The "purchase of Greenland" - more than just an imperial gesture

By Markus Schulte-Huermann

The "purchase of Greenland" - more than just an imperial gesture

Table of contents of the analysis: Greenland in the field of tension between resource rush and ecological tipping points

1 Introduction: The "Greenland Purchase" - More than just an imperial gesture

  • 1.1 Donald Trump's move as a symptom of a new resource geopolitics [1, 2].
  • 1.2 The island as "Earth's last frontier": between national security and libertarian utopia [3-5].
  • 1.3 Definition of the question: Why Greenland is the testing ground for the survival of the current economic model.

2. the technological-economic dimension: the "gold of the future "

  • 2.1 Rare earth elements (REE): Indispensability for armaments (F-35) and green transformation [6-8].
  • 2.2 The global supply trap: China's monopoly and the West's quest for self-sufficiency [9-11].
  • 2.3 Projects in focus: Tanbreez and Kvanefjeld - potentials and blockades [12-14].

3. ecological risks: When "creative destruction" becomes real

  • 3.1 Methane hotspots: The risk of massive emissions from permafrost melt during mining [15-17].
  • 3.2 Thermohaline circulation: Unpredictable consequences for ocean currents and the Gulf Stream [1557/General Knowledge Context, 557].
  • 3.3 The "Planetary Boundaries": Greenland as an arena for exceeding global stress limits [18-20].
  • 3.4 Water hazard: The challenge of extreme meltwater and radioactive waste [21-23].

The theoretical impasse: Smith, Ricardo and the "tribute" of limits.

  • 4.1 The decolonial critique: why Ricardo's "comparative advantage" could lead Greenland into the poverty trap [24, 25].
  • 4.2 Specialization on poverty: commodity export vs. local value creation [26-28].
  • 4.3 Piketty's warning: the dynamics of capital accumulation and the threat to democratic sovereignty [29-31].

5. geopolitics and power structures: the neoliberal thought collective

  • 5.1 Oligarchic interests: Tech billionaires and the vision of "network states" on Greenland [32-34].
  • 5.2 The "strong state" of neoliberalism: Legal protection of private rent extraction [35-37].
  • 5.3 The role of Greenland within the Kingdom of Denmark: autonomy vs. financial dependence [38-40].

6. Democratic vigilance and alternatives

  • 6.1 Greenlandic perspectives: The right to self-determination (Kalaallit Nunaat) [41-43].
  • 6.2 Counter-designs: The Economy for the Common Good and Enterprises with Social Responsibility (USV) [44-46].
  • 6.3 The concept of "Buen Vivir": A good life beyond the need for growth [47-49].

7. conclusion: the social imperative to rethink

  • 7.1 Summary: Why technological progress alone will not prevent the climate catastrophe [50, 51].
  • 7.2 Plea for "unthinking": unlearning outdated trade theories as a liberating blow [52].
  • 7.3 Conclusion: Vigilance as a protective shield against the "dictatorship of capital" [53, 54].

8. sources used
...

#1 Introduction: The "Purchase of Greenland" - More than just an imperial gesture

1.1 Donald Trump's move as a symptom of a new resource geopolitics
Donald Trump's repeated statements about wanting to acquire Greenland are far more than an eccentric provocation; they mark the transition to an era in which resource security is directly defined as national security [1]. This move is described in the sources as part of a burgeoning "Donroe Doctrine ", in which the USA claims the right to secure resources in its hemispheric sphere of influence militarily if necessary [2, 3]. Greenland has come into the crosshairs here due to its immense deposits of 25 of 34 critical raw materials, which are essential for modern high technology and defense [4]. Interest is fueled by China's quasi-monopoly in rare earth processing, which Beijing is already using as a strategic weapon in the trade war by imposing export controls on materials essential to US defense projects such as the F-35 jet [5-7]. Trump's imperial gesture thus functions as a symptom of a global "modern gold rush" in which state power functions as a tool to secure private and national rent extraction [8, 9].

