Greenland and Trump’s strategy to deal with China and Russia
President Trump has renewed U.S. interest in Greenland to counter Chinese and Russian influence in the Arctic.
In a nutshell
- Greenland’s strategic location in the Arctic is vital for U.S. national security
- Sustainable economic growth in Greenland requires U.S. support
- A collaborative approach is essential to maintain NATO unity
- For comprehensive insights, tune into our AI-powered podcast here
Odds are that United States President Donald Trump’s dramatic announcement of his interest in Greenland – as well as Canada and the Panama Canal, for that matter – was intended for an audience of one: Chinese President Xi Jinping. Through rhetoric and action, the American president aimed to send an unequivocal message that he would not let China encroach on key strategic points that would threaten the national security of the U.S.
In practice, President Trump’s attention is a preemptive act to avoid potential future confrontations reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 or the invasion of Grenada in 1983. It is important to consider his motives and the varied responses from allies and adversaries, which reveal their perspectives on his new assertion of global leadership.
Facts & figures
Greenland’s strategic importance for the U.S.
Understanding Trump’s Arctic strategy
President Trump’s foreign policy is consistently grounded in assessing U.S. interests. Greenland and Iceland have long been crucial strategic links in the transatlantic bridge, a region that has been significant to America since it rose as a transatlantic power during World War I.
Greenland, a semi-autonomous Danish territory located between the Arctic Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean, has been geopolitically important to the U.S. and NATO allies since the Cold War. One of the most important bases of the U.S. Air Force is in Thule on Greenland’s northwestern coast. It serves as a crucial defense line against missile threats and submarine activities. Climate change is melting sea ice, increasing the Arctic’s strategic significance as new shipping routes emerge, offering shorter passages between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.
Throughout history, Washington has acted quickly to secure access to Greenland whenever U.S. vital interests have been at stake. At the onset of World War II, American President Franklin Roosevelt prioritized Greenland’s security as a prerequisite for fighting and winning the Battle of the Atlantic (1939-1945). The battle was the longest continuous military campaign of World War II, fought for control of crucial Atlantic sea routes. During the Cold War, U.S. dominance effectively prevented any serious maritime challenge from the Soviet Union, thus safeguarding the transatlantic bridge.
With the end of the Cold War, the U.S. saw few threats to the security of the transatlantic bridge and Washington’s attention waned. In 2006, for instance, the U.S. relinquished its control of the military base in Keflavik, Iceland. However, in light of recent growing and aggressive Russian submarine activity, NATO forces, particularly from the U.S., have increased maritime security operations, employing forces from both Greenland and Iceland. Additionally, NATO countries have become increasingly alarmed by issues surrounding illegal fishing activities in these waters.
The rising threats: Russia, China and the future of Greenland
Several factors come together to explain why Mr. Trump decided to take an assertive approach toward Greenland right at the beginning of his presidency.
First, the increasingly clear encroachment of Russia, China and Iran in the Western Hemisphere is becoming evident, especially as their actions press closer to vital strategic points. When the Trump administration took office in 2017, little attention had been given to Arctic affairs by the previous White House. Subsequently, the National Security Council, particularly Coast Guard Admiral Doug Fears, brought the expanding activities of Russia and China in the Arctic to the president’s attention.
This prompted several initiatives, including President Trump’s bold suggestion to “buy Greenland” in 2019. Although the U.S. did not acquire Greenland, it intensified its interest in the region. This was highlighted by the reopening of the U.S. consulate in the capital city Nuuk, which was the result of efforts by U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Carla Sands. It should come as no surprise that President Trump would see the security of Greenland as unfinished business upon his return to office in 2025. It should be noted that last week, Russia and the U.S. discussed possible collaboration on energy projects in the Arctic. This development could have significant long-term effects on energy, geopolitics and international cooperation in the region.
Second, Greenland stands at a critical crossroads domestically as it prepares for its parliamentary elections in March. There may be a decision made during or after these elections on whether to move forward with a referendum on independence from Denmark. Greenland faces significant economic and social challenges, with the lowest per capita disposable income in the Arctic region, second only to Russia and less than a third of Alaska’s. Beyond poverty, the territory is grappling with social issues, particularly among the indigenous population, such as inadequate housing and limited access to quality education and economic opportunities.
