\n
<\/p>\n
When U.S. President Donald Trump first discussed<\/a> purchasing Greenland in his first term, the concept was seen as only semi-serious. National security leaders in Washington recognized the strategic importance of the Danish territory but also accepted that the island was clearly not for sale. Now, a year into his second term, Trump has made increasingly clear once again his desire for the United States to acquire Greenland\u2014with or without Denmark\u2019s consent.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s comments, while alarming and widely condemned<\/a> by European leaders, disguise a bigger problem: The United States lacks a coherent strategy for the Arctic region, and attempting to take control of Greenland is not a viable substitute for one. Instead of threatening annexation, Washington should expand its cooperation with partners and allies in the region and scale up its defense and civilian infrastructure investments.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n When U.S. President Donald Trump first discussed<\/a> purchasing Greenland in his first term, the concept was seen as only semi-serious. National security leaders in Washington recognized the strategic importance of the Danish territory but also accepted that the island was clearly not for sale. Now, a year into his second term, Trump has made increasingly clear once again his desire for the United States to acquire Greenland\u2014with or without Denmark\u2019s consent.<\/p>\n Trump\u2019s comments, while alarming and widely condemned<\/a> by European leaders, disguise a bigger problem: The United States lacks a coherent strategy for the Arctic region, and attempting to take control of Greenland is not a viable substitute for one. Instead of threatening annexation, Washington should expand its cooperation with partners and allies in the region and scale up its defense and civilian infrastructure investments.<\/p>\n The Arctic grows in importance even as the ice shrinks. Melting ice means that Arctic sea routes will become<\/a> increasingly navigable for ships, even without icebreaking capabilities. At the same time, the region is home to substantial natural resources, with the U.S. Geological Survey estimating<\/a> that the Arctic is home to 13 percent of the world\u2019s undiscovered conventional oil and 30 percent of undiscovered conventional gas resources. Greenland is also home<\/a> to substantial reserves of critical minerals, in high demand as Western nations have started to recognize China\u2019s control of these resources.<\/p>\n Russia and China are growing their own presence in the region. Moscow has long invested in the region, where it maintains<\/a> 12 military bases and 16 deep-water ports<\/a>. Russia is also the only<\/a> country in the world with a nuclear-powered icebreaker fleet, currently numbering eight ships, and aims to add more. China is also increasing its presence in the Arctic, working<\/a> with Russia to develop designs for a year-round container ship capable of transiting the Arctic.<\/p>\n Beijing currently operates<\/a> three icebreakers, allowing China to undertake dual-use civil-military research activities across the Arctic. The Arctic is also a critical region for protecting the U.S. homeland, and radar systems operated by the United States and Canada via the North American Aerospace Defense Command provide Washington and Ottawa the ability to defend the continent.<\/p>\n Seeking access to resources, shipping routes, and countering Russia and China are all reasonable goals for Washington to achieve in the Arctic. However, seizing Greenland does little to further them. Instead, Trump\u2019s repeated comments are undermining U.S. relations with Denmark, a key NATO ally, and with Greenland itself. Washington already operates a military base in Greenland, Pituffik Space Base<\/a>, and U.S. rare-earth processing and magnet firms have signed<\/a> nonbinding agreements with a company that operates a critical mineral deposit in Greenland.<\/p>\n The United States can increase its military presence and economic investments on the island without annexation; indeed, Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen stated<\/a> in late December that \u201cthere is no obstacle to the United States increasing security in the Arctic on Greenlandic territory if they wish to do so.\u201d The 1951 Greenland defense agreement<\/a> signed by Denmark and the United States allows Washington to build new bases across the island, in addition to the existing base at Pituffik. Furthermore, the Greenlandic government has already moved<\/a> to block Chinese investments on the island, responding to U.S. pressure to do so, and denying Beijing an opportunity to expand its Arctic footprint.<\/p>\n Denmark, of which Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory, has increased cooperation with the United States, and last year its parliament signed<\/a> a bill allowing the U.S. military to construct bases on Danish soil. The deal allows the United States to keep a military presence in Europe and allows for easy access to Northern Europe. But Copenhagen has made clear that this agreement could<\/a> be terminated if Trump moves to annex all or parts of Greenland.<\/p>\n A similar dynamic is unfolding<\/a> among the Icebreaker Collaboration Effort (ICE) Pact members. The ICE Pact is a trilateral deal among Canada, Finland, and the United States to combine knowledge and resources to build Arctic and polar icebreakers. Despite close coordination<\/a> among the three nations, Trump\u2019s comments about making Canada the \u201c51st state\u201d have led to a majority of Canadians now seeing<\/a> the United States as a negative force in the world and the Globe and Mail<\/em> to publish an editorial titled<\/a>, \u201cVenezuela\u2019s fate is a warning for Canada.\u201d<\/p>\n Canada is now reconsidering<\/a> its purchase of U.S.-made F-35s and is looking<\/a> to new defense and security partnerships outside of the United States. As with Greenland and Denmark, Canada has been a willing and cooperative partner with the United States on Arctic security matters and is critical to the continued shared responsibility for the defense of North America. Statements about seizing territory will not bring Canada, Denmark, and Greenland closer to the United States; if anything, it will push them further away.<\/p>\n One country that the Trump administration does seem to be considering partnering with is Russia, where a potential<\/a> peace deal in Ukraine may lead to joint Russian-U.S. economic activities in the Arctic. But any sort of partnership in the Arctic will leave the United States the junior partner; Russia already has extensive civilian and military infrastructure across the region that it uses to exploit resources and stake its claim. Instead of partnering with Moscow, the United States should turn to its NATO allies and other partners to realize its commercial interests in the Arctic. Greenland, Canada, and others are all signaling a willingness to increase their investment and commercial activities in the region, and Washington would be smart to partner with them over Russia.<\/p>\n Trump should focus on areas where he has already had success, including in pushing for allies and partners to take on an increased burden in Arctic defense and security. Last month, Canada pledged<\/a> 1 billion Canadian dollars over four years to improve dual-use infrastructure across the region. In October, Denmark pledged<\/a> $4.2 billion in extra spending to bolster security in the Arctic and North Atlantic, including Greenland. Washington should also focus on its own Arctic territory; recent investments in Alaskan civilian and defense infrastructure announced<\/a> via the National Defense Authorization Act are an encouraging step.<\/p>\n Outside of increased spending, close cooperation with other Arctic states and a shared understanding of the threats posed by adversaries in the region will be crucial to strengthening defense. Here, collaborations such as the ICE Pact and the basing of U.S. military personnel in Greenland will be crucial to deterring Russia and China in the Arctic. More of these collaborations should be explored, but Trump\u2019s threats are wrecking these agreements.<\/p>\n In its approach to the Arctic region, the Biden administration released a defense strategy that called<\/a> for enhancing the capabilities of the Joint Force in the Arctic, engaging with partners and local officials, and exercising presence across the region. Trump would be well served to build on the strong, coherent strategic framework started in the Biden administration. A coherent strategy will produce better returns than wild threats.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n