Greenland, Power, and the Question Beneath the Ice

Greenland, Power, and the Question Beneath the Ice

Every few years, an idea resurfaces that seems at first absurd, then unsettling, and finally revealing. Donald Trump’s renewed talk, direct or indirect, about acquiring Greenland falls squarely into that category.

On the surface, the arguments are strategic and rational. Greenland sits astride the Arctic, a region that is no longer a frozen afterthought but a frontline of 21st-century geopolitics. As polar ice melts, new shipping lanes open. Beneath the ice lie rare earth minerals, oil, gas, and resources critical to modern technologies, from EV batteries to military hardware. China and Russia both understand this. So does the Pentagon. From this perspective, Greenland is not a vanity project; it is a chess square.

But geopolitics is never just about maps and minerals. It is also about psychology, identity, and power.

The Strategic Case: Arctic Reality, Not Fantasy

The Arctic is heating up, literally and politically. The U.S. already maintains a military presence in Greenland through Thule Space Base, vital for missile defense and space surveillance. Control, or at least unquestioned influence, over Greenland would give Washington a commanding position in the High North, countering Russian Arctic militarization and China’s self-declared status as a “near-Arctic power.”

Minerals matter too. Rare earth supply chains are increasingly weaponized. Greenland’s untapped reserves are attractive to any nation seeking independence from Chinese dominance in this sector. From a purely strategic lens, interest in Greenland is neither new nor irrational. The U.S. considered buying it in 1867, 1910, and 1946, long before Trump.

The Ego Case: When Power Becomes Personal

And yet, context matters. Trump is not a conventional strategist. His worldview often reduces complex alliances to transactions and centuries-old institutions to balance sheets. In that light, Greenland risks becoming less a strategic asset and more a symbol: proof of dominance, deal-making prowess, and historical legacy.

Empires throughout history have confused acquisition with achievement. Land becomes a proxy for greatness. The danger is not ambition, it is simplification. When leaders frame geopolitics as real estate deals, they ignore the human, legal, and moral dimensions that bind the modern world together.

Greenland is not empty land. It is home to an Indigenous population with its own identity, aspirations, and increasing push for autonomy. Any discussion that treats it as a prize rather than a people echoes an older, darker era of colonial thinking.

NATO: The Silent Fault Line

Perhaps the most alarming thread in these discussions is the casual mention of NATO’s potential unraveling. Denmark, which governs Greenland, is a NATO ally. Any coercive attempt, economic, political, or otherwise to force a transfer of sovereignty would fracture the alliance at its core.

NATO is not just a military pact; it is a trust agreement. It works because members believe threats will come from outside, not within. If that trust erodes, NATO doesn’t need to be formally abolished, it simply becomes irrelevant.

For Europe, the message would be chilling: alliances are conditional, sovereignty negotiable, and security transactional. For the rest of the world, it would confirm a shift from rules-based order to raw power politics.

What This Moment Really Reveals

Whether Trump’s Greenland talk is serious policy, negotiating theater, or rhetorical provocation almost misses the point. What matters is what it reveals about the current global moment.

We are living through a return of 19th-century instincts in a 21st-century world. Strongmen think in terms of territory. Democracies struggle with consensus. Institutions built after World War II feel fragile under pressure from nationalism, climate change, and technological disruption. Greenland, in this sense, is not the story. It is the mirror.

A Final Thought

As a blogger who has watched empires strain, narratives collapse, and power shift over decades, I am less interested in whether Greenland is “taken” than in what such conversations normalize. When sovereignty becomes negotiable and alliances optional, stability gives way to spectacle.

The ice is melting in the Arctic. The real question is whether the moral ice beneath global order is melting too. And once that melts, no one truly controls what comes next.

Meanwhile, here's the AI Overview on the Above Topic

Greenland

 has emerged as a central flashpoint in global "power politics," driven by the receding ice sheet which is revealing vast mineral wealth and strategic opportunities. The "question beneath the ice" refers to whether these newly accessible resources will foster a green energy revolution or trigger a dangerous new era of great-power conflict. 

