Land Grab? Greenland In The Crosshairs

Greenland and Denmark have been given an ultimatum: accept large sums of cash or face a land grab by the United States. With a real Russian threat lurking to both Greenland and the United States, which option will it choose?

Iran's COUNTERrevolution

The UAE offers clarity on the West's passivity with Islamic immigration.

 Raw Transcript

Iran. Is it proper for the United States
to flex its muscle and grab Greenland if
talks don't work out, which are going on
right now as I'm doing this recording
between JD Vance, uh, Copenhagen and
Nuke of Greenland, if a financial
transaction can't happen, Trump is
threatening that he is going to grab
Greenland regardless because the threats
are so strong to the world and to the
United States from Russia and China,
inserting themselves in Greenland. Would
it be proper? Would it be right? Would
it be moral for the United States to
grab Greenland by force? Now, this
episode is brought to you by Gospel on
the Nile and going to travel. We have a
new trip that's opened up, which is
October 27th to November 6th, 2026.
I've talked many times about how much I
love this trip. the ability to go
through incredible sites, incredible
ruins and temples that have our temple
all over the walls. You'll have the
opportunity over about 11 days to step
by step go through a story that builds
that you can learn from and relate to
others and learn more about the temple
perhaps than anywhere else besides in
the temple itself. Go to quickmedia.com
cwicdia.com
trips and events at the top and scroll
down to Gospel on the Nile. Here we go.
All right, Greenland. A very recent post
came out said which way Greenland man,
what is your option? as talks have now
as I see uh concluded on Greenland and
I'm guessing there are two options that
are given. One, we're going to pay
everyone in Greenland a whole bunch of
money or we're going to take it and uh
what are your thoughts on that? That
that looks to me like this is where
they're at. This is going to be here is
your better option and here is your
worst option. And that is the art of
negotiation, so to speak. art of the art
of the deal with the way Trump operates.
I want to go through a Guardian article
here uh to walk through this to talk a
little bit more about this Danish
intelligence report which is very
interesting. The headline here is only
the USA can safeguard Greenland against
Russia China. Trump insists right. In
other words, the threat of Russia and
China is
significant in Greenland. And
essentially, do you want Russia and or
China running this? Really, Russia and
China running Greenland or do you want
the United States here? Because those
are your only options essentially is
what it's saying. In Trump's latest post
on this, he says, "NATO, tell Denmark,
NATO, tell Denmark to get them out of
here now. Two dog sleds won't do it.
Only the USA can." Which is probably
true. I mean, you're going to go up
against Russia and China. US is probably
the only option on this. Now, the EU
could get involved, but let's be honest,
they're not going to do that, I don't
think. But what's interesting is this
Danish intelligence report that Trump
linked in this this news story on this
Danish intelligence report that says
here's some the following.
Russia, China, and the United States
have diverging interests in the Arctic,
but all three countries seek to play a
greater role in the region. It's
interesting that we're now getting all
of this focus, you know, on uh on the
region in in the Arctic where this is
some place where there's there could be
a conflict. There's going to be power
plays and strategy and military
exercises and threats going on here for
a while.
Russia especially does not want the US
to grab Greenland. This is part of their
strategy. This is part of their
expansion and their defense strategy.
The report also states, "The
intensifying great power competition in
the Arctic has brought significant
international attention to the region,
particularly with a growing US interest
in Greenland and its implications for US
national security." And this is really
the question. How important is this?
Does it reach the level of importance of
saying we're going to make a power grab?
Because that's what happened in that
meeting. I guarantee you that there was
a uh an option that was given to the
Danes and and the Greenlanders saying
here is what we're going to offer you
financially for Greenland for Greenland
to stop being a territory of Denmark and
now be a territory of the United States.
If you don't do this, then we're going
to take it anyway. And here's why.
showing the threats that the DNE's own
intelligence report has in place from
Russia and from China.
