Seizing Greenland: A Point-by-Point Rebuttal
The following blog presents a number of common assertions in favor of the U.S. seizure of Greenland, along with structured rebuttals that present referenced, fact-focused information.
Present discourse surrounding U.S. interests in Greenland has generated a flurry of conversations as a remote corner of the Earth abruptly enters American civic discourse. It’s a topic few people know anything about, so conversations often focus on partisan politics rather than facts. At this moment, I’ve found myself uniquely positioned to answer many of the questions Americans are now facing, and I hold myself responsible for rebutting the enormous amount of misinformation and misunderstanding about U.S.-Greenland relations.
This blog will evolve over time as I encounter new topics, and I invite you to use it as a resource to shape your understanding of the situation and to influence conversations in your own life. Please enter with an open mind, and if you have follow-up questions, comments, or subjects I should address, please feel free to contact me.
-
You’re not wrong! Greenland is incredibly strategic and having a U.S. presence there is vital to securing our geopolitical interests in the Arctic region as well as preserving our national security at home. Why? Because Greenland is located along important future polar trade routes and (most importantly) most missiles coming from Russia would have to transect Greenland in order to reach U.S. soil. There’s no denying the importance of U.S. presence in Greenland, but the question lies in how we hold that presence. No barriers exist to our strategic goals under the current system.
The U.S. is already guaranteed strategic access to Greenland under the 1951 Defense of Greenland Treaty which has been reaffirmed numerous times by both Greenland and Denmark (re-signed in 2004 and reaffirmed as recently as 2020). This treaty grants the U.S. unprecedented latitude in pursuing its geopolitical agendas in the region with immunity - requiring only a notification (but not approval) to Danish and Greenlandic authorities of U.S. intentions to make any changes.
During the Cold War, the U.S. used this agreement to establish over 50 bases, outposts, and monitoring stations all across Greenland. All of these locations were voluntarily closed or abandoned by the U.S. with the exception of one. Currently, the U.S. maintains Pituffik (Thule) Air Base in NW Greenland. This small base is vital to U.S. missile defense and early warning systems.
As it stands, the U.S. has complete and unfettered access to establish as many bases, station as many troops, or install any military hardware or infrastructure we could possibly want with simply a notification to the Greenlandic and Danish authorities who cannot deny it. Greenland is undeniably strategic, HOWEVER no barriers exist to the U.S. pursuing its strategic interests as it wishes.
-
Neither Russia nor China are moving to seize Greenland and there is no evidence of any plan to do so. First, Greenland is protected by NATO and the existing U.S. base, Pituffik. Article 5 of NATO enshrines the principle that an attack on one is an attack on all. Thus, neither Russia nor China could make territorial advances in Greenland without triggering mutual defense.
At this time, Russia is preoccupied with issues closer to home both in Ukraine and domestically. Sanctions have weakened the Russian economy to such an extent that they are severly constrained in projecting the power into the Arctic beyond their own territorial waters. An important note is that most of Russia’s coastline, trade, and population is near or within the Arctic region. Because of this, it is very easy to misinterpret adjustments to the Russian Navy or infrastructure as aggression when in reality these changes are most often geared to general readiness or domestic needs related to trade.
China projects its power in the Arctic region through cooperation in existing governance regimes and through bilateral consensual agreements and investments with Arctic nations. In Greenland, China has expressed an interest in investing in critical infrastructure and securing mining permits. For example, China did attempt to fund the development of Greenland’s new airports in 2018-2019. However, this move to invest in critical infrastructure was blocked after a significant pressure campaign by the U.S. causing Denmark to step in and stop the investment. China has also pursued cooperation with Russia in building the infrastructure of the Northern Sea Route. This is a mutually beneficial arrangement that allows China access to an important trade route while Russia’s own development is funded despite its flailing economy.
Please reference my blog post Arctic Cooperation and the Anarchical Society for more information about how the current Arctic governance system has historically favored cooperation from both China and Russia.
The primary deterrent to more aggressive moves by Russia and China is the NATO alliance. Undoubtedly, the best way to preserve U.S. interests and keep our adversaries at bay is by doubling down on NATO as this protects not only Greenland but maintains stability in the Arctic region where all Arctic nations are NATO members with the exception of Russia.
