Greenland Crisis: Variety Dynamics Analysis of Power Flows

VD Framework Application to Arctic Sovereignty Challenge

System Configuration

Actors: US, Denmark, Greenland, EU, NATO, Russia, China

Proposed action: US annexation of Greenland (force threatened/implied)

Strategic context: Arctic SSBN routes + hypersonic weapons compress warning timelines, making Greenland detection positioning existentially valuable for US nuclear deterrence credibility

US simultaneous policy: Withdrawal of European security guarantee (publicly declared strategic reorientation)

VD analytical question: How do variety distributions determine power flows and feasible outcomes?

Axiom 1: Foundational Variety Asymmetry

"Differing distributions of generated and controlling variety create structural basis for power asymmetries and differential control over system structure, evolution, and distribution of benefits and costs."

Variety distribution snapshot:

US possesses:

Military varieties: $877B budget, nuclear arsenal (5,400 warheads), Arctic capabilities, global power projection
Technology varieties: Hypersonic development, satellite networks, SSBN detection systems
Economic varieties: $27T GDP
Geographic varieties: Adjacent (Alaska), existing presence (Thule Base)

Denmark/Greenland possess:

Geographic varieties: Greenland positioning (Arctic detection geometry, unique and irreplaceable)
Sovereignty varieties: International legal recognition
Lack: Military varieties ($7B budget, no strategic systems), Technology varieties (no indigenous Arctic military capability), Economic independence (Greenland $600M annual subsidy dependency)

EU possesses:

Economic varieties: $18T collective GDP
Some military varieties: France/UK nuclear arsenals (~515 warheads combined)
Lack: Defense integration, strategic autonomy, independent power projection at scale

Russia possesses:

Nuclear varieties: 5,900 warheads (parity with US)
Arctic varieties: Northern Fleet, ice-capable SSBNs, Arctic bases
Geographic varieties: Arctic coastline, established infrastructure

China possesses:

Economic varieties: $18T GDP
Growing Arctic interest varieties: Icebreakers, "Polar Silk Road" policy
Lack: Arctic geography, current Arctic military presence

Power asymmetry structure: US possesses overwhelming military/technology/economic varieties but lacks geographic varieties. Denmark/Greenland possess geographic monopoly varieties but lack all complementary varieties needed for independent exploitation. This creates structural pressure for variety consolidation.

Axiom 2: Variety Generation Shifts Power Locus

"When less powerful constituencies increase variety that more powerful constituencies manage, power locus shifts toward less powerful."

Analysis: Denmark/Greenland CANNOT generate varieties that challenge US position because:

Cannot generate military varieties (100:1+ asymmetry, exponential transaction costs)
Cannot generate technology varieties (no indigenous capability, supplier monopolies)
Cannot generate economic varieties (subsidy dependent, cannot eliminate)
Cannot generate alliance varieties (US controls NATO, EU lacks military integration)

Therefore: Axiom 2 mechanism unavailable to weaker party. No pathway exists for Denmark/Greenland to increase varieties that US must manage.

Implication: Power shift toward weaker party structurally impossible given variety distribution.

Axiom 4: Subsystem Variety Change and Power Transfer

"Where differing subsystems of control can increase variety to accommodate shortfalls in other systems, overall control distribution shaped by amount transferred to accommodating subsystem."

Analysis:

Denmark exhibits variety shortfall in:

Defense varieties (cannot protect Greenland)
Technology varieties (cannot operate Arctic detection independently)
Economic varieties (cannot sustain Greenland without subsidies)

US possesses accommodating varieties:

Can provide defense varieties (overwhelming military capacity)
Can provide technology varieties (detection systems, satellite networks)
Can provide economic varieties (financial compensation, infrastructure investment)

Transfer mechanism: As US accommodates Denmark's variety shortfalls, control transfers to US. Historical precedent: Thule Base (1951) - Denmark lacked Arctic defense varieties, US provided accommodation, gained control over base operations.

Current scenario: If Denmark cannot defend Greenland (variety shortfall) and US provides defense accommodation, control transfers to US. This is structural accommodation dynamic, not aggression - though experienced as coercion by weaker party.

Axiom 13: Control Shortfall Leading to Transfer

"Where sources of control can increase variety to accommodate lack of requisite variety in other control systems, overall distribution of control shaped by amount and distribution of transfer to accommodating system."

