Greenland, NATO, and Europe’s Defense — Should the U.S. Stop Protecting Europe?
カートのアイテムが多すぎます
カートに追加できませんでした。
ウィッシュリストに追加できませんでした。
ほしい物リストの削除に失敗しました。
ポッドキャストのフォローに失敗しました
ポッドキャストのフォロー解除に失敗しました
-
ナレーター:
-
著者:
概要
If the Greenland debate “breaks up NATO,” is that really a disaster—or the overdue end of a decades-old dependency? In Episode 77, Steve Gibson argues Europe can defend itself, Denmark’s Greenland claim is a colonial leftover, and a strategic U.S. Greenland deal could strengthen Arctic security.
In Logic Dictate Hot Topics — Episode 77, host Steve Gibson tackles the growing claim that the Trump administration’s approach to Greenland could fracture—or even end—NATO. Steve argues that fear is misplaced, because the underlying premise of NATO has become outdated: for decades, NATO has functioned as a U.S. security umbrella that made Europe dependent on American military power.
Steve’s position is direct: Europe is no longer a helpless continent. With a massive combined GDP, hundreds of millions of people, and significant conventional and nuclear deterrent capability, Europe can and should take primary responsibility for its own defense.
From there, Episode 77 turns to the legitimacy question: why is Denmark’s claim of sovereignty over Greenland treated as “normal,” while U.S. interest is framed as unacceptable? Steve argues Denmark’s claim is rooted in colonial attachment and that Greenland’s most legitimate voice comes from the people who live there. If the United States pursues a Greenland agreement, Steve argues it should be done peacefully and strategically—not militarily—drawing historical parallels to past U.S. territorial acquisitions and negotiations.
In this episode:
- Does Greenland threaten to “break up NATO”—and why that may not be bad
- Europe’s defense capability and the case for ending dependency
- Greenland sovereignty: Denmark’s colonial claim vs. self-determination
- Why Arctic security may matter more than preserving old frameworks
- Historical precedent for negotiated territorial acquisition (as discussed in the episode)
- Why the “Putin and Xi popping champagne” narrative doesn’t necessarily hold up
Note: This episode is political commentary and analysis, not legal or foreign policy advice.
Learn more about the philosophy behind Logic Dictate:
https://www.logicsdictate.com
📘 Read Logic’s Dictate for only $0.99: https://amzn.to/4oAo6AJ