The recent Greenland affair represents a masterclass in how authoritarian regimes exploit democratic institutions to undermine the post-1945 international order. Analysis of Russian media narratives reveals how Trump’s seemingly absurd Greenland statements align perfectly with Moscow’s strategic messaging, designed to normalize territorial acquisition through raw economic power rather than democratic process.
Television host Vladimir Solovyov gave a thumbs-up to Trump’s statements and said that “Finland, Warsaw, the Baltics, Moldova, and Tallinn should come back home.” He remarked: “Do you think I’m joking? No! They should all rejoin the Russian Empire, followed by Alaska.” During the same talk show, military analyst Mikhail Khodaryonok said, “After Trump’s statement, in my opinion, we can now consider special military operations as the norm for resolving arguments between countries. The silence of European leaders clearly confirms this.”
The sophistication of this influence operation becomes even more apparent when examining declassified secret Cold War documents of President Truman and the the methodical groundwork by Russia laid years in advance.
In 2022, a report by the Danish Security and Intelligence Service accused Russia of forging a letter that claimed to be from Greenland’s foreign minister to Republican Senator Tom Cotton in 2019.
The letter stated: “Our government is going to overcome all legal and political barriers… and to organize the referendum on independence of Greenland from Denmark as fast as possible.” Cotton has since bragged about being the one to suggest buying Greenland to Trump.
“It is highly likely that the letter was fabricated and shared on the Internet by Russian influence agents, who wanted to create confusion and a possible conflict between Denmark, the USA and Greenland,” the Danish intelligence report stated.
One is inevitably reminded of the British East India Company’s methodical territorial acquisitions in the 18th century, as well as their understudy America’s methodical territorial acquisitions in the 19th century, although those at least maintained a veneer of defense and legal legitimacy.
The Kremlin’s media apparatus has now shifted into what we might call their ‘triumph phase’, openly discussing the dismantling of post-war international norms with an enthusiasm reminiscent of the 1930s revisionists. Their vision represents nothing less than a return to 19th-century great power politics, complete with spheres of influence and territorial bartering.
Russia could proceed with a sham referendum, à la Crimea, to make a claim on Greenland, Gurulyov suggested. “If Trump Jr. was able to buy someone for a bowl of slop and they’re ready to join America, why don’t we show up with a few Xerox boxes filled to the brim and close this issue once and for all?” he said.
“If all else fails, we can make a deal with Trump and split Greenland in two parts,” Gurulyov added. “Clearly, Denmark will never set foot there again.”
Senator Cotton’s role, not to mention Mussolini’s sons, in this affair bears striking parallels to the useful intermediaries of previous colonial enterprises – though one imagines even Lord North would have blanched at such transparent manipulation. The emergence of an Arkansas senator as the champion of neo-colonial adventurism in Greenland would be merely ironic were it not such a devastatingly effective advancement of Moscow’s broader strategic objectives – a masterclass in what we might term “managed colonial nostalgia.”
Kudos to you Mr. Flyingpenguin for surfacing the facts of an ongoing Russian campaign that compromised a U.S. Senator. Does Putin pay Cotton directly or are there some very big parking lots being repaved right now in Little Rock?
Cotton stood up a comparison between 1946 and modern Greenland acquisition when he suddenly pitched Trump. This misses crucial historical context that actually strengthens your article’s thesis about deliberate manipulation. Truman’s 1946 proposal emerged from a unique post-WW2 moment: before NATO’s formation, without modern surveillance technology, when bomber routes over the Arctic were strategically vital, and while Denmark was still recovering from Nazi occupation. The $100M offer came when the US urgently needed arctic defense capabilities that can now be achieved through satellites, missile defense systems, and existing NATO frameworks.
Notably Truman also offered Alaska in exchange. Russian TV today isn’t just saying this detail out of the blue. They’re leaking artifacts.
Cotton citing the Truman attempt as precedent is like justifying modern aircraft carriers by referencing 1946 plans for propeller bombers. The technological and geopolitical contexts are so completely and radically different that drawing this parallel makes little strategic sense. People used horses in battle once so America should move now to protect its horse shoe industry.
The stark contextual mismatch for those who know American history suggests the historical precedent was deliberately surfaced by Russians into Cottony ears not for its strategic logic, but rather for its potential to normalize aggressive territorial transactions in modern geopolitics. By presenting a false equivalence between 1946’s legitimate military necessity and today’s very different Arctic strategic landscape, this shrewd manipulation becomes even more apparent.
Your article’s argument that this represents a sophisticated influence operation gains credibility precisely because the historical comparison is so strained. It appears carefully selected for a Cotton, and likely others, not for its relevance, but for its potential to advance a specific narrative to specific targets about thirst for territorial acquisition in modern international relations.
Opal Eagle, your parking lots in Little Rock comment hits closer to home than you might have intended. The real payment might be in helping certain American politicians normalize a pre-NATO vision of international relations.
Masterfully played by Moscow indeed. I’ll see your analysis and raise you a NATO destruction because Russia’s manipulation is even more sinister than you said.
You nailed this part: when Truman explored buying Greenland in 1946, NATO didn’t exist. The US was desperate to establish military positions in a world without collective defense agreements. That is where $100M came from. It was all about pre-NATO vulnerability.
By playing Cotton to Trump, Russia appears to be promoting a return to a pre-NATO world order. Think about it: they chose to resurrect a moment in American history when the US had to try buying territory directly because there was no framework for collective defense.
Now look deeper. This is about dismantling the entire post-WW2 security architecture. This is Putin angry the Soviets lost and seeking revenge. They’re strategically amplifying a carefully chosen historical moment when great powers had to negotiate territory bilaterally without NATO.
Cotton is a willing idiot hooked on upward mobility and privilege, sucked into a Russian intelligence operation to fraudulently make the erosion of NATO seem historically American rather than just Putin’s dream.
As historian of Soviet foreign relations, I must point out obvious thing everyone seems to miss: Russia is not being clever here – they are being lazy and Americans are being stupid. This is exactly same playbook Soviets used on Polish nobility before partitions. Appeal to shallow grand fantasies of power, make little insecure men feel important, and watch them destroy their own country from within.
Cotton’s Harvard credentials paint him a target. We had many well-educated nobles who helped carve up Poland while thinking they were being clever power players. They too had fancy degrees from Kraków and abroad showing high image of self and grand ambitions. Turned them into useful idiots.
What makes me want to bang head against wall is how Americans keep falling for oldest trick in book. Russia doesn’t need sophisticated kompromat anymore because they discovered Americans gladly compromise themselves for free if you just flatter their imperial ego. Wave shiny object of “great power status” in front of them, and suddenly Harvard man forgets basic lessons from kindergarten about not taking candy from dangerous strangers.
This Greenland affair is not sophisticated operation – it is like watching child fall for same trick over and over. “Oh look, you could be great empire builder like your ancestors!” And educated American swallows this poisonous nonsense whole, probably while thinking he is very smart strategic thinker.
Most frustrating part? Eastern Europe has been warning about this for years. But no, Americans know better. They think their fancy degrees and big egos make them immune to manipulation that has worked for centuries. This is why we drink so much here watching same historical mistakes repeat with new batch of suckers.
P.S. And yes, I am being “blunt.” This is not time for delicate academic language. Sometimes spade must be called spade.