The Greenland boondoggle
Towards the end of my last column that dealt with Venezuela, I wrote the following: “If the administration gets bogged down in other geopolitical controversies (namely a very stupid and sophomoric showdown over Greenland), then Trump could very well be snatching permanent defeat from the jaws of current victory.” In the three weeks since that column’s publication, the Trump administration went pedal to the metal over Greenland. Frankly, it’s hard to write about an unfolding geopolitical event the direction of which is often shifted immediately by posts on Truth Social. Now that the dust has largely settled, the entire controversy over Greenland seems to be a needless self-inflicted distraction at best or an embarrassment at worst.
Before delving into a polemic against the Trump administration, it is important to recognize that the arguments over an increased U.S. military buildup in Greenland aren’t without merit. Greenland sits at a vital chokepoint in the Atlantic that could provide early warning/listening stations against Russian submarines. This is increasingly important as Moscow has looked to the Arctic in recent years as an emerging region of economic and military competition. More so, as the Trump administration seriously looks into enhanced missile defense projects (namely its “Golden Dome” initiative), Greenland will undoubtedly be a crucial part of that puzzle.
My current ire, however, stems from the fact that all of the above could have been achieved without the performative hysterics and threats of invasion of the past three weeks. The 1951 “Defense of Greenland” agreement between Denmark and the United States ensured that the American military could construct, maintain, and expand bases on the island. This was further reinforced in 2004. In essence, Denmark still held legal sovereignty over the island but the United States could call all of the shots over the island’s defenses. Golden Dome, increased troop presence, and installation of new intelligence stations in Greenland all would have been allowed by existing treaties.
For Trump however, the fact that America could not “own” (i.e., claim legal sovereignty over) Greenland drove the entirety of this month’s drama. That’s not just me hypothesizing. Take for example an exchange the president had with The New York Times earlier this month. When asked why he refused simply reinforcing Greenland with additional American troops and instead was pursuing a showdown over sovereignty, Trump replied, “Because that’s [American acquisition of Greenland] what I feel is psychologically needed for success.” In a follow-up question as to whether the psychological factor was important for America as a whole or for him personally, the president replied, “Psychologically important for me.”
Over the two weeks following that New York Times exchange, the president refused to rule out using the U.S. military to seize Greenland. Trump then claimed that NATO troops refused to participate in combat during the war in Afghanistan. Then he finally threatened to levy harsh tariffs against the European Union only to walk back that threat after a preliminary “deal” had been reached with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
So threats of invasion, denigrations of allied servicemembers, and invocations of an economic war with Europe were all apparently needed to reach a deal that does not appear to differ significantly from agreements that were already in place. If that is the case and this is all just a dog-and-pony show aimed at pleasing Trump’s psychological urges, then this entire month’s worth of geopolitical tension was needless and foolish.
I fail to see how any emerging details of this deal would justify such a sophomoric and embarrassing performance by the president and his administration. The administration claims that an annexation of Greenland would be for the greater good. Specifically, the White House argues, it would prevent a Chinese or Russian takeover of the island. Last I checked, China still has cold feet over attacking it’s neighbor Taiwan, and Russia has still proven unable to defeat Ukraine. So the thought that either Beijing or Moscow would be able to undertake an amphibious invasion of the Arctic any time soon seems a bit paranoid. Besides, if such an invasion was imminent, there is nothing stopping America (from a diplomatic perspective) from moving the 101st Airborne Division to bases already on the island of Greenland.
It seems clear to me that Trump (who is still on a high from the Caracas raid earlier this month) believed that this type of threatening and jawboning over Greenland would work without repercussion. Perhaps he and those around him think that they “won” this war of words with our European allies. However, if polls are to be believed, Americans overwhelmingly disapproved of the invasion threats.
If Trump believes that annexing Greenland is psychologically important, he should realize that for many Americans it is psychologically distracting at best. Most Americans can wrap their heads around taking action against a Marxist despot in our own hemisphere. Many however can’t fathom threatening a western, democratic European country like Denmark over a piece of ice in the Arctic.
Jim Pomeroy, raised in Bucks County and a former congressional aide, works in higher education. He is the author of Alliances & Armor: Communist Diplomacy and Armored Warfare during the War in Vietnam.