This reinforces Axiom 4 analysis:

Denmark's control system exhibits requisite variety shortfall:

Cannot control Arctic security (lacks military varieties)
Cannot control detection infrastructure (lacks technology varieties)
Cannot control economic sustainability (requires external subsidies)

US control system possesses excess requisite variety:

Surplus military varieties (can absorb Greenland defense without strain)
Surplus technology varieties (detection systems available)
Surplus economic varieties (can provide financial compensation)

Variety transfer direction: Control flows from system with shortfall (Denmark) to system with surplus (US) when strategic necessity requires accommodation. This is Axiom 13 mechanism operating - control ownership transfers to the accommodating control system.

Axiom 14: Time as Variety Dimension

"Time is dimension of variety shaping dynamic locus of power. Introduction of variety that changes time dynamic of availability results in changes to power locus."

Analysis:

Traditional ICBM scenario:

Flight time: 25-30 minutes
Detection: Mid-trajectory
Decision time available: 15-20 minutes
Presidential control: Feasible

Arctic SSBN + Hypersonic scenario:

Flight time: 5-10 minutes (polar route, Mach 15-20)
Detection: Launch phase only (too late if mid-trajectory)
Decision time available: 2-5 minutes
Presidential control: Structurally problematic (secure communication protocols require 4-6 minutes)

Time varieties have shifted:

Warning time varieties compressed 75-80%
Decision time varieties now insufficient for constitutional command structure
Forward detection time varieties become existentially critical

Greenland provides time varieties:

Detection 2-4 minutes earlier (boost phase vs mid-trajectory)
Restores decision timeline to constitutional adequacy
Time varieties are geographic (Greenland positioning) not technological

Implication: Time compression redistributes value from technology varieties (midcourse interception) to geographic varieties (forward detection positioning). Greenland's geographic time varieties increase in value as hypersonic technology compresses warning varieties.

Axiom 27: Power and Variety as Interchangeable Resources

"In competitive situations, power and variety are interchangeable resources for influencing locus of power and creating potential for control changes."

Analysis:

US strategy attempts variety-for-variety exchange:

Offers: Economic varieties ($50-100B compensation), Infrastructure varieties (development investment), Autonomy varieties (commonwealth status, not statehood)
Seeks: Geographic varieties (Greenland positioning), Sovereignty varieties (control over territory)

Denmark/Greenland cannot make equivalent exchange because:

Geographic varieties are non-fungible (cannot be purchased elsewhere)
Sovereignty varieties are identity-linked (not tradeable in money terms)
Power asymmetry prevents equivalence (what Denmark values at $∞, US values at $100B)

Axiom 27 fails when:

Variety types are non-commensurable (sovereignty vs money)
Power asymmetries are extreme (weaker party cannot refuse, making "exchange" coercion)
One party values varieties infinitely (existential survival) while other values finitely (territorial preference)

Implication: Variety interchangeability requires rough power symmetry. At 100:1+ asymmetry, "exchange" becomes acquisition.

Axiom 34-36: Transaction Cost Limits and Exponential Scaling

Axiom 34: "Ability to increase variety limited by Coasian transaction costs." Axiom 36: "Transaction costs increase exponentially or combinatorially with variety increases, not linearly."

Analysis:

Denmark generating Arctic defense varieties would require:

Nuclear deterrent: Impossible (NPT, $100B+, 20-year timeline)
Conventional defense: $50-100B investment, exponential scaling from zero base
Technology development: Cannot purchase (classified), cannot develop (costs exceed GDP)
Timeline: 15-25 years minimum

Transaction cost function for Denmark: f(capability) ≈ e^x (exponential)

US expanding Arctic varieties exhibits:

Marginal additions to existing systems
Economies of scale
Linear cost scaling

Transaction cost function for US: f(capability) ≈ x (linear)

When base asymmetry is 100:1, cost functions diverge catastrophically:

Denmark: Each 10% capability increase costs exponentially more
US: Each 10% capability increase costs linearly more

Implication: Transaction cost asymmetry makes capability equalization structurally impossible within any feasible resource allocation. Gaps are permanent, not temporary.