It is a very strong man approach. The
question is, is it right? And if you
look at the DNE's own intelligence
report, it looks to me like it's pretty
concerning that both Russia and China
combined, especially Russia, are a
definite threat not just to the Arctic
region, but to the United States and the
West if they continue to grab power or
looking at the intelligence that they
will solidify their power in the in the
Arctic area where they are able to
launch missiles to the United States.
The report says specifically, "The
United States growing strategic interest
in the Arctic reflects an increased
prioritization of regional defense. In
recent years, it has stepped up military
activities and conducted exercises with
allies in the region." Okay. In recent
years, so this goes beyond Trump's time.
So, this is an ongoing issue, right?
That means that Biden has been doing
this, maybe Trump before. I don't know
how far back this goes, but this is not
just the last year. The US has been
increasing its military exercises in the
region. It's conducted these re these
exercises with allies, including
Denmark. For the United States, the
Arctic represents the first and most
crucial line of early warning in the
event of a great power conflict with
Russia or China. The radars at Pufik,
hope I'm saying that right, at Pufic
Space Base play a central role in
detecting hostile missiles heading
toward the US mainland.
So again, what how far do you go for
defense?
I mean, it seems like the smart thing to
do if Denmark and Greenland were willing
to give that up
to to become part of the United States
in instead of Denmark for compensation.
It seems like a great move. I think it
is. The question is is do you do it by
force? And not only that, it's not just
do you do it by force, it's do you put
force in as an option. Because that's
the only way that this works
is is Trump coming in and saying if you
don't take the money, we're going to
grab it anyway.
And you know that that's the way this is
working and what that post from the
White House was all about, right? Which
way are you going to go? which of the
two options is better for you.
Here's what it says about Russia as
well. The report warned that while
Russia faces some pressure over its
involvement in Ukraine and worsening
economic outlook, its core capabilities
in the Arctic remain largely intact, and
it retains the capability to rapidly
deploy fighters and bombers to its
Arctic bases,
which would make it capable of striking
western targets across much of the
Arctic and the North Atlantic at short
notice. Now, let's take a look at a map
here.
This here gives us a much better idea
about the geographic strategy here and
what we're looking at. You can see
Greenland here is to the north and east
of the United States. Canada st sits
between us and Greenland. You have
direct access here from the southern tip
of Greenland down and around over here
to the United States to New England.
For the Russians, they're coming over
here. This is on the east of Finland
here. See how large Russia is. And for
Russia, it gives it two areas of
defense and a threat to the United
States, right? Because if you go all the
way to the east of Russia, you can see
where it is right next to Alaska. People
don't realize just how close this is.
You've got the uh the two islands here,
two major islands, not major, but two
islands here of Damed, the Damed Islands
here that are right between the tips of
the western tip of Alaska and the
eastern tip of I believe that's the
region of Kamchatka. I'm not sure, but
that is the eastern portion of of Russia
or right next to each other. And of
course coming down further south you end
up getting right to the United States
here from the eastern tip of Russia
coming down to the west coast of the
United States and on the west from the
north uh up into the Barren Sea. Russia
and its navy and etc can come over here
and and be in Greenland in not too long
of a time. So you can see how the land
of Greenland is is strategic for both
the United States and for Russia
especially. Now this is what the Danish
report says that Russia will do in
reaction to US's increased activity in
the region. It says in response to
increased US and Western activity in the
Arctic, Russia will attempt to
demonstrate its strength, including in
new ways. Russia is expected to act in
an increasingly unpredictable and
confrontational manner. This could
include aggressive responses to western
military exercises in the region such as
hazardous navigation or simulated
attacks. So there there is a lot of
tension here, right? There can be a lot
of tension on on Greenland.
That doesn't mean there will be military
action but but there can be some some
real conflict and and
tension military tension going on. Now
the report also says that that China is
not itself a threat but that there could
be joint cooperation between the two
countries. It says, "While China
currently has no military presence in
the Arctic, it aims to develop an
independent capability to operate both
surface ships and submarines in Arctic
waters within 5 to 10 years.
