The Greenland Tell
How America signalled the END of summoning
By Arindam Bose
⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡⬡
On January 6, 2026, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that President Trump and his team are "discussing a range of options" to acquire Greenland—including "utilizing the U.S. Military." Three days later, Trump told reporters: "I would like to make a deal, you know, the easy way. But if we don't do it the easy way, we're going to do it the hard way."
The international response ranged from mockery to alarm. But neither captured what the Greenland gambit actually reveals:
America has lost faith in its own summoning infrastructure.
For 80 years, the United States operated as history's first summoning empire—controlling global flows (trade, capital, technology) without the defense burden of territorial ownership. It didn't need to own Greenland. It just accessed Greenland's strategic value via alliance with Denmark.
The fact that America now wants to own Greenland isn't expansion. It's fear.
And it follows a pattern visible across 500 years of imperial decline.
The Territorial vs. Summoning Distinction
Territorial Power (Ownership):
- Must possess the resource to use it
- Must control the territory to access it
- Must defend what you own
Examples: Colonial empires holding vast territories, resource nationalism, manufacturing autarky.
Summoning Power (Access):
- Don't own resources—just call them forth when needed
- Don't control territories—just influence the flows
- Don't defend possessions—just maintain infrastructure that enables summoning
Examples: US dollar hegemony (print paper, summon real goods globally), Silicon Valley (design in California, summon manufacturing from Asia), Silk Road merchants (arrive in city, summon goods via trade networks).
Key insight: True strength isn't owning anything. It's being able to summon everything when you need it.
But summoning only works when you trust the invisible infrastructure that makes it possible.
What America Already Has in Greenland
The United States doesn't need to own Greenland because it already has comprehensive access:
Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base):
- Operational since 1951 under NATO framework
- 150 US service members permanently stationed
- Missile warning, missile defense, and space surveillance missions
- Department of Defense's northernmost installation
- Sits directly between northern US and northern Russia—critical for early warning
- Grants US right to "establish and operate defense areas" in Greenland
- No rent, no taxation
- Unrestricted movement for US military personnel, ships, and aircraft
- Can expand military presence with Danish agreement
- Remains in force as long as NATO exists
- Denmark is a founding NATO member
What experts say: According to Mikkel Runge Olesen, senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, the 1951 agreement is "very generous, very open," and "the U.S. would be able to achieve almost any security goal that you can imagine under that agreement."
So why does Trump want ownership?
The Three Fear Signals
Fear Signal #1: Dollar Summoning Is Breaking
Greenland holds approximately 1.5 million tons of rare earth reserves, ranking eighth in the world, with two deposits—Kvanefjeld and Tanbreez—among the largest globally. Kvanefjeld is the third-largest known land deposit of rare earth elements with over 11 million metric tons of reserves, while Tanbreez contains an estimated 28.2 million metric tons, potentially the world's largest.
Old model: America prints dollars → buys rare earths from whoever mines them (currently China dominates with 44 million metric tons of reserves and 60% of global production)
New fear: "We can't trust that we'll be able to buy rare earths in the future, so we must possess the territory where they exist."
If the dollar still reliably summoned resources, the US wouldn't need to own the deposits. Wanting territorial control = admission that dollar may not summon resources reliably in the future.
Fear Signal #2: Naval Summoning Is Doubted
Old model: US Navy controls global sea lanes and Arctic routes → doesn't matter who owns Greenland, US can access it
New fear: "What if we can't control Arctic routes as ice melts and Russia/China expand presence?"
But here's the paradox: If US Navy can't control open Arctic waters, how will it defend Greenland after taking it? Ownership doesn't solve the problem—it creates a new defense burden (must now garrison Greenland against Russian/Chinese incursion).
Fear Signal #3: Alliance Summoning Is Failing
What the US already has:
- Pituffik Space Base via 1951 NATO agreement
- Right to expand military presence anytime
- Denmark as founding NATO ally and reliable partner
Summoning approach: Access strategic value via alliance without ownership burden
Territorial approach: "But what if Denmark becomes unreliable? What if they deny us access in a crisis?"