Axiom 39-40: Power Law Distributions

Axiom 39: "Control effects and benefits from varieties follow power law distributions." Axiom 40: "Ways variety distributions shape control locus often follow power laws."

Analysis:

Geographic varieties exhibit extreme concentration:

Greenland positioning provides unique Arctic detection geometry
No alternative location provides equivalent capability
Single geographic asset accounts for disproportionate strategic value

This is power law distribution: Small number of locations (n=1, Greenland) account for disproportionate detection value in Arctic domain.

Strategic implications:

Controlling single asset (Greenland) provides majority of Arctic detection benefit
Distributed alternatives (multiple lesser positions) cannot substitute
Concentration creates "winner take all" dynamic

Alliance varieties exhibit concentration:

US provides ~70% of NATO capabilities
Single member accounts for supermajority of alliance combat power
Removal of US varieties collapses alliance functionality

Implication: Power law concentration means control of few critical varieties determines system outcomes. Greenland is critical variety; US is critical alliance member. Both exhibit concentration enabling unilateral action.

Axiom 46: Time-to-Access Determines Effective Variety

"Effective variety available determined by both absolute variety and speed of access/deployment."

Analysis:

Hypersonic weapons + SSBN create access speed asymmetry:

Adversary can deploy strike varieties within 5-10 minutes
US response varieties require 15-20 minutes (traditional timeline)
Speed asymmetry creates "effective variety deficit" even with absolute variety parity

Greenland forward positioning changes access speed:

Detection varieties accessible 2-4 minutes earlier
Closes speed gap between adversary strike varieties and US response varieties
Transforms absolute variety parity into effective variety advantage

Without Greenland:

Absolute varieties: US = Russia (nuclear parity)
Effective varieties: Russia > US (speed advantage through Arctic route)

With Greenland:

Absolute varieties: US = Russia (unchanged)
Effective varieties: US ≥ Russia (speed parity through forward detection)

Implication: Geographic positioning varieties multiply effectiveness of existing capability varieties through time-to-access mechanism. Greenland doesn't add new weapons but adds access speed to existing warning/response systems.

Axiom 48: Discontinuity and Irreversibility

"Variety distributions can contain discontinuities where small changes produce discontinuous system changes. These mark points of irreversibility."

Analysis:

Three discontinuities in this system:

1. Hypersonic deployment discontinuity:

Below threshold: Traditional warning times (25-30 min), midcourse interception feasible, presidential control adequate
Above threshold: Compressed warning (5-10 min), interception infeasible, presidential control problematic
Transition: Abrupt, not gradual - once hypersonic operational, entire strategic logic shifts

2. Alliance withdrawal discontinuity:

With US guarantee: European security adequate (70% capability from US)
Without US guarantee: European security inadequate (30% remaining insufficient)
No middle ground: "Reduced" guarantee is functionally equivalent to no guarantee (cannot defend with 30% of required capability)

3. Sovereignty transfer discontinuity:

Before annexation: Denmark sovereign, US operates under lease
After annexation: US sovereign, Denmark loses all control
Irreversible: Cannot restore sovereignty after transfer (historical precedent: territorial acquisitions rarely reversed)

Implication: System exhibits threshold effects where continuous pressures create discontinuous state changes. Once thresholds crossed, reversibility impossible - variety distributions permanently altered.

Axiom 49-50: Defining Complex and Hyper-Complex Systems

Axiom 49: "Systems with 2+ feedback loops require formal modeling. Mental models sufficient for 0-1 loop." Axiom 50: "Hyper-complex systems violate structural stability - boundaries shift, loops emerge/dissolve, relationships transform."

Analysis:

This system exhibits 10+ feedback loops:

Ice decline ↔ Strategic competition
Technology dependency ↔ Supplier leverage
SSBN capability ↔ Detection investment
Hypersonic development ↔ Forward positioning value
Alliance dependency ↔ Interpretation control
Strategic value increase ↔ Sovereignty pressure
Russian militarization ↔ US response ↔ Russian counter-response
European security gap ↔ Russian opportunity ↔ European crisis
Chinese observation ↔ Precedent application ↔ Global norm shift
Precedent creation ↔ Future sovereignty challenges ↔ Precedent reinforcement

This is hyper-complex system by Axiom 49-50 definition:

Beyond human mental model capacity (cannot track 10 simultaneous loops)
Boundaries shifting (NATO purpose unclear, alliance membership implications changing)
Loops emerging (hypersonic competition created new loop 2015-2025)
Relationships transforming (US-Europe from alliance to conditional arrangement)

Implication: Conventional strategic analysis fails because human mental models cannot track loop interactions beyond 2-loop boundary. VD provides formal framework enabling analysis of systems beyond cognitive capacity.

