives on such money. What's not to like? Easy peasy.
Trump and the Deep State are horned up about Greenland mostly because the Northern Arctic Route provide an Asian to Europe transit route that avoids choke points the US could exercise in the Persian Gulf and Suez Canal. Most of the route falls within Russian territorial waters. Since The US is hell-bent on cutting off oil supplies to China the US needs to use Greenland as a embargo-interdiction asset going forward.
🚨 "Greenland security talks" isn't diplomacy as usual.
It's NATO finding out whether it can survive an ally openly eyeing another ally's land.
Behind the polite phrases: Denmark says White House talks "did not change" US designs on Greenland, and European troops are landing on the island to signal this isn't normal business anymore.
Trump is calling anything less than US control "unacceptable" and warning that if America doesn't move, Russia or China will.
⚡ That's not routine security coordination.
It's a live power struggle over:
Rare earths
Melting Arctic sea lanes
Who gets to redraw the map in the name of "national security"
I pulled this together—troop movements, talks, minerals, routes, NATO law—into one clear breakdown here:
If you feel this story in your gut but haven't seen the full picture yet, like, restack, and subscribe so you're not hearing about the Arctic frontline six months late from someone else's summary.
❄️ The talks failed. The troops moved. The map is changing. Don't be late.
The current imbalance between summer melt and winter refreezing is, despite all the huffing and puffing in the media, minute. The IPCC and other large studies (applying the climate scenario which they believe is the most realistic, SSP/RCP4.5) expect Greenland to find a new equilibrium around 2070 / 2080.
“The resistance to change and intervention is a fact of life for any deal on Greenland. American interests can’t be met under the current restrictions and present-day local ideology, especially if the most urgent US interest is Greenland’s minerals. Even an outright purchase would face conflict and resistance”, Bryen writes..
A reasonable summation however, but lacking and no mention of the social services construct alien to U.S politicians and business elites but oh so crucial to the indigenous populace and non indigenous Danish citizens living on that land mass.
Social services such as fully subsidised and provisioned no cost medical care, generous superannuation benefits for retirees, housing, family and other social wrap around support benefits also predominate and yep, sure as shit I can see the U.S eagerly agreeing to underwrite those benefits in perpetuity as they have been for generations and all future generations, such welfare the staple for E.U citizens given their tax regime… Not!
For sure given the prevailing and historical political climate prevailing in the U.S, we can fully expect that all U.S politicians members of both houses will eagerly agree to such generosity underwritten forever the Federal government paid for by U.S taxpayers without any blowback, whilst having denied the very basic social services unto their own citizens.
This denial of services the long suffering U.S taxpayers, to the point as an example, that as we know most veterans need today and in fact for years have to engage in a battle, to fight personal wars and engage in conflict the V.A and Federal Agencies just to get what they’re entitled to receive under U.S statute and laws, with I can say from first hand experience having to so engage on behalf of my mothers husband a U.S veteran in my dealings the V.A the very same personal efforts, benefits to which under statute the beneficiaries are fully entitled to receive given only very reluctantly and only given up after arduous, unnecessary and uncalled for personal battles, battles fought that impact not only the veterans but all of their loved ones…
So remind me again just how many homeless veterans dwell in the continental U.S? It’s an embarrassingly bigger number than is necessary to those ritually but without any genuine affection thanked gratuitously for their service…. Such meaningless pleasantries as thanking Vets for their service as noted, well…. Simply meaningless underwritten by nothing, zilch, nada, by a Scrooge like government that appropriates huge sums but cannot manage adequately provisioning of the same, resulting in huge amounts being wasted, not getting to the intended destination or person it was deemed to support, whilst in such an environment that has persisted for way to long thanking vets for their service I believe is an insult and the worst double speak whilst for those receiving such platitudes…. just tripe aka bullshit.
If it was genuinely meant that your servicemen and woman upon return from putting themselves, their loved ones well being on the line serving the nation would not end up being homeless, nor find themselves in the parlous conditions they must contend with just to survive… nor having to be so demeaned scrapping to get their basic statutory entitlements, irrespective of cost, then the nation could offer heartfelt appreciation and thanks and it would be meaningful and well received… however in the circumstances such is offered, it is just another example of gross malfeasance, negligence and speaking both sides of the mouth.
