Why Trump thinks the US can take Greenland: President is convinced the territory is key to protecting the West and he can convince the population to become Americans… as JD Vance flies out for visit

Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January predictably ushered in a series of swift policy adjustments. However, the US President’s intense focus on acquiring Greenland, the world’s largest island situated in the Arctic, carries significant implications that could fundamentally reshape global security and international trade.

Trump’s Greenland Ambitions Raise Geopolitical Concerns

President Trump has not dismissed the possibility of employing military or economic measures to acquire the island of Greenland, prompting some analysts to caution that Washington might even contemplate annexing the territory. Such a move would bear a striking resemblance to Russia’s controversial seizure of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.

President Trump’s Statement on Greenland’s Strategic Value

Speaking to reporters at the Oval Office, President Trump articulated a concerning, albeit somewhat vague, declaration of intent regarding Greenland:

‘We require Greenland for both national and international security – therefore, I believe we will pursue this as far as necessary. Greenland is essential to us, and its possession by the US is vital for global security, including for Denmark,’ he stated.

‘Without Greenland, our national security is compromised,’ he concluded, as Vice President JD Vance prepared for a visit to Pituffik Space Base, a US military installation in northern Greenland.

Vice President Vance’s Greenland Visit Disrupted by Protests

Vice President Vance had intended to tour Greenland and attend a prominent dogsled race with his wife, Second Lady Usha Vance. However, these plans were disrupted, and the event was canceled amid widespread anti-American demonstrations from local residents. Critics alleged that the Vances’ engagements, presented as leisure activities, were masking more serious objectives.

Conflicting Narratives on Greenland’s Desire for US Involvement

President Trump recently asserted that his administration is collaborating with ‘individuals in Greenland’ who ‘desire something to transpire’ with the United States, claiming, ‘They are initiating contact with us, not the other way around.’

However, public opinion surveys indicate that an overwhelming majority of Greenlanders are opposed to becoming part of the United States. Recent weeks have witnessed significant anti-American protests across the Arctic island.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, a vocal opponent of President Trump’s advances since his return to office, commended Greenlanders’ resistance to Washington amidst these unprecedented demonstrations.

‘The attention is intense, and the pressure is considerable, but it is during moments like these that your true character is revealed,’ she affirmed in a message to the island’s inhabitants. ‘You have defended your identity.’

Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen further reinforced this stance, declaring that Denmark ‘would not permit the United States to dictate the future configuration of the Danish realm, which includes Greenland.’

The Strategic Imperative of Greenland and the Arctic Region

Over two-thirds of Greenland’s landmass is situated within the Arctic Circle. The melting of polar ice is revealing substantial untapped natural resources and opening up new maritime trade routes.

Consequently, it is unsurprising that the United States, under the Trump administration and driven by economic interests, is actively strategizing to leverage these emerging opportunities in the Arctic.

Arctic Resources: A Treasure Trove of Oil, Gas, and Minerals

The diminishing Arctic ice cover has unveiled significant reserves of critical resources. The US Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic region holds approximately 90 billion barrels (around 15%) of the world’s undiscovered conventional oil resources and roughly 40 billion barrels (approximately 30%) of its undiscovered conventional natural gas reserves.

Furthermore, the region is abundant in vital rare earth minerals, which are crucial for the production of contemporary battery and microchip technologies.

Renewable Energy Potential in the Arctic

Arctic conditions are exceptionally well-suited for maximizing renewable energy capture methods. The expansive terrain is ideal for constructing solar panel arrays and wind turbine farms, while the vast oceans present opportunities for marine turbines to generate hydroelectric power.

Nations such as Iceland and Finland already utilize hydroelectric, wind, and geothermal energy, alongside nuclear power, to meet nearly all their energy demands.

Emerging Arctic Trade Routes and Economic Benefits

The growing accessibility of established trade routes, such as the Northern Sea Route (NSR), and the potential for new routes like the Transpolar Sea Route (TSR), could dramatically reduce shipping distances and fuel consumption.

For instance, the distance from a northwestern European port to the Far East via the NSR is nearly 40% shorter compared to the traditional route through the Suez Canal.

Melting Arctic ice also enables more vessels with reinforced hulls to navigate areas that were historically inaccessible, or previously required dedicated icebreakers.

This renders Arctic shipping a highly appealing prospect for global commerce, offering substantial economic advantages for participating nations.

National Security Imperatives Driving US Interest in Greenland

However, President Trump’s primary justification for US control of Greenland is fundamentally rooted in national security considerations.

Historically, since World War II, the Arctic has been recognized as a strategically significant military arena.

Contemporary geopolitical developments, including Russia’s actions in Ukraine and China’s ascendance as a major naval power, have reinforced this strategic view.

Historical Context: US Military Presence in Greenland

During World War II, the US occupied Greenland to prevent its control by Nazi Germany and to safeguard vital North Atlantic shipping lanes.

Subsequently, during the Cold War, both the US and the Soviet Union recognized the Arctic as the most direct route for deploying nuclear weapons, leading to a substantial expansion of military infrastructure in the High North.