This explains policy failures: Decision-makers using mental models perceive linear causality ("strong alliance deters aggression"). Reality exhibits non-linear loop interactions ("alliance dependency creates interpretation vulnerability + technology asymmetry creates accommodation pressure + time compression creates urgency = sovereignty challenge despite alliance"). Mental models cannot reveal these multi-loop interactions.

Power Flow Analysis: Applying Multiple Axioms

Denmark → US (Inevitable Variety Transfer)

Axiom 1: Severe variety asymmetry (125:1 military, infinite technology, 67:1 economic) creates structural power differential

Axiom 4/13: Denmark's variety shortfalls (defense, technology, economic) require US accommodation, transferring control to accommodating system

Axiom 34-36: Transaction cost asymmetry (exponential for Denmark vs linear for US) prevents capability equalization

Axiom 46: Time-to-access varieties (Greenland positioning provides US with 2-4 minute advantage) make geographic control existentially valuable

Axiom 48: Sovereignty exhibits discontinuity - once transferred, irreversible

Power flow direction: Denmark → US (one-way)

Mechanism: Variety shortfall accommodation transfers control ownership. Denmark cannot generate missing varieties (transaction costs prohibitive). US provides accommodation. Control follows accommodation provider.

Outcome probability: Very high. Multiple axioms converge on same power flow direction. No countervailing mechanisms available to Denmark given variety distributions.

EU → Weakness (Capability Collapse Without US)

Axiom 1: EU structured around US guarantee varieties. Without US, variety portfolio exhibits catastrophic gaps:

Nuclear deterrent: 515 warheads (France/UK) vs Russia 5,900 (11:1 disadvantage)
Conventional: Lost 70% of NATO capability (US withdrawal)
Strategic systems: Satellite, airlift, missile defense gaps cannot be filled rapidly

Axiom 14: Timeline varieties create crisis - threats immediate (Russian capabilities operational), responses require 10-25 years (capability development)

Axiom 34-36: EU capability generation faces exponential costs (must create from fragmented base) while Russia maintains linear costs (existing systems)

Axiom 49-50: EU response requires coordination across 27 members with consensus (hyper-complex decision structure) while threats operate on minute timelines (hypersonic) - structural impossibility

Power flow direction: EU loses defensive varieties without generating replacement varieties (timeline/cost/coordination impossible)

Mechanism: Dependency varieties on US guarantee created capability atrophy varieties. When guarantee withdrawn, no replacement mechanism available within relevant timeframe.

Outcome probability: Very high. EU cannot generate strategic autonomy varieties in 10-25 year timeline while facing immediate threats. Power flows from EU toward regional actors (Russia) through vacuum creation.

Russia → Opportunity Varieties (European Vulnerability)

Axiom 1: With US withdrawn, Russia's variety portfolio (nuclear parity, Arctic advantage, conventional adequacy) faces European portfolio with massive gaps (nuclear disadvantage, no US reinforcement, fragmented coordination)

Axiom 2: Russia need not generate new varieties - European variety reduction (US withdrawal) automatically shifts relative power toward Russia

Axiom 27: Russia gains coercion varieties without investment - US withdrawal redistributes power varieties as gift to Russia

Axiom 40: European vulnerability exhibits power law concentration - small number of critical capabilities (nuclear deterrent, strategic systems) account for disproportionate defense effectiveness. Losing 70% of capabilities (US) removes power law concentration varieties, collapsing defense effectiveness below linear prediction.

Power flow direction: Europe → Russia (coercive leverage)

Mechanism: US withdrawal eliminates European defense varieties. Russia gains relative advantage without action. European nations face choice: Accommodate Russia (reduce sovereignty varieties to gain security varieties) OR attempt impossible autonomous defense (fail, then accommodate from weaker position).

