You look at the world and you understand it is a dangerous place. Since Genesis 3, it has always been a dangerous place. When you look at history over the course of the last several centuries and even just the last several decades, the world has been a very dangerous place in specific ways. We’ve seen the reshaping of the world order. We have seen in the 20th century two massive, two colossal and deadly world wars. We then saw the Cold War between the United States and our allies and the Soviet Union and its allies. Then we saw the breakup of the Soviet Union, but the rise of China. And now we’re looking at a newly assertive Russia, which is really looking back to even centuries past with its imperial ambitions.

So we really are looking at the world as a very dangerous place. And of course, we have to put other world actors, other national actors and terror group actors and others we have to put on the landscape as well. So we have Iran. Iran has been a malevolent force in the world ever since the Iranian Revolution of 1979. We have Houthi rebels very much involved in what had been called a civil war in Yemen, now launching attacks on Saudi Arabia and trying to control much of the navigation in the Red Sea. You also have very bad examples spreading to other bad examples, bad actors inspiring other bad actors. So even as Iran has sought to control the straits of Hormuz, interesting footnote to that we’ll be looking at in coming days. You have the Houthi rebels who are trying to do the same to the Red Sea, kind of a pincher maneuver. But you have Saudi Arabia now being attacked and Saudi Arabia, I think it’s fair to say, will likely fight back. And so all of a sudden we’re now looking at a destabilization, further destabilization in that part of the world. 

Meanwhile, you have Germany re-arming in a big way. You have Japan re-arming in a big way, even talking about nuclear weapons. We’re in a new world. It’s a dangerous new world. We need to consider where we stand. There are some big issues here. One of them has to do with Greenland.

Okay, so let’s just back up for a moment. In New York City in coming days will be held the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly. So the General Assembly is a big deal in terms of world leaders all being in one place. By the way, some of them aren’t going to be able to come because they weren’t allowed in the country.

It’s a very interesting thing. The United Nations is itself a jumble of contradictions and confusion. The General Assembly is where a lot of that confusion is just on full display, but American diplomats and State Department officials and others will be there, as will the President of the United States, simply because it is important to fly the flag. It is important to be in conversation with people. And by the way, that means both allies potentially and those who are not aligned with us as allies. And you have people who meet with someone else on behalf of a third party nation, it just goes on. But the General Assembly meeting, which takes place in coming days is really a giant opportunity for much of that conversation. Also for a lot of statesmanship, showmanship. So it is going to be very interesting.

But with that on the horizon, it is really interesting that over the weekend, President Donald Trump announced a deal with Denmark and Greenland about US activity and for that matter, the ability to deploy military throughout just virtually all of Greenland. The president came out and said he has a new deal, that the government in Greenland has agreed to it. It is a semi-autonomous region of the Kingdom of Denmark. We’re told that the Danish government is in agreement as well. What’s really interesting because sometimes the president talking gets out ahead of some of these things, but it is interesting that the Greenland and Danish authorities have come back and said, yes, we really are on the threshold of a very big agreement and the finalization is likely to take place at the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly. And it’s not because of the General Assembly, it’s because the General Assembly is why they’re going to be in the same place. Very conveniently, the timing works out. What a coincidence.

Major media of course have been on this for a couple of days. The Wall Street Journal reporter Alexander Ward, “President Trump said the US and Denmark reached an agreement that allows for more American forces in Greenland, though it stopped short of the self-governing islands takeover that he envisioned since the start of his second term.” President Trump posted to social media, “The United States will forever have the complete ability to do what is necessary in Greenland. We will immediately begin the process of developing a large military presence in the appropriate part of Greenland, of which there are many. We will work with the people of Greenland in its development and construction.” He will work. The United States will work with the people of Greenland. And that means of course also the government in Denmark.

