Greenland lost 12.5 billion tons of ice to melting on August 2, the largest single-day loss in recorded history and another stark reminder of the climate crisis. Kulusuk is also base camp for NASA's OMG (Oceans Melting Greenland) program.

Kulusuk, Greenland (CNN)On one of the hottest days this summer, locals in the tiny village of Kulusuk, Greenland, heard what sounded like an explosion. It turned out to be a soccer field's worth of ice breaking off a glacier more than five miles away. 

 

 

Greenland lost 12.5 billion tons of ice to melting on August 2, the largest single-day loss in recorded history and another stark reminder of the climate crisis.

Kulusuk is also base camp for NASA's OMG (Oceans Melting Greenland) program. OMG scientists traveled to the world's biggest island this year after a heatwave scorched the United States and Europe, smashing temperature records and triggering the mass melting of its ice sheet. 

NASA oceanographer Josh Willis and his team are investigating how the ice is being attacked not only by rising air temperatures but also by the warming ocean, which is eating it away from underneath.

A remodeled World War II DC-3 plane, now called Basler BT-57, takes a group of OMG researchers around the coast of Greenland. From the air the crew launch special probes through the ice floor, which then transmit data on temperature and salinity, which is used to plot possible sea level rises and what they would mean for humanity in the future.

"There is enough ice in Greenland to raise the sea levels by 7.5 meters, that's about 25 feet, an enormous volume of ice, and that would be devastating to coastlines all around the planet," said Willis. "We should be retreating already from the coastline if we are looking at many meters [lost] in the next century or two."

NASA took CNN on a dramatic flight over Helheim -- one of the largest glaciers on Greenland and the fastest flowing on the eastern edge of the island. Helheim, named after the realm of the dead in Norse mythology, is majestic, standing at more than four miles wide and roughly the height of the Statue of Liberty.

As our plane approached Helheim, the scientists spotted an ice-free "lake" at the very front of the glacier, something they said they don't see often. The probes also brought back troubling data -- Helheim was surrounded by warm water along its entire depth, more than 2,000 feet below the surface. 

"It's very rare anywhere on the planet to see 700 meters of no temperature variation, normally we find colder waters in the upper hundred meters or so, but right in front of the glacier it's warm all the way up," said Ian Fenty, climate scientist at NASA. "These warm waters now are able to be in direct contact with the ice over its entire face, supercharging the melting."

Helheim has become famous in recent years as it has been retreating at a stunning rate. In 2017, the glacier lost a whopping two miles, and a year later scientists from New York University captured a miles-long ice column break off the glacier's front. The melt doesn't seem to be slowing this year either."It retreats by many meters per day, it's tens of meters per day. You can probably set your iPhone on timelapse and actually see it go by," Willis says as the data flashes up on his phone screen.

Glaciers like Helheim, and even the much smaller ones around villages like Kulusuk, are powerful enough to make the global sea level rise by half a millimeter in just a month -- something NASA researchers say cannot be ignored. "Greenland has impacts all around the planet. A billion tons of ice lost here raises sea levels in Australia, in Southeast Asia, in the United States, in Europe," Willis said. "We are all connected by the same ocean."

Even though most still think of rovers and other planets when they think of NASA missions, in the 50 years since the moon landing, the public perception of what the agency should pour its resources into seems to be shifting. According to a recent study from the Pew Research Center, a majority of Americans now think that NASA's top priority should be monitoring key parts of Earth's climate system rather than sending a man to Mars.

Read more:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/19/weather/greenland-nasa-climate-battle...

See also:
CO2 only heats up in the sunlight... GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL and anthropogenic...

European and US scientists have cleared up a point that has been nagging away at climate science for decades: not only is the planet warming faster than at any time in the last 2,000 years, but this unique climate change really does have neither a historic precedent nor a natural cause.

Other historic changes — the so-called Medieval Warm Period and then the “Little Ice Age” that marked the 17th to the 19th centuries — were not global. The only period in which the world’s climate has changed, everywhere and at the same time, is right now.

And other shifts in the past, marked by advancing Alpine glaciers and sustained droughts in Africa, could be pinned down to a flurry of violent volcanic activity.

The present sustained, ubiquitous warming is unique in that it can be coupled directly with the Industrial Revolution, the clearing of the forests, population growth and profligate use of fossil fuels.