Further if I was a Greenlander, I wouldn’t trust for a second any deal, agreement, contract entered into even to take over my homeland if backed by legislation or statute, I’d ask the aforementioned veterans how they’re doing, indeed if it came to a vote I’d base objection soley on veterans personal experiences since returning… and doing so we haven’t even touched upon the next big deal breaker rightfully touched upon by the author… mining and resource recovery… a serious no go in what for the indigenous and inhabitants is a most special area to be protected at all cost… I mean seriously you really guys in the U.S really want to go and shoot up, rough up and ride shotgun over Nanuuk or Nanook the Eskimo in his igloo as he goes about his daily life… not a good look, leave them alone, stay in your lane, fix your own mess at home, sort your own people first and get your shit in order before even thinking of expanding your unwanted footprint… that or perhaps maybe allow China to buy the U.S, given the lifestyle of Chinese as measured against the subsistence existence most Americans now contend with maybe that’d be a better option, perhaps China might just put a consortium to facilitate such, the purchase of the U.S I’m sure Greenlanders, Russians, Venezuelans, Iranians and plenty more would sign up likely the 191 nations in the world aside the U.S and Israel alone who voted against resolving the Gaza issue the last UNSC vote…. Probably many Americans might prefer the stress free, fear free, free of propagandised existence to that presently experienced…. I say give it a crack, after all… what’s good for the goose and all of that… just saying
Is everything measured by "defense capabilities"? It is encouraging that the United States, represented by Trump, is finally coming out from under the hypnosis of financiers who assured everyone that America's national economy and defense capability could be supported by transferring vital industries to some other countries.More "cheap" ones... While the Americans made money out of thin air and engaged in "petty intrigues", spreading their "soft power" to the rest of the world, the Chinese earned money from REAL production and invested it in their "material" presence in the same world, without shooting and bombing. It seems to me that a "multipolar world" should consist of at least three main players who will not allow each other to open their mouths wide and put their hands in other people's pockets. Let Trump do what he sees fit, and, frankly, no one should care about anyone's "outrage": China needs to be "helped" to slow down before it's too late by creating its own "material responsibility" zones and protecting these zones.The time of the "paper tigers", who had "their own opinion" in the form of the right of veto in various international organizations, has passed... Probably, we are not talking about the "right of the strong" or "defense capabilities", but about the ABILITY to change something globally.I don't think Iceland or Estonia will be able to do that...
Denmark should take the deal or we should start having them foot the bill for defense. If they think they have the muscle to go head to head with China and Russia then we should pull our troops.
$700bn for 59,000 Greenlanders who effectively own the landmass might, at ~$12m per person, seem quite an interesting opening bid in a hostile takeover move.
I mean, the prettily coloured halftimbered villages are nice in daytime, but it's not Florida, and about $50m for a family of four might be tempting.
Of course $700bn is peanuts compared to $5tn for Nvidia, and perpetual ownership of Greenland's resources must be worth more.
But some Greenlanders might be starting to think about forcing a higher bid...
In evaluating a "fair price" for Greenland, the $700 billion figure recently floated by the Trump administration represents a floor—essentially a "low-ball" opening bid in a complex geopolitical negotiation. To reach a price that reflects the island’s intrinsic and strategic value, one must shift from a real-estate mindset to a corporate valuation or sovereign-wealth perspective.
1. The Resource Asset Valuation
A January 2025 study valued Greenland's total mineral and energy resources (including rare earths, oil, and gas) at approximately $4.4 trillion. Rare Earth Monopoly: Greenland holds an estimated 36 million tonnes of rare earths. As the West attempts to de-risk from Chinese supply chains, these deposits (like Tanbreez and Kvanefjeld) are strategic assets that command a "security premium."
2. Strategic "Location"
In geopolitics, value is often derived from "where" you are rather than "what" you have.
The Iceland Proxy: If Greenland’s land were valued at the same rate as residential/commercial real estate in Iceland ($1.28 million per km^2), the total land value would be roughly $2.76 trillion.
The "Golden Dome" Premium: President Trump has explicitly linked Greenland to the "Golden Dome" (US air and missile defense). The cost of replicating Greenland's early-warning capabilities elsewhere is effectively infinite, as the geography is unique. A "fair" price would include a perpetual lease or "sovereignty rent" similar to the $100 billion-plus ranges discussed for smaller strategic territories.
