During the Second Schleswig War in 1864, the King of Denmark offered Otto von Bismarck thrice that Denmark - instead of relinquishing Schleswig - would join the German Confederation - which Bismarck would later turn into the German Empire.

All three times, Bismarck rejected the offer for two primary reasons: 1) He did not believe Danes would join a pan-German state and 2) (more importantly) the other great powers would have a big problem with Denmark being German.

In the same fashion, the fight over Greenland would lead to the compromise solution that Greenland remain none of the great/super powers. The US would never accept it falling into Russian hands, but they could accept Denmark keeping it.

My personal view is that the current geographical extent of the United States is static; there is no political will to change this - and why would you, when you can get all the benefits without the problems?

I would suggest that significant % of the remaining 28 members of NATO (including the nuclear armed Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey) would come up with a few ideas.

The world is tired of the USA bully thug politics involved in its placement of military bases around the world, and the arrogance of those who support these imperialist actions is very telling. These bases are not making the world more stable - they are, however, making the 1% of America's lifted military-industrial-pharmaceutical classes more wealthy.

I'm genuinely curious what you imagine would replace the present American world order.

The present American world order requires: a) utter ignorance of its war crimes by its people, b) endless debt to pay for war and war machines, c) invalidation of sovereignty of foreign nations according to American political expediency, d) the pretence of a society governed by systems of democracy while factually being run by a cabal of oligarchs, e) more spent on war per week than on health care for its citizens per year, f) the continued degradation of cultures deemed inferior by the ruling cabal.

I'd be happier if the major world power was actually democratic and used its powers to increase peoples health and well-being rather than the wholesale destruction of, and mass interference with, states not towing the American line ..

So I ask again, what do you think will ACTUALLY happen if America collapses or pulls back to only concern itself with what happens within its border?

China isn't great, and has its low scores in many ways, but America is far, far worse in terms of its sheer destruction of sovereign states.

Just because the iron fist is wrapped in a velvet glove doesn't make it any better for those being smashed in the face by it, and there is a huge, huge pile of dead bodies behind the American smashing...

Huh??? That's the opposite of what happened. Ages with empires are characterized by peace, trade, and cultural and scientific development. War was the default state in the interim time between empires.

And yes, the American empire (if you want to call it that), has been the most prosperous and benign in history.

Maybe you wish there was a democratic global government, but that isn't the world we exist it and it will not be a world we live in any time soon.

Game of Thrones has a nice metaphor of "summer born", people like you and me who have been born in a time of peace and prosperity - an outlier period in human history - but who think this is the default state of the world.

//

One more point ... Do you disagree that the American 'Empire' has been the most prosperous and peaceful in human history? If so, which one was better?

There is no declaration of war that makes what America is doing in Niger legal, by American legal standards. There certainly isn't any legal cover for America's illegal occupation of Syria. Not to mention, support for genocide in Yemen is absolutely illegal.

Its just that the people remain ignorant of this fact - and its politicians - choose not to enforce those laws for their own purposes (war profit, intolerance, hatred, etc.)

I know. But peacetime can be brutal. As a superpower, America has not taken slaves, nor engaged in genocide, nor established colonies. In those ways it’s hegemony has been much less brutal than all the world superpowers who came before.

Or to out it another way, NATO partners don't respect Canada's sovereignty claims because the Northwest Passage is too valuable and Canada can't enforce its claim. Contrast that to Taiwan, a nation that should be independent, (and is not 'international waters') but no major country is willing to recognize it as such.

Greenland would be the same way.

And by the way, Alaska and Louisiana purchases were executed because Russia and France respectively knew they were never going to be able to hold those territories and ceded it for cash.

No, because Greenland is part of NATO and none of the member states disputes that.

A response to an attack is decided on by the NATO council, not by the individual member states. So unless NATO is dissolved (which could of course happen one day but which is certainly not in the cards currently), Greenland is defended by the NATO alliance.

Taiwan is of course not a member of NATO so that example is irrelevant.