The finding is part of a sustained examination of global climate history, based not just on written and pictorial records but also studies of ancient lake sediments, ice cores, tree rings and other proxy evidence assembled by an international partnership called the Past Global Changes Consortium. It is reported in the journal Nature.

Research like this is a tidying-up operation. Climate scientists, conservationists, glaciologists, marine biologists, geologists and economists all know that climate change is happening, and that it is happening as a consequence of accelerated human activity over the last two centuries.

But from the start, there have always been gnawing questions: hasn’t the climate always changed? If global temperatures rose between 700 AD and 1400 AD, and then fell again, is what is happening now not part of some similar long-term cycle? And until now, that has remained without a confident, categorical answer.

So the latest study surprises nobody. But it matters, because the Nature study clarifies a point of possible confusion. There have been changes in modern human history, but none of them global and synchronous (happening at the same time). They were random fluctuations within the climate system, and even changes in solar activity or volcanic surges could not affect all of the planet at any one time.

“It’s true that during the Little Ice Age it was generally colder across the whole world,” says Raphel Neukom of the University of Bern in Switzerland, and first author, “but not everywhere at the same time. The peak periods of pre-industrial warm and cold periods occurred at different times in different places.”

And his Bern colleague Stefan Brönnimann clears up another point in a related study in the pages of Nature Geoscience.

Volcanic influence

The Little Ice Age began in Europe with no obvious trigger, but it was certainly reinforced and extended by more violent than usual volcanic activity in the tropics between 1808 and 1835. Mt Tambora in what is now Indonesia put so much ash into the stratosphere to screen sunlight and drop temperatures that 1816 became known as the Year without a Summer.

But there were also four other eruptions. Between 1820 and 1850, Alpine glaciers — now in alarming retreat — actually advanced. African and Indian monsoon systems weakened, and rain that should have fallen on hot soils dropped as more snow over Europe.

“Given the large climatic changes seen in the early 19th century, it is difficult to define a pre-industrial climate, a notion to which all our climate targets refer,” said Professor Brönnimann. “Frequent volcanic eruptions caused an actual gear shift in the global climate system.”

Commenting on the Nature finding, Mark Maslin, a climatologist at University College London, said: “Over the last 2000 years the only time the global climate has changed synchronically has been in the last 150 years when over 98 percent of the surface of the planet has warmed. This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle.”

“This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climates of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions.” 

 

Read more:

https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/08/19/yes-it-s-due-human-activity-new-re...

 

Read from top.

Sook:

An Australian slang term used to indicate another person is soft, easily upset, or just a plain pussy.

 

US President Donald Trump has cancelled a meeting with the Danish PM after she unequivocally shot down his dreams of purchasing resource-rich Greenland, a much-memed possibility about which the president was quite serious.

Trump thanked PM Mette Frederiksen for being “so direct” and sparing “a great deal of expense and effort” for both countries, which apparently have few pressing matters to discuss absent the gigantic and seemingly absurd real-estate purchase. The meeting, scheduled for two weeks into the future, would be postponed “for another time,” the president tweeted on Monday.

Frederiksen refused to even entertain the possibility, calling the purchase “absurd” and explaining more than once that “Greenland is not for sale” - and that it isn’t Denmark’s to sell, anyway. Trump, for his part, has floated the idea of purchasing the landmass multiple times, musing that “it would be nice” for strategic purposes.

 

Denmark is a very special country with incredible people, but based on Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s comments, that she would have no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland, I will be postponing our meeting scheduled in two weeks for another time....

Donald J. Trump✔@realDonaldTrump

....The Prime Minister was able to save a great deal of expense and effort for both the United States and Denmark by being so direct. I thank her for that and look forward to rescheduling sometime in the future!

 

 

 

Read from top.

US President Donald Trump has called the Danish leader "nasty" after she rebuffed his idea of buying Greenland.

He lashed out hours after Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said she was "sorry" that Mr Trump had abruptly called off a state visit to Denmark.

She has dismissed the suggestion of such a land deal as "absurd".

Queen Margrethe II invited Mr Trump to visit Denmark on 2 September, and the manner of his cancellation has stunned the Scandinavian nation.

What did the US president say?

Speaking to reporters on the White House lawn on Wednesday afternoon, Mr Trump took umbrage at Ms Frederiksen's remarks.

"I thought that the prime minister's statement that it was absurd, that it was an absurd idea was nasty," he said. 