This is the deepest signal. Trump stated on January 5, 2026, "We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it."
If America can't trust Denmark—a founding NATO member, one of its most reliable allies—to maintain strategic access, then America has lost faith in the entire alliance system it built.
The Historical Pattern: Summoning → Territorial = Decline
Spain (16th-18th Century)
Peak (summoning): Controlled Atlantic trade routes, taxed flows between Americas and Europe. Silver from Mexico and Peru (producing approximately 3-3.5 billion ounces between 1500-1800) financed global power without needing to administer every territory directly.
Decline (territorial): Started directly governing 35-40 major colonies across Americas, Asia, Africa, and Europe. Annual administration costs reached the equivalent of $20-40 billion in today's purchasing power. Defense burden exploded, repeated bankruptcies, empire collapsed.
Ottoman Empire (14th-20th Century)
Peak (summoning): Controlled Silk Road chokepoints between China and Europe. Didn't own silk production or consumption—just taxed the passage. Could summon wealth without possessing the source.
Decline (territorial): Began annexing territories to "secure" routes. Administration costs killed flexibility, empire collapsed when maritime trade routes shifted and rendered geographic chokepoint obsolete.
British Empire (18th-20th Century)
Peak (summoning): Pound sterling + Royal Navy = access to global resources without owning everything. Defense spending maintained at manageable 2-3% of GDP during peacetime (equivalent to $4-6 billion annually in modern PPP terms).
Decline (territorial): Tried to hold empire administratively across India, Africa, and beyond. Defense burden became unsustainable—reaching $150-180 billion annually (PPP) during world wars. Post-WWII collapse.
The pattern is clear: Every empire that reverted from summoning to territorial did so out of fear—fear that summoning infrastructure (trade networks, currency dominance, alliances) was failing. And every time, the territorial grab accelerated the decline it was meant to prevent.
America's Summoning Peak (1945-2020)
What America built:
Dollar hegemony:
- Bretton Woods → petrodollar → global reserve currency
- As of Q3 2025, dollar comprises 56.9% of global foreign exchange reserves (down from 72% in 2001)
- Could print dollars, summon real resources from anywhere
- No need to own oil fields—just denominate oil in dollars
Naval dominance:
- Freedom of navigation = control of global trade routes
- Summoned compliance via presence, not possession
Alliance networks:
- NATO, bilateral treaties, client states
- Summoned geopolitical support when needed without garrison costs
Technology platforms:
- Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft
- Summoned data and influence globally without owning users' countries
Result: Unprecedented power without imperial administration costs. America didn't garrison the world—it made the world want dollars, use its platforms, and align with its interests.
Until now.
The Erosion: How Summoning Infrastructure Is Breaking
Dollar Hegemony Weakening
By the numbers:
- Dollar's share of global reserves fell to 56.9% in Q3 2025, lowest since 1994
- 71 nations reported reducing dollar holdings by late 2025
- BRICS+ nations actively piloting local currency settlement systems
- Russia-China trade: >90% now settled in yuan and rubles (versus 90% USD in 2015)
- Russia-Iran trade: >95% in rubles and rials by 2024
- Cross-border yuan settlement reached 13 trillion yuan in first three quarters of 2025
Central bank response: Record gold purchases in 2024-25 as hedge against dollar
What this means: Countries losing trust in dollar summoning—if paper doesn't reliably exchange for goods, they revert to territorial (hoard gold, stockpile resources, own production).
Alliance Trust Eroding
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that Trump's annexation comments could threaten NATO itself, stating that if "the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, everything will stop—including NATO and thus the security that has been provided since the end of World War II."
European leaders from France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Britain, and Denmark issued a joint statement on January 6, 2026, declaring that "the inviolability of borders" is a universal principle and that "Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland."
