Forward this email. ([link removed])
[link removed]


** The True Cost of Greenland
------------------------------------------------------------

By cajoling Denmark into ceding Greenland to the US, Trump is setting fire to one of America's most exceptional qualities.

January 16, 2025
[link removed]

By Evan Gottesman

For decades, the United States wielded an unusual edge over our geopolitical rivals: many countries genuinely wanted to be our friends. Days away from a historic presidential transition, America is about to upend that competitive advantage. And all for an island with a population of 57,000.

Incoming President Donald Trump wants to annex Greenland. The locals, of course, are largely opposed. And Denmark—which owns the island—isn’t looking to sell.

It’s worth recalling that the Danes are US allies and fellow members of NATO. That alliance, like many of Washington’s international partnerships, is a hot commodity rooted in mutual interest and consent. But if Trump actually manages to cajole an allied government into ceding its territory to us, the value of a red, white, and blue friendship is going to take a very big hit.

No Laughing Matter

A decade ago, “Donald Trump tries to buy Greenland” might have sounded like the punchline to some light-hearted partisan ribbing. But during his first presidency, Trump actually directed officials in his administration to investigate a purchase. Danes and Greenlanders both rebuffed him.

Emboldened by his November election victory and backed by a Republican trifecta in Washington, Trump is making another pass at the territory.

Even if the United States never seizes Greenland, the damage may already be done. In recent years, Greenlanders have been renegotiating their ties ([link removed]) with Copenhagen. Many, including the island’s prime minister Múte Bourup Egede, favor independence. Absent Trump’s meddling, Danes and Greenlanders might well have come to an amicable divorce.

But the prospect of American annexation could tip the scales in those negotiations. Consider how Americans might respond if Denmark were to suddenly become third wheel in deliberations over the status of Puerto Rico. And yet, here we are.

Friends: What Are They Good For?

Denmark is an American ally. If nothing else, don’t we owe better treatment to our friends?

Alliances yield benefits for both Americans and allies alike. They allow smaller nations to retain their independence while benefiting from large-country largess. Denmark would likely be unable to fend off a Russian attack by itself. Thanks to its NATO membership, Denmark doesn’t have to—it falls under the American security umbrella. And because of NATO, the United States is not alone in the world either. After 9/11, Danish troops fought and died in Afghanistan just as Americans did.

There’s still more for Americans to gain from our alliances. The empires of old were as expensive as they were expansive, requiring rule by brute force. Yet ours is an “empire of bases,” with outposts hosted by our allies. America doesn’t need to control Greenland—we have had a major base there since World War II. And our allies are open for business—American companies operate freely in Greenland as they do around the world.

Without territorial annexation, the United States can still maintain a global footprint that is both unprecedented in scale and efficiency. While we boast a greater reach than any historical empire, our defense spending ([link removed]) continues to decline relative to GDP.

That would be a much harder square to circle if our company was unwanted. But America is popular ([link removed]) with our allies, especially in Europe and East Asia. That goodwill can’t be taken for granted, of course. Several European leaders have spoken out publicly against Trump’s Greenlandic fixation. Privately, they may be wondering about what would happen if the American troops based on their soil turn against them.

A Case Study in Ally Abuse

A dose of the obvious: Attacking your friends is a surefire way to lose your friends. More than just being common sense, we’ve actually seen this dynamic play out in recent years in the case of Russia and Ukraine.

Pre-invasion Ukraine was not quite a Russian ally in the sense that Denmark is an American one. In the year after the Soviet Union’s collapse, the two countries seesawed in and out of episodes of tension. Still—difficult as it is to imagine today—Kyiv and the Kremlin also experienced periods of fairly close partnership. Ukraine hosted Moscow’s most important military installation outside of the Russian Federation, the Black Sea Fleet’s Sevastopol base. Most Ukrainians once opposed joining NATO ([link removed]) and even viewed Russia in a positive light.

Then came 2014. Russia seized Sevastopol and the rest of Crimea by force. It invaded the east of the country. Eight years later, the Russians launched a full-scale assault. Russia is understandably hated in Ukraine. Use of the Russian language ([link removed]) is steadily eroding. Even if the Russians were to raise the white flag tomorrow, they might not recoup their standing with Ukrainians for generations, if ever.

And the shockwaves are reverberating beyond Ukraine. Among Russia’s nominal allies—mostly other ex-Soviet republics—reception for Moscow’s war of conquest in Eastern Europe has been mixed at best. Belarus is the only Russian associate that really supports the invasion of Ukraine. Meanwhile, the others, from Kazakhstan to Armenia, are looking to diversify their friend groups ([link removed]) . Deep economic and geographic ties prevent a clean break with Russia in most cases. Still, no one seems to view the Kremlin as a sustainable investment.

The True Cost of the Greenland Gambit

What does this all mean for America?