"I thought it was an inappropriate statement. All she had to do is say no, we wouldn't be interested."

 

Read more:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49423968

 

For the guy @realwhatever who tweets horror nasty crap nearly twice a day, it's a bit rich to complain... And please don't think that Trump will give up his quest — as HE cranks up the heat in the exchange...

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has praised Denmark amid a public row over Greenland that saw President Donald Trump cancel a visit to the country. 

In a phone call with Danish Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod, Mr Pompeo "expressed appreciation for Denmark's co-operation" as a US ally. 

Mr Kofod welcomed the "frank, friendly and constructive talk". 

It came after Mr Trump said Denmark's prime minister had been "nasty" when rebuffing his idea of buying Greenland. 

Mette Frederiksen had called his ambitions of buying the autonomous Danish territory "absurd". She said she was "disappointed and surprised" that he had cancelled his visit.

The trip was scheduled to take place on 2 September, at the invitation of Denmark's Queen Margrethe II.

 

 

Read more:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49430537

 

 

Read from top. Yep. Like all "US allies", Denmark is the US friend as long as Denmark kisses the US butt...

 

"All the Rotten Denmarkians..."

                  Shakespeare, Homelet, revisited by Trump.

 

 

Read from top.

Donald Trump's offer to buy Greenland — and subsequent cancellation of a scheduled meeting with the Prime Minister of Denmark via Twitter after being rebuffed — has all of the hallmarks of one of his typically absurd, but ultimately unmemorable, diplomatic gaffes.

His description of the proposal to purchase one of the world's largest islands, inhabited by tens of thousands of indigenous people, as "essentially a large real estate deal" evokes the worst memories of European colonialism, and has already invited incredulity and scorn on both sides of the Atlantic.

However, impulsive and crude as the offer may seem, it is in fact in perfect accordance with an increasingly assertive American strategic policy aimed at containing both China and Russia.

Greenland's value as "real estate" comes in two forms, the strategic location of the island itself, and the resources that lie within. Its place of prominence in the Arctic region is expected to become increasingly valuable as commercial shipping routes between Asia, Europe, and North America are made viable as global warming melts the northern ice caps.

This has the potential to divert a large portion of world trade from geopolitically contested regions like the Middle East and Western Pacific. A dominant geographical foundation within the new highway of world trade would have clear strategic and commercial benefits for the United States.

Of more direct military relevance is the proximity of Greenland to Russia. Since 1987, the United States and Russia have agreed not to develop land-based ballistic and cruise missiles with a range between 500-5,500 kilometres, under the framework of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty.

With the Trump administration's unilateral withdrawal from the treaty earlier this month, Greenland has become attractive territory for medium-range missile deployment. The United States already operates a major military installation in Greenland that sits comfortably within range of huge swathes of Russian territory, including Moscow and St Petersburg. American control of the island would likely lead to further militarisation of the Arctic.

Greenland is rare earth

But it's China that sits squarely in the focus of the US President's strategic planners. Indeed, it is widely believed the withdrawal from the INF treaty was undertaken more with a view to the Chinese threat in the western Pacific, than Russian in the North Atlantic. 

Where China is concerned, Mr Trump's proposal to purchase Greenland centres on control of its subsurface minerals, particularly rare-earth elements.

Rare earths are a group of 17 minerals that are indispensable for the production of a wide range of modern technologies. They are critically important for the rapidly growing green industry — as lightweight magnets in wind turbines, as catalytic converters in cars, and, increasingly, as part of the chemical mixture of rechargeable batteries.

They are also used across medical science, fossil-fuel refinement, in the nuclear industry, in optical glasses and mobile-phone technology.

But from a strategic perspective, their most important applications are in military hardware. They are used in missile guidance and control systems, in the disk-drive motors of tanks and aircraft, in laser-detection systems, in satellite communications, radar, sonar, optical equipment, and play a role in many other military systems.

The total value of all rare-earth-dependent goods is around $US7 trillion a year.

The United States was once the largest producer of rare earths, but since the mid-1990s China has dominated the industry. American dependence on Chinese rare-earth production has been viewed as a strategic vulnerability since this time, but awareness of the issue became acute in 2010, in the aftermath of a maritime incident between Japan and China.

US seeking mineral security

The threat of a Chinese rare-earth embargo of Japan sent markets soaring, and spurred a flurry of political activity in the US. Since then, successive White House administrations, congress, and the departments of interior, energy, and defense have all sought to enact policy to shore up American supply of rare earths and other critical minerals. But with little immediate effect.

