It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Bruce C project 'would boost GDP by CAD238 billion'
The proposed 4,800 MW Bruce C new nuclear project would contribute CAD238 billion (USD172 billion) over its lifetime to Canada's economy, according to a new study.
The Bruce site (Image: Bruce Power)
The figures come in the summary of findings of the Bruce C Economic Impact Assessment study by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce for Bruce Power and the Nuclear Innovation Institute.
It says that during the proposed plant's 80-year lifespan, it would contribute more than CAD217 billion to the province of Ontario's gross domestic product. During site preparation and construction it would create or support 18,900 jobs nationally, of which 15,900 would be in Ontario. During operations those figures are put at 6,700 jobs nationally and 5,900 in Ontario.
Stephen Lecce, Ontario Minister of Energy and Mines, said: "Ontario's nuclear advantage is powering our future and showcasing the very best of Canadian technology, resources, and workers … it is clear that Bruce Power C is essential to Ontario’s energy and economic future, as we build on-time and on-budget."
James Scongack, Bruce Power's Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice-President, said: "The Ontario Chamber of Commerce independent economic impact analysis confirms what our communities already know - Bruce C has the potential to be a once‑in‑a‑generation economic engine."
Luke Charbonneau, Bruce County Warden and Mayor of the Town of Saugeen Shores, said: "The economic benefits, training opportunities, and long-term jobs will make life better for families and businesses throughout our region for decades."
Background
The Bruce site, 18 kilometres north of the town of Kincardine in Bruce County, is home to eight operating Candu units: units 1-4 are known together as Bruce A and units 5-8 as Bruce B. The new project would be sited within the existing 932-hectare site, with new intake and discharge structures in Lake Huron. Alternative cooling strategies will be evaluated as part of the impact assessment process.
Bruce Power formally notified Canadian regulators of its intention to launch an Impact Assessment process for up to 4,800 MWe of new capacity at the Bruce site in October 2023. The federal government announced CAD50 million of funding in February 2024 to support pre-development feasibility work. In August 2025 the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, in collaboration with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, issued the formal Notice of Commencement of Impact Assessment under the country’s Impact Assessment Act.
With nuclear currently responsible for 50% of Ontario's total generation and hydro contributing 24%, Ontario already has one of the cleanest grids in the world and the Energy for Generations plan published in June 2025 sees nuclear power - including required new capacity - "continuing to serve as the backbone of the province's electricity system providing the 24/7 baseload power the province's economy requires" as demand continues to rise.
Government funding for Saskatchewan SMR test facility
Western Canada's first Small Modular Reactor Safety, Licensing, and Testing Centre at the University of Regina is to receive nearly CAD6 million (USD4.3 million) in funding from the federal and provincial governments.
The funding was announced on 19 January - speaking is SaskPower CEO Rupen Pandya (Image: SaskPower)
The facility - the SMR-SLT - will be located at the Innovation Saskatchewan Research and Technology Park. It will house two test loops that simulate a part of a small modular reactor (SMR), modelling water-cooled systems using electrical heat, allowing researchers to test components under conditions similar to those in operating reactors.
The funding was announced by Buckley Belanger, Canada's Secretary of State (Rural Development), on behalf of Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience and Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada Eleanor Olszewski. The federal government is investing CAD1.96 million (USD1.4 million) in the SMR-SLT through Olszewski's department, PrairiesCan - a federal government department supporting business growth, innovation and community economic development across Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Provincial government support for the project is through SaskPower, the principal supplier of electricity in Saskatchewan, and a Crown Corporation - a commercial entity owned by the Government of Saskatchewan. It will be investing CAD4 million in the SMR-LT.
"Small modular nuclear reactors represent a fantastic opportunity for clean, low-emitting power, for good jobs, and for long-term economic growth right across the nuclear supply chain and across Saskatchewan," Belanger said. "Our province is already home to some of the largest uranium reserves on the planet, and Saskatchewan has huge potential to establish itself as a leader in Canadian nuclear power - but none of that happens unless we get the first step right. Making sure nuclear development can happen safely, responsibly, and under strong regulation is essential, and that's exactly what this investment in the University of Regina's SMR Safety, Licensing and Testing centre is all about."
"The Testing Centre will help to further establish Saskatchewan as a hub for nuclear excellence, advancing nuclear research, and supporting a local nuclear workforce and supply chain," said Jeremy Harrison, Minister Responsible for SaskPower. "Nuclear power is central to our Government's energy security strategy, which is why we are making the necessary investments to support industry readiness in the province."
Innovation Saskatchewan is contributing CAD1 million plus an in-kind contribution of the leased space at the Innovation Saskatchewan R+T Park for the first three years of operation. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) will also provide in-kind design support. The centre will be led by University of Regina researchers, with the Global Institute for Energy, Minerals and Society (GIEMS) partnership between the University of Regina, University of Saskatchewan, and Saskatchewan Polytechnic playing a key role to ensure all three institutions have access to the test loops for training and research, SaskPower said.
The government of Saskatchewan signalled its commitment to incorporating nuclear capacity into its provincial electricity system in a long-term policy document released last year. SaskPower has previously selected GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy's BWRX-300 SMR for potential deployment in the province in the mid-2030s and has identified two potential sites for SMR deployment, both in the Estevan area in the south-east of the province.
