<\/p>\n
<\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>You can also listen to this podcast on iono.fm here.<\/p>\n<p><strong>CIARAN RYAN:<\/strong> We\u2019re talking today \u2013 of all things \u2013 about Greenland, for reasons that have become increasingly relevant and pressing to the wider world. Greenland attracts US attention mainly for its strategic and geopolitical value: its location, defence infrastructure, Arctic shipping routes, and potential underground resources.<\/p>\n<p>These things are [likely] more important to the US, I guess, than the small population or the economy of Greenland.<\/p>\n<p>Where is this all [heading]? What geopolitical risks are at play here, and how will it end? To answer this, we\u2019re joined by Adriaan Pask, chief investment officer at PSG Wealth. Hi Adriaan, good to talk to you again.<\/p>\n<p><strong>ADRIAAN PASK:<\/strong> Hi Ciaran.<\/p>\n<p><strong>CIARAN RYAN:<\/strong> What are you reading on this, and what [exactly] is going on in Greenland? Why is it suddenly attracting the attention of the US?<\/p>\n<p><strong>ADRIAAN PASK:\u00a0<\/strong>I must say, I find this a very interesting topic because I think the world we live in today was functioning fairly normally until geopolitics intensified and multiple wars broke out.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Geopolitics is becoming an increasingly important factor, especially in the international investment environment, because the consequences are often large-scale and far-reaching.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>If you start to look at the mechanics of where the deal comes from \u2013 the scale of it and the likely implications \u2013 it becomes even more fascinating.<\/p>\n<p>So when you asked what is attracting the US to Greenland in the first place, and how it\u2019s even possible for them to entertain the idea of purchasing a country outright, you\u2019re right: it is massive in scale. Greenland is a two-million-square-kilometre island with roughly 55 000 residents. That alone makes it an intriguing case study.<\/p>\n<p>To put it in perspective, comparing Greenland with the US \u2013 with 340 million people and a much larger landmass \u2013 Greenland is about the size of the three largest US states combined. It\u2019s a striking mismatch \u2013 or proposed match \u2013 which is central to the discussion.<\/p>\n<p>A key element often overlooked by analysts is Greenland\u2019s strategic importance, particularly its potential to detect missile launches early from areas like Russia. That remains a major consideration in any US interest.<\/p>\n<p>Beyond defence, there\u2019s also discussion around new shipping routes and untapped resources. But it\u2019s important to understand the potential payoff timelines.<\/p>\n<p>Strategic defence benefits can be realised relatively quickly \u2013 by deploying military personnel and building the necessary infrastructure for a larger base.\u00a0Other initiatives take significantly longer.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Shipping routes, for instance, are emerging as Arctic ice melts, but they won\u2019t be fully operational for decades.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Current projections suggest these routes could commence in about 10 years and become commercially viable only after 20 years of development.<\/p>\n<p>As for commodities, Greenland has been hyped as a resource-rich territory. In reality, confirmed resources are modest: there are only two active mines on the island, with the rest being potential mineral and rare-earth deposits. Exploration and mining would take decades \u2013 estimates suggest 20 to 40 years before any economic benefits materialise.<\/p>\n<p>Given all of this, from [US President Donald] Trump\u2019s perspective, the strategic defence angle is likely the most immediate and compelling driver of interest.<\/p>\n<p><strong>CIARAN RYAN:<\/strong> It\u2019s interesting that this is obviously a long-term play here, and Trump is very interested in cementing his legacy as the person who expanded the boundaries of the United States.<\/p>\n<p>I guess this is not the first time that the US has done something like this. The Louisiana Purchase \u2013 that goes back 150 years or more, when the US actually bought Louisiana from France for a fairly sizeable sum of money at the time.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>And then Russia also sold Alaska to the US not long after that. So there is precedent for this.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>The amounts of money paid, in today\u2019s terms, don\u2019t seem very much. But what do you think the longer-term thinking is here? Is this a question of Trump\u2019s legacy, or is it a resource grab and defence [motivation], because the world is entering into quite a dangerous geopolitical phase?<\/p>\n<p><strong>ADRIAAN PASK:<\/strong> I think, like most things, it\u2019s never just one factor. There\u2019s certainly an element of strategic defence, as well as concerns about broader geopolitical tensions and being prepared for what may come.