While the largest American rare-earth mine — in Mountain Pass, California — reopened in January 2018, China still sits at the heart of the global industry of mining, processing, and industrial application of rare-earth minerals. Greenland itself is thought to hold the largest reserves of rare earths outside of China, and the US State Department is already involved in agreements with the Greenland Ministry of Mineral Resources to boost mineral exploration and investment. Bringing these resources under American sovereignty would be a major step towards mineral security.

This is not the first time the United States has expressed an interest in buying Greenland. In 1868, a State Department report advocated its purchase on the grounds of both its "great mineral wealth", and its strategic position in relation to Canada. It was anticipated Canada would be peaceably incorporated into the United States if outflanked by Alaska and Greenland. A representative of the Truman administration also made an offer on the island in 1946.

Mr Trump's expression of interest seems destined to the same fate as those that preceded it. However, it is wrong to view the episode as just another Trump gaffe. Rather, it's a sign of the shape of things to come, as the United States manoeuvres to secure its strategic position against emerging rivals.

Stuart Rollo is a researcher in the department of Government and International Relations at Sydney University.

 

Read from top.

 

See also:

http://yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/35896

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/36719

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/33218

 

 

 

The Trump administration is planning to open a US consulate in Greenland for the first time in decades amid increased strategic and economic interest in the Danish territory.

The US State Department has said in a letter to Congress that re-establishing a consulate in Nuuk is part of a broader plan to increase the US presence in the Arctic.

The US has a “strategic interest in enhancing political, economic, and commercial relationships across the Arctic region,” said the letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

President Donald Trump sparked a diplomatic dispute with US-ally Denmark this week after he proposed the US buy Greenland and the Danish government rejected the idea.

 

 

Read more:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2019/08/24/greenland-us-consulate/

 

----------------------

Gus personal info (possibly made up on the hop) is that "the building of the new US Consulate in Greenland building could be on par with Bagdhad US embassy or the Trump Tower as show at top — to serve and protect U.S. citizens in Greenlandic Inuitland."

The mission of the United States Embassy in Bagdhad is to advance the interests of the United States, and to serve and protect U.S. citizens in Iraq. At 104 acres, it is the largest and most expensive embassy in the world, and is nearly as large as Vatican City.

Big is good...

 

Read from top. and US$600 millions? what a scrooge!

 

 

Meanwhile, back in 2016...

 

No one could have predicted in 2016 that US President Donald Trump would be throwing a geopolitical hissy fit over Denmark’s refusal to consider his offer to buy Greenland. No one, that is, except… Republican ex-rival Ted Cruz?

“I don’t know anyone who would be comfortable with someone who behaves this way having his finger on the [nuclear] button. We’re liable to wake up one morning and Donald, if he were president, would’ve nuked Denmark,” Cruz told a crowd during a New Hampshire campaign event in February 2016.

 

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/usa/467014-cruz-predicts-future-denmark-trump/

 

This week has seen one of the most bizarre diplomatic rows of Donald Trump's presidency.

Insults have been exchanged, tweets have been sent, major visits have been cancelled - and this all happened because the US president said he wanted to buy Greenland.

It started with an article in the Wall Street Journal which, quoting sources, claimed the US president had "with varying degrees of seriousness, repeatedly expressed interest in buying the ice-covered autonomous Danish territory". Initially dismissed by many as rumour, the claims were later confirmed by Mr Trump himself. 

Denmark's prime minister Mette Frederiksen was swift and unambiguous in her response, calling his idea of buying the island "absurd". Shortly afterwards, Mr Trump cancelled a state visit to Denmark that had been planned for 2 September, accusing Ms Frederiksen of being "nasty". 

So, what do Greenlanders make of all of this?

'For me, this is very scary'

"This is a very dangerous idea," Dines Mikaelsen, a tour operator who was born and raised in Tasiilaq, East Greenland, told the BBC. 

The US has had a military presence in Greenland since World War Two, with numerous military bases across the island, including a secret Cold War-era nuclear base called Camp Century.

• Trump cancels Denmark visit amid spat over sale of Greenland
• Pompeo praises Denmark after Trump cancels visit
• Profile: Greenland

This presence has been extremely controversial. Almost all of these bases lie abandoned in remote Greenland locations. In the case of Camp Century, there are fears that the rapidly melting ice on which it was built will expose the environment to nuclear waste within decades.

