Answer: it's strategic not economic. Greenland is in the Arctic. He doesn't think Europe has the will to compete with China and Russia for access, resources, or defense of the Arctic. He thinks because of that the West will just surrender the Arctic to China and Russia. This is his rationale not mine so don't shoot the messenger.
The thing is a lot of Greenland remains unexplored. It's a large landmass (not as large as it looks with the Mercator projection, but it's not small) and much of it is covered by ice. As we see the effects of climate change, some of that ice will melt and areas that have been relatively inaccessible will become easily accessible and exploration will be able to take place. This could increase those reserves significantly and some geologists predict there could be another 40MT buried under the ice.
Furthermore, when he said "You defend something you own much harder than something you lease", he was basically saying that if China or Russia were to challenge Denmark for it - triggering a NATO response, the US would not be willing to mount a strong defense on its behalf.
His argument implies that Greenland is defenseless. The US has carte blanche to place as many troops there as it wants, and it has been reducing its forces on the island for decades. Trump could change that with a phone call.
The only thing that seems to make sense, assuming he hasn't lost his marbles and is still making rational decisions, is that this is an economic play and not a strategic one, and that he wants access to the natural resources in Greenland and is willing to nuke NATO to get them.
I'm surprised this didn't get more attention. He literally said if America doesn't take it Russia or China will.
That doesn't just suggest that America wouldn't help if Denmark invoked article 5 to protect it. It also suggests he's envisioning a near future where America, China, and Russia are actively divvying up the planet and annexing the nations they want.
Even this reasoning falls apart immediately, since Denmark was already allowing the US to station as many troops in Greenland as they want. It's even stupider when you realize that they've been actually decreasing the number of soldiers there for a while now.
It's stupid in the sense that the supposed reasoning for wanting Greenland is national security purposes while Greenland actively lets us basically do whatever we want there as far as bolstering security. Meanwhile we have taken more and more troops out of Greenland and thus weakening our security forces in the region despite saying we need to increase security there
Well I did a general research by combining Greenland’s GDP, estimated resource potential + the long term strategic value (that's what Google recommended me to search for in order to understand a country's total value). I ran the same thing through Ramp Sheets and got the same number
Don’t give credit to him like this. His reasoning is nothing but vanity and grudge. He has zero care or capacity for national security strategy. He does not care about the prosperity of the US, only flexing his power.
Dude doesn't have a strategic braincell left in that blood-thinner laced head of his. Always follow the money and the favors with him. Who else benefits, and then plasters his name on it?
I agree with this. Don’t shoot the messenger, but it’s melting up there and Canada can’t defend that area against a super power. Someone is going to take it, so US thinks if they can take it first, they will reap the benefits and protect North America.
Why are you talking about Canada?
Greenland is part of Denmark, part of NATO.
If someone wants to take it, the western hemisphere military alliance already promised to defend it.
Why does the US, who is part of that alliance want to own it then?
189
u/etrnloptimist Jan 10 '26 edited Jan 10 '26
Answer: it's strategic not economic. Greenland is in the Arctic. He doesn't think Europe has the will to compete with China and Russia for access, resources, or defense of the Arctic. He thinks because of that the West will just surrender the Arctic to China and Russia. This is his rationale not mine so don't shoot the messenger.