On the one hand, Trump taking Greenland won’t prompt NATO to fold overnight just as invading Ukraine hasn’t left Russia completely isolated. But it could do long-term damage to our standing in Denmark and, by proxy, other European partners, who are bound to start looking for other options. It will generate uneasiness about the presence of US troops on allied territory (remember, Greenland hosts an American base just as Ukraine hosted the Russian Black Sea Fleet). More worryingly, it will send a message to potential allies that the United States really is no better than Russia and China.

In the 1990s, Central European nations lobbied hard to get the Clinton administration to support their entry into NATO. Just a generation before, Red Army troops had brutalized Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia in order to impose Soviet “friendship” on them at the end of the bayonet. By contrast, the Americans didn’t even need to ask for an alliance—the ex-Warsaw Pact countries were practically begging for it.

Washington’s appeal to current and potential allies is unique and underappreciated. It is our special strength, but it is not guaranteed. Under previous administrations, the question was whether we could sustain that reputation by doing enough to support our friends. Under Trump, the question may be whether we attack them.




** The Bottom Line
------------------------------------------------------------

1. The view from Russia

“The US and Denmark should listen to the residents of Greenland just as Russia once listened to the residents of Crimea, Donbas, and Novorossiya,” opined Russian Foreign Minister Sergeii Lavrov ([link removed]) in response to President-elect Trump’s comments about Greenland.

And if this justification can be used by Russia for seizing Ukrainian territory, it is not a stretch for China to employ ([link removed]) the same line about Taiwan. Top notch rhetorical ammunition for our enemies there!

2. Did Sam Altman just fix America’s AI dilemma?

America’s AI dilemma ([link removed]) has always been whether it can regulate AI technology without stifling it completely. Sacrifice a competitive edge through over-regulation, like Europe, and competitors like China will be keen to take the lead.

The answer, according to Open AI’s recent economic plan ([link removed]) , is to lean into the spirit of American innovation and build AI ecosystems on US technology, not on systems funded by adversaries like China.

3. The New “Vindman Rule"

With the Trump administration primed to set up shop, we’d like to wish a happy early-retirement to the entire non-partisan civil service! Last Friday, incoming National Security Advisor Mike Walz openly paraded his intentions to purge the national security council of any nonpolitical appointees who would disagree with the incoming president’s agenda.

As RDI Board Member Alex Vindman puts it, “The so-called “Vindman Rule ([link removed]) ” sets a dangerous precedent by ensuring that only political loyalists can serve on the NSC, advise the president, and interact with the president and top decision-makers.”

4. Do dictators make good allies?

According to a recent op-ed in The Kyiv Independent ([link removed]) , “The question is not whether China will turn on Russia, but when.” There is good reason to believe that will happen. As Evan Gottesman has just argued ([link removed]) , alliances of choice and good-faith, mutual support are a hallmark of democratic societies. The same cannot be said about dictatorships.

In the case of Russia and China, any sign of weakness is blood in the water. And given Russia’s losses in its war in Ukraine, the moment for Beijing to pounce could be soon.

5. California is on fire…which is somehow Ukraine’s fault??

Whenever Americans are in need, our foreign aid becomes a target. “If only we didn’t spend so much overseas, we’d have our own house in order,” or so the thinking goes. In response to Los Angeles’s fiery misfortune, this kind of whataboutism has abounded. Take Elon Musk, who, in response to US assistance to Kyiv, quipped: “But what about California? ([link removed]) ”

Lending a helping hand to other countries and taking care of our own aren’t mutually exclusive. Depending on the year and what you count, spending overseas accounts for a tiny fraction of the federal budget—estimates range from one percent ([link removed]) to five percent ([link removed]) . In many cases, the money stays here, going to American farmers and defense contractors while the material goes to our partners.

Those relationships are a two-way street as well. Several countries that receive American aid are turning up to help in the Golden State, including Canada, Mexico, and, yes, Ukraine ([link removed]) . None of this means that our foreign policy is above criticism, but to suggest our engagements abroad prevent us from serving Americans at home defies the facts.



** Support Ukrainians on the Frontlines of Russian Aggression
------------------------------------------------------------

In 2024, RDI continued to provide substantial aid to Ukrainians who are struggling on the frontlines of Russian aggression.

In 2025, we intend to keep punching above our weight to ensure that Ukrainians can remain in their homes and secure a better future for themselves.

This winter is the most difficult one yet. Please consider contributing to support frontline communities in Ukraine.
Donate here ([link removed])
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]

Copyright (C) 2025 Renew Democracy Initiative. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.
Our mailing address is:
Renew Democracy Initiative
1230 6th Ave
Floor 16
New York, NY 10020
USA
Want to change how you receive these emails?

You can update your preferences ([link removed]) or unsubscribe ([link removed])
Logo