According to PrairiesCan, the new test centre project will create 18 direct jobs, support 10 small businesses, and train a highly skilled workforce, while advancing Saskatchewan's preparation for the estimated 2,500 to 3,500 jobs required to build and operate nuclear power plants by the mid-2030s.
Arthur Situm, Canada Research Chair in SMR Safety and Licensing at the University of Regina, said the facility will help train the next generation of nuclear professionals by providing hands-on experience with safety systems and processes that define modern nuclear technology.
"Together, this work positions the University of Regina and Saskatchewan as a leader in safe, responsible, small modular reactor research with a global impact," he said on YouTube.
Tepco restarts Kashiwazaki-Kariwa reactor
Japan's Tokyo Electric Power Company announced it has begun the process of restarting unit 6 at its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, which has been offline for almost 14 years.
The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant (Image: Tepco)
"Today, we received approval from the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) to begin test operation of the reactor to confirm the integrity of the equipment, including a pre-operational operator inspection to be conducted after reactor startup," the company said. "After submitting a pre-operational inspection change application on 24 December 2025, we proceeded with preparations for reactor startup, and at 19:02 [local time] today, we withdrew the control rods and started up the reactor."
Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) had planned to restart Kashiwazaki-Kariwa 6 on Tuesday, but on Monday announced that it had postponed the restart due to an issue with a safety alarm, which has since been rectified.
The seven-unit Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant was unaffected by the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami which damaged Tepco's Fukushima Daiichi plant, although the plant's reactors were previously all offline for up to three years following the 2007 Niigata-Chuetsu earthquake, which caused damage to the site but did not damage the reactors themselves. While the units were offline, work was carried out to improve the plant's earthquake resistance. All units have remained offline since the Fukushima Daiichi accident.
Although it has worked on the other units at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa site, Tepco is concentrating its resources on units 6 and 7 while it deals with the clean-up at Fukushima Daiichi. These 1356 MWe Advanced Boiling Water Reactors began commercial operation in 1996 and 1997, respectively, and were the first Japanese boiling water reactors to be put forward for restart. Tepco received permission from the Nuclear Regulation Authority to restart units 6 and 7 in December 2017. Restarting those two Kashiwazaki-Kariwa units - which have been offline for periodic inspections since March 2012 and August 2011, respectively - would increase the company's earnings by an estimated JPY100 billion (USD633 million) per year.
The governor of Japan's Niigata Prefecture, Hideyo Hanazumi, gave his approval for the restart of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa units 6 and 7 in November last year, with the Prefectural Assembly backing his decision in December.
Tepco is prioritising restarting Kashiwazaki-Kariwa unit 6, where fuel loading was completed in June last year. The company has until September 2029 to implement anti-terrorism safety measures at unit 6. Kashiwazaki-Kariwa 6 would become the first reactor owned by Tepco to restart following the Fukushima Daiichi accident.
"We will continue to confirm the integrity of the plant equipment while actually using steam, and will respond diligently to the NRA's inspection," Tepco said. "As this is the first operation in approximately 14 years, we will carefully proceed with each step of the plant equipment integrity check. We will take appropriate action if we notice any issues and will provide thorough information on the status of each startup process."
International safety assessments of Finnish, French SMRs
Nuclear safety authorities from the Czech Republic, Finland, Poland, Sweden, and Ukraine are conducting a Joint Early Review to assess the safety of Steady Energy's LDR-50 reactor for district heating. Meanwhile, the third phase of a review of safety options for France's Nuward SMR has been started by eight European nuclear regulators.
A multiple LDR-50 unit plant (Image: Steady Energy)
The Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) conducted a preliminary safety assessment of the LDR-50 last year. In June, STUK said the draft concept assessment for Steady Energy's LDR-50 found that "nuclear and radiation safety, security arrangements, emergency arrangements and nuclear material safeguards solutions are such that they can be designed to meet safety requirements". Concept assessment is a procedure proposed in the new Nuclear Energy Act in which STUK assesses whether the power plant could meet safety requirements in general terms. It is separate to the construction permit process for the nuclear power plant. STUK said it used the draft concept as a basis for its assessment.
STUK is now coordinating an international safety assessment of the LDR-50, together with the Czech State Office for Nuclear Safety (SÚJB), Poland's National Atomic Energy Agency (PAA), the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM), and the State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate of Ukraine (SNRIU). Participating authorities will base their examination of the LDR-50 plant based on STUK's earlier work while conducting their own evaluations based on their national regulations.
As part of the review, experts will conduct a preliminary assessment of the key design assumptions of the LDR-50 reactor, such as the adopted design basis and safety objectives, the method of ensuring safety functions, the approach to defence-in-depth, and protection against internal and external threats. Solutions relevant to operation and emergency preparedness will also be verified.
Poland's PAA said a key element of the initiative was to examine the extent to which an assessment conducted by a nuclear regulator in one country can provide valuable support for safety assessments conducted by regulators in other countries, while maintaining the full autonomy of national regulatory competences. "These activities are part of broader international efforts to harmonise and standardise the regulatory approach to new nuclear technologies," it noted.