This does appear to be a win-win-win. And you have to say it three times because there are three parties. One of them is a party that is semi-autonomous in Denmark. It’s still, however, under the international sovereignty of Denmark. President Trump did make very clear that he wanted to take over Denmark, whatever that means. And it could mean territorial possession. It could mean any number of things. This is probably the best case scenario, what we’re talking about right here. And here’s something very interesting that was going on when all of the headlines were blasting. Behind the scenes, this is the way diplomacy and statesmanship so often works. Behind the scenes, representatives of Denmark, representatives of Greenland, and representatives of the United States were actually very hard at work because this is a real problem. And the people of Denmark and the people of Greenland and the people in the United States had better know it. 

The big problem is a big shift in geopolitics and Greenland now becomes absolutely important. And I want to give you a couple of reasons why. Number one, you have Greenland there right up in the polar area. And one of the most obvious things you need to see is that a strategic attack against the United States or a strategic attack against North America is almost assuredly going to have to come over that polar cap and Greenland is right there. And that territory is just optimal to detect what is going on in terms of any kind of activity that could come over the polar ice cap. And that includes intercontinental ballistic missiles. It includes any kind of attack. It also includes subversive activities. There is another development here and that is, well, it could be tied to global warming to increased temperatures, but the polar ice cap is receding. And as it recedes, that opens more waters to navigation and there are ships that want to be in there for navigation. They’re just fishing ships, don’t you know?

They’re just exploration ships. That’s the cover story. But you’ve got very hostile nations to the United States and our allies who are increasing activity there. And one of the things that the United States is now very much aware of is that even when it comes to this kind of polar activity, it’s not just Russia, which by the way, has a great deal of polar territory itself or sub-polar sub-Arctic. It is also true that China is increasingly active in the area. And so the United States understands that this is a vital issue, but NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, also understands this is a crucial issue. And so it is reassuring to know that behind the scenes, responsible people in Denmark and in Greenland and the United States basically understood that. Now, one of the things that President Trump wanted, and I want to insist he was right about this, he was absolutely right that that entire landmass of Greenland has to be free from the kind of activities that would give information, strategic advantage to our enemies.

And our enemies, by the way, include the enemies of Greenland and Denmark. It is not just the enemies of the United States. It is the United States and our allies. And so here’s what behind the scenes is almost assuredly the case. NATO allies, nations allied with the United States and the United States very much with Canada. We have current discussions, but at this level, Canada and the United States share without any question and without any way to avoid it, share a common national security interest. And so you look at this, and by the way, Canada also has significant territory up there, but when you look at Greenland, all you have to do is look at a globe. A globe is the best way to look at it. A globe is better than looking at a map because the map distorts the relative size and proximity.

But you look at a globe and you understand, yeah, this is absolutely crucial. So this is good news. It is very good news in part because it shows that serious statesmanship is continuing. Now, one of the big questions is, did the bluster that came from President Donald Trump add or detract from this? Historians are going to argue that for a very long time. It is simply President Trump’s style, but it is very interesting that just as a matter of negotiating, President Trump takes an approach when it comes to international relations that he wrote about in The Art of the Deal and he exercised when he was very much involved in building a real estate empire. And that is you go for more than you will settle for in order to get what you will settle for. President Trump sees this as the vindication of his approach.

By the way, nothing here is final until it is final and it is signed. It is also important to say that all the parties to this have indicated this is a non-term limited agreement. That’s also interesting because that tells you that the assumption here behind these governments is that these challenges are not short term. They are long term. And by the way, when it comes to alliances as well as challenges on the alliance side, this means it’s really important that we are in this together. 