Only Thule Air Base remains. In the US, Thule is best known for being placed in a strategically important location. But in Greenland, it is associated with the displacement of the indigenous Inughuit community, who in 1953 were given four days to leave their homes to make way for the base's expansion.

For Mr Mikaelsen, this was all at the front of his mind when he heard of President Trump's ambitions.

"We have so many [US] military bases that have been left for many many years, and you can see the rust everywhere... they have left so much trash in Greenland," he said. 

The remains of one decaying World War Two base, Bluie East Two, is about 59km (37 miles) from his hometown Tasiilaq.

"They also move people without asking them," he added, describing the expropriation of the Inughuits. "If they [the US] buy Greenland, they would just move people around and build it up with military bases... our population is only 56,000, and for me, this is very scary."

'He's treating us like a good he can purchase'

Aleqa Hammond, who was Greenland's first female prime minister and later chair of the Greenland Committee in the Danish Parliament, tells the BBC that this is a common feeling among the island's residents.

"The American presence in Greenland is not to the benefit of Greenlanders," she said. "Even though America said, and Denmark said, that the expansion [of the Thule Air Base in 1953] was just in case there was an attack from Russia... we see it differently. We never asked Americans to come. Denmark allowed them to come and build an air base.

"Then, the Americans and Denmark together only gave the Inughuit people four days to move out of their homes, and told them that if they didn't move out they would demolish their houses - because [they said] it was important that they built the air strip right then, because the Cold War was going on. 

"This is the way Americans have been treating the Greenlanders, and of course, even though it was many years ago, it's still part of our history with America."

Then there's the issue of President Trump himself.

Ms Hammond said Mr Trump's blunt proposal showed a lack of sensitivity to this history, and that his attitude to Greenland was "very arrogant".

"He's treating us like a good he can purchase," she said. "He's not even talking to Greenland - he's talking to Denmark about buying Greenland."

Ebbe Volquardsen, a professor of culture and social history at the University of Greenland, raises the same question: "Trump is talking about buying Greenland, but the first question is, who is he buying it from?

"Then it turned out that he wanted to buy it from Denmark, as if Greenland is the property of Denmark," he told the BBC. "Which of course is not the case."

'Very disrespectful'

When Prof Volquardsen, along with the rest of the world, realised that President Trump was not joking about buying Greenland, it dawned on him that it was "a very serious matter".

"The President of the United States is not recognising a people's right to self-determination," he says, adding that this ironically comes just after the 10th anniversary of the 2009 Self-Government Act in Denmark, which legally recognised Greenlanders' right to self-determination. "It's very disrespectful to many people here in Greenland."

He feels the Danish prime minister, however, was "very professional" in the way she dealt with the request: "[Ms Frederiksen] made clear from the beginning that Greenland is not for sale, and she also made clear that it is not for Denmark to decide.

 

Read more:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49436197

 

The Greenland Trump Tower and embassy compound might look more like this:

 

 

Read from top.

 

As mentioned earlier on this line of comments, The Donald is unlikely to give up his quest... He will circle the wagon...

 

 

Denmark’s former minister for the environment, Ida Auken, has mocked US President Donald Trump in the wake of his spat with the Scandinavian country over his idea of purchasing the world’s largest island. The POTUS postponed his meeting with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen after she called his idea "absurd", while he branded her "nasty”.

Denmark’s former Environment Minister Ida Auken has decided to use two things US President Donald Trump apparently cares about a lot – good deals and the world’s largest island – to “sell” him windmill power plants. In a clip that has gone viral in the wake of the Greenland social media craze she mocked the American commander-in-chief over his attacks against windmill power plants, which he accused of causing black-outs, destroying property value, and killing birds.

Along with a mix of her statements and cuts from Trump’s earlier speeches on the issue, she tweeted: “Mr. President - Greenland is not for sale. But Denmark has a much better deal for you!”

 

Read more/see more:

https://sputniknews.com/viral/201908251076636910-danish-mp-twitter-trump...

 

Read from top.

 

 

Yes, Donald, as a gasbag you should become a wind addict...

 

Read from top.

While US President Donald Trump's attempt last year to purchase Greenland failed, Washington appears to be determined to further boost its influence over the world's largest island and the location of the country's northernmost airbase.