The Joint Early Review (JER) process began in October last year and is scheduled to run until May 2026. The first technical meeting under this project took place in December. The aim of the review is not to form a joint regulatory position - national findings will be compiled into a summary report, which will be delivered to Steady Energy.
"Early examination of the LDR‑50's safety solutions offers insight into how the design aligns with different national regulatory environments and helps Steady Energy and national regulators gain valuable experience in applying international expertise to national processes," Steady Energy said. "For Steady Energy, the project offers a chance to engage in structured dialogue with multiple nuclear authorities at once. Each participating country is highly relevant from both regulatory and market perspectives, making early feedback especially valuable. Every pre‑licensing step advances the path toward formal licensing process and strengthens overall project readiness in each country."
Steady Energy was spun out of Finland's VTT Technical Research Centre in 2023. The LDR-50 SMR, with a thermal output of 50 MW, is designed to operate at around 150°C. Unlike most SMRs being developed around the world, it is not designed to generate electricity - or electricity and heat. Instead, it is designed to only produce heat and is focused on district heating, as well as industrial steam production and desalination projects.
The company has already signed agreements for 15 reactors in Finland, with its reactor design currently being assessed by STUK. The aim is for construction of the first plant - to be the clean energy source for a district heating scheme - to begin in 2029.
"The Joint Early Review process allows Steady Energy to be better prepared for the formal licensing process in each of these countries once we get projects ongoing," said Juho Vierimaa, Steady Energy's Head of Licensing.
Nuward review progresses
France's Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire et de Radioprotection (ASNR) has announced the launch of the third phase of the joint review of safety options for the Nuward reactor.
A rendering of a Nuward SMR plant (Image: Nuward)
In June 2022, EDF announced that the Nuward design would be the case study for a European early joint regulatory review led by the ASNR with the participation of Finland's STUK and the Czech Republic's SÚJB. The six areas covered during the year-long joint early review were: the general safety objectives; the list of design basis conditions and design extension conditions; the use of passive cooling systems; the development plan for computer codes; the integration of two reactor units in a single facility; and the Probabilistic Safety Assessment approach. The three regulators published their report on the first phase of the review in September 2023.
A second phase of the review was joined by Poland's PAA, Sweden's SSM and the Netherlands' Authority for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection (ANVS). This second phase built upon the successes of the pilot phase - particularly the work of reviewing a specific project and establishing a direct dialogue with the designer - while evolving to address new challenges, notably broader participation. During the second phase, the scope of the assessment was extended to new technical topics, including: management of extended design conditions; assessment of containment and radiological effects; architecture of electrical systems and measurement, control and management systems; and criticality risk management. The final report of the second phase was published in December last year.
The third phase has now been launched. In addition to the participation of the Dutch (ANVS), Polish (PAA), Swedish (SSM), Finnish (STUK), and Czech (SUJB) authorities, the initiative now includes Belgium's Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC) and Italy's National Inspectorate for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection (ISIN). The evaluation of regulators during this third phase will focus on new themes: the approach to preventing the failure of main components, the approach to classifying the safety of equipment and the approach taken to take into account scenarios of loss of external power supply.
The conclusions of this review, expected by the end of 2026, will inform the ASNR's deliberations on the harmonisation of safety requirements and authorization processes for new reactors.
The Nuward project - launched in September 2019 by the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission, EDF, Naval Group and TechnicAtome - is for a pressurised water reactor with a thermal power of 1,150 MW, which can be converted into up to 400 MWe and 115 MWt.
In September last year, a pre-licensing assessment of the EAGLES-300 lead-cooled small modular reactor was launched by the Belgian, Italian and Romanian nuclear regulators. Four European nuclear technology organisations launched the Eagles Consortium in June 2025 to develop and commercialise the EAGLES-300 SMR with the aim of delivering a first demonstration by 2035.
Cooling system tests at RA-10 multipurpose reactor
The commissioning of the first pump in the primary cooling circuit of the RA-10 multipurpose reactor has taken place as part of preparations for cold testing.
(Image: CNEA)
Argentina's National Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA) said the commissioning "allowed, for the first time, the observation of coolant circulation through the reactor's primary circuit. This milestone enables the comprehensive verification of the system's hydraulic performance and its compliance with design and safety parameters, an essential condition for proceeding with reactor commissioning".
Tests are to continue over the next two months to complete the functional validation of the reactor's primary cooling system.
Dummy fuel elements, supplied by the Fuel Element Manufacturing Plant for Research Reactors (ECRI), have allowed the configuration of the RA-10 core.
CNEA said: "This configuration allows for the necessary cold tests to be carried out to verify the performance of the cooling circuit under conditions representative of the operating configuration."
The RA-10 multipurpose reactor is a 30 MWt open pool type reactor. The project was approved by the government and officially started by CNEA in June 2010. Argentina's Nuclear Regulatory Authority granted a construction licence for RA-10 in November 2014. The civil works for the reactor began in 2016. Nuclear technology firm Invap is involved in the design and construction of the reactor facility and related installations, playing the role of main contractor.
The assembly of the RA-10 pool - which will house the core of the reactor - was completed in August 2018. The RA-10 will replace the RA-3 reactor on the same site, a 10 MWt pool-type reactor which began operations in 1967. The RA-10 will also have associated facilities such as the Argentine Neutron Beam Laboratory and the Laboratory for the Study of Irradiated Materials.
