no it doesn't mean that at all. them establishing a permanent territory at greenland would mean an increased proximity to europe and an even easier way of enforcing their policies onto the continent as the entire security from our western flank would be completely monopolized by them. if they announced sanctions or an embargo on us, which they will, they would retain a completely impenetrable monopoly on anything west of the french coast such that no american (north or south) country could trade with us. when they were preparing to embargo and eventually invade germany in the 40s, they specifically took over greenland first, then iceland, and once they had these two stepping stones, proceeded to neutralize the german submarine efficiency which then led to normandy. a very similar strategy was applied against japan with their island hopping doctrine. americans do not think in terms of ships, but in terms of captured islands that can be used as forward bases for their ships and airforce. this is why they're focused on aircraft carriers, because it's a movable island for them. china is doing the same thing with their artificial islands. anyway, what i'm trying to say here is that this is being done in preparation for a rivalry against europe and maybe even a potential war that some of their think tanks anticipate, although it will never get to a war if we give up and just hand them over the monopoly of the shipping routes. but nevertheless if it gets to escalating hostilities and a trade war, and then an embargo, and then a physical war, they will be guaranteed to win by holding the entire ocean. they are much closer to us than we are to them. this is the point of the greenland seizure. it's not about russia or china. just like last time - it's specifically about the stepping stones to europe. and you in the north will be the first to lose your geopolitical subjectivity.
Bulgaria