RETHINKING WESTERN GEOPOLITICS

RETHINKING WESTERN GEOPOLITICS
A Guide for American Citizens
January 2026 by YL
A note to my readers: As I now have many American followers, I will be posting international political analysis in English as well as French. Welcome to my American readers!
This document is intended for American citizens who want to understand current geopolitical issues beyond simplistic media narratives. It is built on documented facts, verifiable figures, and analysis from recognized historians.
This text takes a position. But it is based on geography, demographics, economics, and real strategy, not fear.
PART 1: GREENLAND : WHY THE THREAT IS A MYTH
1.1 The United States Already Has a Base in Greenland
A fact ignored in public debate: The United States has had a military base in Greenland since 1951.
The Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) is located on Greenland's northwest coast, 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle. It was secretly built in 1951 under a defense agreement between the United States and Denmark that remains in force today.
This base houses approximately 150 permanent U.S. military personnel (down from 6,000 during the Cold War). It performs critical missions: early ballistic missile detection, space surveillance, and air defense operations for NORAD. It is the northernmost U.S. military installation in the world.
Pituffik has a 10,000-foot runway capable of handling F-35s, the world's northernmost deep-water port, and Arctic surveillance radar systems. In March 2025, Vice President JD Vance visited this base, the highest-ranking official visit ever to Greenland.
Simple question: If the United States has had a strategic base in Greenland for 75 years, why would we need to "acquire" the island for security reasons?
1.2 Geographic Realities
Greenland covers approximately 836,000 square miles (2.16 million square kilometers).
For Americans, that means:
— About three times the size of Texas
— 25% larger than Alaska, our biggest state
— Bigger than California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Montana combined
But here's the crucial point: 80% of this territory is covered by a permanent ice sheet one mile thick. There are virtually no roads. No interior cities. No agriculture. No capacity for autonomous survival.
1.3 The Logistical Impossibility of a Russian or Chinese Invasion
Neither Russia nor China has:
— A logistics fleet capable of supplying an army 2,500+ miles away
— Naval or air bases in Greenland
— Sustained transoceanic force projection capabilities
Russia has only one operational aircraft carrier (the Kuznetsov, frequently under repair). The Chinese navy has never conducted a military operation this far from its shores.
An army needs to eat, stay warm, move, and receive medical care. In Greenland, everything must arrive by ship. Greenland produces virtually no food locally. Winter temperatures regularly drop below -22°F.
The solution for any defender is simple: destroy the supply ships. NATO controls the North Atlantic. Without constant maritime resupply, an occupying force would starve and freeze within weeks.
1.4 Missiles: The Argument Falls Apart
The speed of modern missiles makes the Greenland argument obsolete.
Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) travel at approximately Mach 23 (17,500 mph) during their terminal phase. Russian hypersonic missiles (like the Kinzhal or Avangard) fly at Mach 5 to Mach 27 (3,800 to 20,500 mph).
At these speeds, missile defense systems are largely ineffective. A missile launched from Siberia reaches the United States in about 30 minutes. Greenland's geographic position offers no significant strategic advantage for nuclear strikes: Russia can hit the United States from its own territory.
The real question: Why would Russia attack the United States?
A nuclear attack on the United States would trigger a massive nuclear retaliation. This is the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) that kept the peace throughout the Cold War. A Russian attack on America would mean the end of Russia itself. No rational leader would take that risk. Greenland changes nothing.
1.5 Minerals: The Reality Behind the Myth
Yes, Greenland has significant mineral resources: 25 of the 34 minerals considered "critical" by the European Union are found there. Rare earth reserves could be the world's second-largest after China (approximately 36 million metric tons).
But extraction is a logistical and economic nightmare:
— 80% of the territory is covered by mile-thick ice
— No road or rail infrastructure
— Mining possible only 6 months per year
— Extraction costs 5 to 10 times higher than elsewhere on the planet
— One expert said: "It's science fiction. You might as well mine on the Moon."
What Greenlanders decided democratically:
In 2021, Greenland's elections became the "mining elections." The Inuit Ataqatigiit party won by campaigning against uranium extraction due to pollution concerns. The new government then passed a law banning uranium extraction, effectively blocking the Kvanefjeld mining project (which contains both rare earths and uranium).
Greenlanders aren't against economic development. They want clean mines or no mines. Greenland still bears the scars of mining pollution from the 1970s (lead and zinc mines). Residents fear contamination of drinking water and destruction of local agriculture (sheep farming).
A January 2025 poll shows that 85% of Greenlanders refuse to become American. Only 6% are in favor.
1.6 Conclusion on Greenland
Greenland is not a realistic military objective. It's a political symbol, not a concrete threat.
The United States has had a base there for 75 years. Minerals exist but are nearly impossible to extract economically. Residents have democratically voted for responsible development or no development at all. And Russia has neither the means nor the interest to invade an icy island 2,500 miles from its shores.
The real question isn't military. It's: why not do business with everyone instead of creating conflicts?
 
PART 2: RUSSIA IS NOT OUR ENEMY
2.1 The Essential Numbers
Today's Russia is neither the USSR nor an imperial power capable of conquering Europe.
Population:
— Russia: approximately 144 million
— European Union: approximately 450 million
— NATO (excluding U.S.): approximately 600 million
Economy:
— Russian GDP is about 10% of the EU's
— NATO military spending is more than 15 times that of Russia
Russia does not have the material means to invade and occupy Western Europe.
Russia has oil, gas, gold, wheat, and minerals. It has no economic need to invade Europe. It needs to sell its resources, which requires peaceful trade relations.
2.2 Military Encirclement and American Intelligence
The United States operates 750 to 800 military bases abroad, spread across more than 80 countries (source: Professor David Vine, American University). Russia operates about twenty, mainly in former Soviet republics.
Around Russia, U.S. and NATO bases form a nearly continuous arc: Norway, Poland, the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey. In Asia, Camp Hovey in South Korea is just 443 miles from Vladivostok.
Add to this advanced intelligence facilities and military cooperation bases near Russian borders — including in Ukraine since 2014. The CIA and Pentagon developed close cooperation with Ukrainian services well before the 2022 invasion.
A question of perspective: How would the United States react if Russia installed military bases in Canada, Mexico, and Cuba? History provides the answer: the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) nearly triggered nuclear war for precisely this reason.
 