Argentina says the facility will guarantee self-sufficiency in radioisotopes for medical use and allow for exports to cover up to 20% of global demand. It will also enable the production of doped silicon for industrial applications as well as facilitating new research in a range of areas and training.
KHNP takes stake in TerraPower
South Korea's SK Innovation has transferred part of its stake in US small modular reactor developer TerraPower to Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power.
(Image: SK Innovation)
In May 2022, SK Group signed a memorandum of understanding with TerraPower to jointly develop "next-generational technologies" needed for small modular reactors (SMRs). In the August of that year, SK Inc and SK Innovation - both affiliates of SK Group, Korea's second-largest conglomerate - announced they had invested USD250 million in TerraPower, becoming the company's second-largest shareholder. SK Inc is a holding company of SK Group with specialisation in investment activities. Its strategic investment areas include advanced materials, biopharmaceutical, green energy and digital technologies. SK Innovation is an SK Group intermediate holding company in energy, petrochemical, lubricants, exploration and production, e-mobility battery, information and electronic materials businesses along with eight major subsidiaries.
TerraPower announced in April 2023 that it had signed a collaboration agreement with SK and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) supporting the demonstration and commercialisation of its Natrium reactor and integrated energy system.
SK Innovation has now announced that it has transferred part of its stake in TerraPower to KHNP, "strengthening the three-way partnership to advance the global SMR market". It added: "This marks the first time a Korean public energy enterprise has directly invested in a world-leading SMR developer."
"SK Innovation aims to combine its global competitiveness in energy and materials with KHNP's world-class expertise in nuclear power plant construction and operation," the company said. "Together, they plan to establish SMR ecosystems for data centres and other industrial sites in Korea and overseas, and deliver customised integrated energy solutions to address the power supply challenges of the AI era."
KHNP and TerraPower successfully completed the US Committee on Foreign Investment review process in December 2025, "establishing a regulatory foundation for its entry into the global SMR market".
"KHNP joins TerraPower's current investors in supporting the first Natrium plant being built in Wyoming, along with the company's plans to rapidly deploy additional units in the US and abroad," TerraPower said. "This investment will accelerate ongoing efforts to explore both South Korean and other opportunities."
TerraPower's Natrium technology features a 345 MWe sodium-cooled fast reactor with a molten salt-based energy storage system. The storage technology can temporarily boost the system's output to 500 MWe when needed, enabling the plant to follow daily electric load changes and integrate seamlessly with fluctuating renewable resources. TerraPower began non-nuclear construction for its first Natrium plant, in Kemmerer, Wyoming, in June 2024, and expects construction of the plant - which it says will be the first commercial-scale, advanced nuclear project in the USA - to be complete in 2030. The first Natrium project is being developed through the US Department of Energy's Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. The Natrium reactor is a TerraPower and GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy technology.
"We have strong relationships with multiple Korean entities across the nuclear energy supply chain, and today's announcement is one more step to realising the Natrium technology's promise to deliver next generation nuclear power not just in the United States, but around the world," said TerraPower President and CEO Chris Levesque. "TerraPower, SK and KHNP have been advancing our strategic collaboration for years, and I'm proud to add KHNP to our committed investor base."
Park In-sik, Executive Vice President and Head of the Export Business Division at KHNP, added: "This investment is a major milestone for KHNP in supporting the global deployment of next-generation nuclear energy. By combining our 50 years of experience in nuclear plant construction and operation with SK Innovation's competitiveness in energy and TerraPower's technology, we will play a leading role in expanding the advanced nuclear market. The three companies plan to sign definitive commercialisation agreements this year to establish a foundation for global projects."
"KHNP's investment in TerraPower solidifies our three-way collaboration in the global advanced nuclear business," said Moohwan Kim, Executive Vice President and Head of Energy Solution Business Division at SK Innovation. "SK Innovation will work closely with KHNP to support the Wyoming project, pursue new nuclear opportunities, and achieve innovative outcomes including localisation of key materials and components."
LR Launches Cross-Sector Nuclear Propulsion Consortium
Participants include Rolls-Royce's Advanced Modular Reactors division, which has designed a high temperature gas reactor like the illustration above (US DOE file image)
As the world looks for alternatives to bunker fuel, nuclear propulsion, by contrast, offers some attractive features. Regular bunkering is not required, so there is no need to build up a global fuel network. The basic concept of a shipboard reactor is established, and there is a community of engineers who understand the requirements. And the price of modern modular reactors - when looking at total cost of ownership - could be competitive. The latest serious entrant into the nuclear-power arena is Lloyd's Register: the world's first class society has convened a working group of professionals from the engineering, regulatory and insurance fields to piece together all of the requirements for a merchant-vessel reactor program.
The partners in the program include Rolls-Royce's Advanced Modular Reactors division, which has designed a gas-cooled particle fuel reactor in an appropriate power range for many merchant shipping applications. Rolls-Royce is one of a handful of companies with experience in building and servicing naval reactors, and it has powered Britain's nuclear submarine fleet since the Cold War.
Other participants include UK defense conglomerate Babcock, which has experience in shipbuilding and nuclear submarine design; Global Nuclear Security Partners, a specialized consultancy focused on nuclear threat reduction; law firm Stephenson Harwood, which has an established nuclear project legal team; and insurer NorthStandard, one of the largest P&I clubs.