The US has maintained military bases in Greenland since WWII. Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Force Base, currently supports missile warning, missile defense, and space surveillance operations for both the US and NATO.

Greenland also forms a crucial part of the GIUK Gap (Greenland, Iceland, United Kingdom), a strategic area where NATO monitors Russian naval activity in the North Atlantic.

Geopolitical Rivalry and Greenland’s Strategic Location

President Trump’s endeavor to solidify US control over Greenland, while undoubtedly controversial, is not without rationale, particularly amidst intensifying competition for influence in the Arctic among global powers.

Greenland is also deemed a significant location in China’s ‘Polar Silk Road,’ a component of its Belt and Road Initiative aimed at expanding Beijing’s economic influence globally.

Russia, possessing the most extensive Arctic coastline and advanced Arctic capabilities, has openly declared the Arctic a ‘zone of national and strategic interest.’

In his 2023 year-end press conference, President Putin emphasized the Arctic’s ‘special, strategic significance’ for Russia, describing it as a region with ‘enormous economic, energy, logistics and security opportunities’ and ‘an indisputable priority.’

This escalating global competition for Arctic influence has led analysts to predict a continued surge in the polar region’s importance.

‘Let us be unambiguous: we are entering the Arctic Century, and Greenland’s rapid ascension, sustained prominence, and pervasive influence will be its defining characteristic,’ stated Dwayne Menezes, managing director of the Polar Research and Policy Initiative.

‘Greenland, strategically positioned at the crossroads of North America, Europe, and Asia, and endowed with substantial resource potential, will only become more strategically vital, attracting the attention of major powers globally.’

Russia’s Arctic Preeminence

While Western nations encounter various obstacles in pursuing their interests in the High North, Russia, with its extensive Arctic coastline, has strategically positioned itself at the forefront of the race for Arctic dominance.

Icebreaker technology is a crucial area where Russia has established a significant advantage.

Icebreakers are indispensable for navigating the Arctic’s ice-laden waters. Russia possesses the world’s largest and most sophisticated icebreaker fleet, demonstrating its commitment to controlling emerging shipping routes and exploiting new resource extraction zones.

‘Russia holds a considerable advantage in the Arctic, possessing dozens of operational icebreakers, including nuclear-powered variants. China is also expanding its fleet,’ stated Nicolas Jouan, defense analyst at RAND Europe and expert in European security.

‘The UK and the US possess only one and two operational icebreakers respectively. This capability disparity likely represents a critical gap between NATO and its competitors at present.’

The final declaration of the 2024 NATO Summit in Washington made no mention of the Arctic as an area of strategic focus.

Russian Military Expansion in the Arctic

Concurrently, Russia has invested heavily in developing military infrastructure within the Arctic Circle since 2014.

Over 50 Soviet-era Arctic bases, including airfields, radar installations, cargo ports, missile launch sites, and naval facilities, have been modernized. Others, such as airfields in the Kola Peninsula approximately 200 miles east of Finland, have been expanded to accommodate larger forces, including nuclear-capable bombers and missiles.

Some bases have been adapted to house Russia’s advanced military technology. The Plesetsk Cosmodrome, for example, was utilized in 2021 for a test launch of Russia’s latest satellite-killer missile and in 2022 for launching the Sarmat-2, a formidable intercontinental ballistic missile.

Russia’s nuclear arsenal is integrated within its Northern Fleet, headquartered in Severomorsk, a city located within the Arctic Circle.

Rob Clark, a British Army veteran and head of defense research at the UK think tank Civitas, cautioned: ‘We must recognize the threat posed by Russian expansion in the Arctic. While attention is concentrated on Ukraine, Russia is testing next-generation nuclear submarines and hypersonic missiles in the Arctic and augmenting its regional presence.’

Cyber and Disinformation Warfare

Beyond enhancing its military and technological capabilities, Russia is also actively seeking to destabilize the operations of other Arctic nations through cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns.

Alaska, Norway, Canada, and Finland have all experienced a series of cyberattacks attributed to Russia in recent years. Iceland and Greenland have also reported a rise in ‘suspicious internet traffic’ since the Ukraine invasion in February 2022.

Economic Leverage and Control of Trade Routes

The potential exists for Russia to deploy submarines or submersibles to sever critical undersea fiber optic cables. This could inflict unprecedented damage and disruption to Western infrastructure, logistics, and communications amidst escalating future conflicts.

In terms of trade and resource extraction, Russia claims ownership and control over the majority of the Northern Sea Route, the most readily accessible Arctic shipping lane poised to become a major artery for international trade.

This route traverses Russia’s Arctic coast and consequently falls within Russia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), granting the nation authority over shipping activities, navigation, and resource exploitation, according to Article 234 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Foreign vessels are therefore required to seek authorization to navigate these waters and rely on Russian icebreakers for assistance, incurring fees payable to Russian authorities.

This issue is a major point of contention for numerous nations, including the United States, which has argued, thus far unsuccessfully, that substantial portions of the NSR should be designated as international waters.

