Navigating the Vortex

By: Lucy P. Marcus & Stefan Wolff
  • Summary

  • We live in a complex and ever-changing world. To navigate the vortex we must adapt to change quickly, think critically, and make sound decisions. Lucy Marcus & Stefan Wolff talk about business, politics, society, culture, and what it all means.

    www.navigatingthevortex.com
    Lucy P. Marcus & Stefan Wolff
    Show more Show less
activate_Holiday_promo_in_buybox_DT_T2
Episodes
  • Trump’s Greenland bid is really about control of the Arctic and the coming battle with China
    Jan 10 2025
    When Donald Trump first offered to buy Greenland in 2019, he was widely ridiculed and nothing much came of it, apart from a cancelled state visit to Denmark. Fast-forward six years and Trump’s renewed “bid” for the world’s largest island is back on the table.And with renewed vigour at that. In an interview on January 7, the incoming US president refused to rule out the use of force to take possession of Greenland and he dispatched his son, Don Jr, “and various representatives” there on January 8, 2025, to underline his seriousness. With Elon Musk on board as well, money should not be an obstacle to any deal that Trump envisages.Trump is not the first US politician to try to buy Greenland. The earliest documented attempt to acquire the island goes back to 1868. The last serious pre-Trump effort is that by President Harry S. Truman’s government in 1946. Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland, thus, stands in a long tradition of American efforts of territorial expansion.Even without this historical background, Trump’s latest bid is less irrational today than it may have seemed back in 2019. Greenland is exceptionally rich in so-called “critical minerals”. According to a 2024 report in the Economist, the island has known deposits of 43 of 50 of these minerals, which, according to the US Department of Energy, are essential for “technologies that produce, transmit, store, and conserve energy” and have “a high risk of supply chain disruption”.The latter certainly is a valid concern given that China – a key supplier of several critical minerals to global markets – has been increasing restrictions on its exports as part of an ongoing trade war with the US. Access to Greenland’s resources would give Washington more supply chain security and limit any leverage that China could to bring to bear.Greenland’s strategic location also makes it valuable to the US. An existing US base, Pituffik Space Base, is key to US missile early warning and defence and plays a critical role in space surveillance. Future expansion of the base could also enhance US capabilities to monitor Russian naval movements in the Arctic Ocean and the north Atlantic. US sovereignty over Greenland, if Trump’s deal comes to pass, would also effectively forestall any moves by rivals, especially China, to get a foothold on the island. This may be less of a concern if Greenland remains part of Nato member Denmark which has kept the island economically afloat with an annual grant of around US$500 million (£407 million).Greenland’s independence – support for which has been steadily growing – could open the door to more, and less regulated, foreign investment. In this case, China is seen as particularly keen to step in should the opportunity arise.Add to that growing security cooperation between Russia and China and the fact that Russia has generally become more militarily aggressive, and Trump’s case looks yet more credible. Nor is he the only one to have raised the alarm bells: Canada, Denmark and Norway have all recently pushed back against an increasing Russian and Chinese footprint in the Arctic.So, the problem with Trump’s proposal is not that it is based on a flawed diagnosis of the underlying issue it tries to address. Growing Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic region in general is a security problem at a time of rising geopolitical rivalry. In this context, Greenland undeniably poses a particular and significant security vulnerability for the United States.The problem is Trump’s “America first” tunnel vision of looking for a solution. Insisting that he wants Greenland and that he will get it – even if that means exceptional tariffs on Danish exports (think Novo Nordisk’s weight loss drugs) or the use of force. Predictably, Greenland and Denmark rejected the new “offer”. And key allies, including France and Germany, rushed to their ally’s defence – figuratively for now.Rather than strengthening US security, Trump is effectively weakening it by, yet again, undermining the western alliance, and Nato – the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation – in particular. Not only does the irony of doing so in the north Atlantic appear to be lost on Trump. But it also seems that there is an even more fundamental problem at work here in that this kind of 19th century-style territorial expansionism reflects Trump’s isolationist impulses.“Incorporating” Greenland into the US would likely insulate Washington from the disruption of critical mineral supply chains and keep Russia and China at bay. And signalling that he will do it whatever the cost is an indication that, beyond the kind of bluster and bombast that is normally associated with Trump, his approach to foreign policy will quickly do away with any gloves.Rather than investing in strengthening security cooperation with Denmark and the rest of its Nato and European allies to face down Russia and China in the Arctic and beyond, ...
    Show more Show less
    6 mins
  • With Russian gas pipelines through Ukraine turned off, the political claws are coming out
    Jan 9 2025