The Quest for Power and Resources

• Critical Minerals: Beneath the ice lies approximately 18% of the world's rare earth reserves, including neodymium and dysprosium, which are essential for electric vehicles and military hardware. Greenland also contains 25 of the 34 minerals deemed "critical raw materials" by the European Commission, such as cobalt, lithium, and copper.
• Geopolitics of Supply: Western nations are increasingly viewing Greenland as a way to break China's dominance in the rare earth market. As of early 2026, roughly 40 mining companies are actively exploring the island.
• Strategic Shipping: Melting ice is opening new Arctic shipping lanes that could dramatically shorten global trade routes between North America, Europe, and Asia, turning Greenland into a geoeconomic chokepoint. 

Recent Political Tensions (January 2026)

• U.S. Territorial Ambitions: In January 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump has renewed his interest in Greenland, suggesting that the U.S. must have "ownership" rather than just a lease for military bases. This has triggered a diplomatic crisis with Denmark and Greenland's local government.
• NATO at Risk: Experts warn that aggressive U.S. attempts to annex Greenland could threaten the stability of the NATO alliance, as Greenland remains a part of Denmark and its defense.
• Local Resistance: Greenland's Prime Minister Múte Egede and Danish officials have firmly rejected these proposals, stating that "Greenland is not for sale" and that decisions concerning the island must be made by its citizens. 

The "Question" of Preservation vs. Profit

• The Climate Paradox: While Greenland's minerals are needed for the green energy transition, the process of mining them poses severe environmental risks to a fragile ecosystem warming four times faster than the global average.
• Hidden Legacies: Recent scientific missions, such as GreenDrill, are uncovering ancient life and Cold War secrets beneath the ice, including Camp Century, a "city under the ice" that once housed a portable nuclear power plant and now serves as a reminder of the island's long-standing military value.
• The Sea Level Threat: Scientists emphasize that Greenland's most significant "value" may be its ice remaining frozen; its total melt would cause a global sea-level rise of approximately 24 feet (7.4 meters). 

My Reel of the Day: Greenland and Denmark

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2263443450800941

News of the Day:

Troops from Denmark, Germany, France, Sweden, and Finland have now arrived in Greenland as part of a coordinated effort to strengthen security in the strategically important Arctic region. Denmark, which holds responsibility for Greenland’s defense, has expanded military patrols and hosted allied forces for joint exercises and surveillance missions under NATO cooperation. The deployments come amid rising geopolitical tensions in the High North, where melting ice is opening new sea routes and increasing global competition. European leaders have stressed that Greenland’s security and future are determined solely by Denmark and Greenland, rejecting any external pressure or unilateral claims. The arrival of these multinational forces signals a unified European commitment to deterrence, stability, and long-term security in the Arctic.

Australia Bans Social Media to Children Under Sixteen

Australia’s Bold New Social Media Ban for Kids: A World First  And What It Means to an Old Blogger Like Me

Children across Australia woke up this week to a very different digital world, one in which their social media accounts had suddenly gone dark. In a sweeping, world-first move, the Australian government has banned all children under 16 from using major platforms including Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, Threads, X, and others.

The goal: to protect young people from addictive algorithms, online predators, and the constant pressure of digital bullying forces that many parents today say have made childhood unrecognizable.

Watching This as a Senior Blogger

As someone preparing to celebrate my 91st birthday, I can’t help but reflect on how dramatically the world has changed. I grew up in a time when our biggest concerns as children were scraped knees, curfews, and getting home before the streetlights came on. Bullying happened in the schoolyard, not on a device that followed you into your bedroom.

I’ve been blogging since 2009, watching the digital world evolve, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. I’ve seen technology connect families across oceans, but I’ve also seen how it can isolate, pressure, and overwhelm the youngest among us. So when I read that Australia has taken this bold step, I understand why and I understand the fear that led to it.

A Global First and One the World Is Watching

No other country has gone this far. Lawmakers from the U.S. to Europe are paying close attention, wondering whether this could be the first domino in a global shift.

And perhaps it should be. When a society realizes children need protection beyond what parents alone can provide, it says something about how serious the problem has become.

How the Ban Works

The Australian government has required ten major platforms to block under-16s using age-verification systems. The companies have agreed though some reluctantly and thousands of young accounts are being suspended.

This is a far cry from the early days of the internet, when people joked that “no one knows you’re a dog on the internet.” Now, companies are expected to know your age, your habits, and sometimes more.