Secondly, the intelligence report says
the two countries being China and Russia
may conduct joint exercises in the
Russian Arctic in 2026.
For both countries, joint exercises both
inside and outside the Arctic would also
serve as strategic signaling to the
United States and the West. Russia's
willingness to hold joint exercises with
China in the Arctic will thus depend on
its relationship with the United States.
So, China not a major player in this,
but they could definitely partner up
with Russia. And it looks like according
to the Danes, they may be doing that
this year. is ter in terms of military
exercises.
So what is the right thing to do in this
case as we're learning more and more
about this?
And there's two levels to this. Again,
many people would just say they don't
want anything to do with a an
ingrandizing a an increase in strength
and strategy for the United States. For
a lot of people inside the United
States, unfortunately, that in and of
itself is bad. They're going to see this
as colonialism. Even if there was no
threat
to d the Denmark and to Greenland
militarily or any force, if there was,
let's say, just an offer of of money
given to the Greenlanders and maybe to
Denm to to the Danes,
I think there would be a a good
percentage of people within the United
States that would say, "No, we do not
want this because they're going to see
the US as an evil empire.
and increasing its its military
capabilities and its land mass is going
to be wrong. But adding on the fact that
this whole negotiation is dependent on
the option of force,
that is where Trump is going with this.
You are going to take this or the money
or or we're we're going to grab
Greenland. That is what he has stated in
the past. And my guess is this was laid
out very succinctly in the meetings
today. Here is the post that was put out
by the White House. Which way, Greenland
man? This is right after the the the
meetings ended. Which way? What are the
in other words in my mind, what are the
of the two options, force and money?
Which are you going to accept?
And here we have the first pictures
coming out uh from the meeting as it has
ended. I think we're going to get a lot
of reaction and a lot of people revved
up and ready with press releases uh
right away on this
in terms of you the EU, China, um
Russia, etc.
And then there's this
Denmark confirms plans for more
permanent larger military presence in
Greenland. Says US attack remains
unlikely. Okay, let's go over here to
the Hill and look at what they're
reporting on this. It says that uh
Denmark is boosting its military
presence in and around Greenland as part
of expanded NATO military exercises. Of
course, that were part of that. The
Green Country's defense ministry
announced Wednesday amid President
Trump's escalating rhetoric about requir
acquiring the island
and they are deploying aircraft, naval
vessels and soldiers to Greenland. So
things are heating up quite a bit. We'll
see where these original talks end up
and what the next steps are going to be.
But the same question to you as Iran as
the Iran questioned yesterday. Is it
appropriate to have intervention in this
way and a threat of power, a threat of
military power to conduct
negotiations
with Greenland and Denmark?
Now, I want to switch briefly to Iran as
a follow-up from yesterday. Neil
Ferguson, a popular commentator, came
out with an article with the Free Press
talking about the myth of revolution in
Iran. Just something to consider on
this. Uh he brings up some good points.
We often times read things wrong. We
always think about uh things that are on
our our terms, our world view in terms
of revolution. We are tied strongly to
our own revolution, the American
Revolution and the fight for freedom and
democracy. That may not always be the
case with with revolutions elsewhere.
You go back and look at George Bush and
George W. Bush and and Iraq, remember,
with the the uh dye on their fingers,
the ink on their fingers as they voted.
And it's not really something that's a
part of their culture. And so the
question is is where would this go in
Iran? And remember, there was a
revolution in 1979. Enough power and
strength to oust the Shaw and to take
over the country.
So you're fighting against those forces
which are entrenched also in Iran. It's
also important to understand that
Persians in Iran, right? The Persians in
Iran are only about half of the
population.