-
This is true. Greenland and our Pituffik Air Base, located there, are essential to early monitoring efforts which complement U.S. bases in the Canadian Arctic under the NORAD compact. There are currently no threats to U.S. missile defense in Greenland, and our operations there are protected under international treaties and through our participation in NATO. U.S. missile defense systems in Greenland cannot be terminated by any party other than the U.S.
-
I fear this is a serious misunderstanding of what Greenlanders have that Americans do not. Just check out this list below and let me know if you’d rather become a Greenlander instead!
Greenlanders have:
Universal, Free Healthcare - This includes subsidized travel to Nuuk or Denmark in the event a Greenlander needs advanced medical care unavailable at home.
Free Higher Education both in Greenland and Denmark. This comes with a monthly stipend so students can afford to focus on their studies.
Subsidized Childcare - Based on family income.
5 Weeks Paid Vacation
Paid Maternity, Paternity, and Parental Leave - Maternity (15-17 weeks), Paternity (3 weeks), Shared Parental Leave (21 weeks shared between parents)
Visa-Free Travel and Employment - The freedom to travel and work freely throughout the entire Schengen Zone.
Robust Welfare and Social Support Programs
Paid Sick Leave up to 13 Weeks
Free Institutional Elder Care
Civil Rights Similar or Better than the US
Don’t Worry, They Have a Guns Too - All it requires is a permit ;)
Sheesh, no wonder Greenlanders aren’t interested in becoming Americans!
-
While it’s true that Greenland holds vast reserves of oil, gas, and critical minerals, a cursory understanding of the challenges of extraction show that minerals are not the primary cause of recent events. Experts caution that media and politicians often over hype the importance of these reserves and ignore the realities on the ground. Mineral extraction in Greenland is prohibitively expensive, technologically difficult, and therefore not profitable. Should a profitable sector open up, there are currently no barriers to U.S. companies wishing to apply for extraction permits. The Greenlandic government manages the granting of extraction permits and invites the foreign investment of any nation to initiate mining projects, which could help contribute to Greenland’s GDP.
In the past and present, as with any country, domestic politics can make certain mining projects fall in or out of favor. As with any country, permits can be denied based on environmental or community concerns. However, should the U.S. want to secure a stronger foothold with Greenland’s minerals, there is nothing preventing permit applications and partnership arrangements. Greenland is open for investment!
See the work of Mark Nuttall (2017, 2024) for in-depth analysis of Greenland’s mineral futures and a realistic take on the topic.
-
This is likely one of the primary drivers of current events. The value of Greenland is not in its minerals, but in its geography. Greenland is strategically located between all future Arctic shipping routes and will likely serve as a transportation hub decades from now. Our current agreements with Greenland and NATO are related to U.S. defense. Therefore, as things stand, there is little provision for the U.S. to stake a claim to controlling these shipping routes.
Perhaps this is where the U.S. could learn from China. China projects power through strategic investment in critical infrastructure, such as supporting the development of the NSR through cooperation with Russia. There is nothing preventing the U.S. from strategically investing in Greenland’s development of critical transportation infrastructure, thereby gaining a foothold in future shipping routes. As a close ally and strategic partner, both Denmark and Greenland have invited U.S. investment in development. It’s time to take them up on their offers.
However, it should be noted that the U.S. does not have a RIGHT to control these routes. We only have an INTEREST in doing so. Partnership and cooperation is the most effective way to achieve these strategic goals.
Furthermore, the promise of future Arctic shipping routes is often overstated by media and politicians. The routes are hazardous, technical, narrow, and shallow. They are also seasonal and will remain so for the foreseeable future. A look at Arctic ice charts shows that the eastern coast of Greenland is locked in ice for all but three months of the year, and even during that period, moving pack ice makes passage unreliable. Even with a warming climate, this situation is unlikely to change significantly for many decades to come and even if it did the reality remains that these sea routes cannot carry large capacity vessels due to restrictions of geography.