The objective is to move quickly into the market with a British solution for nuclear propulsion. There are early efforts under way elsewhere, and LR sees opportunity in being a first mover. The nation that develops a nuclear-propulsion industrial ecosystem will benefit for the long term, LR suggests.
"Decarbonization demands cleaner power, higher standards and a duty to the generations that follow. Nuclear is ready to meet that test," said Nick Brown, CEO of Lloyd’s Register. "Used safely in naval fleets for decades, the next generation of advanced modular reactors brings tougher safeguards and the chance to bring nuclear power into everyday commercial shipping."
Next steps include pursuing UK regulatory approval for a site-licensed advanced modular reactor, a stepping stone known as a Statement of Design Acceptability. The consortium will also develop a class framework combining the requirements for nuclear and maritime regulation, and will define the security requirements needed for the reactor.
“With the right people applying the right standards and joined up regulation, maritime nuclear power can become a transformative force – advancing decarbonization, supporting commercial viability, and guiding the shipping industry towards net-zero emissions," said NorthStandard head of external affairs Mike Salthouse.
Monday, January 19, 2026
Trump's Greenland ambitions lack domestic support, polls show
Despite US President Donald Trump’s insistence on acquiring Greenland, public support for the idea remains low. A Reuters/Ipsos poll of US residents this week showed that fewer than one in five respondents back acquiring Greenland, while a separate CBS poll found that just 14 percent would approve the use of military force to take the island. Instead, many Americans say they want the president to focus on domestic economic pressures, particularly the cost of living. A CNN poll last week found that 58 percent of Americans believe Trump’s first year back in the White House has been a failure, especially on the economy.
On 14 January, a few hours before the historic meeting in Washington between representatives from Greenland and Denmark and their U.S. counterparts, J. D. Vance and Marco Rubio, Denmark and several of its NATO allies reinforced their military presence in Greenland and announced that more reinforcements would follow.
Some interpreted this move as pressure on the Trump Administration before the meeting. But anyone familiar with NATO-Denmark politics would recognise that appeasement with the empire is the more likely explanation.
At the Washington meeting, the U.S. reiterated its firm demand for “having Greenland”: ““It is clear that the president wants to conquer Greenland,”” declared the Danish foreign minister after the meeting. The parties agreed to establish a “high level working group” in an effort to contain the crisis.
But the crisis continues, and its magnitude is huge.
The reality is that for over a year, the nearly 57,000 Greenlanders and their vast island have been turned into a bargaining chip, a pawn to be moved at will on the great chessboard of U.S. imperialism.
Trump has repeatedly stated that the U.S. seeks to control and own Greenland, by military means if necessary. The brutally effective aggression against Venezuela on January 3 and the kidnapping of the country’s head of state and his wife have erased any doubt that the White House administration is capable of putting Trump’s words into action.
The threat is imminent, and it is felt acutely among the Greenlandic people. The population is stuck in a vice, and the country’s politicians must fight hour by hour simply to get a seat at the table and be heard., Not only by the U.S., but also by Denmark.
Greenland, or Kalaallit Nunaat,has been inhabited for 4500 years,and its people are linked to the Inuit communities across the Arctic. It is the world’s largest island, with an area larger than France, Germany, Spain, Great Britain, Italy, Greece, Switzerland and Belgium combined. It became a Danish colony with the establishment of the state-owned Royal Greenland Trading Company in 1774. The Royal Greenland Trading Company functioned as the de facto colonial administration until the early 1900s, when trade and administration were separated. During this period, Danish companies extracted various minerals, including cryolite, iron, zinc, lead and silver.
The colonial era formally ended in 1953, but political equality with Denmark did not follow. Following a referendum, so-called home rule was introduced in 1979, which was replaced in June 2009 by the current status of self-government. Under self-government, Greenlanders hold the rights to the island’s subsoil and the minerals found there. However, foreign and security policies remain decided in Denmark, which is why Greenland is considered NATO territory.
Greenland is not a member of the European Union. In a 1982 referendum, 53 percent of the Greenlandic people voted to leave the European Economic Community, now the EU. Today, Greenland is classified as one of the EU’s Overseas Countries and Territories.
In 1951, a secret agreement between the U.S. government and Denmark’s envoy to the United States granted U.S. military involvement in Greenland. The agreement was highly controversial and in detriment to official Danish policies at the time. Nevertheless, it remains in force today and has been repeatedly confirmed. In practice, it grants unlimited U.S. military rights over Greenland.
Thus, for decades, the U.S. has maintained several military facilities in Greenland. The history of these facilities includes forced evictions of Inuit families in 1953, the crash of an American B-52 plane carrying four atomic bombs in 1968, and other harms inflicted on the local population.
The Danish government repeatedly states that Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders and is not for sale. But in reality, Denmark has been selling off Greenland to the U.S. for decades. “We already have a defence agreement between the Kingdom and the United States today, which gives the United States wide access to Greenland,” the Danish Prime Minister stated in an official statement earlier this week.
This raises the question: Why does the Trump Administration seek an annexation of Greenland, when the U.S. empire already holds extensive rights over Greenland? The answer lies in a new security strategy and the demand for unquestioned and unlimited control over oil, control over minerals, and military dominance.
