Greenland eyes Chinese investment amid ‘new world order'
Greenland is weighing the possibility of inviting Chinese investment to develop its mining sector in light of tensions with the US and limited engagement with the EU, the island's business and mineral resources minister, Naaja Nathanielsen, told the Financial Times on Tuesday.
An autonomous territory of Denmark, Greenland holds vast but hard-to-exploit reserves of minerals such as gold and copper. Foreign capital is essential for developing the resources, yet recent geopolitical tensions have made it difficult to secure reliable partnerships.
'We are trying to figure out what the new world order looks like,' Nathanielsen said, adding that Greenland was 'having a difficult time finding [its] footing' in evolving relationships with its Western allies.
The Arctic island signed a memorandum of understanding with the US on mineral development during President Donald Trump's first term. However, according to Nathanielsen, it's coming to an end. The government in Nuuk had tried, unsuccessfully, to renew it during the administration of former US President Joe Biden.
Following Trump's return to office in January, Greenland hoped to revive discussions of renewing the memorandum. Instead, the US president talked about purchasing the island and refused to rule out using military force to assert US sovereignty over it.
Nathanielsen called such statements 'disrespectful and distasteful,' adding that Greenland 'has no wish to be American.'
China has shown interest in the Arctic's mineral wealth, including oil, gas, and minerals. It has invested in Russian energy projects and has expressed interest in Greenland's mining sector. No Chinese companies, however, are currently operating active mines in Greenland, although one firm holds a minority stake in an inactive project.
According to Nathanielsen, Chinese investors might be holding back because they don't want 'to provoke anything.'
'In those terms, Chinese investment is of course problematic, but so, to some extent, is American,' she said.
Greenland would prefer closer cooperation with the EU, which aligns more closely with its environmental priorities, the minister said. However, the bloc's engagement has been slow, with only one project, led by a Danish-French consortium, currently in development. The mine is expected to begin operations within five years.
At present, Greenland has two functioning mines: one for gold, operated by the Icelandic-Canadian firm Amaroq Minerals, and another for anorthosite, a light-colored industrial rock, managed by a subsidiary of Canada's Hudson Resources.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Sacrilege and statecraft: How Christian Zionism distorts scripture to serve empire
During a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, US Senator Ted Cruz displayed not only alarming geopolitical ignorance but also a brazen willingness to distort Scripture in defense of his unwavering support for Israel. The verse he quoted – Genesis 12:3 – was shamelessly truncated, a common tactic used to lend divine legitimacy to Zionist exceptionalism in End Times prophecy. This verse has become the theological bedrock of a militant worldview known as Christian Zionism. Even Jewish critics of Israeli state policy express dismay at the historical illiteracy and theological crudeness fueling this metastasizing ideology within American evangelical circles. I recall debating this phenomenon over a decade ago on LinkedIn with Jewish and Israeli interlocutors. I had dubbed it a 'trailer-trash cult' – a fusion of biblical illiteracy, apocalyptic fervor and geopolitical delusion. Some of my Israeli counterparts, in a strange display of casual prejudice, alternately referred to Cruz and present Secretary of State Marco Rubio simply as 'the Mexican.' Christian Zionism thrives on biblical illiteracy and selective scriptural appropriation. Though often presented as ancient and immutable, it is in fact a relatively modern phenomenon, emerging alongside the rise of political Zionism in the late 19th century. Rather than treating Scripture as sacrosanct, it distorts the biblical canon into a pliable tool – one that must conform to the ideological imperatives of the moment. In a nation such as the United States, which has been at war for nearly 95% of its existence, this distortion often serves as theological cover for an 'endless war' doctrine, with cherry-picked verses used to sanctify geopolitical aggression and the confection of new enemies. After World War II, when the Soviet Union became the first nation to grant de jure recognition to the modern state of Israel, this same movement began feverishly mining scripture to cast the USSR, and Russia in particular, as the apocalyptic villains Gog and Magog. Even Ronald Reagan, the pseudo-religious saint of American conservatism, repeatedly invoked this interpretive heresy to frame the Cold War as a cosmic battle against the 'evil empire.' To this day, millions of American Evangelicals and fundamentalist Protestants worldwide continue to see Russia as the eternal enemy of God Himself. The reach and influence of this pseudo-theological subculture should not be underestimated. But before unpacking the wider ramifications of this ideological perversion, let us first examine the verse Senator Cruz so conveniently misquoted. Senator Cruz invoked Genesis 12:3 to justify unwavering US support for Israel, but his citation was conspicuously selective. The full verse reads: 'And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.' – (KJV) This is a prophetic promise given to the patriarch Abraham, pointing ultimately to his seed, Jesus Christ. It is through Christ, according to Galatians 3:16, that 'all families of the