No images? Click here
Securing Greenland and the Arctic
A week after the debate about Greenland’s status strained relations between the United States and its European allies, Secretary of State Marco Rubio struck a new tone. Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he testified that the negotiations between the US and Denmark were now happening professionally and privately. But after the White House’s public threat of forceful annexation, the damage to US influence had already been done.
President Donald Trump had, to that point, notched some successes in rallying fellow North Atlantic Treaty Organization nations to commit more resources for collective security. A key part of this is increasing European purchases of American weapons. Unfortunately, US weapons have become a much harder sell on the continent after the president raised the shocking prospect of Washington sending forces to seize a European NATO member’s territory.
Defenders of the administration’s Greenland strategy claim that Trump’s refusal to take military force off the table was merely a negotiating tactic. But the US did not need to carry a big stick with Denmark, which is already treaty-bound to allow Washington to maintain or expand the US military presence in Greenland. Still, the gravity of these threats necessitated a strong reaction from Denmark and its fellow European NATO members.
Another disappointing outcome of the Greenland fiasco is the way it siphoned media and diplomatic attention from the Trump administration’s remarkable success in extracting the illegitimate president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro. Rather than highlighting America’s unsurpassed military prowess, the narrative shifted toward the dangers of allying with Washington. With near-peer adversaries Russia and China watching closely, this was a massive missed opportunity to signal strength and unity and enhance deterrence.
The United States now needs to prioritize repairing trust across NATO and demonstrating a united front against these adversaries—especially as Russia and China increase their activities in the Arctic.
“The United States can secure our interests while negotiating with the Greenlanders, the Danes, and through NATO. . . . The Danes have been very pro-American allies for the United States. They fought alongside American marines in Afghanistan after September 11. When President Bush called on NATO to support us, they did. The Danes are right there with us. . . . We’ll see if President Trump can also get NATO allies to contribute more as well, so there’s greater burden-sharing in protecting the Arctic and boxing out not just the Russians—the Russians are all over the Arctic—but the Chinese as well. We want to make sure that those sea lanes stay open and free for the United States and our free, democratic allies.”
— Rebeccah Heinrichs
Director, Keystone Defense Initiative
Hudson Highlights
Liselotte Odgaard | Hudson Institute
“Russia’s China-enabled threat presents a homeland security concern to all of the US’s NATO allies in the Arctic and to its Japanese and South Korean allies in the North Pacific. However, the United States is the only Arctic nation whose interests span the entire Arctic region. . . . The US is in a strategic position to coordinate joint operational planning and acquisition plans to ensure that deterrence is effective across the Arctic and that its allies could defend themselves in full-scale warfare. . . . The allies need to mitigate the nuclear threat with additional early warning, tracking, and interception capabilities in eastern Greenland; a more robust satellite intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and targeting infrastructure; and more redundancy in allied space capabilities across the North Atlantic.”
Miles Yu | Washington Times
“The goal for China, roughly 900 miles south of the Arctic Circle, is to become a ‘polar great power’ by 2030. The purpose is familiar: Normalize Chinese presence now so influence and control feel inevitable later. . . . In a crisis, the Arctic is not merely about ships and ports; it is about trajectories. Polar routes are the most direct pathways for long-range strike systems, and Greenland sits near the seam connecting Eurasian launch corridors to North American targets. As adversaries coordinate, the threat envelope expands. . . . This is not abstract theorizing. It is visible in a pattern of attempted entry points across the Arctic region, marketed as benign commerce or science but with credible dual-use potential. . . . This dual-use logic matters because China, unlike Russia, possesses the economic and technological depth to operationalize Arctic dominance at scale.”
Luke Coffey | Arab News
“After many Arctic bases and military facilities were shuttered at the end of the Cold War, President Vladimir Putin has invested heavily in reopening, modernizing, and expanding these installations. In recent years, Russia has also fielded specialized military units designed to operate in extreme Arctic conditions. . . . From a security perspective, the accession of Finland and Sweden into NATO means that seven of the eight Arctic states now fall under the same security umbrella. For the first time, NATO itself has adopted a more direct and active role in the region. Still, the future of Arctic cooperation hinges on the growing competition and divisions among the great powers. . . . What must be avoided at all costs is allowing the Arctic to become the next theater of global conflict.”