Amid strained relations with the West, the NSR provides Russia with a channel to transport its natural resources and other exports to China, India, and other eastern buyers, circumventing potential interference from the US or Europe.

As ice continues to recede and additional shipping routes become more navigable, Russia’s long-term strategic emphasis on the Arctic and its infrastructure will afford it considerable influence in shaping the trajectory of global commerce.

China’s Growing Arctic Presence

China, possessing the world’s largest military personnel, identifies itself as a ‘near-Arctic state.’

Despite lacking sovereign rights over Arctic waters or continental shelves, China holds observer status on the Arctic Council, a consortium of eight Arctic nations: Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States.

Consequently, China’s attempts to assert its presence in the High North are viewed as unjustifiable by many.

However, Beijing possesses both the capability and the motivation to become a significant actor in Arctic development and the competition for access to its resources and trade routes.

Technological Advancement and Strategic Motivation

China is at the forefront of permafrost research and polar technology due to its extensive ice-covered territories, particularly the Tibetan plateau.

This has led to substantial investments in infrastructure designed for frigid environments and the ongoing expansion of its icebreaker fleet.

Given the Kremlin’s reliance on China as an economic and political ally, President Putin might consider offering President Xi Jinping favorable terms for access to Arctic regions where China lacks territorial claims.

Cultivating influence in the High North and securing access to developing Arctic waterways is paramount for Beijing, which currently relies on trade routes passing through strategic chokepoints beyond its control.

One such chokepoint is the Strait of Malacca, strategically positioned and bordered by US-aligned nations such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore.

China’s Strategic Vulnerabilities and Arctic Ambitions

In an interview with Arthur Snell, Bruce Jones, director of the Brookings Institution’s Foreign Policy program, stated: ‘China is heavily dependent on resource flows through critical waterways… currently, the United States dominates all major chokepoints accessing the South China Sea.’

‘This represents a significant vulnerability for China,’ he added, noting that developing naval power and securing favorable Arctic trade routes are key priorities for the Chinese Communist Party.

Similar to Russia, China has acquired real estate in Arctic nations and operates satellite and antenna arrays, ostensibly for research but potentially with dual military applications.

China, along with other nations, argues for its inclusion in high-level discussions regarding the ecological consequences of Arctic development, citing the potential impact of rising sea levels on major coastal cities like Shanghai.

Nicolas Jouan commented: ‘China’s observer status on the Arctic Council is inherently justifiable, given the presence of numerous other countries geographically distant from the Arctic.’

‘However, the implications of this observer status warrant closer scrutiny… The partnership between Russia and China may understandably concern Western nations, considering their assertive approaches to resource exploitation and regional militarization.’

Potential for Arctic Nations to Unite

Despite apparent ambitions among world powers to achieve Arctic dominance, overt conflict or intense competition is currently absent in the High North.

Even amidst historically low East-West relations, cooperation within the Arctic region has persisted.

However, this status quo is likely to evolve as climate change continues to diminish ice cover and the prospect of capitalizing on Arctic resources becomes more attainable.

Experts believe there is an opportunity for Arctic nations, predominantly Western-aligned, to collaborate and effectively counterbalance potential threats originating from the East.

If Finland and Sweden’s NATO accession proceeds unimpeded, seven of the eight Arctic nations will be NATO members.

This could significantly enhance the Arctic Council’s capacity to establish a more robust, multilateral security framework to address Russian technological and military advantages and compensate for individual national limitations.

Navigating Sino-Russian Relations in the Arctic

Nicolas Jouan also suggested that Russia might not be inclined to cooperate extensively with China in the Arctic, despite increased Sino-Russian collaboration, and urged Western governments to capitalize on potential discord between the two major powers.

‘We should avoid overstating the strength of the Russia-China partnership. Its foundation rests on personal relationships between leaders and specific geopolitical circumstances.’

He posited that Russia is resolute regarding its control over the Northern Sea Route and its perceived Arctic rights and ‘will likely resist China’s increasingly active role in the region.’

‘Western nations could leverage this dynamic by identifying common ground with China on trade routes and resource access to challenge Russia’s dominance,’ he concluded.

Arctic Governance and Future Challenges

Establishing effective Arctic governance is another challenge confronting all stakeholders.

Each Arctic Council member possesses sovereign rights over its territory and EEZ. However, under UNCLOS and international law, Arctic regions outside EEZs are classified as international waters or high seas.

A vast expanse surrounding the North Pole, including much of the Transpolar Sea Route, remains open to free navigation, fishing, resource exploration, and overflight, potentially creating conditions for conflict as these areas become more accessible.

Consequently, numerous experts advocate for developing more robust governance structures in the Arctic to provide a legal framework for resolving future disputes and deterring illegitimate land and resource acquisitions.

The Arctic Council serves as the primary forum for Arctic governance, but its mandate is largely advisory, lacking the legal authority to enforce regulations or resolve disputes, thus allowing for unilateral actions by member states.

Whether council members can agree on a strengthened framework to promote effective Arctic governance and safeguard against unchecked exploitation remains uncertain.