1.2 The island as the "last frontier of the earth": between national security and libertarian utopia
For the US security establishment, Greenland is already an indispensable pillar of Arctic defense through the Pituffik Space Base (Thule), the world's northernmost military installation for early missile detection [10, 11]. But parallel to the military logic, a second vision has developed: Greenland as "Earth's last frontier " for a new class of tech oligarchs [12]. Silicon Valley investors such as Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen promote concepts of "network states " or "freedom cities" - tax-free enclaves with minimal state regulation, based on the blockchain and run by a "king CEO " [13, 14]. In this libertarian utopia, the island is seen as an empty space for technological experimentation (AI, micro-nuclear reactors, autonomous driving) where the shackles of traditional democratic oversight can be cast off [14, 15].

1.3 Definition of the question: Why Greenland is the testing ground for the survival of the current economic model
Greenland today is the arena that will determine whether the current economic model can outlast planetary limits and social stability. It is at the center of the contradiction between technological necessity and ecological integrity: while its raw materials are needed for the green transformation, their extraction threatens to trigger global climatic tipping points through methane release and meltwater instabilities [16, 17]. At the same time, the island acts as a testing ground for Thomas Piketty's warning about the erosion of democracy: If the return on capital ($r$) permanently exceeds economic growth ($g$) and private oligarchs monopolize access to national resources, the democratic right of self-determination of the Kalaallit threatens to degenerate into an "empty shell" [18-21]. The question is therefore: Can Greenland develop beyond "green extractivism ", or will the island merely become the next victim of a system that concentrates wealth upwards while externalizing the ecological costs [22, 23]?

The geopolitics: imperial logic vs. sovereignty

Question: Is the "purchase" of an island still conceivable in the 21st century?

Source The strong argument The smartest objection Synthesis Masterplan 2050
1-5 Imperial necessity: Trump's purchase offer is not a joke, but rational geopolitics ("Donroe Doctrine"). The US absolutely needs Greenland for national security (Thule Air Base) and to physically block China's influence in the Arctic. Land control secures resource sovereignty. Sovereignty is not for sale:** The logic of annexation is obsolete. Greenland has had the right to self-determination since 2009. A forced purchase would isolate Greenland politically and drive it directly into the arms of China. You can buy land, but you can't buy loyalty. The "tech-for-resources" alliance:** Europe rejects the purchase (US model), but accepts the need for security. Instead of land grabs, the master plan offers a strategic partnership: We supply technology for refining on site ("The Refiner"). Greenland retains sovereignty, the West secures access through technological added value instead of annexation.

2. the technological-economic dimension: the "gold of the future"

2.1 Rare earth elements (REE): Indispensable for armaments (F-35) and green transformation
Rare earth elements (REE) such as neodymium, praseodymium, terbium and dysprosium are the technological backbone of modern industry and are often referred to as the "gold of the future " due to their leverage [1-3]. There is no alternative to them in the green transformation: a single offshore wind turbine requires up to 300 kg of these metals, while the construction of an industrial wind turbine requires up to 750 kg of rare earths [4, 5]. Electromobility is also massively dependent; electric drives require around six times more mineral raw materials than conventional combustion engines, with REE magnets being crucial for the efficiency of the motors [6, 7].
Even more critical is the significance for national security and defense: A single F-35 fighter jet requires approximately 417 kg of rare earths, and around two tons of these materials are essential for the construction of a modern frigate [8, 9]. These raw materials can also be found in precision weapons, drones, robots and satellite technology, making them a strategic power factor [10, 11].

2.2 The global supply trap: China's monopoly and the West's quest for self-sufficiency
The West currently finds itself in a dangerous supply trap, as China holds a quasi-monopoly: Around 90% of global production and almost 100% of refining and processing of rare earths takes place in China [12, 13]. Beijing has already demonstrated that it uses this dominance as geopolitical leverage, for example by imposing export bans on specific metals in the course of trade disputes [10, 14].
This risk has triggered a race for autarky in the West. The EU responded with the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), which explicitly classifies Greenland as a strategically important partner in order to reduce dependence on China [15, 16]. The aim is to diversify supply chains and cover at least 10% of demand through own extraction and 40% through own processing within the Western sphere of influence by 2030 [17, 18].

