In an attempt to acquire Greenland, US officials discussed offering every Greenlander a lump-sum payment up to $100,000. This strategy framed a complex geopolitical negotiation as a direct financial transaction, akin to a corporate acquisition, totaling a potential $5.7 billion.

Twenty years ago, globalization and open markets (geopolitical tailwinds) created new opportunities for businesses. Today, rising nationalism, trade barriers, and security concerns act as headwinds, creating obstacles and increasing the complexity of international operations.

With the U.S. stepping back from its traditional leadership role, European countries are creating new, direct alliances to ensure their own security. A notable example is the emerging UK-Scandinavia-Baltic-Poland axis, which signals a fundamental shift in the continent's geopolitical architecture away from a singular reliance on Washington.

Finland, historically a non-aligned nation that built icebreakers for Russia, is now a NATO member supplying critical naval assets to the US. This deal addresses America's aging fleet and directly counters the growing Arctic presence of Russia and China. It marks a significant pivot in geopolitical supply chains for a strategically vital region.

By demonstrating a willingness to take extraordinary unilateral action, the U.S. makes previously outlandish threats—like those concerning Cuba or Greenland—seem newly credible. This strategic ambiguity creates leverage and increases U.S. bargaining power globally.

The US is no longer the undisputed best option but simply the least bad one. This decline is evidenced by the shrinking role of the dollar in global trade and savvy investors like Warren Buffett diversifying away from the US, signaling a need for individuals to rethink their own financial strategies.

Increased defense spending, geopolitical ambitions like buying Greenland, and strong GDP figures are creating significant tailwinds for the commodity complex. The primary investment strategy becomes aligning capital with government spending priorities, effectively front-running fiscal outflows.

The administration's plan to acquire Greenland is seen as an incredibly "stupid own goal." It alienates a steadfast ally, Denmark, for no strategic reason, as the U.S. could gain any desired access through simple negotiation. This highlights a foreign policy driven by personal impulses rather than rational strategy.

Recognizing that investment capabilities alone are insufficient, Temasek proactively established a geopolitical team and a Washington D.C. office in 2017. This was done not in reaction to a crisis but in anticipation of global shifts that could have widespread ramifications on their portfolio.