The United States is preparing a “substantial package of financial support” for Greenland, US Ambassador to Denmark, Carla Sands, has written in an opinion piece in the newspaper Altinget.

According to Sands, this will provide a renewed impetus for growth.

“It is our wish to cooperate with the entire Danish Realm to promote entrepreneurship and innovation and thus stimulate sustainable economic growth in the Arctic”, Sands wrote.

The US has recently set up a consulate in Greenland in hopes of becoming its preferred trading partner in the Arctic. Carla Sands wrote that the consulate in the capital of Nuuk will be the starting point for increased, daily contact with the Greenlandic people. She added that over the past year, an American diplomat had travelled around Greenland to exchange views and forge contacts with all sorts of people, students, business people, and representatives from both state and local government.

“Now that our diplomatic presence becomes permanent, we hope to be able to further deepen and strengthen the relationship between the US, Greenland and Denmark”, Sands wrote.

Additionally, Sands warned about an “aggressive Russia”, which is claimed to have strengthened its military potential in the Arctic, and a “greedy and polluting China”, and instead promoted the US vision of the Arctic, which, she insisted, was based solely on “transparency, cooperation, and democratic values”.

Although this evaluation is more or less consistent with that of the Danish intelligence community, as the Defence Intelligence Service has repeatedly mentioned Russia and China in its threat assessment, and the country's mainstream media, whose analysts and journalists tend to emphasise the “Russian threat”, the US plans were not received well.

According to the Conservatives, the US is “quite openly” working to undermine the unity of the realm.

“The US is quite openly working to undermine the unity of the realm. They have always been on a long leash, but there is a limit, and in the end they may not even be present in Greenland unless they put that agenda on ice. This is totally unacceptable”, Conservative Greenland spokesman Rasmus Jarlov tweeted.

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/europe/202004221079051217-totally-unacceptable-d...

 

Read from top.

China’s envoy to Denmark has penned a harsh rebuttal to his American counterpart, who accused Beijing of seeking to impose “authoritarian values” on Greenland – in stark contrast to an honest US offer to outright buy the island.

The envoy, Feng Tie, hit out at Washington’s Ambassador to Denmark Carla Sands in an op-ed this week after she alleged that both China and Russia have malicious designs on Greenland and the Arctic region as a whole. Sands stated that only increased US influence could ensure a “secure and stable Arctic.”

“It is important to remember that any cooperation is voluntary. China can in no way impose cooperation on Greenland or Denmark,” Feng said, blasting Sands’ claims as “absurd and misleading.”

China respects the sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdictions of the Arctic states.

Accusing Beijing of “gradually trying to penetrate the [Arctic]” to promote “predatory economic interests” in an opinion piece in April, Sands said the country is gaining a “foothold” there through a network of scientific observation posts, among other things. Feng rejected that argument as well, noting that China has a right to access parts of the Arctic under the 1920 Svalbard Treaty, which granted permissions to various signatories to conduct scientific research and commercial activities in specific areas of the region.

As for China’s “predatory” financial interests, Feng said there are currently no Chinese companies operating in Greenland, but added that Beijing is open to stepped-up economic cooperation there.

 

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/488694-china-denmark-us-greenland/

 

 

Read from top. One can see a pattern by the US mongrels here...

 

One of the more bizarre indications that Trump Washington is interested in the Arctic was made a year ago when he said he would like to buy Greenland, a vast territory that is administered by Denmark. It is about the same size as Saudi Arabia, and slightly smaller than India — a big country in which there is a Pentagon base at Thule which, among other things, as Defence News tells us, is “the U.S. military’s northernmost base and the only installation north of the Arctic Circle. It is home to the 12th Space Warning Squadron, a cadre of Air Force officers and enlisted personnel that provide 24/7 missile warning and space surveillance using a massive AN/FPS-132 radar. Besides being a critical site for missile defence and space situational awareness, Thule hosts the Defence Department’s northernmost deep-water seaport and airfield. Those assets would come into play in any sort of military conflict in the arctic, giving the Pentagon forward-basing options if needed.”

In the Pentagon’s “New Arctic Strategy” it is stated that the Space Force will “develop new technologies and modernize existing assets in the Arctic necessary to ensure access to and freedom to operate in space,” while Air Force Secretary Barbara Barret announced in July that “U.S. air and space forces value the Arctic. Access and stability require cooperation among America’s allies and partners, along with a commitment to vigilance, power projection, and preparation.”