Outcome probability: High. European capability gaps create Russian opportunity varieties automatically. Only question is whether accommodation explicit or implicit.

Greenland → Indigenous Loss (Population Displacement if Advanced Systems Deployed)

Axiom 51 (implied): If US deploys advanced detection systems requiring operational security (TS/SCI classification levels), system operation varieties become incompatible with civilian population varieties.

Note: Axiom 51 not in provided set, but logical extension addresses when variety types are mutually exclusive (cannot co-exist in same space).

Analysis without formal axiom:

If operational security varieties require:

Controlled access (biometric, continuous monitoring)
No unauthorized personnel within sensor network perimeter
Foreign national exclusion (Greenlanders are Danish citizens from US security perspective)
Secure entire detection infrastructure (distributed across territory)

Then: 56,000 Greenlandic population (90% Inuit) becomes incompatible with operational requirements.

Historical precedent: Diego Garcia - 1,500 Chagossians relocated 1968-1973 for US military base. Strategic necessity overrode indigenous rights.

Power flow: Greenlandic indigenous varieties (territorial occupation, cultural continuity, sovereignty claims) → eliminated through operational necessity varieties

This represents extreme case of Axiom 1: When variety asymmetries reach maximum (56,000 indigenous people vs US military necessity defined as existential), power flows entirely to stronger party. Weaker party varieties eliminated completely.

China → Precedent Gains (Norm Erosion Benefits)

Axiom 40: Single US sovereignty violation (Greenland) creates precedent varieties with disproportionate global effects (power law distribution of precedent impact)

Axiom 5 (Precedent/Loop interaction): Each precedent makes subsequent similar actions easier (lower transaction costs, weaker normative constraints)

Analysis:

US annexation of Greenland creates precedent varieties China can cite for:

Taiwan (strategic necessity overrides sovereignty)
South China Sea (artificial islands, territorial expansion justified by security)
Arctic claims (despite geographic distance, if strategic value justifies US Arctic annexation, justifies Chinese claims)

Power flow direction: Normative constraint varieties → eroded globally, benefiting all actors seeking territorial revision

Mechanism: US action provides justification varieties (precedent) reducing transaction costs for Chinese assertive actions. China gains varieties without investment through US precedent creation.

Outcome: China benefits strategically despite Arctic setback (US Greenland control reduces Chinese Arctic access) because precedent varieties valuable across multiple theaters (Taiwan, SCS, etc.).

NATO → Dissolution/Irrelevance (Institutional Collapse)

Axiom 1: NATO variety portfolio consists of: US capabilities (~70%), European capabilities (~30%), institutional coordination varieties

With US withdrawal:

Lost: 70% combat capabilities, nuclear umbrella (except France/UK limited), strategic systems
Remaining: 30% fragmented European capabilities, institutional structure

Axiom 40: Alliance effectiveness exhibits power law - US varieties account for disproportionate share of capability (70% of spending, >90% of strategic systems). Removing concentrated varieties collapses alliance effectiveness below linear prediction.

Axiom 49: NATO decision-making requires consensus among 30+ members (hyper-complex coordination) while threats operate on minute timelines (hypersonic). Structural incompatibility.

Power flow: Alliance coordination varieties → eliminated. Institutional varieties persist without functional varieties (zombie institution).

Mechanism: Article 5 (collective defense) requires capabilities to implement. Without US varieties, commitment unenforceable. Treaty becomes specification varieties (formal text) without enforcement varieties (ability to act).

Outcome: NATO either formally dissolves OR persists as non-functional institution (headquarters, committees, no defense capability). Actual security arrangements occur bilaterally or regionally outside NATO framework.

Interaction Effects: Why Compound Event Is Catastrophic

Greenland annexation ALONE would create:

Denmark sovereignty loss
Arctic power concentration with US
Precedent for territorial revision
Indigenous rights violation

US security withdrawal ALONE would create:

European defense gap
Russian opportunity
NATO functional collapse
Strategic autonomy impossibility (timeline constraints)

BOTH TOGETHER create multiplicative effects:

Effect 1: Alliance dissolution removes opposition to annexation

NATO collective defense (Article 5) potentially constrains US action against Denmark
But US withdrawal from NATO eliminates this constraint
No alliance opposition mechanism exists after US declares withdrawal