    On December 31, 2024, the last contract that the Russian energy giant Gazprom had for the over-land supply of natural gas to Europe came to an end. This was the result of Ukraine refusing to renew the transit contract that had been in place since 2019 and contributed around $5bn to Gazprom’s annual revenue. Given that Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, this was not an unreasonable decision for the government in Kyiv to take. Nor was it unpredictable – already in the summer of 2023, Ukraine had indicated that it had no intention to extend the contract with Gazprom.By the time the contract came to an end, the dependency of the European Union on Russia for gas had been reduced from its peak above 40% just before the beginning of the Russian aggression against Ukraine to below 10%. And only around half of that came via Ukraine. The EU and its member states were well-prepared for the cut-off, having secured alternative suppliers and sitting on full gas storage tanks to see them through the winter.Moreover, the European energy infrastructure of pipelines and the electricity transmission grid have sufficient levels of in-built flexibility and redundancy and have proved resilient to cope with the sudden lack of supply of gas via Ukraine. This even included the capacity of additional provision of electricity to Moldova – a small country wedged between Romania and Ukraine, which had been highly dependent on gas supplies via Ukraine.The end of over-land gas supplies and the EU’s ability to cope with this were thus clearly foreseeable for everyone – except, apparently, Slovakia’s prime minister Robert Fico. He predicted a severely negative impact on the EU, including in terms of the costs and availability of heating and electricity. As his row with Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy escalated, Fico also threatened to cut off electricity supplies to Ukraine and warned of further unspecified retaliation measures.Perhaps most shockingly, Fico even went to Moscow on December 22, 2024, for direct talks with Vladimir Putin. This made him only the third EU leader to go to Russia since the start of the war almost three years ago. The other two that went to meet the Russian president were the outgoing Austrian chancellor, Karl Nehammer, and the Hungarian prime minister, Victor Orban.Fico and Orban in particular are well-known for their pro-Russian leanings. They have repeatedly used their leverage inside the EU and NATO to undercut support for Ukraine. Trying to play the energy card as they did over the end of the Gazprom deal, thus, has less to do with energy security. Rather, it is part of a political agenda of some of the populist European far right who are more than willing to act as a fifth column for Russia inside western institutions.For some time now, populist parties have played on voters’ fears of ever-increasing inflation, immigration and an escalation of the war in Ukraine that could ultimately drag NATO and the EU into a direct confrontation with Russia. Parties on the extreme left and right have done well at the polls last year, including in Austria, France, and Romania. They are also likely to be the main beneficiaries of parliamentary elections in Germany in February and potentially of presidential elections in Poland in May. Meanwhile, the resignation of Chancellor Nehammer in Vienna on January 3, 2025, following the collapse of coalition negotiations among three centrist parties, has also opened up a pathway to power for the far-right, pro-Russian Austrian Freedom Party.The general shift to the political extremes, however, should not be mistaken for a broader, Europe-wide tendency towards accommodating Russia. This is certainly part of the agenda of Orban and Fico, as well as of elements in the German and Austrian far right (and to an extent the German far left). But others in the European right, like Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and France’s Marine Le Pen, have clearly distanced themselves from Putin’s war. Meloni has gone beyond that and been a strong and outspoken supporter of Ukraine.Those European leaders closest to the Russian president’s agenda also share an anti-democratic and authoritarian streak with him. Whatever their reasons for doing so, they appear to be working towards the weakening western support for Ukraine and eroding western leadership in the current international order – much like Putin himself.They might all be hoping that the return of Donald Trump to the White House will benefit their own aspirations. And in the short term, this may well prove to be the case. Putin may get a good deal from Trump on Ukraine. Orban, Fico and others may get audiences with Trump (and financial support from Elon Musk).Yet, for Trump and most in his team, the big prize is defeating China. Both Putin and Orban are likely to fall out of the incoming American president’s good graces if they are unwilling to cut their ties with Beijing – something almost inconceivable for Russia to...
    Show more Show less
    5 mins
  • Is Russia losing the energy war?
    Jan 5 2025

    This is the podcast version of our analysis of the likely consequences of the end of over-land deliveries of Russian gas to Europe. You can read the original post, which includes a number of hyperlinks, here.

    We hope you'll share Navigating the Vortex with anyone you think might find it of interest. Also, you can listen to this and other podcast editions via the website or on all major podcast platforms, including:

    Apple Podcasts

    Spotify

    Amazon/Audible



    Get full access to Navigating the Vortex at www.navigatingthevortex.com/subscribe
    Show more Show less
    7 mins

What listeners say about Navigating the Vortex

Average customer ratings

Reviews - Please select the tabs below to change the source of reviews.