Why Greenland is more important to the US than ever
10 A statue of Norwegian missionary Hans Egede in Nuuk, the Capital and largest city in Greenland — which has become one of the most hotly-contested piece of land on the planet since the return of Donald Trump to the White House.
robertharding – stock.adobe.com
By connecting the US to Greenland, which Trump has vowed to annex 'one way or another,' its flight demystified the Arctic island for ordinary Americans. Greenland is not some inaccessible fantasyland. It is, in fact, closer to New York than it is to Denmark, which colonized Greenland in the 18th century. The preservation of Danish sovereignty over Greenland has now become a matter of honor for European leaders exasperated by Trump's menacing taunts.
Advertisement
The United Airlines flight to Nuuk was followed, a day later, by an aircraft carrying Emmanuel Macron. 'The situation in Greenland is clearly a wake-up call for all Europeans,' the French president declared in the presence of Danish and Greenlandic leaders. Macron described the threat to Greenland as a warning for all Europe.
10 The Pituffik Space Base in Greenland, one of the most important strategic military asset under US control in the Arctic region.
via REUTERS
But why, in the first place, does Trump covet this piece of Arctic real estate? His interest in Greenland — he offered to buy it in his first term — is animated by an obsession with the rewards of owning it. Situated between North America and Europe, Greenland is a linchpin for monitoring Russian missile launches and naval movements through the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap, a vital Atlantic choke point. The biggest military installation there, the Cold War-era Pituffik Space Base, is already owned by the US. Security, however, is one aspect of Trump's fixation. The president is also drawn to the overabundant natural resources — from precious minerals to an estimated 17.5 billion barrels of oil and 148 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — that Greenland, citing climate change, refuses to exploit.
Advertisement
10 Greenland is a source of 'strategic wealth' for Denmark says author and academic Dr. Elizabeth Buchanan.
aspi.org
Lest anybody doubt his intent to take Greenland, Trump dispatched his vice president to the island in March. JD Vance excoriated Denmark for failing to keep Greenland safe, criticized its stewardship and pitched American control as an opportunity for the locals. His trip was followed by leaks of White House plans to move Greenland's oversight from US European Command to Northern Command, framing it as integral to American, not European, defense.
Greenland's history with Denmark could potentially bolster Trump's efforts. Colonized in the 18th century, it was a Danish possession until 1953, when it was integrated into the Kingdom of Denmark. Home rule came in 1979, and it was not until 2009 that the Self-Government Act granted expanded autonomy to the locals over their domestic affairs.
10 French Pres. Emmanuel Macron greeting local Greenlanders during his visit to the island on June 15.
AP
Advertisement
Copenhagen still controls foreign policy and defense. Greenlanders — overwhelmingly descended from Inuit populations that migrated from North America in the 1200s — chafe under Danish control, and many favor independence. What keeps them tethered to Denmark are the subsidies that finance half their budget. Greenlanders are technically allowed an independence referendum, but it is subject to Danish approval — a sticking point for leaders who aspire to self-rule.
Trump's pressure has barely scratched the surface of this tension. Dr. Elizabeth Buchanan, a senior fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and a fellow at the Modern War Institute at West Point Military Academy, says that the 'US has not engaged in emotional warfare yet.' Officials in the Trump administration could profit from reading her forthcoming book, 'So You Want to Own Greenland: Lessons from Vikings to Trump,' which explains the contest for Greenland without omitting the perspective of the Greenlanders.
10 Passengers deplaning from the first United Airlines flight from Newark to Nuuk Airport on June 14.
Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images
'Strategically picking at the wounds of Danish colonial politics and [its] abhorrent generational effects' on Greenland has not yet begun, she notes. For all its lofty rhetoric, Denmark is not holding on to Greenland for the benefit of the Greenlanders. The island, as Dr Buchanan notes, is a source of 'strategic wealth' for Denmark; without it, Copenhagen would be measurably worse off.