2.3 Projects in focus: Tanbreez and Kvanefjeld - potential and obstacles
Greenland is home to two of the world's most important REE deposits, Kvanefjeld and Tanbreez, which could theoretically cover up to a quarter of global demand [19, 20]. However, both projects face massive hurdles:

  • Kvanefjeld: This deposit is considered the third largest in the world, but is closely associated with uranium deposits due to geological conditions [21, 22]. This led to a political blockade in 2021 when the Greenland government issued a ban on uranium mining, which prohibits projects with a uranium concentration above 100 ppm - Kvanefjeld is significantly higher at around 300 ppm [23-25].
  • Tanbreez (Kringlerne):** In contrast to Kvanefjeld, Tanbreez is uranium-free, but struggles with financial blockades [22, 26]. Although the project has a mining license, the small family-owned company lacks the billions in financing for the complex infrastructure [27, 28]. The enormous interest of the USA is reflected in the fact that the US Export-Import Bank is already considering a loan of USD 120 million for Tanbreez in order to secure access for the American industry [29].
  • Structural hurdles:** Beyond politics, the extreme Arctic climate, the lack of roads (only about 150 km on the entire island) and the lack of skilled personnel make the economic development of these treasures difficult [30-32].

Technology & Economy: The rare earth dilemma

*Question: Can we achieve the energy transition without Greenland?

Source The strong argument The smartest objection Synthesis Masterplan 2050
6-14 No Green Deal without Greenland: The deposits (Kvanefjeld, Tanbreez) are indispensable. China controls 98% of the refining. For wind turbines (approx. 600 kg REE/MW) and e-mobility, Greenland's neodymium and dysprosium is the only scalable alternative within NATO reach. The infrastructure deficit:** Raw materials in the ground are worthless without logistics. Greenland lacks roads, energy and ports. The investment costs (CAPEX) are so high due to the lack of infrastructure that Greenlandic mines are not competitive against China without massive subsidies. Europe's refining mandate:** Europe exports "production capacity". We not only finance holes in the ground, but build refineries and energy infrastructure (SMRs or wind). In doing so, we solve the uranium problem technically (safe separation) and create local value, which justifies the high CAPEX through political stability.

3. ecological risks: When "creative destruction" becomes real

3.1 Methane hotspots: The risk of massive emissions from permafrost melt during mining
Enormous amounts of carbon are stored in Greenland's permafrost soils; their release in the course of warming is considered one of the least understood but potentially most significant feedback mechanisms in the climate system [1, 2]. When permafrost thaws as a result of industrial activity or rising temperatures, the organic material in oxygen-depleted soils is decomposed, leading to the emission of methane (CH4) [3]. Scientific models identify the regions around Kangerlussuaq and the south coast of Greenland in particular - areas with significant raw material deposits - as future hotspots for potentially high methane emissions [4, 5]. The destruction of the soil structure by mining could accelerate these processes and thus massively increase local emission rates [3, 6].

3.2 Thermohaline circulation: unpredictable consequences for ocean currents and the Gulf Stream
The accelerated melting of the ice cap and glaciers is leading to a massive influx of freshwater into the North Atlantic [7]. In combination with thawing permafrost and rising sea levels, this has potentially unpredictable consequences for global ocean currents [7]. These changes threaten the thermohaline circulation, which acts as a motor for the Gulf Stream and is crucial for the climate in Europe [7]. Large-scale industrial expansion in the coastal regions of Greenland could introduce additional unstable factors into this highly sensitive hydrological system [7, 8].

3.3 The "Planetary Boundaries": Greenland as a site of transgression of global stress limits
The concept of planetary boundaries defines a safe operating space for humanity, whereby six of the nine boundaries have already been exceeded [9, 10]. Resource extraction in Greenland affects these boundaries in several ways: in addition to climate change through the release of greenhouse gases, the integrity of the biosphere is directly threatened by land-use change and biodiversity loss [11-13]. As planetary boundaries are interdependent, the transgression of one boundary (e.g. through land use in mining) increases the risk of large-scale, abrupt or irreversible environmental change in other systems [14, 15].

3.4 Water hazard: The challenge of extreme meltwater and radioactive waste
Mining projects located directly on the edge of the Greenland ice sheet are confronted with extreme meltwater runoff, which can reach up to 44 tons per second at peak times [16, 17]. The greatest ecological risk is that this water comes into contact with the toxic sludges and acids from the rare earth separation process [18]. Since REE deposits in Greenland are often geologically associated with radioactive elements such as uranium and thorium, there is a risk that radioactive dust or contaminated wastewater could permanently damage the surrounding grazing land, fishing areas and settlements during mining [19, 20]. The long-term safe storage of this waste in a dynamic environment of flowing ice and water represents a technological challenge that has not yet been solved [21, 22].