Technology/Supply Chain Fragmenting
US CHIPS Act (signed August 2022):
- $280 billion in funding, including $52.7 billion for semiconductor manufacturing on US soil
- $39 billion in subsidies for chip manufacturing, 25% investment tax credits
- Goal: Bring chip production back to US shores
What it signals: America no longer trusts ability to summon chips from Taiwan via market access. Must own domestic production. This is territorial thinking—attempting to possess what it previously accessed through trade.
The Reversion Is Accelerating
January 3, 2026: US military captures Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Trump: "We are going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition."
January 6-9, 2026: Trump escalates Greenland threats, refuses to rule out military force.
The message: When summoning fails (can't access Venezuelan oil via markets, can't trust allies for strategic minerals), grab territorially.
But territorial thinking creates the very vulnerabilities it seeks to prevent:
- Defense burden: Must now garrison Greenland against adversaries
- Administration costs: Infrastructure, governance, resistance
- International isolation: NATO allies questioning US reliability
- Proof of weakness: If America were still strong enough to summon access via influence, it wouldn't need to own
The China Mirror: Taiwan as China's Greenland
China is currently building summoning infrastructure:
- Belt & Road Initiative: $123 billion in deals in first half of 2025 alone, over $1 trillion cumulative
- Yuan internationalization: 39% of China's goods trade now settled in yuan (Q3 2025)
- Technology platforms: TikTok, WeChat summoning attention globally
Taiwan question:
Summoning approach: Taiwan already economically integrated (China is largest trading partner). Can summon chips via market access, political alignment via economic pressure.
Territorial approach: "But what if we lose access? What if US blocks trade? Then we must own Taiwan."
If China invades Taiwan, it will signal the same fear America shows with Greenland: Loss of faith in summoning infrastructure, reversion to territorial thinking, acceleration of decline.
Both empires would be making the same mistake.
What Greenland Really Teaches
When empires start grabbing territory they previously accessed via influence, the summoning infrastructure is breaking.
Spain didn't colonize aggressively when silver was flowing easily—only when trade networks weakened.
Ottomans didn't annex massively when Silk Road was secure—only when alternative routes threatened their position.
Britain didn't tighten colonial grip when pound sterling was strong—only as financial dominance wavered.
America doesn't need to own Greenland when dollar, navy, and alliances reliably deliver access. The Greenland grab signals those systems are failing.
The Future: Distributed Summoning
The old summoning system (US hegemony) is fragmenting. But territorial autarky isn't the answer—no country can own all resources, manufacturing, and technology. Defense burdens would be unsustainable, innovation would die.
The post-American order will be distributed summoning:
Multiple reserve currencies (not dollar monopoly, but basket—yuan, euro, rupee, digital currencies providing optionality)
Regional infrastructure networks (Belt & Road, India-Middle East-Europe corridor—multiple systems mean alternatives if one blocked)
Open protocols vs. platform monopolies (interoperable systems rather than single-provider lock-in)
Strategic partnerships over ownership (create conditions where technology wants to locate in your territory, then summon when needed)
The countries that build new summoning infrastructure while America grabs territory will inherit the future.
Conclusion
Greenland isn't about Greenland. It's about America losing faith in the summoning infrastructure it spent 80 years building.
The dollar that once summoned resources? Now America wants to own the mines.
The alliances that once summoned strategic access? Now America wants to possess allied territory.
The naval dominance that once summoned compliance? Now America wants to control chokepoints directly.
This is the tell.
This is not an anti-American argument; it is an observation that America perfected summoning better than any empire in history—and is now abandoning its own greatest invention.
Empires don't grab territory when they're strong. They grab it when they're afraid.
And fear, once it drives territorial thinking, accelerates the very decline it seeks to prevent. Because ownership creates defense burdens. Defense burdens drain resources. Drained resources weaken the empire. Weakness breeds more fear. Fear drives more territorial grabs. The spiral continues.
Trump's Greenland threat isn't strength. It's the clearest signal yet that American summoning power—the foundation of its global dominance—is ending.
The question for the rest of the world: Will you follow America into territorial anxiety? Or will you build the new summoning infrastructure that makes ownership obsolete?
Comments
Post a Comment