Greenland possesses at least 25 of the 34 minerals designated as “critical raw materials” by the European Commission. Greenland has significant deposits of rare earths, copper, nickel, zinc, gold, diamonds, iron ore, titanium, tungsten and uranium. Trump wants U.S. companies, many of which have invested heavily in his re-election, to have unfettered access to Greenland’s mineral deposit resources.
Moreover, Greenland’s geographic position near the Arctic is important. Control over northern sea routes, such as the Northeast Passage, is becoming increasingly important as climate change advances. A fully controlled, militarised and rearmed Greenland is also intended to serve as an advanced base against both Russia and China. Beyond the prospect of super-profits, keeping socialist China far away from Greenland is a strategic goal for both the U.S. and Denmark.
Until a few years ago, Greenland was undergoing a process of independent decision-making and freeing itself from neo-colonialism. But the current era of intensified imperialism emanating from the White House has caused a serious setback to Greenland’s ability to determine its own destiny. The threats and pressures are enormous.
It is so important to hold on to the principle of right to self-determination. How Greenland organises its society, with whom it collaborates, and what alliances it enters to realise its self-determination in practice should be determined solely in Nuuk.
Produced by Globetrotter and No Cold War Perspectives.
Lotte Rørtoft-Madsen is the chair of the Danish Communist Party. She was the editor-in-chief of Arbejderen.
Greenland Between Denmark And The USA: What Is The Price For The Largest Island In The World? – Analysis
The largest island in the world, Greenland (that is not green at all but rather covered by white ice), has in recent months and even several years become one of the hottest geopolitical spots and disputes in world politics and international relations. The island, which has been administratively part of the Kingdom of Denmark for two centuries, has seriously caught the eye of the USA, namely its Trump administration, which firmly claims that the island simply must be under direct control and administration of the USA for its national security, otherwise it will be “swallowed up” by Russia and China (whose [Russian] submarines already operate around the island). The latest statements by NATO leaders support the idea of “Russian occupation of Greenland” as the reason for the increased presence of (small and meager) NATO soldiers on the island, but in essence, this position advocates the transfer of the island under American administration.
Greenland politically belongs to Denmark, i.e., the European Union, and in a military-political sense to the NATO pact. Geographically, it belongs to the North American continent and is closest to Canada, not the USA, and far away from Denmark. However, in a purely military sense, Greenland has been under the “occupation” of the USA since the summer of 1940 (after Nazi Germany’s overrun of Denmark), and in that context, the island is much more tied to the American, rather than the Danish, i.e., European administration. If, and this is in fact more or less a fait accompli, Greenland does indeed belong to the USA in one form or another, it will only be a formal recognition of the real state of affairs since the time of World War II up to today.
Nevertheless, what is Greenland, and what are its basic characteristics?
Geographical and military-technical characteristics of the island
Greenland (Grønland) is an Arctic island, the largest in the world, located off the northeastern part of the North American continent, next to Canada. It has an area of 2,130,800 sq km, with coastal islands of 2,175,600 sq km, and a population of almost 55,000 (the area of Europe is about 10,180,000 sq km). Greenland is politically part of the territory of the Kingdom of Denmark with a certain degree of local autonomy. The island is mostly in the Arctic Circle, with its northernmost point 708 km from the North Pole. It is about 2,650 km long from north to south, and about 1,300 km wide from east to west. The island generally rises steeply from the surrounding seas, bays, and straits into highland terrain and over 3,000 m. altitude.
The island has a very rugged coastline with a large number of fjords. The eastern coast, despite its great ruggedness, is practically inaccessible for the most part due to icebergs. The interior of Greenland, together with the ice sheet, forms a plateau between 2000 and 3000 meters above sea level. It is estimated that about 1,860,900 sq. km. of the island’s territory is permanently covered with ice, with a thickness of between 500 and 1500 m., and only about 13% of Greenland’s surface is free of ice, and in the coastal zone it is up to 150 m. wide. The highest peak is located on Mount Forel, 3440 m.
The Greenland Sea is the main link between the Arctic and the western Atlantic. It is of great importance for Arctic fishing and whaling. Its northern part is mostly covered with ice, and its southern part is covered with icebergs or floes.
Probably the greatest geopolitical value of the island of Greenland is that whoever holds it in their hands essentially controls access to the North Atlantic.
The climate in Greenland is of the Arctic type. The southern part of the west coast is the most favorable for life because it is reached by the warmer Atlantic current, and where the average January temperature is about minus 14 degrees C, and July about plus 8 degrees C. In the interior of the island, the temperature can reach minus 50 degrees C.
It is important to note, at least from a military-economic point of view, that the seas, bays, and straits around Greenland freeze over except in its southwestern part, i.e., these waters are covered with icebergs as well as mountains broken off from glaciers, which descend from the interior of the mainland into the sea. Along the northern coast, the sea is constantly under ice. There are no land communications on the island. The ports in the south of the island are of insignificant capacity, at least in military terms. In Greenland, dog sledding on land and boats at sea are the only means of transport. However, in terms of air traffic, Greenland is in a very important position because the shortest flight routes from North America to the northern parts of Europe and Western Siberia pass through it.