Ecology: The twin danger (methane & Gulf Stream)

*Question: Are we risking the habitability of Europe for climate protection?

Source The strong argument The smartest objection Synthesis Masterplan 2050
15-23 The "double tipping point": Mining activates two existential risks simultaneously. 1 Methane: The break-up of the permafrost releases massive amounts of greenhouse gases. 2 AMOC collapse: Dust (albedo effect) and freshwater input can stop the Gulf Stream. The result would be paradoxical: accelerated global warming (due to methane) leads to a local ice age in Europe (due to AMOC collapse). The "Green Paradox" (Calculated Risk):** Without these raw materials, the energy transition will fail and we are heading for +3°C globally. In this scenario, the shield melts anyhow and the Gulf Stream is guaranteed to collapse. We choose the local, technically manageable risk of mining to avert the global, certain catastrophe (+3°C). The "zero-impact" mandate: The master plan authorizes mining only under the "solvism principle" (technology solves side effects): 1. AMOC protection: Mandatory closed water cycles ("zero-discharge"), no freshwater into the sea. 2 Methane capture: Technical extraction directly at the point of breakage. If a mine cannot guarantee this, the "veto of the planet " applies: No mining. Europe's safety comes before the need for resources.

4 The theoretical impasse: Smith, Ricardo and the "tribute" of borders

4.1 The decolonial critique: Why Ricardo's "comparative advantage" could lead Greenland into the poverty trap
David Ricardo's classical theory of trade postulates that countries should specialize in those goods where they have a comparative cost advantage [1, 2]. In the case of Greenland, this would mean concentrating on the export of raw materials such as rare earths [3, 4]. However, a decolonial critique exposes this model as part of a "coloniality of knowledge ": This theory was developed in an era when England was already industrialized, and to this day serves to lock resource-rich regions into the role of mere suppliers [5-7]. Ricardo ignored historical power structures and technological changes [8]. For Greenland, strict adherence to this logic entails the risk of remaining in a "paradox of abundance ", in which the majority of the population remains economically dependent despite immense resource wealth, while technological value creation takes place abroad (USA, EU, China) [9-11].

4.2 Specialization on poverty: raw material exports vs. local value creation
History shows that a one-sided specialization in the export of primary goods often leads to "diminishing returns " [8, 12]. The historical "Spanish example" of 1558 illustrates this trap: Spain sold raw materials to foreign countries for "1 florin", only to buy back the finished products made from them for ten to a hundred times the price [13]. Greenland, whose physical exports currently consist of over 91% fishery products, is at risk of repeating this pattern in mining [14]. Without its own capacity for beneficiation and local processing, the country remains dependent on fluctuating world market prices and exports potential wealth [4, 15, 16]. Although the current EU commodity partnerships promise "mutual benefit", they often remain vague in terms of concrete commitments to industrial development in the partner countries, which increases the risk of "green extractivism " [17-19].

4.3 Piketty's warning: the dynamics of capital accumulation and the threat to democratic sovereignty
Thomas Piketty shows that in capitalist systems the return on capital exceeds the growth rate of the economy in the long term [20-22]. This fundamental dynamic leads to an extreme concentration of wealth at the top of society [23, 24]. When global corporations or "oligarchs" invest massively in Greenlandic mines, the profits flow out as rents on capital, while the country bears the ecological burden [25, 26]. This inequality poses a direct threat to democratic sovereignty: Enormous private wealth makes it possible to "buy up" political processes or influence them through lobbying in such a way that the interests of capital are placed above the common good of the Kalaallit [21, 27, 28]. As a consequence, Greenlandic self-determination could degenerate into an "empty shell " if the essential economic decisions are no longer made by the citizens, but by the "Lords of Capital" [21, 29].

Economic theory: The Ricardo trap

*Question: Does trade lead to prosperity or poverty?