PART 3: A KEY FACT HIDDEN — RUSSIA WANTED TO JOIN NATO
This historical fact is rarely mentioned in Western media.
In 2000, in an interview with British journalist David Frost (BBC), Vladimir Putin said he did not rule out Russia joining NATO, if it were treated as an equal partner.
After September 11, 2001, Russia actively supported the United States: it authorized overflight of its territory for Afghan operations, shared intelligence, and opened supply routes.
In 2002, the NATO-Russia Council was created to institutionalize this cooperation.
The West made a different choice: expand NATO eastward, successively integrating former Warsaw Pact members (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary in 1999, then the Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria in 2004) — without integrating Russia.
This choice structures the current confrontation.
PART 4: UKRAINE, DONBAS, AND THE MINSK AGREEMENTS
The war in Ukraine did not begin in February 2022. It began in 2014.
After President Yanukovych was overthrown during the Maidan movement, the Russian-speaking regions of the East (Donetsk and Luhansk) refused to recognize the new government and seceded. A civil war broke out, causing more than 14,000 deaths between 2014 and 2022.
The Minsk Agreements (Minsk I in September 2014, Minsk II in February 2015), negotiated under French and German auspices, called for:
— A ceasefire
— Withdrawal of heavy weapons
— Constitutional autonomy for the Donbas within Ukraine
These agreements were never implemented by Kyiv.
More seriously: in December 2022, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel told the newspaper Die Zeit that the Minsk Agreements had served to "give Ukraine time" to rearm. Former French President François Hollande confirmed this interpretation.
For Moscow, this revelation constitutes a definitive breach of trust.
Historian Emmanuel Todd (The Defeat of the West, 2024) analyzes this sequence as a series of missed opportunities and emphasizes that Russian military doctrine remains defensive, focused on the security of its borders.
 
PART 5: AMERICAN POLICY IS PUSHING ALLIES TOWARD CHINA
5.1 The Canadian Case: A Real-Time Example
On January 16, 2026, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney signed a historic trade agreement with China in Beijing:
— Reduction of Canadian tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (from 100% to 6.1%)
— Reduction of Chinese tariffs on Canadian canola (from 84% to 15%)
— Resumption of high-level economic dialogue
This was the first visit by a Canadian Prime Minister to China since 2017.
Why this turnaround? Since January 2025, the Trump administration has imposed 25% tariffs on most Canadian products and regularly threatens to make Canada the "51st state." Faced with this hostility, Canada is seeking to diversify its trading partners.
Prime Minister Carney stated: "In terms of predictability, China is more predictable than the United States, and you see results."
5.2 A Trade War Against Allies
The Trump administration's tariff policy doesn't just target adversaries: it hits America's historic allies hard:
— Canada: 25% tariffs
— Mexico: 25% tariffs
— European Union: threats of 50% "reciprocal" tariffs
— Japan, South Korea, Taiwan: all subject to tariff pressure
According to the Tax Foundation, these measures represent an average tax increase of $1,100 per American household in 2025, and $1,500 in 2026.
5.3 The Predictable Result
When a country imposes trade barriers on its partners, they seek other markets. That's a fundamental economic law.
Strategic paradox: By claiming to fight China, trade war policy objectively strengthens Chinese influence by pushing America's allies toward Beijing.
 
PART 6: THE REAL STRATEGIC CHALLENGE — CHINA
China represents a real strategic challenge and a genuine danger to the West.
China is:
— A massive demographic power (1.4 billion people)
— A dominant industrial power (over 70% of the world's electric vehicles)
— The world leader in solar panels (65% of global capacity)
— A major controller of rare earths (90% of global processing)
— A centralized authoritarian regime and a real systemic competitor
6.1 The Major Strategic Mistake: Pushing Russia Toward China
Before 2022, Russia was still looking toward Europe. Today, it supplies energy and raw materials to Beijing, which provides it with technology and markets.
Isolating Russia doesn't weaken it. It strengthens China.
A wise policy would have been to maintain trade relations with Moscow to prevent this rapprochement.
6.2 What Should Be Done: Business, Not War
Normalize relations with Russia: Russia is a European country by culture, history, and geography. Russians are Orthodox Christians, heirs of Byzantium. Making them a permanent enemy is a historical mistake.
Do business: Europe needs Russian energy (oil, gas). Russia needs European technology and manufactured goods. Trade creates interdependencies that make war costly for both sides. That's peace through commerce.
Separate Russia from China: By restoring normal economic relations with Moscow, the West could weaken the current Sino-Russian axis. Russia has no natural affinity for the Chinese system. It turned there by default, for lack of alternatives.
Stop trade wars against allies: Americans and Europeans share the same democratic values. We should work together, not weaken each other.
 
CONCLUSION
Russia cannot invade Greenland.
Russia cannot invade Western Europe.
Russia will not attack the United States — it would be suicide.
The current confrontation weakens the West and strengthens China.
A rational policy would be:
— Do business with Russia, not war
— Normalize relations
— Avoid a lasting Sino-Russian alliance
— Stop trade wars against allies
The real dangers are: Trump and the Communists.