Advertisement
None of this means Greenlanders are desperate to be governed from Washington. Privately, officials in the local government enumerate the benefits of being subsumed into the United States. But shaped by a history of being the objects of great power competition, they are wary of swapping one foreign overlord for another. What they most want, as a Nuuk-based historian told me, is to 'experience true freedom, real sovereignty.' Even those who are open to the idea of a union with the United States are put off by the way President Trump has gone about it.
A Greenlandic academic put it acidly: 'Trump is interested in Greenland. He doesn't give a f–k about Greenlanders.'
10 Donald Trump, Jr. paid a provocative visit to Greenland at the height of his father's bluster just before Pres. Trump inauguration in early January.
Donald Trump Jr / Instagram
Denmark is no saint among nations — it was an ugly imperial power that oppressed Greenland's natives and maintained colonies from the Americas to India — and its florid proclamations about the sanctity of sovereignty are somewhat undermined by its recent history of enthusiastic participation in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as part of George W. Bush's 'coalition of the willing.'
But it is also this very association that makes the rift between Washington and Copenhagen so surreal. A NATO member since 1949, Denmark has fought alongside America in Baghdad and Afghanistan, while hosting US forces at Pituffik since 1941. Together, the two countries blocked a Chinese bid for a Greenland naval base in 2017. But this partnership, a NATO bedrock forged in trust and prized by successive American administrations, is rapidly unravelling under Trump. Greenlanders are again caught in the crossfire of conflict between big powers.
The spectacle of the US threatening annexation in Europe is staggering to those who grew up under the umbrella of American protection. Since 1945, Washington has championed sovereignty and alliances on the continent, not territorial grabs. European leaders are livid.
10 The iconic Trump jet on the tarmac during Donald Trump, Jr's visit in January of this year.
Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images
Macron's visit in June was a calibrated demonstration of 'European unity' against Trump's designs. Even Macron's political rivals endorse his action. Greenland's defense 'must concern all Europeans,' says André Rougé, a member of the European Parliament and a leading light of the nationalist Rassemblement National. Rougé is keen to emphasize that this issue 'transcends partisan divides' in France.
Advertisement
Macron is the last great liberal politician on the continent — a man who, for all his flashes of hubris and impulsiveness, has a profound understanding of the perils facing Europe. But will he really race to defend Denmark's territorial integrity if Trump decides to seize Greenland? 'Let me tell you very directly that you're not alone,' Macron assured Danes and Greenlanders. This was a well-intentioned platitude. In truth, all the noise about solidarity can scarcely conceal the fact that NATO was audibly silent about Greenland at its annual summit last month at The Hague. 'The sheer effort to tell the world 'everything is fine' points to the fact that NATO will avoid at all costs any issues that undermine the precious veneer of resolve and unity it currently has,' says Dr. Buchanan.
10 Greenland's defense 'must concern all Europeans,' says André Rougé, a member of the European Parliament.
Courtesy of André Rougé
Picture a scenario in which Denmark, facing an invasion by US troops, triggers Article 5 — the mechanism meant to compel NATO members to mobilize a collective defense of an ally under attack. What then? NATO, predicated on mutual defense, will be confronted with an intra-alliance conflict.
This is not novel — Turkey and Greece have fought in Cyprus.
Advertisement
But a war of annexation waged against a NATO member by the United States, the alliance's anchor, would be unprecedented. NATO members will for the most part urge de-escalation. Some states may be tempted to put on a show of token support for Denmark. But there will be no serious 'military intervention' against America, says Professor Jeremy Black, a prolific historian of Europe. Instead, any coercive US action against Greenland will destroy the very idea of 'being allied to America.'
10 There is little doubt that NATO do everything possible to avoid any sort of military confrontation over Greenland. Picture of NATO-member leaders at The Hague on June 24.
Getty Images
The post-war order will face certain ruin. The taboo against aligning with Russia and China will be impossible to sustain. Beijing may come to be regarded as a potential reinforcer of European security and some states may forge open alliances with Moscow and Beijing. Washington will gain Greenland, along with the resentment of its people for being snatched by force. It will permanently squander its already diminishing dominance in Europe and the world.