Source The strong argument The smartest objection Synthesis Masterplan 2050
24-31 Coloniality of trade: According to Ricardo, Greenland should export raw materials and import technology. This leads to "diminishing returns" (law of returns): The more you mine, the more expensive it becomes, while technology becomes cheaper. This cements poverty and dependency. Greenland has no industry. Without the export of raw materials, all that remains is dependence on Danish subsidies or fishing monoculture. The seed capital for development has to come from somewhere. Value over Volume":** We break the Ricardian logic. Europe helps Greenland (as in the Brazil scenario of the master plan) to build up its own processing industry. Greenland does not sell stones, but finished magnet precursors. The profit remains in the country ("Increasing Returns").

5. geopolitics and power structures: the neoliberal thought collective

5.1 Oligarchic interests: Tech billionaires and the vision of "network states" on Greenland
Behind the growing interest in Greenland is an influential group of US billionaires and tech investors, including prominent names such as Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and Peter Thiel [1-3]. These players are investing heavily in companies such as KoBold Metals to secure access to Greenland's raw materials as part of a "modern gold rush" [2]. Beyond resource extraction, the island serves as a testing ground for the ideology of "network states " [4, 5]. Organizations like "Praxis", funded by Silicon Valley elites like Marc Andreessen and Jon Lonsdale, see Greenland as one of the "last frontiers on Earth" to establish tax-free enclaves [3, 6, 7]. These planned digital nations are to be based on blockchain technology, run according to purely market-based principles by a "king CEO" and designed to evade any state regulation and democratic oversight [3, 6, 8].

5.2 The "strong state" of neoliberalism: Legal protection of private pension extraction
Contrary to the assumption that neoliberalism strives for a weak state, its theorists call for a strong, impartial state that protects the competitive order and private property as supreme principles [9, 10]. In this model, the state is instrumentalized to secure the "dictatorship of capital " through a market order anchored in international and constitutional law [11, 12]. Critics such as Thomas Piketty point out that this framework enables private actors to use privatization and debt creation as mechanisms for rent extraction, whereby the profits are privatized but the costs are imposed on society [13, 14]. "Neoliberal interventionism" aims to reshape the entire society in a market way and to defend access to resources (as in Greenland) through a strong executive against the resistance of "mass democracy" [12, 15, 16].

5.3 Greenland's role within the Kingdom of Denmark: striving for autonomy vs. financial dependence
Greenland (Kalaallit Nunaat) is an autonomous territory whose status is governed by the Self-Government Act of 2009, which recognizes Greenlanders as a separate people with the right to self-determination [17, 18]. Although the country has full jurisdiction over its natural resources, it remains politically dependent on Denmark for defense and foreign policy [17, 19]. This limited sovereignty is closely linked to a massive financial dependence: around 52% of the public budget (approx. DKK 3.9 billion annually) is covered by the Danish block grant [20, 21]. As the Greenlandic economy is currently based almost exclusively on a fishing monoculture (91% of physical exports), the government sees the development of the mining sector as the only realistic way to achieve economic self-sufficiency, which is considered a necessary requirement for complete political independence [22-24].

Geostrategy & Time: The necessity of supply

Question: Morality vs. physics - Can we wait? (Replaces the oligarch point)

Source The strong argument The smartest objection Synthesis Masterplan 2050
55+ Existential dependency: It's about bare survival. An F-35 jet needs 417 kg of rare earths. A China embargo would paralyze the West in <6 months. We must mine in Greenland, regardless of moral concerns, in order to remain able to act. The "Weather Window" Trap: The need fails because of reality. Arctic storms, darkness and ice limit the logistical window to 3-4 months a year. An industry that costs 12 months but only delivers 4 months creates massive cash flow gaps and is unreliable ("Time Gap"). The "Strategic Gap Filler" strategy:** We use Greenland as a bridge (2025-2040) until recycling ("urban mining") covers the demand. We solve the weather problem with "Silent Mines ": Automated, European robotics mining in winter (stockpiling), removal in summer. We decouple production from logistics through technology.