3. The "Shareholder" Payout (The Human Component)
Greenland’s ~59,000 citizens are effectively the shareholders. A "hostile takeover" would require a price high enough to overcome the 85% disapproval rating (as of 2025 polls) and the loss of the Danish block grant (approx. $600 million/year).
To match the lifestyle security of the Danish welfare state, a payout would need to be significant.
The "Norway Model": To be truly "fair," Greenlanders would likely expect the establishment of a Sovereign Wealth Fund. Initial capitalization: $500 billion to $1 trillion. This would provide an annual dividend/return that dwarfs their current GDP of ~$3 billion.
Summary: What is the "Fair" Price?
Comparing Greenland to a $5 trillion tech giant like Nvidia is useful for scale, but misleading in structure. Nvidia's value is liquid; Greenland's is illiquid and tied to national identity.
For Greenlanders to agree to a transfer of sovereignty, the price would likely need to exceed $3 trillion. This would equate to roughly $50 million per citizen in the form of a perpetual endowment fund—a figure that ensures intergenerational wealth and compensates for the loss of Danish citizenship and cultural autonomy.
I think we can forget climate change as a mean for more easy access to the goodies in Greenland's interior. Even if the mean temperature should rise 5°C, it would take millennials to make a serious dent in Greenland's ice sheet (that is, unless a new ice age arrives in the mean time)
Thanks Stephen. A couple of comments. I. I don't think anyone should forget how the Danish government has historically treated the Greenlanders. Re. The forced sterilization of Greenland women in the 1960s and 1970s. The block grant and a weaselly apology last year by the Danish prime Minister doesn't right that wrong.
2. The US has an enormous technology gap to close with the Russians wrt their nuclear ice breakers. How will this technology gap be closed? How will the US police a trade route that it can't access or assist keep open?
3. The minerals.. are these proven resources? And what happened to the much published Ukraine mineral riches?
Environmental restrictions aren't the only thing limiting extraction of Greenland's resources. Paul Bierman, a scientist with many years of experience on the ground there, weighed in on this on my Sustain What show here and also in this piece: https://revkin.substack.com/p/meet-us-scientists-working-in-greenland Greenland’s melting ice and landslide-prone fjords make the oil and minerals Trump is eyeing dangerous to extract https://theconversation.com/greenlands-melting-ice-and-landslide-prone-fjords-make-the-oil-and-minerals-trump-is-eyeing-dangerous-to-extract-249985
USA bought Alaska for approx 7 Mio $ that was equivalent to approx 340 thousand ounces of gold. Today, that's about 1 billion $. However, atm we don't have a gold-backed currency as then. If this were the case, the updated price could be 3-5 billion $. That Russia sold it so cheap was probably the result of the Crimean war - I think they feared Britain would snatch it from them and make it part of Canada.
I don't see why USA would need to pay 700B$ for Greenland. If they gave every Greenlander 3 Mio$ - which would be king's ransom - it would only run into 150 Billion $. Imagine you are a married with two kids Inuit and get 12 Mio$. Even if you then live on dividend income of 1.5%, that's more than 180k$. No average Danish houshold lives on such money. What's not to like? Easy peasy.
Trump and the Deep State are horned up about Greenland mostly because the Northern Arctic Route provide an Asian to Europe transit route that avoids choke points the US could exercise in the Persian Gulf and Suez Canal. Most of the route falls within Russian territorial waters. Since The US is hell-bent on cutting off oil supplies to China the US needs to use Greenland as a embargo-interdiction asset going forward.
🚨 "Greenland security talks" isn't diplomacy as usual.
It's NATO finding out whether it can survive an ally openly eyeing another ally's land.
Behind the polite phrases: Denmark says White House talks "did not change" US designs on Greenland, and European troops are landing on the island to signal this isn't normal business anymore.
Trump is calling anything less than US control "unacceptable" and warning that if America doesn't move, Russia or China will.
⚡ That's not routine security coordination.
It's a live power struggle over:
Rare earths
Melting Arctic sea lanes
Who gets to redraw the map in the name of "national security"
I pulled this together—troop movements, talks, minerals, routes, NATO law—into one clear breakdown here:
🔗 https://open.substack.com/pub/geopoliticsinplainsight/p/trumps-greenland-play-rare-earths?r=72pxma&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
If you feel this story in your gut but haven't seen the full picture yet, like, restack, and subscribe so you're not hearing about the Arctic frontline six months late from someone else's summary.