Trump's craving for Greenland is not without precedent: The US sought to purchase the island on at least two occasions in the 20th century. What is different today is that America already enjoys primacy in Greenland through its military base and pacts with Denmark, a longstanding ally of Washington. Minerals and shipping lanes are eminently negotiable without the use force. Annexation would alienate Greenlanders, most of whom demonstrated their contempt for the idea of US rule by boycotting Vance during his March visit. Governing a hostile population would drain, not gain, resources.
Advertisement
10 European political historian and author Jeremy Black says there is little likelihood of military intervention against the US if it were to attempt a Greenland take-over. http://www.universalnewsandsport.com
Trump's claim that for American security 'we can't' do without Greenland ignores reality: America already 'has' Greenland. And anything else it wants is achievable, within reason, through conversation, not conquest. Greenlanders are eager to deepen their relationship with the US — as friends, not subjects.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Engadget
28 minutes ago
- Engadget
The Stop Killing Games initiative has hit a major milestone, but the fight's just begun
A petition to preserve video game access recently achieved an important milestone of one million signatures, but it has two more challenges to overcome before reaching the final level. The "Stop Killing Games" movement reached a million votes earlier this month, meaning the European Union will have to consider adopting legislation addressing this issue. However, the petition first has to deal with the threat of potentially fake signatures and the resistance from major game studios and publishers. The Stop Killing Games initiative, created by Ross Scott, aims to pass new laws to ensure that video games still run even when developer support ends. The petition was a direct response to when Ubisoft delisted The Crew from online stores, shut down the game's servers in 2024, and revoked licenses from players who bought the game. Scott and other critics felt Ubisoft's actions set a dangerous precedent for gamers who may lose access to their purchased games at a developer's whim. Even though there are enough signatures to move to the next step, Scott explained in a YouTube video that many of these may have been incorrectly filled out, while others could have been falsely submitted. The movement's founder said, "This is not a petition, this is a government process," adding that "spoofing signatures on it is a crime." To ensure enough legitimate signatures are collected, Scott said that there needs to be at least 10 percent more to cover the potentially invalid ones. As of July 6, the petition has earned more than 1.2 million signatures. Beyond the signatures, a European advocacy group that includes major gaming studios and publishers like Electronic Arts, Microsoft and Nintendo released a statement opposing the movement. "Private servers are not always a viable alternative option for players as the protections we put in place to secure players' data, remove illegal content, and combat unsafe community content would not exist and would leave rights holders liable," the statement read. "In addition, many titles are designed from the ground-up to be online-only; in effect, these proposals would curtail developer choice by making these video games prohibitively expensive to create." In a longer report, the Video Games Europe group said that this initiative would "raise the costs and risks of developing such games," create a "chilling effect on game design" and "act as a disincentive to making such games available in Europe."