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Superpowers to the east are rising, and the current dominant superpower is likely to be challenged in the coming decades, if not sooner.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Naturally, that triggers a cascade of other consequences.<\/p>\n<p>A lot has been said about the US being in a strong financial position, holding the dominant global role, and benefitting from the reserve currency \u2013 advantages that aren\u2019t easily relinquished.<\/p>\n<p>Then there are the more personal elements you mentioned \u2013 legacy, ego, and other factors that might influence Trump\u2019s motivations.<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s anyone\u2019s guess how this will play out, how far he will push, and how aggressively he will pursue it.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>For the rest of us who must deal with the consequences, there\u2019s at least a safety component from a commercial and global perspective: early detection of potential conflict can help manage risk.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>But, of course, such capabilities can also be misused, potentially escalating tensions and provoking conflicts rather than preventing them.<\/p>\n<p>Ultimately, it\u2019s a highly complex area of debate, with strategic, political, and human dimensions all intertwined.<\/p>\n<p><strong>CIARAN RYAN:<\/strong> Yes, there are a few moving parts here. You\u2019ve got Denmark on the one hand, you\u2019ve got the US, and you\u2019ve got the people of Greenland themselves \u2013 the 50 000 people who live there. From what I have seen, they\u2019re not entirely enthusiastic about leaving the protection of Denmark and going over to the US.<\/p>\n<p>But where do we stand with this? Because it was quite hostile. At one point there was even talk of maybe military boots on the ground in Greenland.<\/p>\n<p>Are they now talking a deal, or is this thing going to disappear in your opinion and no longer be part of the discussion?<\/p>\n<p><strong>ADRIAAN PASK:<\/strong> No, I think it\u2019s still very much in this sphere. The various options under discussion have flip-flopped a bit. Initially, Trump seemed to be hinting at a \u2018carrot or stick\u2019 approach, but after pushback from different parties, he abandoned the idea of using force. That\u2019s certainly a huge relief.<\/p>\n<p>However, there are still numerous steps that would need to happen for this deal to move forward. You mentioned that the people of Greenland aren\u2019t particularly happy with how this is being approached.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Reports suggested Trump offered between $10 000 and $100 000 per citizen, but he never confirmed any figure.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Interestingly, he expressed interest explicitly but never made a financial commitment. Those numbers actually came from senior government officials who leaked them.<\/p>\n<p>The thinking behind this is that Greenland\u2019s population would need to be on board, as several steps depend on public approval.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Greenlandic voters would need to approve any change in status through a referendum, followed by Greenland\u2019s parliament authorising and ratifying any agreement affecting sovereignty.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Only after that would Denmark\u2019s government need to consent to any territorial changes.<\/p>\n<p>On the US side, there are further practicalities. The deal would still need a two-thirds majority in the Senate to ratify it \u2013 and, given the country\u2019s financial situation, Congress would have to approve the funding.<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s easy to see why some prior deals in history ultimately amounted to nothing \u2013 they were simply too complex and expensive to execute.<\/p>\n<p><strong>CIARAN RYAN:<\/strong> What happens then if they do settle on an amount? The figure that\u2019s been floated \u2013 around $700 billion \u2013 sounds like a huge amount of money. But maybe, if it goes through, 100 or 200 years from now it might seem like chump change and would get paid.<\/p>\n<p>Would it be the Danish government? Would it be the people of Greenland?<\/p>\n<p>I guess there is an investment issue here, which is potentially huge \u2013 that if this deal does go through or there\u2019s any more stick than carrot, if it starts getting a little bit threatening, a lot of countries around the world would be fairly nervous. So the point I\u2019m getting at is I see heightened geopolitical risk as a result of this.<\/p>\n<p><strong>ADRIAAN PASK:<\/strong> Yes, absolutely. We shouldn\u2019t forget that at the same time Trump is not being very pro-Nato [North Atlantic Treaty Organisation] \u2013 to say the least. And Denmark is actually a founding member of Nato. So there are big philosophical changes there, you would assume.<\/p>\n<p>But in terms of where the money actually comes and [downstream consequences], I think it\u2019s good to contextualise the GDPs [gross domestic product] of the various parties.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Greenland\u2019s GDP is tiny; it\u2019s about $3\u00a0billion per annum. Denmark\u2019s is around $500 billion, and the US\u2019s is $29 trillion.