❄️ The talks failed. The troops moved. The map is changing. Don't be late.
'assuming climate change continues'.
The current imbalance between summer melt and winter refreezing is, despite all the huffing and puffing in the media, minute. The IPCC and other large studies (applying the climate scenario which they believe is the most realistic, SSP/RCP4.5) expect Greenland to find a new equilibrium around 2070 / 2080.
It is not going to melt. Period.
“The resistance to change and intervention is a fact of life for any deal on Greenland. American interests can’t be met under the current restrictions and present-day local ideology, especially if the most urgent US interest is Greenland’s minerals. Even an outright purchase would face conflict and resistance”, Bryen writes..
A reasonable summation however, but lacking and no mention of the social services construct alien to U.S politicians and business elites but oh so crucial to the indigenous populace and non indigenous Danish citizens living on that land mass.
Social services such as fully subsidised and provisioned no cost medical care, generous superannuation benefits for retirees, housing, family and other social wrap around support benefits also predominate and yep, sure as shit I can see the U.S eagerly agreeing to underwrite those benefits in perpetuity as they have been for generations and all future generations, such welfare the staple for E.U citizens given their tax regime… Not!
For sure given the prevailing and historical political climate prevailing in the U.S, we can fully expect that all U.S politicians members of both houses will eagerly agree to such generosity underwritten forever the Federal government paid for by U.S taxpayers without any blowback, whilst having denied the very basic social services unto their own citizens.
This denial of services the long suffering U.S taxpayers, to the point as an example, that as we know most veterans need today and in fact for years have to engage in a battle, to fight personal wars and engage in conflict the V.A and Federal Agencies just to get what they’re entitled to receive under U.S statute and laws, with I can say from first hand experience having to so engage on behalf of my mothers husband a U.S veteran in my dealings the V.A the very same personal efforts, benefits to which under statute the beneficiaries are fully entitled to receive given only very reluctantly and only given up after arduous, unnecessary and uncalled for personal battles, battles fought that impact not only the veterans but all of their loved ones…
So remind me again just how many homeless veterans dwell in the continental U.S? It’s an embarrassingly bigger number than is necessary to those ritually but without any genuine affection thanked gratuitously for their service…. Such meaningless pleasantries as thanking Vets for their service as noted, well…. Simply meaningless underwritten by nothing, zilch, nada, by a Scrooge like government that appropriates huge sums but cannot manage adequately provisioning of the same, resulting in huge amounts being wasted, not getting to the intended destination or person it was deemed to support, whilst in such an environment that has persisted for way to long thanking vets for their service I believe is an insult and the worst double speak whilst for those receiving such platitudes…. just tripe aka bullshit.
If it was genuinely meant that your servicemen and woman upon return from putting themselves, their loved ones well being on the line serving the nation would not end up being homeless, nor find themselves in the parlous conditions they must contend with just to survive… nor having to be so demeaned scrapping to get their basic statutory entitlements, irrespective of cost, then the nation could offer heartfelt appreciation and thanks and it would be meaningful and well received… however in the circumstances such is offered, it is just another example of gross malfeasance, negligence and speaking both sides of the mouth.
