If you've ever looked at U.S. strategy toward China, the Arctic, or Greenland and thought, "We say we don't want war — so why does every serious option still feel like pressure, coercion, or force?" this episode is for you.

The United States keeps running into the same contradiction:

• We say we want to compete without war
• We say we want to support allies without dominating them
• We say strategic places like Greenland matter

And yet, when you look at the actual tools available, almost everything points in one direction.

In this episode, I use Greenland as a test case—not because Greenland is the story, but because it exposes a deeper structural problem in U.S. strategy.

This isn't a failure of leadership or intention. It's a failure of options.

By the end of this episode, you'll walk away with one clear mental model:
why the U.S. keeps defaulting to military power, sanctions, or extractive private investment—and what's missing in between.

Specifically:

• why military power alone can't create long-term alignment
• why markets can't justify ports, roads, or Arctic resilience
• why "doing nothing" is still a strategic choice
• and how the interstate highway system once solved a similar problem at home

This is not an argument about politics.
It's a conversation about systems, incentives, and missing institutions.

Greenland isn't the story.
Greenland is the diagnostic.