Effect 2: European crisis distracts from Greenland

EU facing existential security emergency (Russian vulnerability)
Cannot focus resources/attention on Denmark's situation
Greenland becomes secondary priority when European security collapsing

Effect 3: Precedent varieties multiply

US violates alliance commitments (withdrawal) AND territorial sovereignty (annexation)
Double precedent: Alliances unreliable + territory revisable
Normative constraint varieties collapse across multiple dimensions simultaneously

Effect 4: Russian gains compound

European vulnerability (from US withdrawal)
Plus weakened Denmark (from Greenland loss)
Plus precedent legitimacy (US actions justify Russian actions)
Triple benefit: Opportunity + reduced opposition + justification

This is hyper-complex interaction (Axiom 50): Multiple loops interact creating effects not predictable from individual loop analysis. System exhibits emergent properties (complete European security architecture collapse) not present in component analysis (individual events).

Feasible Outcomes (Constrained by Variety Distributions)

Outcome 1: US Annexation + European Accommodation (Highest Probability)

Variety flow logic:

US gains:

Greenland geographic varieties (Arctic detection positioning)
Eliminates dependency on Danish cooperation
Secures existential deterrence varieties (forward detection, time advantage)

Denmark loses:

Greenland sovereignty varieties
Receives: Financial compensation (~$50-100B), but money varieties cannot replace sovereignty varieties

EU faces:

Russian coercion varieties (nuclear advantage, conventional adequacy, European defense gap)
Choice: Accommodate Russia OR attempt impossible autonomous defense
Rational choice: Accommodation (negotiated spheres of influence)

Mechanism: Multiple axioms converge (1, 4, 13, 34-36, 46, 48) showing power flows from weak to strong when variety asymmetries extreme + accommodation required + transaction costs prohibitive for capability generation.

Probability: Very High - variety distributions make this structurally feasible while making alternatives structurally impossible within relevant timeframes.

Outcome 2: Failed EU Strategic Autonomy Attempt (Medium Probability as Intermediate Stage)

Variety flow logic:

EU attempts capability generation:

Political declarations of strategic autonomy
Defense spending increases announced
Coordination mechanisms proposed

But confronts structural barriers:

Timeline varieties: Capabilities require 10-25 years, threats immediate
Transaction cost varieties: Exponential costs for capability generation from fragmented base (Axiom 36)
Coordination varieties: 27-member consensus impossible for rapid decisions (Axiom 49-50)
Technology varieties: Critical systems not available on market (nuclear, satellites, hypersonic)

Outcome: Declarations without capabilities. After 2-5 years of failed mobilization, transition to Outcome 1 (accommodation) from weaker position.

Mechanism: Axiom 34-36 (transaction costs) + Axiom 14 (time constraints) + Axiom 49-50 (coordination complexity) create structural impossibility despite political will.

Probability: Medium - likely attempted but fails, becoming transition to Outcome 1.

Outcome 3: Nuclear Proliferation Crisis (Low Probability, High Consequence)

Variety flow logic:

European nations attempt independent nuclear deterrent generation:

Germany, Poland, or Sweden initiate weapons programs
Violate NPT commitments
Seek 10-15 year development timelines

But confronts:

Russian preventive strike varieties (would attack before capability achieved)
International isolation varieties (NPT violation = sanctions)
US opposition varieties (proliferation threatens US interests)
Timeline varieties (Russia can act before weapons operational)

Outcome: Either programs prevented OR program states attacked before completion.

Mechanism: Axiom 46 (time-to-access) means nuclear varieties only effective if deployable before adversary acts. 10-15 year timeline gives Russia decade to prevent through coercion or force.

Probability: Low - structural barriers too high, likely prevented before attempt or terminated early if attempted.

Outcome 4: Great Power Spheres System (High Probability Long-Term)

Variety flow logic:

System transitions from:

US global hegemony + alliance-based order → Regional hegemon spheres

Resulting structure:

Western Hemisphere: US sphere (including annexed Greenland, subordinated Canada)
Europe: Russian sphere of influence (Finlandized Eastern Europe, accommodated Western Europe)
Indo-Pacific: Contested (US vs China competition, balance shifting toward China as US resources divided)

Mechanism: Axiom 1 (variety asymmetry) at global scale. US withdrawal redistributes security provision varieties from centralized (US global) to fragmented (regional powers). Vacuum filled by actors with local variety advantages.