Barrett’s observation that the region should be “a free and open domain for benevolent actors” would be more credible were the Pentagon indeed a benevolent actor — and while Washington always declares that other countries are indulging in military adventurism when developing defences in their own territory, it is a different call when the Pentagon indulges in “forward-basing.” For example, it is believed to be sinister that in its own Arctic territory, “Russia has refurbished airfields, invested in search and rescue, and built radar stations to improve awareness in the air and maritime domains” while U.S. military expansion in the Arctic is considered essential because “it is a critical domain to protect America’s homeland.”

This was raised by Trump during his fantasising about buying Greenland when, although acknowledging that “Denmark essentially owns it” he claimed that this hurts Denmark “very badly” because it loses “almost $700 million a year” (which is not so) but that he wants to continue “protecting” Washington’s “big ally.”

Denmark and the rest of the world laughed at Trump’s silly fantasy which caused the usual Trump reaction, in that he promptly cancelled a scheduled visit to Copenhagen and tweeted childish abuse about Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. His reason for scrapping the visit and insulting the Danish people was that the prime minister had “no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland”. As with the entire Washington establishment — and most notably the Machiavellian Pompeo — Trump considers that when a country is presented with demands made by the United States then there has to be speedy and totally compliant action on the part of the targeted government.

Trump’s petulant insult was laughed at by the Danes and everyone else, but then he turned his attention to another part of the Arctic. As pointed out by Juan Cole, on August 18, the same day that scientists produced a research analysis concluding that the Greenland ice sheet is losing 500 billion tons of ice each year (equal to a million tons a minute), the real estate agent in the White House finalised his plans to encourage oil and gas drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

You have to hand it to Trump, in that he rarely fails to make a complete idiot of himself when an opportunity arises.

The wildlife refuge was first protected by legislation brought in forty years ago, but has been under constant threat from oil and gas companies which are faithfully supported by members of the Republican Party whose Congressional legislators in 2017 (when they controlled both Houses) approved a tax bill that opened the area to oil and gas leasing. It has been calculated that the oil and gas sector contributed $84.4 million in the 2018 election cycle. Koch Industries was the largest single donor, at $10.5 million. Total campaign spending by the oil and gas sector since 1990 has totalled $625 million.

Trump and the people who fill the pockets of legislators — and the pocket-filled legislators themselves — are not in the slightest concerned about the effects of gas and oil drilling in the Wildlife Refuge, which are likely to be catastrophic.

Which brings us to the military expansion equation, in which the Pentagon is to the fore in explaining in its Arctic Strategy that “U.S. interests include maintaining flexibility for global power projection, including by ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight; and limiting the ability of China and Russia to leverage the region as a corridor for competition that advances their strategic objectives through malign or coercive behaviour.”

Russia and China wish to develop economically, and the Arctic is an area that can be beneficial to their interests. Russia, as even the Pentagon has to admit, “is the largest Arctic nation by landmass, population, and military presence above the Arctic Circle”, although of course it is regarded as deplorable that its “commercial investments… have been matched by continued defence investments and activities that strengthen both its territorial defence and its ability to control the Northern Sea Route.”

As to China, the summation is that it is “attempting to gain a role in the Arctic in ways that may undermine international rules and norms, and there is a risk that its predatory economic behaviour globally may be repeated in the Arctic.” In other words, Washington, which fancies it does not indulge in predatory economic behaviour, does not want either Russia or China to continue their initiatives in developing the region.

Neither Russia nor China is furthering schemes whereby northern wildlife will be destroyed by their economic activities, and there is no evidence that their military activities are in any way confrontational or aggressive. But the Pentagon is determined to find justification for its own posture in the region and is developing a “U.S. Arctic deterrent” which “will require agile, capable, and expeditionary forces with the ability to flexibly project power into and operate within the region, as the Joint Force must be able to do elsewhere globally.”

Trump’s emphasis on expanding fossil fuel production and throwing open the Alaskan Arctic to drilling and associated coinstruction will imperil endangered species and contribute massively to the climate change crisis. The Pentagon’s military strategy for the region will increase international tension and inevitably lead to confrontation, as it expands its presence in order to “project power.” Washington’s plans for the Arctic will heat the place up in more than one way.

 

 

Read more:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/08/25/washington-plans-for-h...

 

Read from top.