One final thought here. When you listen to these leaders talk, and almost assuredly there’s going to be some press activity, you’re likely to hear from the prime minister of Denmark and you’re likely to hear from the political leadership there in Greenland. And of course you’re going to hear from President Trump, and here’s what they are likely to say. Okay. So I’m not writing their speeches, but here’s what they’re likely to say. President Trump is likely to say that the United States has secured what it needed, and that is the ability to do two things, to put US military installations in this crucial part of the world and to do so without complications. And secondly, to avoid any other nation, any hostile nation in particular from having any such access to the landmass of Greenland. I think that’s almost assuredly what President Trump is going to say. What will the prime minister of Denmark say? The Prime Minister of Denmark is going to say that when it comes to Greenland, the United States recognizes the territorial sovereignty of Greenland as a semi-autonomous region of Denmark. They’re going to be very clear. They’ll use language about territorial integrity and sovereignty. And then when it comes to Greenland, I think they’re going to be using very similar language to what you’re going to hear from Denmark.

No accident there. They’re connected. But you’re also likely to hear some reassurance to the people there in Greenland. And by the way, this kind of commonality in terms of defense against very real enemies, this is something that is big and rightly understood. The people of the United States, and by the way, our allied nations and the people of Greenland and the people of Denmark ought to see this as a three-way win. They don’t happen all the time. So when the ink is cleared on this one, let’s be thankful.

All right. So one of the things we need to understand in terms of the next issue of our concern, one of the things we need to understand is that history just doesn’t go away. You can’t escape history, not until the end of this age. Until then we are stuck in a succession of events. We are stuck in a history. And sometimes that history just blows up or shows up in very unusual ways. And then you look at it and you say, “Nope, on the other hand, this is pretty predictable.” Okay, here’s a headline in the Wall Street Journal: “Germany’s Military Rebuild is Making its Neighbors Nervous.” Now wait just a minute. Wait just a minute. The big story over the course of the last several years has been the threat of Russia and the fact that even as we’ve just talked, there is a very clear indication that subversive activity against Western European nations is being undertaken by Putin right now in terms of testing defenses, sending in drones, all kinds of things. Oops, that was an accident. All this is going on and Western governments have been calling this out.

The United States has been saying to NATO allies in Europe, for decades, “You must spend more in your own self-defense. The United States and the US taxpayer and the US military has basically been carrying most of this weight. You need to step up and carry much of this weight yourselves.” Okay, so the response of most of the Western European nations has been to begrudgingly nod and say, “We’ll do better,” and then they don’t do better. Just look right now, for instance, at the military situation in Great Britain. They don’t even really talk the game very well. Germany, on the other hand, which ever since World War II had basically been putting its national energies into building an economy, they’re now looking at the threat of Russia and they’re seeing it as a very real threat. And Germany has decided to build up its military to the tune of about a half a trillion dollars. And that’s an investment that is just much, much greater than other European nations.

And now those European nations, The Wall Street Journal, by the way, they’re not sensationalizing this. This is true. Now you have Germany’s neighbors basically saying, “Maybe a heavily-armed Germany, a military power of increased scope and scale in Germany. Maybe this is not a good thing.” Reporters of the Wall Street Journal say, “Germany’s fast-paced re-armament is causing growing concern in Europe, rekindling a century-old debate about how much hard power Berlin should have.”

Oh, do you hear the echoes of history? The echoes of history come Franco-Prussian war, World War I, World War II, the military ambition, the hard power of Berlin. How much hard power should Berlin have? Here’s the bottom line. The United States is saying that Germany needs to have a lot of hard power. You have major European nations and most importantly there in the European continent, you’re talking about France and Germany. You have Great Britain also there across the channel, but right there on the continent, you have France and Germany and the United States is saying to both of them, “You better step up.” Okay.

France is a different story. France’s history is a little more convoluted and France sees itself after World War II as a bulwark against German and Russian militarism. At the same time, France also has not been putting as much money into their armed services as, well, most American observers would say, they should have. Now, it’s also true that France is a nuclear power. Germany is not, but France and Germany have, for the last several decades, been in an extremely close economic relationship. And one of the wonders of history often remarked is that France and Germany have been not only at peace, but have been absolutely close allies during this period. Sometimes even just in terms of common cause against the United States, some of the arguments that the US would make.