Further if I was a Greenlander, I wouldn’t trust for a second any deal, agreement, contract entered into even to take over my homeland if backed by legislation or statute, I’d ask the aforementioned veterans how they’re doing, indeed if it came to a vote I’d base objection soley on veterans personal experiences since returning… and doing so we haven’t even touched upon the next big deal breaker rightfully touched upon by the author… mining and resource recovery… a serious no go in what for the indigenous and inhabitants is a most special area to be protected at all cost… I mean seriously you really guys in the U.S really want to go and shoot up, rough up and ride shotgun over Nanuuk or Nanook the Eskimo in his igloo as he goes about his daily life… not a good look, leave them alone, stay in your lane, fix your own mess at home, sort your own people first and get your shit in order before even thinking of expanding your unwanted footprint… that or perhaps maybe allow China to buy the U.S, given the lifestyle of Chinese as measured against the subsistence existence most Americans now contend with maybe that’d be a better option, perhaps China might just put a consortium to facilitate such, the purchase of the U.S I’m sure Greenlanders, Russians, Venezuelans, Iranians and plenty more would sign up likely the 191 nations in the world aside the U.S and Israel alone who voted against resolving the Gaza issue the last UNSC vote…. Probably many Americans might prefer the stress free, fear free, free of propagandised existence to that presently experienced…. I say give it a crack, after all… what’s good for the goose and all of that… just saying
Kia Kaha (stay strong) from New Zealand
Is everything measured by "defense capabilities"? It is encouraging that the United States, represented by Trump, is finally coming out from under the hypnosis of financiers who assured everyone that America's national economy and defense capability could be supported by transferring vital industries to some other countries.More "cheap" ones... While the Americans made money out of thin air and engaged in "petty intrigues", spreading their "soft power" to the rest of the world, the Chinese earned money from REAL production and invested it in their "material" presence in the same world, without shooting and bombing. It seems to me that a "multipolar world" should consist of at least three main players who will not allow each other to open their mouths wide and put their hands in other people's pockets. Let Trump do what he sees fit, and, frankly, no one should care about anyone's "outrage": China needs to be "helped" to slow down before it's too late by creating its own "material responsibility" zones and protecting these zones.The time of the "paper tigers", who had "their own opinion" in the form of the right of veto in various international organizations, has passed... Probably, we are not talking about the "right of the strong" or "defense capabilities", but about the ABILITY to change something globally.I don't think Iceland or Estonia will be able to do that...
Denmark should take the deal or we should start having them foot the bill for defense. If they think they have the muscle to go head to head with China and Russia then we should pull our troops.
Helpful overview, thanks.
$700bn for 59,000 Greenlanders who effectively own the landmass might, at ~$12m per person, seem quite an interesting opening bid in a hostile takeover move.
I mean, the prettily coloured halftimbered villages are nice in daytime, but it's not Florida, and about $50m for a family of four might be tempting.
Of course $700bn is peanuts compared to $5tn for Nvidia, and perpetual ownership of Greenland's resources must be worth more.
But some Greenlanders might be starting to think about forcing a higher bid...
AI:
In evaluating a "fair price" for Greenland, the $700 billion figure recently floated by the Trump administration represents a floor—essentially a "low-ball" opening bid in a complex geopolitical negotiation. To reach a price that reflects the island’s intrinsic and strategic value, one must shift from a real-estate mindset to a corporate valuation or sovereign-wealth perspective.
1. The Resource Asset Valuation
A January 2025 study valued Greenland's total mineral and energy resources (including rare earths, oil, and gas) at approximately $4.4 trillion. Rare Earth Monopoly: Greenland holds an estimated 36 million tonnes of rare earths. As the West attempts to de-risk from Chinese supply chains, these deposits (like Tanbreez and Kvanefjeld) are strategic assets that command a "security premium."
2. Strategic "Location"
In geopolitics, value is often derived from "where" you are rather than "what" you have.
The Iceland Proxy: If Greenland’s land were valued at the same rate as residential/commercial real estate in Iceland ($1.28 million per km^2), the total land value would be roughly $2.76 trillion.
The "Golden Dome" Premium: President Trump has explicitly linked Greenland to the "Golden Dome" (US air and missile defense). The cost of replicating Greenland's early-warning capabilities elsewhere is effectively infinite, as the geography is unique. A "fair" price would include a perpetual lease or "sovereignty rent" similar to the $100 billion-plus ranges discussed for smaller strategic territories.
3. The "Shareholder" Payout (The Human Component)
Greenland’s ~59,000 citizens are effectively the shareholders. A "hostile takeover" would require a price high enough to overcome the 85% disapproval rating (as of 2025 polls) and the loss of the Danish block grant (approx. $600 million/year).
To match the lifestyle security of the Danish welfare state, a payout would need to be significant.
The "Norway Model": To be truly "fair," Greenlanders would likely expect the establishment of a Sovereign Wealth Fund. Initial capitalization: $500 billion to $1 trillion. This would provide an annual dividend/return that dwarfs their current GDP of ~$3 billion.
Summary: What is the "Fair" Price?
Comparing Greenland to a $5 trillion tech giant like Nvidia is useful for scale, but misleading in structure. Nvidia's value is liquid; Greenland's is illiquid and tied to national identity.
For Greenlanders to agree to a transfer of sovereignty, the price would likely need to exceed $3 trillion. This would equate to roughly $50 million per citizen in the form of a perpetual endowment fund—a figure that ensures intergenerational wealth and compensates for the loss of Danish citizenship and cultural autonomy.