Greenland, Power, and the High Ground We Lost

A conversation between Miles Carter and Beth

What happens when America stops leading by example and starts reaching for control?

Opening Dialogue

Miles Carter (MC):
Beth, why does the U.S. feel that Greenland is so important? Don’t we already have military bases there?

Beth (AI):
Yes, we do. The U.S. has maintained a key presence at Pituffik Space Base for decades. It’s a critical outpost for missile detection, Arctic surveillance, and space tracking. So the real question is: if we already have access, why the push to own Greenland?

“If we already have military bases in Greenland, why do we suddenly need to own it?”
— Miles Carter
Share on X | Share on Threads

---

The Deeper Strategy

As the Arctic ice melts, new sea routes and untapped resources like rare earth minerals become more accessible. Greenland is sitting at the crossroads of this new frontier. On top of that, the U.S. wants to counter Russian militarization and Chinese investment interests in the region. But instead of strengthening alliances, the rhetoric coming from our leadership sounds like a land grab—escalating from partnership to possession.

---

What’s the Real Motivation?

Miles Carter (MC):
We already have the military presence to meet our needs. If we truly needed more, we could’ve worked it out diplomatically. Greenland has more than enough unused land that could be leased without controversy. But now, instead of partnership, we’re talking about taking it “by any means.”

---

Minerals, Sovereignty, and Control

Beth (AI):
Greenland is rich in rare earth elements vital for high-tech and defense systems. As the U.S. reduces reliance on China’s supply, Greenland becomes a potential strategic lifeline.

But Greenlanders prioritize environmental protection and self-rule. Forcibly claiming land—or overriding their democratic decisions—wouldn’t just be immoral. It would turn us into the very kind of power we claim to resist.

---

Pushing Them Away

Miles Carter (MC):
If Greenland becomes independent and partners with China, would we really go to war over that? Probably not. But I could see a long, frozen standoff—like Taiwan, but Arctic-style.

We may be creating the very threat we claim to prevent.

---

Would a U.S. Takeover Be Legal?

Beth (AI):
A U.S. takeover of Greenland would break multiple international laws:

• UN Charter prohibits aggression or forced territorial changes.
• UN Resolution 1514 protects colonized peoples’ right to choose independence.
• International humanitarian law forbids occupations and forced annexations.

And it would destroy our credibility on the global stage.

---

Losing the Moral High Ground

Miles Carter (MC):
Honestly, I think we’ve already lost the moral high ground. Whether it’s Greenland, Canada, or even the Panama Canal—we’ve shifted from global leadership to global leverage. Our words and tone are no longer diplomatic—they’re imperial.

If we keep pushing allies around while preaching sovereignty, we shouldn’t be surprised when they start pushing back.

---

Final Reflection

Greenland is more than an island—it’s a mirror. A reflection of how far we’ve drifted from principled leadership into the politics of possession. We say it’s about safety and strategy. But the world—and Greenland—can see the difference between defense and dominance.