Behind all of this is the weight of history, especially of the late 19th and then centrally the history of the 20th century. And so now you have some of the European nations going, “Maybe it wouldn’t be such a good idea for Germany to be so powerful because if Germany’s that powerful, it will not only be that powerful against a threatened Soviet threat or danger coming from the East, it could also be a threat to other neighbors.” So for instance, you have Poland and France.

Now, if you just talk about history, wow, Poland and France, those are two nations that have had a lot of reason to be worried about Germany. In more recent decades, ever since the end of World War II, they haven’t had to worry about Germany. You look at Germany now, it is hard to imagine that Germany would be a threat to those nations, but they are pointing to the rise of the political right in Germany.

And again, that’s a different story. But even that, if that didn’t happen, it is simply true that Poland and France would likely be concerned about an increase in military power on the part of Germany just because of their history. But here’s the thing, Germany faces a real adversary. Germany is more serious about this than other nations. By the way, that’s another echo from history. It’s like the French ought to hear themselves talk that they need to be re-arming. They need to be putting more of their national budget into their own defense and the defense of Europe. But it’s just fascinating to hear these echoes of history.

The article in The Wall Street Journal says, “Some European officials are now beginning to worry that the buildup is shifting the balance of power on the continent. Sharpening concerns, Germany’s military procurement has so far benefited mainly German arms makers. Officials here say they’re sensitive to their neighbor’s worries, but this has yet to translate into a new approach.” Let me tell you what you should hear in this situation that most of the mainstream media aren’t even pointing to. Over the course of the last several decades, we have been told that Europe is unifying into a cohesive whole, a political unit known as the European Union. And so at least some of the architects of the European Union said these individual nations aren’t really going to matter. It’s our project to build a United States of Europe more or less in parallel to the United States of America. Let’s just point out that didn’t happen.

Now, the Europeans are not really keen just to stand in front of a news camera or a press conference and say, “You know what? That didn’t happen.” But you’ll notice here, this conversation is about nation states. It’s about France. It’s about the center of the conversation, Germany. It’s about Britain. It’s about Poland. It is not so much about the European Union. It is sort of like in one sense, it’s not exactly the same, but in a parallel issue, it is something like the United Nations. When you look at nations at the United Nations, they’re united in what sense? You have a general assembly, but beyond that, there’s just not much union.

When you look at the situation in Europe, there’s a lot more union, even a lot more unity, but you still have the persistence of culture, you have the persistence of nation, you have different languages, you have different legal cultures, you have different cultural dimensions, you have a different sense of your place in history. The French, I guarantee you, are not giving up on being French. The Germans have no intention not to be German. And the Poles, especially after their independence and the fall of the Soviet Union, they’re absolutely determined to be Polish.

So even though this is not what The Wall Street Journal’s talking about here, this is not what most of the secular news media are talking about here, this is a big story, the persistence of nationality. It shines through on the front lines, on the front pages, in the headlines. Germany’s military rebuild is making its neighbors nervous. Yeah, echoes of history. You can’t get away from them.

Okay, while we’re talking about living in a dangerous world, sometimes there are dimensions of this that just come out and you say, “Is this serious? Could this possibly be true?” Okay, listen to this headline and it too is coming from The Wall Street Journal just a few days ago. Here’s the headline. “Kyiv Considers Legalizing Porn to Fund Defense Needs.” This is the Wall Street Journal. It’s one of the most respected news organizations in the world. This is a serious news story. It’s telling us that the government in Ukraine is considering legalizing pornography in order to fund its defense needs. Of course, it is very bravely fighting against Russia that invaded it now more than four years ago. This is a giant story. It’s very interesting. And you’re going to ask the question, I ask the question, what’s the connection between pornography and war? 

