US has no good reason to seek ownership of icy Greenland | Peter Juul

It’s a preoccupation that’s untethered from reality and lacks a rational justification. Indeed, none of the shifting reasons offered by the Trump administration makes sense — particularly the supposed national security grounds for annexation.

The United States would not gain anything from such a move. The U.S. military already possesses extensive access to Greenland, thanks to a 1951 agreement between Washington and Copenhagen. The U.S. Space Force maintains a base at Pituffik in the territory’s far north that helps monitor for ballistic missile attacks. 

Moreover, America is already committed to defending Greenland against aggression via Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Per that provision — invoked only once in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States — an armed attack on Greenland, an autonomous and self-governing territory under Danish sovereignty, would be considered an attack on the U.S. itself. 

Trump is right to seek control of Greenland before others do | Paul McCarthy

What’s more, the Danish government has been clear it is willing to discuss even deeper security cooperation with the U.S. in Greenland.

So the U.S. has no security reason for annexing or otherwise assuming direct control over Greenland. Even if China and Russia could somehow mount a military expedition to Greenland — and they can’t — they could not “take over” the island without triggering Article V of the NATO Treaty and provoking an American-led military response. 

The mooted economic rationale for acquiring Greenland makes just as little sense.

Greenland possesses significant reserves of rare-earth elements and other critical minerals. But it’s nowhere near the motherlode the Trump administration claims. Indeed, the island’s rare-earth reserves rank just below those of the U.S.

If American mining companies aren’t operating in Greenland, it’s because of a lack of interest, not a lack of access. It’s almost certainly cost-prohibitive to mine these minerals given the ice sheet that covers the island, the remoteness of the deposits and the near-absence of necessary mining infrastructure. 

Mining companies have easier prospects elsewhere.

Concern about possible Chinese attempts to corner the market for these resources does not justify an American attempt to seize Greenland. Such worries ought to motivate the U.S. to work more closely with Greenland’s democratic government, Denmark, NATO and the European Union to bar Chinese investment in Greenland’s critical minerals and infrastructure. More important, Western countries should invest more in Greenland. 

The U.S. shouldn't destroy these relationships in pursuit of presidential fantasies of territorial expansion. 

So why does Trump appear dead set on annexing Greenland?

Trump’s ego and personal vanity appear to be a major factor. The president told New York Times reporters that ownership of Greenland is what he feels “is psychologically needed for success.” Annexing Greenland, in other words, will make Trump feel like a big man — especially since he was denied the Nobel Peace Prize he thinks is his due. He also seems to find Greenland a tempting target because it looks “massive” on Mercator map projections that exaggerate the size of landmasses near the poles. 

Trump’s drive to take Greenland any way he can is a logical outgrowth of his gangster-style approach to the world. His apparent desire is to carve up the globe with his idol Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Chinese dictator Xi Jinping. 

Echoing Putin’s nauseating pre-war assertions that Ukraine should “bear with” the Kremlin’s brutal impending invasion “whether you like it or don’t like it,” Trump has vowed to “do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not.”

Congress can stop this insanity before it proceeds any further, but only if it grows the backbone needed to act.