Los Angeles Times
29 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Crew abandons Liberian-flagged, Greek-owned ship attacked in the Red Sea, UK military says
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Crew members aboard a Liberian-flagged ship set ablaze by a series of attacks in the Red Sea abandoned the vessel Sunday night as it took on water, marking the first serious assault in the vital corridor for trade after a monthslong campaign by Yemen's Houthi rebels there. Suspicion for the attack on the Greek-owned bulk carrier Magic Seas immediately fell on the Houthis, particularly as a security firm said it appeared bomb-carrying drone boats hit the ship after it was targeted by small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. The rebels' media reported on the attack but did not claim it. It can take them hours or even days before they acknowledge an assault. A renewed Houthi campaign against shipping could again draw in U.S. and Western forces to the area, particularly after President Trump targeted the rebels in a major airstrike campaign. And it comes at a sensitive moment in the Middle East, as a possible ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war hangs in the balance and as Iran weighs whether to restart negotiations over its nuclear program following American airstrikes targeting its most-sensitive atomic sites amid an Israeli war against the Islamic Republic. 'It likely serves as a message that the Houthis continue to possess the capability and willingness to strike at strategic maritime targets regardless of diplomatic developments,' wrote Mohammad al-Basha, a Yemen analyst at the Basha Report risk advisory firm. The British military's United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center first said that an armed security team on the unidentified vessel had returned fire against an initial attack and that the 'situation is ongoing.' It described the attack as happening some 100 kilometers (60 miles) southwest of Hodeida, Yemen, which is held by the country's Houthi rebels. 'Authorities are investigating,' it said. It later said the ship was on fire after being 'struck by unknown projectiles.' Ambrey, a private maritime security firm, issued an alert saying that a merchant ship had been 'attacked by eight skiffs while transiting northbound in the Red Sea.' Ambrey later said the ship also had been attacked by bomb-carrying drone boats, which could mark a major escalation. It said two drone boats struck the ship, while another two had been destroyed by the armed guards on board. The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center said the ship was taking on water and its crew had abandoned the vessel. The U.S. Navy's Mideast-based 5th Fleet referred questions to the military's Central Command, which said it was aware of the incident without elaborating. Moammar al-Eryani, the information minister for Yemen's exiled government opposing the Houthis, identified the vessel attacked as the Magic Seas and blamed the rebels for the attack. The ship had been broadcasting it had an armed security team on board in the vicinity the attack took place and had been heading north. 'The attack also proves once again that the Houthis are merely a front for an Iranian scheme using Yemen as a platform to undermine regional and global stability, at a time when Tehran continues to arm the militia and provide it with military technology, including missiles, aircraft, drones, and sea mines,' al-Eryani wrote on the social platform X. The Magic Seas' owners did not respond to a request for comment. The Houthi rebels have been launching missile and drone attacks against commercial and military ships in the region in what the group's leadership has described as an effort to end Israel's offensive against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The group's al-Masirah satellite news channel acknowledged the attack occurred, but offered no other comment on it as it aired a speech by its secretive leader, Abdul Malik al-Houthi. However, Ambrey said the vessel targeted met 'the established Houthi target profile,' without elaborating. Between November 2023 and January 2025, the Houthis targeted more than 100 merchant vessels with missiles and drones, sinking two of them and killing four sailors. That has greatly reduced the flow of trade through the Red Sea corridor, which typically sees $1 trillion of goods move through it annually. The Houthis paused attacks in a self-imposed ceasefire until the U.S. launched a broad assault against the rebels in mid-March. That ended weeks later and the Houthis haven't attacked a vessel, though they have continued occasional missile attacks targeting Israel. On Sunday, the group claimed launching a missile at Israel which the Israeli military said it intercepted. Shipping through the Red Sea, while still lower than normal, has increased in recent weeks. Meanwhile, a wider, decadelong war in Yemen between the Houthis and the country's exiled government, backed by a Saudi-led coalition, remains in a stalemate. The Yemeni Coast Guard, which is loyal to the exiled government, has engaged in a firefight with at least one vessel in the Red Sea in the past as well. Pirates from Somalia also have operated in the region, though typically they've sought to capture vessels either to rob or ransom their crews. But neither the Yemeni Coast Guard nor the pirates have been known to use drone boats in their attacks. Gambrell writes for the Associated Press.