All right, so having asked the question, let’s explain it. It turns out that pornography is illegal in Ukraine. Now, of course, you have to define what you’re talking about here. Let’s just say commercial pornography as is so widely available in the worldwide web. This is not to say that people in Ukraine are not using pornography. Pornography is a vexing problem, especially in the digital age everywhere. It is to say that the companies, the industry, at least the legal industry, the legal involvement is not in Ukraine itself, but elsewhere. People are using these sites in Ukraine, but Ukraine is not gaining tax revenue from the businesses because they’re not legal. If they were legal, the government could charge taxes, corporate taxes. And the argument here is that Ukraine is leaving money on the ground because of its legal stance on pornography.

The Wall Street Journal explains the story this way. “Unlike in most European countries, the production distribution and possession of pornography in Ukraine is illegal, punishable by up to seven years in prison. Still, Ukraine has been unable to curtail a vast and lucrative porn industry, which officials say operates with the protection of corrupt police,” “Ukrainian authorities are now demanding taxes from people who work in the porn industry, but anyone who complies is effectively confirming their involvement in criminal activity.”

Okay, for Christians, there’s just some huge issues here. First of all, we’re talking about this because the industry is pornography. It is one of the darkest, it is one of the most sinful, it is one of the most manipulative, it is one of the most damaging industries on earth. The activities are a perversion of God’s plan for sexuality and marriage and all the rest. It is now absolutely amplified and multiplied by the digital technologies of the current age. And it is coming with devastating effects, devastating effects when it comes to young people, older people. And it’s always, of course, predominantly injurious when it comes to males, but it’s also very injurious to females, not just the women. And frankly, some of them are teenage girls involved in the production of pornography. And by the way, in Eastern Europe, there has been a real challenge of human trafficking in terms of a lot of this pornography.

It’s one of the reasons why it has been illegal in Ukraine. At least it has been historically since Ukraine gained its independence from the Soviet Union. That’s at least a part of the background for this war and all the rest. But it’s really interesting that now there are some in the Ukrainian government who are saying, “We really need to legalize this so we can tax it.” And the article is just straightforward. There’s a lot of money being left on the table. And by the way, the government’s already trying to tax what is in illegal business, but that means that if those who were involved in the illegal business acknowledge what they’re doing, then they face legal charges. And that is why you have some there in the government who are now pushing for a consideration of legalizing porn “to fund defense needs.” It sounds like science fiction. It sounds like something that can’t be true. It turns out it is true. 

Now, it’s also true that pornography, even as it is a vast multi-billion dollar industry worldwide, it is also true that a lot of it that is consumed is illegal anyway. And so this is one of the things governments have basically turned the other way in many ways. And you see that there was a reference here to the fact that there are also the challenges of corruption in the police. So even some of the police are not doing it. It’s kind of like prohibition when it came to alcohol in the United States where in some cases the police just joined in cahoots with the gangsters and they knew where not to look. They knew where not to be. And some of that’s going on here as well.

But it’s also very interesting to acknowledge the fact that we’re looking at digital technology that is playing its way out in the Ukraine defense against Russia in very many ways. You have drones, some of which are actually controlled by smartphones. You have intelligence sources communicating by smartphones. You have mapping and terrestrial graphing technologies that are based upon smartphones. You have smartphones being used to track and to be tracked. And now you have smartphones. Well, you understand the application there to pornography. You create a new platform. You invent a new technology. This is a fact in a fallen world. Sin will seize the opportunity. That’s the way the Bible puts it. Sin will seize the opportunity, and that’s exactly what we see here.

Now you have a government asking if it needs to seize the opportunity to seize some tax money from this insidious business. This is where Christians, when we look at a situation like war, in this case, the war between Russia and Ukraine, and Russia invaded Ukraine and Ukraine’s been fighting back very bravely. It’s been a very costly war, but it’s another reminder to us that within a war is another war, within that war is another war. And these are often moral wars and these moral issues are inescapable. Sometimes they arise, they erupt in the least expected place. I’ll just go back to where I began. I didn’t expect a headline in The Wall Street Journal about Ukraine considering the legalization of pornography in order to pay for its war. 

Christians look at this and we understand this is an old, old story showing up in, well, surprising new headlines.