Tech Companies Aren’t Convinced

While agreeing to comply, social media companies say the ban won’t necessarily make kids safer and might push them into riskier online spaces. As an old auditor, I’ve learned to respect skepticism sometimes it’s justified. But I’ve also learned that when harms accumulate and no one acts, children usually pay the price.

A New Era of Digital Parenting

From my generation’s viewpoint, I feel for today’s parents. They are raising children in a world we never had to navigate. Taking a smartphone away from a teenager can feel like taking away their social life. But at the same time, I know that every parent I’ve spoken to, including my readers, worries about mental health, self-esteem, and the heavy burden of growing up online.

Perhaps this ban will give families some breathing room, a chance for childhood to feel like childhood again.

My Final Thoughts

At 91, I have seen many “firsts” in my lifetime, world events, scientific breakthroughs, medical miracles. This ban may or may not be the perfect solution, but it signals something important: that society is finally recognizing the emotional and psychological toll of unchecked digital exposure.

Protecting the young has always been a shared responsibility. If Australia’s action sparks a global conversation, then maybe this bold experiment will be worth watching, wherever we live and whatever our age. For Details visit: 

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/09/tech/australia-social-media-teen-ban-us-explainer?utm_source=cnn_Five+Things+for+Wednesday%2C+December+10%2C+2025&utm_medium=email&bt_ee=RwnfWrqREmQEXRjfTqxG%2BHoINQFpVsfkn1OeKOGQnkmxKqyc792i0oNvZCB7VmKV&bt_ts=1765368151247

Meanwhile, here's the AI Overview on this Topic:  

Australia has become the first country to ban children under 16 from using ten major social media platforms, requiring those services to identify underage users and shut down or block their accounts. The affected companies say they will comply through age‑verification technologies but argue the law will not meaningfully improve children’s safety and may create new risks.​

What the law does

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) law sets a minimum age of 16 for accounts on designated “social media” platforms used by Australians. From 10 December 2025, platforms must take “reasonable measures” to stop under‑16s from creating new accounts and to deactivate existing ones, or face multi‑million‑dollar fines.​

The government frames the ban as a response to concerns about mental health harms, addictive design features, and exposure to harmful content, grooming, and bullying. More than a million accounts held by users believed to be under 16 are expected to be affected.​

Which platforms are covered

Authorities have named ten large services that fall under the ban: Instagram, Facebook, Threads, Snapchat, YouTube, TikTok, Kick, Reddit, Twitch, and X. These are described as “high‑risk” platforms because they combine algorithmic feeds, messaging, live or short‑form video, and large public audiences attractive to young people.​

All of the listed companies except X have publicly indicated they will comply with the law, even as they criticize it. Some firms began proactively closing Australian teen accounts in early December ahead of the formal start date.​

How age verification will work

Platforms are expected to use a mix of “age assurance” tools, including facial age estimation from selfies, government‑issued ID checks, and data‑based age inference from behavior or payment details. The law does not prescribe a single method but requires the eSafety Commissioner to be satisfied that platforms’ systems are robust enough to keep under‑16s out.​

A government‑backed trial of age‑verification technologies earlier in 2025 found that existing tools can reduce underage access but are not fully reliable and sometimes encourage excessive data collection, raising privacy concerns. Critics warn that widespread age verification could erode anonymity online and create databases that are attractive targets for misuse or breach.​

Why platforms say it may not make kids safer

Tech companies and civil liberties groups argue that banning teens from mainstream platforms may drive them toward less regulated or more dangerous corners of the internet. They also say social media can be an important source of connection, support, and information for vulnerable young people, including those facing family violence, discrimination, or mental health challenges.​​

Industry groups further contend that mandatory age checks amount to broad censorship and could chill free expression, while doing little to address root causes of harm like targeted advertising, algorithmic amplification of extreme content, and weak moderation. Several organizations are preparing or contemplating legal challenges, arguing that the law is vague, disproportionate, and potentially unconstitutional under Australian free‑speech principles.​

Global implications

The Australian government portrays the ban as a “first domino” that could encourage other countries to impose similar age limits on social media. Lawmakers in Europe and the United States, where more targeted youth‑safety rules are already being debated, are closely watching how enforceable the Australian approach proves to be in practice.​

Supporters hope the experiment will pressure platforms to redesign products with children’s wellbeing in mind, while opponents fear it will normalize intrusive online identity checks for everyone. How effectively the ban keeps under‑16s off these ten platforms and what unintended consequences emerge will likely shape the next wave of global regulation on kids, tech, and privacy.​

Aging Slowed Naturally- What is Love?