The Hill
33 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's trade brinkmanship imperils market stability
As the United States and China inch toward formalizing the outcomes of their recent economic talks in London, markets are sending a clear signal: they want stability, not another season of tariff theatrics. Yet the Trump administration's renewed protectionist tilt, including the looming July 9 deadline for punitive tariffs, risks derailing a fragile recovery and undermining American economic resilience. The London meetings followed a call between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, culminating in a framework that would resume China's rare earth exports and ease U.S. trade restrictions. It's an imperfect deal, but it reflects an important truth: Economic coercion has failed to deliver strategic outcomes. Markets, manufacturers and consumers are all still paying the price of the last trade war. Rare earths remain a critical node in this standoff. China refines nearly 80 percent of the global supply — inputs essential to American electric vehicles, semiconductors and defense technologies. When Beijing halted export approvals earlier this year, U.S. manufacturers faced mounting delays and soaring input costs. The reversal eases a significant bottleneck and offers inflation relief. In exchange, China will regain access to U.S. manufacturing inputs and regulatory clarity — a win for both sides, but especially for U.S. firms squeezed by global supply chain frictions. Rare-earth dynamics further reinforce the stakes. China's June 26 pledge to resume rare-earth shipments to the U.S. triggered a sharp rally in domestic producers. Meanwhile, export volumes from China had fallen nearly 50 percent year-over-year in May, citing tightened controls. Those disruptions directly impacted U.S. electric makers and aerospace supply chains. In this context, the tentative deal on rare-earths licensing isn't a niche victory — it's a strategic pivot that underscores: markets reward policy clarity, even in geopolitically charged commodity markets. Yet the calm is temporary. Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariff framework proposes up to 50 percent duties on countries that fail to sign new bilateral deals by July 9. A 90-day grace period has been offered, but this is brinkmanship disguised as strategy. And if the deadline passes without a broader deal, the tariffs snap back — with potentially damaging ripple effects. The last trade escalation offers a cautionary tale. Tariffs on Chinese goods hit 145 percent; Beijing responded with levies up to 125 percent. American manufacturers endured record costs, while exporters in both countries lost access to reliable markets. The U.S. goods trade deficit with China didn't shrink — it widened to $396 billion in 2024. Meanwhile, American farmers faced oversupply, and consumers bore the burden through higher prices. U.S. equities have responded to this nascent trade detente with enthusiasm. The S&P 500 ETF recently hit $615, brushing off earlier tariff jitters. Meanwhile, traders have rotated into commodities, with copper futures climbing nearly 3 percent in late June, reflecting expectations of stronger industrial demand under clearer supply logistics. Even gold has softened from conflict-driven highs. Markets are signaling that certainty matters — not tariff theatrics. The contrast is clear: a modest trade framework sparks calm; tariff threats inject volatility. That is the heartbeat investors care about. The global spillover from trade tensions was immediate. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, World Bank and International Monetary Fund all downgraded growth forecasts, citing the uncertainty created by revived trade barriers. Investor sentiment plunged. Only now, as trade talks signal détente, has the S&P 500 rallied and oil futures stabilized. Markets know the difference between real strategy and performative populism. So do the businesses that depend on open trade. Trump's tariffs didn't reshore factories or rebalance the trade deficit. What they did do was erode U.S. credibility with allies, invite World Trade Organization scrutiny and distort global supply chains. If the objective was to discipline China's behavior, the evidence shows failure. What has worked — albeit modestly — is targeted cooperation, regulatory certainty and consistent enforcement of existing rules. The current agreement is a pragmatic step forward. It restores supply chain continuity for U.S. firms, removes ambiguity for global investors, and signals that economic diplomacy still matters. It also nudges U.S. trade policy back toward rational engagement after years of unilateral theatrics. Legal uncertainty still clouds the picture. A recent federal court ruling in V.O.S. Selections v. United States raises questions about whether the White House even has the authority to implement broad-based tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. If the decision is upheld, it will undercut the legal rationale for Trump's tariff agenda — and perhaps prompt overdue congressional clarity on trade powers. The broader lesson is clear: economic interdependence isn't weakness — it's leverage. The U.S. and China will remain strategic competitors, but durable competition requires rules, not impulsive penalty regimes that backfire on domestic producers. If this new framework holds, it won't mark the end of rivalry — but it could mark the beginning of a more coherent doctrine of economic statecraft. One that recognizes that markets punish uncertainty, and that protectionism is not a patriotic virtue but an economic deadweight. For now, Washington would do well to recognize what the S&P already has: stability is strength. And the best way to keep markets calm is not through tariffs — but through smart, disciplined diplomacy. Imran Khalid is a physician and has a master's degree in international relations.
