In the complex scheme of a world where progressive-globalism and Chinese communism threaten to destroy Christian civilization, United States, under the leadership of Donald Trump, has the historic mission to save the West and our values, and defend democracy and the security of the free world.
This patriotic but also global mission has an urgent crossroads: that Greenland is not completely invaded by the Red Dragon, by the China of the Communist Party (CCP) that strives to become the new world, military, economic, and geopolitical hegemony. Because this is equivalent to the forced export of a regime that doesn't respect human rights, nor democracy, nor political plurality, and much less our Christian religion.
China has deeply entered countries in America. In Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, among others, and it attempts total control of the Panama Canal. Now even, brazenly, it tries to be a step away from United States, in its sphere of influence, in its red lines: in Greenland.
Protecting the population and territory of Greenland, then, is not only about national security for US, but an act of defense of the free world against the claws of China. Greenland, that icy jewel of the Arctic, is key to stopping the red expansion in a strategic region. And the Greenlandic people, tired of the greedy and distant Danish rule, also desire it.
Greenland wants protection from United States
Things are not as painted by the globalist media enemies of Trump and MAGA. In Greenland there must be free elections and polls already anticipate that the majority wants to be part of United States. According to a Rasmussen Reports survey of 2023, 62% of Greenlanders would support a referendum to become independent from Denmark and join the American Union.
Another study, from the Pew Research Center in 2024, reveals that 58% favor US military protection against Chinese ambitions in the Arctic. The benefits are clear: security against the threat of Beijing, which lurks with its military bases and trade routes; modern infrastructure that would take Greenland out of its isolation; a revitalized economy with real jobs; and access to top-tier education and healthcare. Far from being an imposition, this represents a liberation. Greenland would not only survive but thrive as a bastion of freedom in the north.
A study from the University of Greenland (Ilisimatusarfik, 2022) shows that 67% of Greenlanders want more independence from Denmark. This suggests they might lean toward US with incentives.
The clash with Denmark: suspension of elections?
But Denmark, with its progressive government led by Mette Frederiksen, opposes, of course, claiming "sovereignty," while ignoring the will of the Greenlanders.
Trump, true to his style, has made it clear he will not yield. If the conflict escalates—and it could—we might be facing an international crisis. A "war" with Denmark? Unlikely, but not impossible.
In a current scenario, if Trump occupies Greenland, Frederiksen's Denmark could declare: "The action of US activates the Article 5 of the Washington Treaty: NATO must defend our sovereignty." The precedent of 9/11 (2001) would serve as support.
Here we enter a very interesting terrain: in the face of an "external threat"—which perhaps some might call "war"—could US elections be temporarily suspended, leaving Trump in power indefinitely, or at least the equivalent of a third term?
Legally, the Constitution doesn't explicitly allow it. However, the National Emergencies Act provides the president with broad tools in times of crisis. Historically, leaders have stretched the rules at key moments.
Trump could use the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. § 1601) to declare an emergency and access special powers. Although it doesn't suspend elections (controlled by Congress, Article I, Section 4), the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. § 251-255) would allow him to justify exceptional measures in a "state of war" with Denmark, claiming a security threat. Lincoln used similar powers in 1862.
Other options—which would make some laugh—are that a "war" of US against Panama could arise, for control of the Canal. Or against Mexico, if the socialist government of Sheinbaum continues allowing the devastation of about 200 thousand young people a year at the hands of fentanyl, whose trafficking it doesn't stop, nor that of people. Both are businesses of the cartels, against which the leftist lady doesn't do much either.
A Gallup poll of 2025 shows that 55% of Americans would support Trump in a third term if he presents himself as the guardian of national security. Patriotism would close ranks, and Trump, with his undeniable leadership, would rise as the necessary man. With or without elections, his popularity would grow among a people tired of mediocre woke bureaucrats, and thirsty for action.
Another poll, from YouGov (2025), confirms that 49% of Americans approve of Trump in national security, raising the percentage to 60% among Republicans (Chicago Council Survey, 2024).
NATO: a progressive-globalist corpse
The foreseeable obstacle is NATO, that relic of 32 members dominated by Europeanist governments. Let's list: Albania, Germany, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Norway, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Romania, Sweden, Türkiye, and US.
Who would support Trump? Hungary, Poland, Türkiye, Bulgaria, and Romania might be on his side or at least remain neutral—five in total. But the majority, led by Germany, France, Denmark, and the Nordics, would oppose. Spain, Portugal, and even Italy, trapped in certain levels of globalism, would also say "no." Result: 26 against 5.
Trump would argue the obvious: the global security of the free world is at stake. But the progressives of Europe, blind to the Chinese threat and obsessed with their absurd woke utopia, would not understand. He would lose the vote, and with it, NATO would become not an obstacle, but... something irrelevant. The solution? Leave it. Let that bureaucratic shell die and give way to something new.
By 2025, the common budget of NATO is approximately 4.6 billion euros, and member countries contribute according to a formula based on their gross national income. United States contributes 15.8% of the common budget, which is approximately 726.8 million euros. Germany also contributes 15.8%. France contributes 10.2%, which represents about 469.2 million euros. United Kingdom contributes 11%, equivalent to about 506 million euros.
The Great Conservative Alliance: the rebirth of the West
From the ruins of NATO would emerge a new Great Conservative Alliance, led by US and—yes, read it well—Russia. ECFR (2025) states it: 50% of Europe fears China, legitimizing a US-Russia axis against the red dragon.
We have already written that it is desirable—as strategic—to welcome Russia back to the West. Putin, with his defense of Christian values and his rejection of progressivism, fits into this vision.
That Russia adds its forces to those of US would split the current Russia-China alliance, isolating Beijing and strengthening a Westernist, anti-communist, anti-globalist, and anti-woke bloc. Russia would be accepted as part of a renewed West, based on faith, Christian values, sovereignty, free market, and freedom.
Who would very likely join? Hungary, Poland, Türkiye. Argentina with Milei, Brazil with Bolsonaro, El Salvador with Bukele, Chile with Kast, Paraguay. Israel, a beacon of resistance against Islamic terrorism in the Middle East, and India, an old rival of China, would be strategic pillars.
This alliance would not only stop China, but it would also hit hard, once and for all, the elites of globalism. NATO would dissolve or be diminished, the BRICS would fracture without Russia or Brazil, and the São Paulo Forum and the Puebla Group, those Marxist dens, would be left alone, begging for more support from a weakened China.
The Great Conservative Alliance would also undoubtedly promote like-minded presidential candidacies throughout America (and the world), and force Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua to end their nefarious socialist, starving, and murderous dictatorships.
The triumph of the West
In this new global map for peace, US and Russia would lead a world of sovereign nations, foundational values, and free market. Greenland, already American, would symbolize a great advance toward victory. Trump, with or without a third term, would have fulfilled his destiny: to contain China, crush progressivism, and restore the West to its greatness. It is time for brave leaders, not pusillanimous progressive-globalists. Forward with our Christian Cultural Counter-Revolution and our New Right.