earth' are offered reconciliation with the Divine. If that blessing is universal and messianic in scope, where then is the ethnic or national exclusivity so often ascribed to modern-day Israel? (I've explored this topic in greater depth here, here, here and here) Cruz's theological framework, in practice, aligns more closely with Talmudic ethnocentrism than Christian soteriology. Consider this remarkable claim from Rabbi Chaim Richman, directed at Christians: 'You guys are worshiping one Jew. That's a mistake. You should be worshiping every single one of us because we all die for your sins every single day... The Jewish people in the land of Israel are the bulwark against the Orcs, okay? The Orcs are coming not to a theater near you but to your home.' Aside from the Tolkien reference – which, to my knowledge, appears nowhere in the Talmud – Richman's quote reveals the ideological terrain Cruz is orbiting: one where collective Jewish identity is quasi-divinized, and adversaries are dehumanized as fantasy monsters. One suspects that the 'Orcs' are a sweeping euphemism for Arabs in the region, many of whom are surreptitious allies of Israel. The only recalcitrant 'Orcs,' apparently, are the Palestinians, whose refusal to accept their divinely appointed overlords remains an intractable problem. Ironically, Persians (Iranians) have traditionally enjoyed a far more favorable depiction in Jewish scripture – from Cyrus the Great to Ahasuerus in the Book of Esther. Modern geopolitical enmity is therefore a historical aberration, not a theological necessity. But if one follows Richman's grotesque logic, does this 'unqualified worship of every single Jew' extend even to those recently implicated in satanic child abuse scandals in Israel? At what point does solidarity become sacrilege, and does support for Israel require a total theological surrender? There is a reason I describe Christian Zionism as a theologically bankrupt subculture masquerading as prophecy. It is an ideology that sanctifies any war crime, any act of brutality by Israeli forces because according to its adherents, personal 'blessing' from God is contingent on political allegiance to a modern nation-state. When not actively mangling scripture, history, and basic morality, this movement manufactures signs and wonders out of thin air. Natural phenomena, especially pareidolic patterns, are routinely interpreted as divine communications. This is not harmless enthusiasm; it reflects a credulous mindset conditioned by groupthink, emotion-driven worship, and manipulative rhetoric. Hypnotic music, staged testimony, and carefully orchestrated atmospheres often whip congregants into a frenzy of expectation, where gullibility becomes spiritual virtue. I once watched a video of Christian pilgrims in a van in Jerusalem who erupted in awe as beams of dappled sunlight flickered through roadside trees. To them, these fleeting light patterns were not a trick of motion and shadow, but 'angelic manifestations.' (They are, in fact, a common optical effect caused by light passing through foliage while in motion.) Today, a large swath of Evangelicals are willing to interpret any mundane occurrence as divine endorsement of Israel's central role in End Times prophecy. But if they are seeking signs, they might consider one that cuts in the opposite direction. Right after Israel launched an unprovoked strike on Iran, a raven appeared to pull down an Israeli flag amid the rubble in an Israeli neighborhood. "Even the birds have had enough" In Jewish Midrash, the raven is considered an omen. In the biblical narrative, it is the creature God used to sustain the prophet Elijah when he was near despair (1 Kings 17). The raven is a creature associated with both judgment and provision. What message, then, was it delivering? Now imagine if the bird had instead torn down a Palestinian or Iranian flag. The Christian Zionist ecosystem would have erupted into mass ecstasy. Social media feeds would overflow with headlines declaring it a sign from heaven. Prophecy blogs would rush to decode its 'symbolism.' Tele-evangelists would loop the footage between pleas for donations. But since it challenged their narrative, the event went studiously ignored. Such is the schizoid reflex of Christian Zionist theology: divine signs are valid only when they reinforce the script. Anything else, however biblical, however stark, is dismissed as coincidence or satanic interference. There's an oft-cited quote – attributed to Joseph Goebbels, though likely first used by Adolf Hitler – that says: 'A lie repeated a thousand times becomes truth.' Christian Zionists have chanted Genesis 12:3 so frequently and with such zeal that few within their ranks ever pause to test the verse against either scripture or empirical reality. Let's do that now. Genesis 12:3 says: 'I will bless those who bless you, and curse him who curses you…' If we are to interpret this as a blanket mandate for state-level foreign policy, the evidence should be obvious. So ask yourself: Are Israel's most loyal allies today, particularly in the West, truly 'blessed'? Take the United States. It is arguably more internally divided than at any point since the Civil War. Its cities are decaying, homelessness and drug addiction are rampant, race relations are at its lowest ebb, and nearly 40% of Americans cannot afford a $400 emergency expense without borrowing, selling their family heirloom, or falling into debt. And yet, billions in unconditional aid continue to flow to Israel, year after year. Western Europe fares no better. The continent faces deepening political polarization, a crisis of institutional legitimacy, and escalating cultural clashes fueled by migration and economic inequality. What once passed for democratic