The economy of Greenland
The current economy of the island is very poor, i.e., insignificant, because the main economic activity of the islanders is limited to fishing, which is not as profitable as in the cases of Iceland or Norway. It is mainly about catching cod, whale, seal, walrus, and, on the mainland, bear hunting for fur. A small number of sheep and goats are raised on the island, while vegetables and potatoes are grown sparingly in the southern coastal belt.
However, the island is rich in certain natural minerals. There are deposits of cryolite, copper, lead, graphite, and uranium. Greenland has the largest mines of cryolite in the world, which is used in the aluminum industry. Cryolite ore is mined in the southwestern part of the island and exported. Graphite and coal are mined in smaller quantities, while lead and zinc ores have been exploited since 1956. It is claimed that there are large quantities of oil and especially natural gas in the depths of the island. In this context, Greenland can be considered a part of the Arctic that has been proven to lie on huge reserves of natural gas and probably other energy sources, which would be the main reason for the international race for the largest island in the world.
Population and Constitution
The indigenous population of Greenland is of Inuit origin, who have settled mainly in its southern (more domesticated) part along the coast. There are a small number of ethnic Danes as well as US citizens who are stationed at US military bases, especially at the large Tula naval and air base on the northwestern coast of the island. The capital of Greenland is Gothop/Nuuk, which in 1965 had a population of almost 4,000 but today has almost 20,000. It is also the northernmost capital city in the world.
Greenland is, according to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Denmark of June 5th, 1953, an integral province of the Kingdom of Denmark with special autonomy (the same as the Faroe Islands) since 2009. Greenland has its own separate (autonomous) flag and local administration. The island sends two representatives to the Parliament of the Kingdom of Denmark. The executive power on the island is exercised by the Landsråt (Country Council), which consists of 13 members elected from among the inhabitants of Greenland. The President of the Landsråt is appointed by the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Short history of the island
The island was discovered in 982 by the Vikings, and after that, the southwestern coast of Greenland was settled by the Normans (Vikings), but their settlements later disappeared. New settlements from Europe began at the end of the 18th century. The settlements in southern Greenland came under the rule of the Kingdom of Denmark in 1814, and the entire island was annexed to it in 1921. When the Germans occupied Denmark on April 9th, 1940, by decision of US President F. D. Roosevelt, military units of the US Army landed on Greenland, where they remained throughout World War II, and to this day.
Denmark is one of the 12 founding members of the NATO pact in 1949, as is the US. The United States has built the Thule air and naval base in the northwestern part of the island and the Narssarssuaq air base in the southern part. By a mutual defense agreement with the Kingdom of Denmark of April 27th, 1951, the United States was granted the right to use these two military bases, which also serve as air traffic. East of Thule, a nuclear power plant was built by the United States in an agreement with Denmark, and a long-range air intelligence radar system was also built, which is linked to the northern parts of Canada. In other words, the capital military-economic infrastructure of the island is built up by the USA, not by Denmark.
The Future of the “Greenland Question“ Realistically, the US will certainly take over Greenland from Denmark, the only question is whether by July 4th or by the November 3rd, 2026, US elections. There are two practical scenarios for this takeover:
1) Either by using soft power, i.e., bribery, purchases, political blackmail, and/or economic sanctions;
2) Or by using hard power, i.e., direct military intervention or occupation and annexation of the island under the excuse of security or whatever geopolitical reasons.
The first option involves pro-American propaganda among the inhabitants of Greenland, who number as many as the inhabitants of one major street in New York. They will be promised a better future and life within the United States, and especially a higher standard of living. The Americans will promise large investments in the exploitation of mineral and other natural resources on the island, from which the inhabitants of Greenland will directly benefit, which was by no means the case while Greenland was under Danish rule, because it is well known that the Danish authorities did not invest much in the economy of Greenland.
The island is, by the way, one of the poorest regions of the European Union in terms of infrastructure, economy, and living standards. Therefore, it will not be very difficult for the Trump administration to indoctrinate the majority of the island’s inhabitants and bribe them with economic propaganda, especially if we know that there is already a solid pro-American core in Greenland. After its propaganda work, the soft power would end with a general vote on the island for its independence, which would be declared with all possible electoral manipulations under the supervision of the “international (pro-American) community”. Therefore, the transition of Greenland from Denmark to the US administration would take place according to formally “democratic” principles. The amount of money that Denmark would receive from the US for this “democratic” transition from Denmark to the US will probably never be known.
Let us not forget that Trump has already threatened European countries that oppose his policy of annexing Greenland with the introduction of tariffs of 10% to begin with, and if the countries in question do not collaborate, successively higher and higher tariffs on the export of their goods to the US market. This moment is extremely important because the governments of European countries will have a strong argument before their citizens as to why they are not more resolutely defending the territorial integrity of Denmark. Such blackmail is an extreme variant of the application of soft power.
The second scenario involves the direct use of military force in Greenland, which would be formally justified by security reasons. For the US to “occupy” the island, they would need one destroyer and one battalion of Marines, just in case. There are already two US military bases on the island anyway. In the event of an American landing on the island, the “international community” would not take any concrete action, and the protests would be reduced to a boring repetition of the story about the violation of “international law”.