From My Recent Readings on Aging

Scientists have identified an immune cell capable of literally slowing the ageing process, a finding that could reshape our understanding of longevity. This specialised cell appears to reduce inflammation and enhance tissue repair, two key factors that influence how quickly the body ages. By regulating harmful immune reactions and supporting cellular maintenance, the cell helps preserve organ function and delay age related decline.

Researchers observed that this immune cell strengthens the body’s natural defence systems while minimising the chronic inflammation that accelerates ageing. In experimental models, individuals with higher levels of this cell displayed improved resilience and slower biological ageing markers.

The discovery opens new possibilities for therapies aimed at boosting these beneficial immune cells or activating their pathways. Such approaches could one day support healthier ageing, reduce age related diseases, and improve overall vitality.

Although more research is required to translate these results into human treatments, the breakthrough provides exciting insight into how the immune system influences lifespan.

In Addition:

New study shows a compound in dark chocolate leads to slower biological aging in adults. Research from King’s College London suggests that a natural compound in dark chocolate called theobromine may be linked to slower biological aging in humans.

Analyzing data from more than 1,600 adults in two large European cohorts, scientists measured blood levels of theobromine and compared them with molecular markers of aging, including DNA methylation patterns and telomere length.

Participants with higher circulating theobromine tended to have a biological age that appeared younger than their chronological age, pointing to a potential anti-aging effect of this cocoa-derived alkaloid. The compound stood out even when compared with other substances found in cocoa and coffee, suggesting a unique role for theobromine in age-related biology.

The researchers emphasize that the findings are observational and do not prove that eating more dark chocolate will slow aging. Theobromine, while toxic to dogs, has been associated in humans with cardiovascular benefits and now with markers of healthier aging, but it is only one component of chocolate, which also contains sugar and fat. Ongoing work is exploring whether theobromine acts alone or in combination with other cocoa compounds such as polyphenols, and how these dietary molecules interact with the epigenome to influence long-term health. The team stresses that more targeted clinical research is needed before making any dietary recommendations based on theobromine or dark chocolate intake.

Meanwhile, A story of Gratitude: Reminds me of the Movie-Iloilo

When Pierre Dupont was just a baby, he was lovingly cared for by his nanny Aïcha in Côte d'Ivoire. But when his family decided to return to France, they completely lost contact with him. Time passed and Pierre hadn't forgotten the person who was an important part of his cheap life, so he decided to find it. His search took him to Senegal, where he found Aïcha living on a flat land near Dakar, the country's capital. He arranged a reunion to reunite them and, rejoicing their past, thanked her for taking care of her when she was young. In gratitude for what it did for her, she decided to give it 16,000 dollars and a monthly pension to ensure her comfort. With the help of money, Aïcha has a new opportunity to renovate her home and support her grandchildren's education.

Finally, What is Love? (https://www.facebook.com/reel/922100800322657)

Love is not just an emotion or a social idea. Psychology and biology show that love is a vital human need shaped by powerful hormones that directly affect our health, happiness, and longevity. At the center of this process are oxytocin and dopamine, two chemicals that help regulate bonding, motivation, and emotional stability.

Oxytocin, often called the bonding hormone, is released through close connection such as touch, trust, and emotional intimacy. It helps lower cortisol levels, reduce stress, and calm the nervous system. When oxytocin is active, the body feels safer, the heart rate slows, and anxiety decreases. This is why people in loving relationships often show lower stress related illness and stronger emotional resilience.

Dopamine plays a different but equally important role. It fuels pleasure, motivation, and reward. Feeling loved activates dopamine pathways in the brain, reinforcing behaviors that promote connection and emotional closeness. This chemical response increases optimism, focus, and a sense of purpose, all of which are linked to better mental health outcomes.

Long term studies in psychology consistently show that people with strong emotional bonds tend to live longer and recover faster from illness. Love supports immune function, heart health, and emotional regulation. The brain and body thrive when connection is present.

Love is not a luxury or weakness. It is a biological requirement that keeps the human system balanced, motivated, and alive. Connection is not optional for wellbeing. It is essential.

My Food For Thought For Today:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/4404742609850185

My Photo of the Day:

My Younger Years at the FDA-1990-2002