consensus is now fractured by populism, apathy, and unrest. Social cohesion is unraveling across the transatlantic alliance. Now compare that to East Asia and Southeast Asia, where most countries maintain measured, neutral stances on the Israel-Palestine conflict. With a combined population nearing 2.4 billion, this region encompasses countless ethnicities and religions, yet remains strikingly more stable. Aside from Myanmar, whose military junta has been supplied with Israeli weaponry, there are no continent-wide wars, nor the sort of existential societal fractures plaguing the West. Immigration is limited, social harmony remains comparatively intact, and all major Asian nations support a two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders. No nation sucks up to Israel in this part of the world. So the question practically asks itself: If Genesis 12:3 is being used to evaluate foreign policy toward Israel, then who exactly is being blessed, and who is being cursed? The consequences of blind allegiance don't stop with economic decline. Consider the proxy wars fed by Israeli strategic calculations. In Syria, Israeli support for jihadist factions has contributed to the decimation of ethnic and religious minorities. Just this past Sunday (June 22), a suicide bomber detonated inside St. Elias Antiochian Orthodox Church, killing at least fifteen Christian worshippers. These are not isolated tragedies. These are the fruits of Christian Zionism: a theology conflating realpolitik with divine mandate. Why is it essential to confront and correct this narrative? Because the religious ideology peddled by Senator Cruz and his ilk bears no resemblance to authentic Christianity. It is a dangerous theological counterfeit – a den of wolves in sheep's clothing, precisely as Matthew 7:15 warned. Far from defending the faith, Christian Zionism actively endangers Christians across the globe. In its zeal to uphold Pax Americana, idolize the modern State of Israel, and force-fit current events into a contrived apocalyptic script, it sacrifices actual Christian communities on the altars of geopolitics and eschatological fantasy. As someone descended from one of the world's oldest Christian traditions – whose roots reach back even to the Old Testament – I say this plainly: Have no fellowship with these murderous idolaters (1 Corinthians 5:11). They invoke Christ but serve the ambitions of empire, the delusions of man, and the devices of Satan. If that is what it means to be 'blessed,' then your church should beware of what it is really worshiping.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
Iran bars UN atomic energy chief from its nuclear sites
Iran has barred the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from visiting its nuclear facilities. Tehran has accused the agency of distorting facts in a recent report, thereby providing justification for the recent Israeli and US strikes against the Islamic Republic. The vice speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Hamid Reza Haji Babaei, announced on Saturday that Tehran would no longer allow IAEA personnel, including chief Rafael Grossi personally, to inspect its nuclear sites, as quoted by the local media outlet Mehr. The agency's surveillance cameras will cease operating at the facilities, he added. Earlier this week, Iran's constitutional watchdog, the Guardian Council, approved a legislation to suspend cooperation with the IAEA until Iran is given security guarantees for its nuclear facilities. The bill is currently awaiting ratification. Israel, which has for years has claimed that Tehran is secretly developing a nuclear weapon program, launched massive airstrikes against Iran on June 13, targeting several nuclear sites and a number of senior military commanders and scientists believed to be involved in the nuclear program. Last Sunday, the US joined the Israeli military campaign, striking the Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow nuclear facilities. Shortly thereafter, a ceasefire was reached between Israel and Iran. Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is strictly peaceful in nature. In a post on X last week, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei accused the IAEA of issuing a 'biased report' that 'obscured this truth' and was 'instrumentalized… to craft a resolution' that was later used by Israel to justify 'an unlawful attack' on Iran's nuclear facilities. He also suggested that the agency had handed over 'sensitive facility data' to Israel. The document released earlier this month stated that 'Iran is the only non-nuclear-weapon state in the world that is producing and accumulating uranium enriched to 60%.' The UN nuclear watchdog's board then declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation duties for the first time in 20 years, with 19 out of 35 IAEA member states backing the motion, including the US, UK, France, and Germany. Appearing on CNN last Thursday, Grossi insisted that the watchdog's report 'could hardly be a basis for military action.' He added that the agency did not 'have any indication that there is a systematic program in Iran to manufacture, to produce a nuclear weapon.' On Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the 'Europeans… were actively preparing Grossi so that he would put the most ambiguously negative formulations into his report.' Weeks before the Israeli and US airstrikes against Iran, Reuters cited anonymous diplomats as making allegations to the same effect.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
Russia's surprising role in the Israel-Iran conflict that you might not know about