-
I can see how one might think this, but it just isn’t true. Greenland is protected by the entirety of the NATO alliance and very specifically by the U.S. who has a base there. Any attack on Greenland would immediately trigger Article 5 - the mutual defense pact of NATO. Beyond the NATO alliance, the U.S. would and absolutely should defend its interests there, and that defense extends beyond the fence lines of Pituffik Air Base to cover the entirety of Greenland.
-
This is true! Trump is not the first to suggest the U.S. should acquire Greenland. Here’s a timeline:
1897 - Following the Alaska Purchase, U.S. Secretary of State William H. Seward proposed the annexation of both Greenland and Iceland. This proposal did not gain any traction.
1910 - U.S. Ambassador to Denmark, Maurice Egan, submitted a proposal to acquire Greenland and the Danish West Indies in exchange for Mindanao and Palawan.
1916 - U.S. officially recognized Danish sovereignty of Greenland as a stipulation of the Treaty of the Danish West Indies in which the U.S. acquired what became the U.S. Virgin Islands. This agreement required the U.S. to forfeit any claims to Greenland and abandon attempts to annex it.
1941 - The German invasion of Denmark in 1940 highlighted U.S. vulnerabilities on its northern border should Germany exercise their claim to Greenland. As a result the 1941 Agreement Relating to the Defense of Greenland was signed between the U.S. and the Danish Ambassador which formalized U.S. defense of Greenland as part of its national interest. That same year the first U.S. base, Bluie West, was constructed.
1946 - the U.S. offered Denmark nearly $1 billion (present value) in gold to purchase Greenland as it was viewed as a military necessity. Denmark declined.
1948 - The U.S. declined to vacate Greenland following the end of WWII despite numerous attempts to force the departure by Danish officials. By 1949, Denmark joined NATO in part so as not to appear vulnerable due to the U.S.’s de facto occupation of Greenland.
1951 - The U.S. and Denmark signed the Greenland Defense Agreement, which allowed the U.S. to keep its presence in Greenland and establish new defense areas should it be deemed necessary by NATO. This agreement grants the U.S. wide latitude of action, but preserves Danish sovereignty over the island. The agreement is valid as long as the NATO Treaty remains in effect. Should NATO fall apart, the right of the U.S. to hold bases in Greenland would come to an end.
1953 - Thule Air Base (Pituffik) is established and by 1959 becomes an integral part of NORAD.
1955 - Discussions to again acquire Greenland are shut down as the existing treaty arrangement was viewed as sufficient, permitting the U.S. to do “almost anything, literally, that we want to.”
2004 - Pituffik became the only U.S. base in Greenland as all others were gradually abandoned voluntarily following the end of the Cold War.
2017 - Trump suggests purchasing Greenland, but no official offer is extended.
2020 - A U.S. Consulate is reopened in Nuuk.
2024-present - Trump reinvigorates called to control Greenland
The history of U.S. interest in controlling Greenland is longstanding and not without reason. However, we are no longer in the 1900s. The world has changed, and self-determination is a recognized right of all nations. The existing agreement provides the U.S. unfettered access to secure its strategic interests in Greenland, which cannot be denied as long as NATO stands. Current actions by the Trump administration undermine NATO and therefore present the greatest threat to U.S. security in Greenland since Germany’s advance in WWII.
-
The U.S. does not pay to ‘rent’ any of the land used for strategic purposes in Greenland. The 1951 Treaty grants the U.S. rent-free military access with no term limits.
-
The U.S. right to hold strategic bases and build infrastructure in Greenland is guaranteed by the 1951 Treaty. The only way to lose our legal access is the dissolution of NATO. Current actions by the Trump administration pose the gravest threat to guaranteed U.S. access.
-
This could be true, and we should always be open to receiving new (factual) information. However, at this time, there is no evidence of this being the case.
Even if there were an imminent threat to U.S. interests in the Arctic, it seems unlikely that the current scorched-earth approach would be the best way to achieve our security goals. As other points have highlighted, undermining NATO is the most immediate way for the U.S. to lose access to Greenland and to upset the delicate balance of power in the Arctic region. Cooperation with Greenland through NATO guarantees the U.S. unfettered access without the financial expense of “owning” an island that requires enormous block grants to support its economy. Becoming a pariah state among our own allies is sure to undermine legitimate U.S. Arctic interests.