Probability: High - multiple pathways lead here. Represents new equilibrium after variety redistribution events complete.

Strategic Implications (What VD Reveals)

1. Sovereignty varieties are conditional, not absolute (Axiom 1)

When variety asymmetries exceed ~100:1, weaker party cannot enforce sovereignty
International law varieties lack enforcement mechanisms against superpowers
Formal sovereignty (legal recognition) ≠ effective sovereignty (ability to maintain control)

2. Alliance varieties depend on capability distributions (Axiom 40)

When single member provides 70% of capabilities (power law concentration), alliance = that member's policy + coordination overhead
Withdrawal of concentrated varieties collapses alliance functionality below linear prediction
Treaty text varieties (Article 5) require capability varieties to implement - text without capability is specification without enforcement

3. Time compression varieties create discontinuities (Axiom 14, 48)

Hypersonic weapons compress warning from 25 minutes to 5 minutes (80% reduction)
This is discontinuous shift - not gradual degradation but threshold crossing
Forward detection positioning varieties increase in value non-linearly as timeline compresses

4. Transaction cost asymmetries prevent capability equalization (Axiom 34-36)

Small nations face exponential costs (must build from zero, no economies of scale)
Large nations face linear costs (marginal additions to existing systems)
When base asymmetry is 100:1, cost functions diverge - gaps become permanent features, not temporary imbalances

5. Accommodation dynamics transfer control (Axiom 4, 13)

When weak actor exhibits variety shortfall + strong actor provides accommodation → control transfers to accommodator
This is structural mechanism, not moral judgment
Denmark's defense shortfall + US accommodation provision = control transfer to US
EU's capability shortfall + Russian coercion provision = control transfer to Russia

6. Hyper-complexity exceeds mental model capacity (Axiom 49-50)

10+ feedback loops interact creating emergent properties
Decision-makers using mental models cannot track loop interactions
Explains policy failures: Perceive linear causality, miss non-linear loop interactions
VD provides formal framework for analyzing beyond cognitive boundary

7. Precedent varieties operate systemically (Axiom 40)

Single sovereignty violation creates precedent varieties affecting global norm structures
Power law distribution: One event has disproportionate effect on multiple relationships
US annexation of Greenland creates varieties Russia/China can cite for own territorial ambitions
Normative constraint varieties erode system-wide, not just bilaterally

Conclusion: Structural Analysis Shows Power Flows Determined by Variety Distributions

What VD framework reveals:

Multiple axioms converge showing power flows from Denmark to US:

Axiom 1: Variety asymmetry (125:1 military, 67:1 economic)
Axiom 4/13: Accommodation transfers control (shortfall → US provides → control follows)
Axiom 34-36: Transaction cost asymmetry (exponential vs linear prevents equalization)
Axiom 46: Time-to-access (forward positioning provides 2-4 minute advantage)
Axiom 48: Discontinuity (sovereignty transfer irreversible)

Multiple axioms show European defense collapse without US:

Axiom 1: 70% capability loss creates catastrophic gap
Axiom 14: Timeline asymmetry (threats immediate, responses 10-25 years)
Axiom 34-36: Capability generation costs exponential from fragmented base
Axiom 49-50: Coordination complexity (27 members, consensus requirement) incompatible with threat speed

Precedent effects operate globally:

Axiom 40: Power law distribution (single event, disproportionate global impact)
Creates justification varieties for Russia (European actions), China (Taiwan/SCS actions)
Normative constraint varieties erode system-wide

Structural conclusion:

Power flows are not determined by intentions, rhetoric, or formal institutions. They are determined by variety distributions + transaction cost asymmetries + timeline constraints + accommodation dynamics.

When variety asymmetries reach 100:1+ scale, weaker parties cannot resist through political will alone. Structural pressures created by variety distributions overwhelm agency varieties.

This is not normative claim (about what should happen) but structural analysis (about what variety distributions make structurally feasible vs structurally impossible within relevant timeframes given transaction cost barriers).

VD provides formal framework revealing these structural dynamics operating beyond mental model capacity (Axiom 49-50), explaining why outcomes often contradict policy intentions and conventional strategic analysis.