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Obviously, it could be a big deal for Greenland or Denmark, but not so much for the US. If you look at some of the historical figures that have been mentioned, the last one was probably around 1946. There was actually a formal offer made by the US for Greenland back then, and that offer was $100 million in gold. Funny enough, we know what the gold price has done since, and if you do the calculation, that\u2019s $1.7 billion today.<\/p>\n<p>But if we use a conservative estimate and, say, everybody agrees and they offer $500\u00a0billion, which is a super-conservative estimate by the way, that\u2019s the entire GDP of Denmark that they gain.<\/p>\n<p>And also what\u2019s interesting is that there are annual grant payments Denmark [makes to] Greenland, obviously in support of infrastructure and other things.\u00a0Those payments are roughly $750?million per year.<\/p>\n<p>But the key point is the spirit of \u2018We are connected at the hip\u2019. If the payment goes to Denmark, Greenland would naturally expect something in return, similar to the existing grant. So there could be a payment directly to Greenland, which could be quite substantial relative to their GDP.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>For the US, however, we\u2019re talking about only 1% or 2% of GDP \u2013 so it\u2019s not necessarily meaningful in the broader economic context.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>But if a permanent payment were required and Congress approved it, that would essentially represent a year\u2019s worth of GDP growth spent without any corresponding fiscal gain. From a financial perspective, it\u2019s a significant capital outlay that must ultimately be covered.<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, Denmark would no longer be responsible for ongoing maintenance or development payments for Greenland. Everything \u2013 from building new bases to supporting infrastructure \u2013 would become the US\u2019s responsibility, adding further cost.<\/p>\n<p>It all raises the question of whether US finances are in a position to support this long-term commitment. Can they truly think that far ahead?<\/p>\n<p>This approach is similar to what we often see from the Chinese, who typically plan and make decisions with a very long-term horizon \u2013 sometimes decades into the future \u2013 focusing on strategic positioning, infrastructure, and influence rather than immediate gains.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>The US, by contrast, usually operates within the shorter span of presidential terms, typically four to eight years, so long-term bets beyond that horizon are rare.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>That\u2019s why it would be unusual for the US to make what is essentially a 40-year investment, hoping to see financial or strategic returns over the next four decades.<\/p>\n<p>Let\u2019s see how that plays out.\u00a0To my mind, it\u2019s just too complicated. It demands too much from the parties on the ground, particularly in a political system where short-term thinking dominates.<\/p>\n<p>The Greenlanders aren\u2019t happy, Denmark isn\u2019t happy \u2013 it feels like there are simply too many obstacles for the deal to succeed. But, as they say, never say never. For now, it seems like a bit of a dreamland \u2013 certainly not Greenland.<\/p>\n<p><strong>CIARAN RYAN:<\/strong> Well, it\u2019s a fascinating story, and no doubt we\u2019re going to talk about this more as the months go by.<\/p>\n<p>Thanks very much for joining us. Adriaan Pask is chief investment officer at PSG Wealth.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><script data-cfasync=\"false\">\n !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)\n {if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?\n n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};\n if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';\n n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;\n t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];\n s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script',\n 'https:\/\/connect.facebook.net\/en_US\/fbevents.js');\n fbq('init', '779812924991616');\n fbq('track', 'PageView');\n <\/script>#Greenland #Geopolitics #Market #Risk #PSG #Wealth<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>You can also listen to this po… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":24228,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4],"tags":[3998,5542,33,9900,368,81],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24227"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=24227"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24227\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/24228"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=24227"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=24227"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/microvibenews.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=24227"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}