During a recent visit to Turkmenistan, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held talks with his counterparts and addressed students at the Institute of International Relations in Ashgabat. Among the central themes of his remarks was the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel – a confrontation that not only affects global geopolitics but also directly impacts the security dynamics of Central Asia. For Turkmenistan – which shares over 1,100km of border with Iran and has its capital just miles from that border – the growing tension poses serious risks. Beyond humanitarian concerns, the prospect of a wider war could awaken dormant radical networks and destabilize fragile domestic balances. These risks extend beyond Turkmenistan to other southern former Soviet republics that maintain close political and military ties with Russia. Against this backdrop, Lavrov's call for de-escalation and regional stability carried added weight. For Moscow, Iran is not just a partner – it's a pillar in the buffer zone securing Russia's southern flank. Instability in Tehran could ripple across Central Asia, threatening Russia's near-abroad. In January of this year, Russia and Iran signed a comprehensive strategic partnership agreement, institutionalizing bilateral ties and hinting at a future formal alliance. Tellingly, just days after Israeli airstrikes targeted Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi flew to Moscow, met with President Vladimir Putin, and held talks with Lavrov. He later described the visit as marked by 'complete mutual understanding' and emphasized Russia's support in an interview with the news outlet Al-Araby Al-Jadeed. Russia, along with China and Pakistan, has since pushed a new UN Security Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire and a pathway to political settlement. As Russian envoy Vassily Nebenzia noted, the resolution aims to stop further escalation. Yet Moscow has been careful in its public rhetoric. At the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin avoided inflammatory language toward Israel, instead stressing the need for a diplomatic solution acceptable to all sides. This cautious tone reflects Russia's balancing act: deepening ties with Tehran while maintaining working – and in some cases warm – relations with Israel, including in military and humanitarian channels. That dual posture allows Russia to position itself as a potential mediator, should either party seek a negotiated outcome. On June 13, as Israeli airstrikes intensified, Russia quickly condemned the attacks and voiced strong concern about violations of Iranian sovereignty. Putin went further, calling US behavior in the region 'unprovoked aggression.' Moscow's message was clear: it opposed outside military interventions – full stop. Days before Araghchi's trip, Putin publicly revealed that Russia had offered Iran expanded cooperation on air defense systems, an offer Tehran had not pursued. Far from a rebuke, it read as a nudge: if the strategic partnership is real, Iran needs to meet Russia halfway. Moscow remains open to closer defense collaboration, including integrating Iran's air defense into a broader regional security framework. In retrospect, had Tehran taken up the offer earlier, it might have been better prepared to repel the strikes. For Russia, security is measured not in rhetoric, but in results – and it expects its partners to act accordingly. Crucially, the 2025 strategic agreement between Moscow and Tehran does not entail mutual defense obligations. It is not the Russian equivalent of NATO's Article 5, nor does it mandate automatic military assistance. As Putin clarified, the pact reflects political trust and coordination – not a blank check for joint warfare. In fact, the treaty explicitly forbids either side from supporting a third party that launches aggression against the other. Russia has held to that standard – refusing to engage with perceived aggressors, while voicing diplomatic solidarity with Iran and condemning destabilizing actions by the US and Israel. In short, the architecture of the partnership is built on sovereign respect and strategic equilibrium – not entangling commitments. It centers on military-technical cooperation, coordinated diplomacy via BRICS and the SCO, and shared interest in regional stability. But it stops short of dragging Russia into wars that don't pose a direct threat to its national security. One development drew particular attention: just after Araghchi's Kremlin visit, US President Donald Trump abruptly called for a ceasefire and adopted a noticeably softer tone on Iran. With the exception of a few pointed posts on Truth Social, his messaging turned markedly more measured. Prior to his trip to Moscow, Araghchi emphasized in Istanbul that consultations with Russia were 'strategic and not ceremonial.' He made clear that Tehran viewed the partnership as a platform for sensitive security coordination – not just protocol. Whether by coincidence or not, the shift in US rhetoric suggests Moscow's influence may have quietly shaped the trajectory of events. Russia, after all, is one of the few actors with open channels to both Tehran and Tel Aviv. It's entirely plausible that the Kremlin served as a behind-the-scenes intermediary, securing at least a temporary pause in hostilities. Russia remains a calibrated but consequential player in the Middle East. Accusations that Moscow has failed to 'stand by' Iran are speculative and largely unfounded – both politically and legally. Russia offers solidarity, coordination, and leverage – not unconditional support for escalation. And in a region where words matter as much as missiles, a subtle shift in language from Washington – timed to quiet talks in the Kremlin – may say more than any press release. Diplomacy, after all, often moves where cameras don't.