6 Democratic vigilance and alternatives

6.1 Greenlandic perspectives: The right to self-determination (Kalaallit Nunaat)
Greenland, called Kalaallit Nunaat in the national language, is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark [1]. The Self-Government Act of 2009** represents a milestone as it explicitly recognizes Greenlanders as a people under international law with an unrestricted right to self-determination [2, 3]. This law gives the Greenlandic Parliament (Inatsisartut) full jurisdiction over natural resources and mineral extraction, while Denmark remains responsible only for foreign policy and defense [1, 3]. The indigenous Kalaallit population makes up about 85% of the population, and their quest for economic independence is a necessary precondition for eventual political sovereignty [4, 5]. Through its institutions, Greenland effectively holds a right of veto on fundamental changes to its political status, making any external annexation efforts legally impossible without local consent [6]. A decolonial approach to politics must therefore strengthen "community resilience " by prioritizing land-based knowledge and local decision-making processes over centralized governance structures [7-9].

6.2 Counter-designs: The Economy for the Common Good and Enterprises with Social Responsibility (USV)
The Common Good Economy (ECG) offers a comprehensive alternative to the neoliberal model by consistently aligning economic activity with democratically defined values such as human dignity, solidarity and ecological sustainability [10]. The goal is not the increase of monetary capital, but the "good life for all ", whereby a common good product is to replace the conventional GDP as a measure of success [11]. A practical instrument of this transformation is "socially responsible enterprises ", in which ownership is not understood as a mere power of disposal, but as a social obligation [12, 13]. These companies are characterized by extended co-determination rights of the workforce and a strict cap on the wage spread to a maximum of 1 in 5 [14]. In addition, USVs are committed to transparent accounting, cooperation with NGOs and the reinvestment of profits in social or ecological projects instead of purely profit-oriented financial investments [14]. At state level, such companies could be promoted through privileged access to public contracts and advantageous loans in order to make harmful economic activities unprofitable in the long term [15, 16].

6.3 The concept of "Buen Vivir": A good life beyond the growth imperative
The concept of "Buen Vivir ", which originated in the Global South, postulates a dignified existence for all people, which is inextricably linked to the protection of the natural basis of life and the protection of the global biosphere [17, 18]. The critique of growth emphasizes that an increase in per capita income in developed societies above a certain level no longer leads to an increase in quality of life (Easterlin paradox) [19]. A common good strategy for Greenland would therefore have to overcome the quantitative growth paradigm, which subordinates all social and ecological goals to the logic of profit [20, 21]. This requires the development of alternative indicators that prioritize the protection of ecosystems, democratic participation and distributive justice over pure export volumes [22, 23]. A life beyond the growth imperative makes it possible to overcome existential alienation in modern affluent societies and build a new resonance with nature [24-26]. In this context, a decolonial perspective warns that the uncritical adoption of Western trade models (such as Ricardo's comparative advantage) would only lead Greenland into a new "specialization in poverty " and resource dependency [27, 28].

Democracy: self-determination vs. dependence

*Question: Who benefits from wealth?

Source The strong argument The smartest objection Synthesis Masterplan 2050
41-49 Right to self-determination: The 2009 law gives the Greenlanders (Kalaallit) full control. Only they are allowed to decide. Concepts such as the Economy for the Common Good protect against exploitation and strengthen local resilience against corporations. The "block grant" trap:** Greenland is 52% dependent on the Danish financial drip. Without massive external capital (mining), "self-determination" is an illusion. True independence requires economic autonomy, which fishing alone does not provide. Technological federalism:** Greenland uses digital infrastructure (similar to "India Stack") to distribute profits from resources directly to citizens (citizen dividend). Economic independence from Denmark is achieved through the technological partnership with the EU, which guarantees fair prices.

...

7. Conclusion: The social imperative to rethink

7.1 Summary: Why technological progress alone will not prevent the climate catastrophe
The analysis makes it clear that the mere availability of green technologies and the necessary raw materials from Greenland is not enough to overcome the global crisis. The sources warn that the current imbalance in the global economy is not based solely on "blind market forces", but on deep structures in which wealth does not trickle down, but consistently accumulates at the top ("trickle up") [1]. If the extraction of rare earths merely reinforces the existing dynamic in which the return on capital permanently exceeds economic growth, this leads to an extreme concentration of wealth that undermines democratic values and promotes social instability [2]. Technological progress that ignores these "rigid historical consequences of unchecked inequality" will not be able to prevent climate catastrophe, as it destroys the social and political foundations for collective global action [1, 2].