You've also got the Kurds, the Azeris,
the Arabs, the Baluk, and other tribes
that are living in Iran that have a
different outlook on things. Now,
obviously, I think we should be
supporting those protesters
in in overthrowing the theocracy that
they're dealing with, the regime. The
question is is what replaces it? And
honestly, even if it is some strongman
semi-trant that gets back back put back
in there, I it's pro, you know, like the
Shaw, it's probably going to be a lot
better for the people and for the West
and honestly for the Middle East. If
that's the case, one point of interest
here is that Poly Market is reporting
that SpaceX, right, Elon Musk, SpaceX,
that their engineers are working around
the clock to bypass the Starlink jamming
by the Iranian regime. So they have no
internet there. But Starlink is trying
to un go work against what the Iran
Iranians have done, the government has
done to jam the signal so that the uh uh
the internet is inaccessible to them.
It's amazing how the internet plays a
role in in so many of these things,
especially protests. We've seen that
here in the United States.
The last point I want to bring up which
I think is fascinating and and really
offers some clarity as to the issues of
Muslim immigration
into into the West and understanding the
dynamics of this. The UAE just a few
days ago announced that it is going to
cut funds for its own citizens
who want to study in the UK.
Why are they going to do this? Why are
they cutting the funds for these
students? Because they pay for them,
right? And they're saying, "No, we're
not going to pay anymore. We're going to
stop paying you money to go to the UK to
study."
I was just on a plane and and a lot of
Middle Eastern countries do this, right?
I was just on a plane uh from London to
uh Cairo where uh an Egyptian student
was sitting next to me on the flight and
he's going there for architectural
school and there are a number of
Egyptians that go to the UK to study to
learn uh especially advanced degrees.
But the UAE is cutting its funds to its
citizens. Why? Out of fear of those
Emirati, these UAE students being
radicalized.
They are cutting those funds because
they're afraid that they're going to be
radicalized by the Muslim Brotherhood on
British campuses.
It's It's odd to me those that have
already figured out what the Muslim
Brotherhood is all about and what
they're trying to do because that's the
real threat in the West. It's not just
Islam as a whole. You got to go to the
core here and and look at the Muslim
Brotherhood. They're the ones that have
the organizations. They're the ones that
are running these these these these uh
protests and with a very strong goal of
dominating the west. And here you have
the UAE, Bahrain and and and other
countries that have said and Egypt that
have said, "Look, this is how we deal
with the Muslim Brotherhood, zero
tolerance." And yet the West opens its
doors and allows the Muslim Brotherhood
to run a muck throughout several
different countries in the West,
especially the UK. So they're like, "No,
we're not sending and paying for our
citizens to go study in the UK anymore
because we're afraid that they're going
to be radicalized by the Muslim
Brotherhood." And yet the Western
governments
open their arms to them
and have essentially zero to at least
very few consequences
for their operations in the West. So,
here's the question to help clarify
things on on I I think that really
clarifies what's going on with this this
Islamic uh uh immigration to the West is
will the British, especially the British
left, will they call the UAE
Islamophobic?
Are they going to be call them
Islamophobic? And some people already
have. Take a look at this tweet here.
And they're going to put in quotes here.
Even Muslims think the West is
radicalized. And then they say this,
that's the trick. Using a Muslim country
using See, they don't understand the the
UAE. Using as as if the West has all the
power on on Islam, right? Using a Muslim
country as a ventriloquist puppet to
push the same Islamophobic narrative.
It's the same old Islamophobia wearing
an Arab mask.
This is absolutely preposterous.
They cannot get past the idea of
oppressor and victim. They just can't do
it.
I would recommend you go and and look at
a video, an interview that I did with
UAE citizen Ahmed Sharif,
and I'll put that link in the
description box, and what he says about
the Muslim Brotherhood, what he says
about the radicalization of the West.
This isn't the West using the UAE. This
is the UAE knowing from experience how
they have to deal with radical Islam.
just a very to me very clear point
for understanding what is happening.
We'll follow up on these stories going
forward. Thanks for listening.