Here is a Google translated interview with the Greenlandic MP Aki-Matilda Høegh-Dam (member of both the Danish and Greenlandic Parliament) in the Italian magazine Espresso today (original here).

Below my reaction:

"Her discourse is very nationalistic, heavily anchored in Greenland’s colonial history, with a strong sense of recourse for wrongs received. She clearly has a painful tooth, which transmits throughout the interview.

While agreeing in principle (colonialism is indeed a deep wound and injustice, and Danes - I know since I lived there - can still be arrogant notwithstanding the Jante Law), she has to make a choice and face the reality of Greenland’s extremely tiny population, similar to that of the small Italian city of Cuneo, therefore of an extremely limited amount of people to be able to act convincingly on an international level.

Greenlandic citizens have at the moment a Danish passport, not a Greenlandic one, therefore they are EU citizens (which she doesn’t mention) while not being part of the EU (which she does), but part of NATO (she mentions this at well).

Are they more protected as EU citizens (with Danish or perhaps Greenlandic passports in the future) or as US citizens (as a territory, which - let’s be real - excludes voting representation in the U.S. Federal government)?

In the end her discourse emphasizes the fact that the dignity of Greenlandic people ought to be recognized, but what if the other future partner/owner couldn’t care less?

I am afraid the Greenlandic people are no stronger internationally (and with regards to the US in particular) than the much larger population of Gaza.

They (the Greenlandic people) will just as easily be ignored and abused in this new US setup as the Gazans are right now and as Greenlanders were historically in the Danish setup (perhaps no longer right now, although some Danish condescension remains).

Many Greenlanders are now considering emigration (moving to Denmark mainly) or simply being sidelined. It is not the moment, I am afraid, for Greenlanders to just adhere to principles, but to simply chose the best option available, while heavily insisting on those results that can be achieved in a very short time period (to avoid being on the menu of the 250th birthday party of the Declaration of Independence on 4 July 2026).

The best thing they could do is to align themselves with Iceland (population 5 to 6 times larger than that of Greenland but facing unfortunately analogous challenges), Canada (same as far as the challenges are concerned) and the EU, and insist on actions on those levels, which she isn’t doing.

I am concerned that her position might be noble in principle, but disastrous in reality."

Dutch media are not inquiring or asking questions about this, as far as I can see. I am flabbergasted.

In the Netherlands, where Kaag is either much admired and quite untouchable (by those in the center) or hated (by those on the right), it definitely is a minefield. I don’t want to express me about that (as I am not from that country). I think in this particular instance which has little to do with the Netherlands, she is throwing her reputation to grabs for a highly contentious initiative. De facto her boss is now Trump (as chairman of that initiative). So far she has not commented, which is also a bit odd.

What concerns me is that with all these letters, statements and actions (and with America 250 coming up), it is becoming very difficult to imagine that he would back down. The situation is dire.

There is unfortunately. 60 countries were invited. Two (Vietnam and Hungary) have accepted. At least two others (Canada and Italy) are considering it.

Still perplexed. It could be a career ruining move. What does this community think her political motivations might have been (I exclude economic/financial reasons, given her history)?

It is the first time that the US targets a select number of EU countries, rather than the EU as a whole. This makes it highly vulnerable to court challenges and at the WTO, unless there is a declared national security emergency because of a direct threat from those target countries (of course beyond a post on TruthSocial).

Here more:

Breaking Down the 31 UN Agencies Impacted by U.S. Withdrawal Better World Campaign, 8 January 2026

UN’s ‘responsibility to deliver’ will not waver, after US announces withdrawal from dozens of international organizations United Nations, 8 January 2026

What the US withdrawal from UN bodies could mean for climate, trade and development United Nations, 9 January 2026

Bert Hubert took time to answer substantially to Miguel De Bruyker.

https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/ft-on-european-cloud/

I have seen it pointed out that some of these 66 agencies are really platforms, treaties and commissions, not organisations. Is there an analysis of this?

Believe what exactly?

I know, but my intention was not to have a debate on Stephen Miller (on which I have much to say but this is not the forum), but on the implications in Europe for this Europe-based international organisations. Nobody has written about this so far.

deleted by creator

Is there any discussion (anywhere!) on what this might imply for these Europe-based international organisations (funding, staffing, projects)?

Many of these organisations, also funded by the EU or EU member states (17 are EU-based), are now suddenly in serious financial disarray. I doubt that the EU will react and these organisations are too small and too institutional to react much themselves. I know a couple of them (besides the IPCC, which we all know) and can confirm that they do great work.

17 are EU-based.

Yes, I searched for the Italian and French versions. No success.

LOL, this poor guy…the only sane person in an insane asylum. How bad is it? Only about 4% of global cloud infrastructure capacity is European‑owned, with most European governments, firms, and citizens relying on US hyperscalers.

More background:

Average investment in telecom and digital infrastructure per operator in Europe is less than half that in the US, with a total connectivity investment gap to 2030 estimated at at least €174bn and likely over €200bn to hit EU “Digital Decade” gigabit and 5G targets.

EU telecom policy has historically favored many national and sub‑national operators, leaving Europe with over 100 mobile operators and only about 5m subscribers per operator on average, versus roughly 107m in the US and 467m in China, which undermines scale and returns on capital for big 5G and fiber

Fragmented capital markets (27 different regimes) and shallower venture and growth equity pools make it harder to scale home‑grown cloud, AI, and semiconductor players compared with US deep capital markets and Chinese state‑directed finance. roll‑outs

The EU is a regulatory superpower (GDPR, Digital Markets Act, AI Act), but multiple analyses argue that “over‑regulation” is overstated; business surveys show lack of skilled staff, energy costs, and uncertainty rank higher as barriers to investment than regulation, which tends to come fourth and often from national, not EU, rules.

The more specific critique is that Europe leaned heavily on competition and privacy law without pairing them with an ambitious infrastructure and industrial build‑out, leaving it as a regulator of US platforms rather than an owner of its own stack.

The cost of nationalism. The nostalgia for their little nation statelets is costing Europeans their sovereignty. Which is ironic as the little nationalists are all about sovereignty but in reality help outside powers to colonialise Europe.

It’s time for an emotionally painful but necessary goodbye to the European nation state. Europe needs a single capital and service market where startups and Tech companies can scale up as rapidly as in the US and China and pool capital from across the continent following a single set of rules rather than being bogged down with 27 mini markets.

If this can’t be done at an EU level then a coalition of the willing should go ahead. According to a study the remaining internal barriers in the EU are equivalent to a 44% tariff on intra EU trade. Worse than anything Donald Trump has imposed. The first countries to achieve this will create immense additional prosperity.

European nationalism is Europe’s biggest threat to its prosperity and sovereignty, worse than Russia, China and the US combined.

There is no lack of money, brains, IP or will. This is nearly entirely a legislative and administrative issue. Make it more compelling to invest in startups - and in particular to work at one - and make it easier to grow a small business across Europe. Taxation especially closely followed by an administrative patchwork of regulations for small businesses is creating this issue. The incredible European entrepreneurs I know feel forced to grow their business in the U.S. because it is just too slow and cumbersome to do in the EU. This is not at all the priority in Europe it should be. There are some individual member state smallish initiatives- nearly every state has one - but by and large those are mostly marketing. Admirable to try and ask for attention but they do not address the underlying issues. And those issues are 100% within the control of EU and member state governments. There are entrepreneurs in Europe - good ones even - they just need to be empowered. There is plenty of money too. It just needs to be more attractive to invest in startups.