7.2 Plea for "unthinking": unlearning outdated trade theories as a liberating blow
To avoid leading Greenland into a new colonial dependency, a radical rethink - an "unthinking" - is necessary. We need to question the conventional notion of "equality of opportunity" in global trade, as this is often a sham under the current conditions of global capitalism [3]. The sources urge us to take the implications of historical facts seriously and to re-sort our concepts of poverty and prosperity [3]. For Greenland, this means freeing itself from the Ricardian logic of trade, which confines the country to the role of raw material supplier. Only by unlearning these outdated paradigms can space be created for new models that enable genuine local value creation and a fair distribution of resource wealth [3].

7.3 Conclusion: Vigilance as a shield against the "dictatorship of capital "
We are entering a new "age of capital" with frightening parallels to the early 19th century: an era in which a small elite lives off its inherited or accumulated wealth, while the majority without capital struggles against debt and ecological destruction [4]. This growing inequality is inherent in the current system and poses a massive threat to democratic sovereignty [4, 5]. The "dictatorship of capital" manifests itself in private actors attempting to monopolize access to Greenland's resources without regard to global ecological tipping points. Only constant social vigilance and consistent democratic control of economic processes can prevent the human future from being sacrificed to the interests of a few oligarchs [4, 5].

Conclusion: The "unthinking" (rethinking)

*Question: What does the end game look like?

Source The strong argument The smartest objection Synthesis Masterplan 2050
50-54 Systemic change needed: Technology alone will not solve the crisis if the return on capital ($r return on capital > g$ economic growth) drives inequality. We need to "unlearn" (unthink) old trade dogmas to avoid falling into neo-colonial patterns and only shifting problems. Pragmatism before philosophy: Unthinking will not stop climate change. We need magnets for motors now. Philosophical debates delay the necessary hardware production and jeopardize climate targets. From consumption to use:** The "unthinking" is concrete: we define mining in Greenland as a temporary measure. The goal is not perpetual growth through extraction, but to build up a stock that will later circulate. Greenland is the starting point, the circular economy is the goal.

...

Sources

The sources used are listed for the corresponding index numbers:

[1] - [2] Mining of critical raw materials hardly competitive so far. *Germany Trade & Invest (GTAI).
[3] - [4] Thomas Piketty: Capital in the Twenty-First Century. *Harvard University Press.
[5] - [6] Alex Demirovic: Demokratie in der Wirtschaft - Positionen - Probleme - Perspektiven. Hans Böckler Foundation.(no)
[7] - [8] Jörg Knuth: Democracy vs. oligarchy. *BSW Group Neustrelitz.
[9] - [10] Marko Mähner: E-motors without rare earths? What would that mean for investors? *GranValora - True values.
[11] - [12] Economy for the common good. Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinwohl-Ökonomie
[13] - [14] Greenland - Sovereignty, Strategy, and Economic Reality. Transatlantic Task Force / Beyond the Horizon ISSG: https://behorizon.org
[15] - [16] Alberto Alemanno: Greenland and US Annexation Threats. Constitutional Blog: https://verfassungsblog.de/greenland-and-us-annexation-threats/
[17] - [18] Kevin McGwin: Greenland restores uranium ban - likely halting a controversial rare earths mine. ArcticToday: https://www.arctictoday.com
[19] - [20] Greenland's Kvanefjeld rare earth project highlights Europe's late scramble for strategic minerals. *MINEX Forum.
[21] - [22] Nick Sokolow: High-tech at risk: why rare earths could change everything now. *Stock Exchange Inside.
[23] - [24] Lobbyism is undermining democracy: Ten theses. LobbyControl: https://www.lobbycontrol.de
[25] - [26] Planetary boundaries. Stockholm Resilience Center: https://www.stockholmresilience.org
[27] - [28] Robots for a greener future. *Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. / BMFTR.
[29] - [30] Smartphones and wind farms: what "rare earths" have to do with climate protection. *tagesschau (YouTube).
[31] - [32] Prof. Dr. Carlo Burkhardt: Rare earths: Why they should be recycled for transformation. *Transforming Economies.
33] - [34] Criticism of growth. Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wachstumskritik
[35] - [36] Gina Moesing: Too much too fast?: Trump's Greenland story gambled - Rare earth stocks lose momentum. *wallstreetONLINE.
[37] - [38] Munehisa Matsumoto et al: Optimal uni-axial ferromagnetism in (La,Ce)2Fe14B for permanent magnets. arXiv (Cornell University): https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.10119
[39] - [40] Meredith Schwartz & Gracelin Baskaran: Greenland, Rare Earths, and Arctic Security. CSIS: https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2026-01/260108_Schwartz_Greenland_Security.pdf
[41] - [42] Niels Henrik Hooge: Rare Earths Mining in Kringlerne, Greenland. European Environmental Bureau (EEB): https://eeb.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Factsheet-Kringlerne-final_130225.pdf

