President Donald Trump’s renewed curiosity in Greenland has triggered the predictable refrain of elite disbelief. Pundits scoff. European officers bristle. Commentators body the concept as fanciful or provocative. Strip away the noise, nevertheless, and the case is easy: U.S. management in Greenland is strategically sound, more and more pressing, and firmly rooted in American nationwide safety pursuits.
In a quickly militarizing Arctic, the actual query isn’t whether or not america ought to assume higher management and duty in Greenland. It’s whether or not we are able to afford to not.
The Arctic is not a frozen backwater. It’s an rising theater of great-power competitors the place geography nonetheless issues. Greenland’s location — astride the North Atlantic and Arctic corridors linking North America, Europe and Eurasia — makes it indispensable to the protection of america. Any severe technique to safe the Arctic, deter adversaries and defend North America runs straight by Greenland.
Russia understands this actuality. Moscow has rebuilt Chilly Conflict-era bases, expanded Arctic navy infrastructure, deployed superior missile techniques, and asserted management over polar delivery routes.
China understands it as effectively. Regardless of having no legit Arctic declare, Beijing now absurdly labels itself a “Close to-Arctic State” to justify its rising presence by analysis stations, infrastructure investments and political affect. The Arctic is changing into one other entrance in China’s international marketing campaign to transform financial leverage into strategic dominance.
America can not permit both energy to regulate this house.
Greenland already performs a crucial function in U.S. protection. American radar installations and navy property there are important for early warning in opposition to Russian and Chinese language missile threats. As hypersonic weapons compress determination timelines and increase polar assault vectors, Greenland’s strategic worth will increase. But, America’s present posture displays a long time of complacency, not the realities of Twenty first-century competitors.
Denmark, to its credit score, is a loyal ally. Few People understand that Denmark suffered the very best per-capita killed-in-action charge of any NATO ally in the course of the warfare in Afghanistan. Copenhagen has pledged to extend Arctic navy spending and acknowledges the rising risk to the atmosphere. Greenland’s leaders have additionally signaled openness to an expanded U.S. navy presence.
Nonetheless, goodwill can not overcome laborious limits. Denmark lacks the dimensions, assets and power-projection capability to safe Greenland alone in opposition to sustained Russian or Chinese language strain.
This isn’t an indictment of an ally. It’s an argument for American management.
Critics falsely current a binary selection: both america backs off, or it bullies Denmark. That framing is flawed.
U.S., Danish and Greenlandic pursuits are aligned. All three need the Arctic protected against adversarial affect. All three profit from a steady, rules-based order quite than one formed by Russian coercion or Chinese language financial seize. And all three perceive that solely america has the aptitude to ensure that consequence.
That’s the reason the Trump administration’s method issues.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made it clear that america seeks to buy Greenland by negotiation, not drive. This isn’t imperial conquest. It’s a strategic consolidation amongst allies in response to an evolving risk panorama. Historical past exhibits that peaceable territorial transfers, when performed transparently and with mutual profit, can strengthen stability quite than undermine it.
The financial stakes are rising as effectively. Melting sea ice has opened new delivery lanes, together with the Northern Sea Route, dramatically shortening transit instances between Europe and Asia. Management over Arctic entry will form international commerce for many years. Permitting Russia or China to dictate the phrases of Arctic commerce can be a strategic error with lasting penalties.
Greenland additionally possesses huge, largely untapped mineral reserves, together with uncommon earths crucial to superior expertise and navy techniques. As america works to cut back dependence on Chinese language-controlled provide chains, securing entry to those assets isn’t any luxurious. It’s a strategic necessity.
Opponents invoke summary notions of sovereignty whereas ignoring sensible realities. Sovereignty with out safety is an phantasm. Left to its personal, Greenland will face relentless strain from adversarial powers searching for affect by funding, infrastructure and political leverage. Washington has seen this sample repeatedly.
Ready till the risk turns into acute is how America loses strategic floor.
Taking duty now — by a negotiated settlement that respects Denmark and the individuals of Greenland — would lock in Western management of the Arctic, strengthen NATO’s northern flank, and considerably improve the protection of america.
The world is safer when america leads. Within the Arctic, management means recognizing that Greenland isn’t a curiosity or a punchline. It’s a strategic linchpin. Trump is correct to position it on the middle of America’s Arctic technique, and Washington ought to have the resolve to comply with by.
Paul McCarthy is a senior analysis fellow for European affairs within the Margaret Thatcher Heart for Freedom at The Heritage Basis/InsideSources