Let us recall that the USA has a long tradition of military aggression against other states that violate this right, totaling around 22 or 33 since 1945, including directly instigating coups d’état and military coups. A classic example is the military occupation of the independent island state in the Caribbean Sea – Grenada, in October 1983, under the administration of President Ronald Reagan, under whose administration the President of Panama, General Manuel Noriega, was kidnapped in 1989 (anyway, a long-time CIA collaborator).
The “international community” has not taken any concrete action against the Israeli genocide in Gaza or the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Maduro, and it will not do so in the case of the military occupation of Greenland. Only Denmark will protest for a while, but it will soon calm down. Great Britain, Poland, and the Baltic states will probably give direct support to the occupation, while the EU and NATO bureaucracy will try to cover up the whole matter as soon as possible in order to consolidate their members against their main enemy – “aggressor” Russia.
The current deployment of bizarre EU/NATO military troops to Greenland is primarily an unproductive demonstration of “force” against the “Russian and Chinese occupation” of the island, not a “force” to contain the US real occupation of Greenland. The threats by Washington and Paris to leave NATO are of the nature of diplomatic bickering, i.e., moving the ball from one court to another. It is clear to anyone who understands even a little about international relations that these are primarily empty phrases and empty rhetoric aimed at scoring political points on both sides, primarily against Russia.
The price of transfer (?) and possible consequences in international relations
According to estimates by some Western experts, and as reported by the American television NBC TV Network, the value of Greenland today is up to $ 700 billion, including its geopolitical position. The interest of the United States to simply buy the island for cash dates back to 1946, when US President Harry Truman offered $ 100 million in gold for it. However, this information was not learned until 1991. For comparison, in 1999, the American CIA estimated the total value of the southern province of Serbia, Kosovo, at $ 500 billion.
In essence, at least from a military and geopolitical perspective, the transfer of Greenland to the US will not fundamentally change anything, as the island has been de facto under US control since June 1940, and the complete transfer of the island from Danish to US hands would be an insignificant operation within the framework of the NATO pact.
The only question is, who is next in line to be occupied for the sake of US national security?
There are many candidates: Colombia, Mexico, Iran, etc. For now, the Trump administration is promoting the implementation of the “Monroe Doctrine” from 1823 – “America, for the Americans”, i.e., that the entire Western (American) Hemisphere falls under US rule. It is clear that if this regional project of American imperialism is realized, it is only a matter of days in the context of the implementation of the global MAGA project, when American imperialism will move to the Eastern Hemisphere, where it also has a larger number of solid military-political strongholds (especially around Iran).
Finally, in this whole policy of transferring Greenland to the US, the biggest real winners will be China and Russia, and the only loser, along with Denmark, will be the European Union. The diplomatic moves of Beijing and Moscow on this issue clearly indicate that they are de facto staying on the sidelines, with the US award to Russia likely being a solution to the “Ukrainian Question” according to the Russian will, while the award to China remains a secret, as in many other similar cases so far.Personal disclaimer: The author writes for this publication in a private capacity, which is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions of any other media outlet or institution. The author of the text does not have any moral, political, scientific, material, or legal responsibility for the views expressed in the article. Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic is an ex-university professor and a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies in Belgrade, Serbia.
Trump Taking Greenland Would Be the End of NATO – senior analyst
by RT / January 19th, 2026
The US president’s push to acquire the island follows a “long and complex historical tradition of American territorial expansion,” Mats Nilsson has told RT
US President Donald Trump’s acquisition of Greenland without Denmark’s consent would have far-reaching consequences for NATO itself, Mats Nilsson, a senior analyst at the Dissident Club, told RT on Sunday.
“It would be another nail in NATO’s coffin,” he warned. “If the United States were to grab Greenland against the wishes of Denmark, the idea of a united NATO would effectively collapse.”
Nilsson argued that Trump’s renewed push to acquire Greenland follows a “long and complex historical tradition of American territorial expansion,” rooted in the ideology of ‘manifest destiny’ and imperial thinking.
He stressed, however, that such thinking is fundamentally incompatible with modern international law.
Trump’s actions were legally very incoherent and very political, naive for today’s setting. It might have worked well in the 19th century and early 20th century, but since the mid-20th century, territorial sovereignty is inseparable from the will of the people who inhabit it.
According to Nilsson, any change in Greenland’s status “can only legally come from a process led and approved by the Greenlandic people themselves, not from a bilateral sale or purchase by the United States.”
Over the last weeks, Trump has once again declared that Washington would obtain the territory “the easy way” or “the hard way,” insisting the US needs Greenland for “national security.” On Saturday, he also announced tariffs on Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland, saying the measures would remain in place until a “complete and total purchase” of the Arctic island is achieved.
European NATO members have largely refrained from direct public confrontation, but behind the scenes, resistance is mounting. This week, Denmark, which retains responsibility for Greenland’s foreign and defense policy, coordinated with several allies to send small contingents of troops to the island ahead of the bloc’s Arctic Endurance exercises.
Both Danish and Greenlandic authorities have rejected any prospect of ceding the island, insisting that its future must be decided by its people, who voted in 2008 to retain autonomous status within the Kingdom of Denmark.
_80308.jpg)
_19812.jpg)
_84846.jpg)
_59286.jpg)
_21cbb9a8.jpg)
_25097.jpg)