Key Insights
Kori Schake | Council on Foreign Relations
“When the president of the United States says we have to have control over Greenland because that’s the only way we can be sure we would defend it, that undermines not just our pledge in 1917, in 1949, in 1951, to the government of Denmark, but it undercuts the commitment that we have made to our NATO allies. . . . The only way that the United States will get to the economy of scale economically, politically, or militarily to manage the security and economic challenges that China is posing for us and for other countries is if we act in concert with like-minded countries. . . . They will refuse to help us if we behave no different, and no better, than the bad guys like China and Russia.”
Marco Rubio | United States Department of State
“We believe that Europe must survive, because the two great wars of the last century serve for us as history’s constant reminder that ultimately, our destiny is and will always be intertwined with yours, because we know that the fate of Europe will never be irrelevant to our own. . . . So in a time of headlines heralding the end of the transatlantic era, let it be known and clear to all that this is neither our goal nor our wish. . . . We should be proud of what we achieved together in the last century, but now we must confront and embrace the opportunities of a new one—because yesterday is over, the future is inevitable, and our destiny together awaits.”
Heather Conley | Council on Foreign Relations
“When this conversation [on the status of Greenland] began back in 2019, Copenhagen and Nuuk were like, ‘Okay, we have these instruments. What do you want?’ And they heard silence. . . . We haven’t walked through that open door of welcoming more US military posture, economic posture. Now, we’ve built such great distrust because of our methods and our approach. . . . We had everything we wanted and now we’ve really harmed the trust and the credibility. . . . It’s broken, and people need to understand there’s a cost to breaking. And we’re going to see what that cost is as we start these negotiations.”
Robert Peters | Daily Signal
“Given Greenland’s strategic location, Trump’s interest is eminently rational—but the United States should address the valid security concerns raised by Trump without risking a breach with NATO. . . . The best near-term option is for the United States to sign an updated defense agreement with Denmark, one that updates the legal logic presented in the 1941 and 1951 agreements. . . . The updated agreement should formalize and expand US access to Greenland’s territory for military, space, maritime, and infrastructure purposes while reaffirming Greenland’s status as a self-governing territory that is part of Danish sovereignty. Such an agreement would pave the way for the United States to reopen shuttered military bases which would expand the US’ ability to detect Russian or Chinese maritime or air and missile threats to the homeland coming over the arctic pole.”
Daniel Fried | Atlantic Council
“The Trump administration might insist that an independent Greenland join with the United States in, for example, a compact of free association similar to US agreements with some of the smaller Pacific Island states. But a less fraught alternative might be to agree to apply the Defense of Greenland Agreement to an independent Greenland, if that were to happen, and to bring an independent Greenland into NATO. As a member of NATO, an independent Greenland would be in a position similar to Iceland, which has no military of its own but whose security has been assured by the alliance. Iceland is home to an air base that is an important asset for US force projection. . . . With counterpressure from Congress and European allies, the Trump administration may see the real opportunity to make a good deal without continuing down the risk-filled road to forced annexation.”
Top Reads
Most Americans Say “No” to Greenland Takeover, with Even Republicans Split: Poll
Paul Steinhauser | Fox News
Opposition to US Has Hardened in Western Europe after Greenland Threat, Poll Finds
Jon Henley | The Guardian
The World Is Hedging Its Bets
Hal Brands | Bloomberg
China Sees a Chance to Lure Jaded US Allies
Austin Ramzy | Wall Street Journal
Competing on the Periphery: A New Approach to the Arctic
Cody Stamm | National Institute for Public Policy
GOP Lawmakers Denounce Trump’s Threats to Seize Greenland
Connor O’Brien, Joe Gould, and Leo Shane III | Politico
Seventy-Six Percent in Greenland Oppose Becoming Part of US: Survey
Sophie Brams | The Hill
Most Americans Oppose Trump’s Push on Greenland, Poll Shows
Finya Swai | Politico
