Greenland and the Limits of Political Maps
Greenland has long occupied an uneasy space between geography and governance, and recent statements from Stephen Miller made that tension explicit by arguing the island should be (or is?) part of the United States, framed less as a question of law than of strategy. The claim signals a new U.S. foreign policy, a doctrine shaped by a race for global resources - oil, rare minerals, emerging sea routes, and the infrastructures that support AI and strategic computation - where geography is a driver of power. Legal frameworks now coexist uneasily with operational realities, as early warning systems, Arctic air corridors, undersea cables, and resource prospects position Greenland within overlapping strategic imaginaries rather than a single settled order. This shift places strain on European security assumptions, conflicts with NATO norms, and raises particular concern among Scandinavian countries, an unease that was palpable during my recent travel in Norway. (Incidentally, in the game of RISK, Greenland belongs to North America, a basic reminder that strategic models like to organize the world by power and connectivity rather than inherited political borders).
Further Reading
Iceberg frozen in North Star Bay, Greenland, photographed during NASA’s Operation IceBridge, 2015. NASA / Jeremy Harbeck. Public domain.