[43] - [44] Marilena Sophie Geng et al: Potential future methane emission hot spots in Greenland. Environmental Research Letters / CORE: https://files01.core.ac.uk/download/pdf/288800643.pdf

[45] - [46] Casey Michel: The Oligarchs Pushing for Conquest in Greenland. The New Republic: https://newrepublic.com/article/205102/oligarchs-pushing-conquest-greenland-trump

[47] - [48] Leneisja Jungsberg et al: Resilience, reflexivity, and decolonization: policy narratives in Kalaallit Nunaat. Frontiers in Climate: https://public-pages-files-2025.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.3389/fclim.2025.1531036/pdf

[49] - [50] Sven Titz: Critical raw materials: Rare earths in Greenland lure Europe and the USA. Pulitzer Center / NZZ: https://pulitzercenter.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/PRO%20Gro%CC%88nland%20%281%29.pdf

[51] - [52] Damian Ukwandu: David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage and its implication for development in Sub-Saharan Africa: A decolonial view. University of Johannesburg: https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstreams/3cfe6689-0973-40a9-bbac-0f4debbceb1d/download

[53] - [54] Roland Herzog et al.: Demokratie als Notwendigkeit und Programm. Denknetz: https://www.denknetz.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/demokratie_als_notwendigkeit_und_programm.pdf

[55] - [56] Vanessa Mazzari: Global warming: a robot that can plant trees in the desert. Generation Robots: https://www.generationrobots.com/blog/de/erderwarmung-ein-roboter-der-baume-in-der-wuste-pflanzen-kann/

[57] - [58] KfW Research: Raw material demand and security in times of green and digital transformation. KfW: https://www.kfw.de/PDF/Download-Center/Konzernthemen/Research/PDF-Dokumente-Fokus-Volkswirtschaft/Fokus-2022/Fokus-Nr.-399-September-2022-Rohstoffsicherheit.pdf

[59] - [60] Joseph Giordano et al: Robotics as Tools in Climate Fight. Cowen Research / MassRobotics: https://www.massrobotics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Deus-Ex-Machina-Part-IV-Robotics-as-Tools-in-Climate-Fight-2-2.pdf

[61] - [62] Christian Hoffmann et al.: Fünf Bausteine einer sicheren Versorgung der deutschen Industrie mit kritischen Rohstoffen. McKinsey: https://www.mckinsey.com/de/~/media/mckinsey/locations/europe%20and%20middle%20east/deutschland/news/presse/2025/2025-10-13%20rohstoffe/mckinsey_rohstoffe_oktober%202025_final.pdf

[63] - [64] Myles Fischer: A Comparative Analysis of Canada and Greenland's Rare Earth Development Strategies. NAADSN: https://www.naadsn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/A-Comparative-Analysis-of-Canada-and-Greenland's-Rare-Earth-Development-Strategies.pdf

[65] - [66] Karin Küblböck et al: EU Raw Material Partnerships: Mutual Benefits or Green Extractivism? ÖFSE: https://www.oefse.at/fileadmin/content/Downloads/Publikationen/Studien/RR25_EU-Raw-Material-Partnerships.pdf

[67] - [68] Karin Fischer: What is Neoliberalism? History, basic convictions and strategies of the neoliberal thought collective. SSOAR: https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/document/59763/1/ssoar-sws-2016-1-fischer-Was_ist_Neoliberalismus_Geschichte_Grunduberzeugungen.pdf

[69] - [70] Lukas U. Arenson & William Colgan: Water management challenges associated with mining projects in Greenland. WilliamColgan.net: https://www.williamcolgan.net/pubs/PMWSEE533.pdf

...