Furthermore, the territory has become a point of contention in the ongoing competition among great powers. Despite Copenhagen’s recent pledge to boost security spending there by 2 billion euros, Denmark lacks the financial and military resources to adequately guarantee the security of Greenland amid rising threats. The island now faces a momentous decision over its security and prosperity as President Trump aims to insert the U.S. in this situation.
Third, China’s encroachments into the Western Hemisphere, particularly in the Arctic region, dramatically accelerated during Joe Biden’s presidency. This includes establishing research stations, increasing fishing activities and investing in mining projects in the High North. Mr. Trump had an opportunity to dramatically and publicly put Beijing on notice. It was no coincidence that President Trump’s attention on Greenland coincided with proclamations on the Panama Canal, where Chinese companies hold significant influence, as well as cracking down on fentanyl trafficking linked to the regime in Beijing. Through these moves, he was signaling his intent to confront the aggressive behaviors that the Biden administration appeared to overlook while ameliorating tensions between Washington and Beijing.
Read more from James Jay Carafano
- Counterterrorism returns as a top U.S. priority
- A possible Saudi Arabia-Israel-United States triangle
- The American factor in EU reform
Fourth, the transatlantic bridge remains a vital interest for the U.S. because Europe’s security is also a key priority. President Trump early last year stated that the U.S. will “100 percent” stay in NATO during his leadership and work for a free and independent Ukraine that can defend itself, provided that European nations “play fair.” To be sure, Mr. Trump’s more recent moves to negotiate directly with Moscow while fully excluding both Europe and Ukraine, cast some doubts about his earlier promises. He has long emphasized that he expects European allies to step up their efforts to strengthen their defense capabilities.
Leaders in Greenland seem willing to work with the Trump administration to reach an equitable solution. For instance, in January, Greenland’s Prime Minister Mute Egede expressed that the territory is open to bolstering its defense and mining ties with the U.S., but it wants to do so on its terms.
Global response
The world’s reactions to Mr. Trump’s controversial positions are generally negative.
Global media. Many traditional media outlets remain reflexively anti-Trump. This was evident in their knee-jerk coverage of the president’s actions and their analysis of the factors influencing the situation.
Trump skeptics. Many Europeans and Latin Americans, including long-standing friends and allies, perceive President Trump as threatening and disruptive. They view the Greenland controversy as confirmation of their worries. Critics accuse him of bullying Denmark and acting like an imperialist, suggesting that his behavior and refusal to rule out an American military intervention to take Greenland was akin to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s intimidation of Taiwan. Germany and France have cautioned Donald Trump against efforts to “shift borders through force.”
Trump champions. Unlike during his first term, there is now a noticeable increase in skepticism toward media perceived as anti-Trump and the president’s critics in both Europe and Latin America. In Canada, Northern Europe and Latin America, the president’s view that China’s activities in the Western Hemisphere could threaten stability resonate with many. Furthermore, concerns persist regarding Chinese and Russian endeavors in the High North, which may disrupt trade, hinder economic development, undermine security and encroach on national sovereignty. Consequently, these countries are less inclined to accept the narratives presented by the media and the opinions of friendly allied nations about the potential dangers and destabilizing effects of President Trump’s actions.
Scenarios
Likely: Collaborative path ahead for U.S. and Greenland
The most likely scenario is that the U.S. and Greenland will reach a mutually agreeable outcome, which would gain approval from the U.S. Congress and could be supported in Ottawa if Canadian elections in March yield a conservative government supportive of policies espoused by the Trump administration.
It is unlikely that the Greenland situation will create a significant divide within NATO. Its member states recognize the importance of having the U.S. as the primary security guarantor. To be sure, Greenland is a territory of NATO member Denmark, and the U.S. and other NATO members will need to consider this as events develop.
Unlikely: Nothing will change
The status quo is unlikely because it would not address Greenlanders’ long-term needs and concerns. The U.S. could play a key role in both areas. Perhaps most importantly, Washington can bolster the long-term security of Greenlanders, reducing the chances of harmful activities from either China or Russia.
Least likely: China will outbid the U.S. and “buy” Greenland
The least probable outcome is that China will intervene and outbid the U.S. as the territory is not even up for sale. Beijing has sought to establish a presence in Greenland but has not achieved success. Currently, the only direct Chinese presence in Greenland consists of migrant workers engaged in the fishing industry. Regarding China’s involvement in mining and infrastructure projects, most initiatives have either been stalled or abandoned.
Contact us today for tailored geopolitical insights and industry-specific advisory services.
Sign up for our newsletter
Receive insights from our experts every week in your inbox.
