The US Should Stop Trying To Acquire Greenland—We Can Get What We Need Without Taking Over The Place

Key Concepts

• Geopolitical Strategy: The discussion centers on the strategic implications of the US attempting to acquire Greenland.
• Arctic Security: The increasing importance of the Arctic region due to melting ice and rising geopolitical competition from Russia and China.
• NATO Alliance: The critical role of NATO in post-World War II security and the potential damage a Greenland acquisition could inflict.
• Strategic Defense: The shift in modern military strategy towards technological superiority and alliances rather than territorial control.
• Sovereignty & Self-Determination: The importance of respecting the sovereignty of Greenland and Denmark, and the will of the Greenlandic people.

---

The Ill-Advised Pursuit of Greenland

Steve Forbes argues strongly against the United States attempting to acquire Greenland, asserting that such an effort would be detrimental to US reputation, security interests, and international alliances. He frames President Trump’s consideration of such a move as a “forcible grab” that would be counterproductive and ultimately unsuccessful.

Historical Context & Failed Attempts

Forbes highlights the historical precedent of the US attempting to purchase Greenland after World War II, which was met with a “firm no” from Denmark. He contrasts this with the 1917 purchase of the Virgin Islands from Denmark, noting that circumstances have changed significantly. He emphasizes that Greenlanders themselves do not desire to be taken over by the US, rendering any forceful acquisition morally questionable. He draws a parallel to China’s actions regarding Tibet and Taiwan, stating that a US seizure of Greenland would place the US on a “low level” morally comparable to China’s actions.

Geopolitical Ramifications & Alliance Fracture

A key argument presented is the potential for a US takeover of Greenland to destabilize the NATO alliance. Forbes contends that Russia, under Vladimir Putin, would exploit the situation to justify its own aggressive actions, specifically referencing the conflict in Ukraine. He states, “Seizure would fracture NATO, the critical cornerstone of our postworld war II security system. This would realize Vladimir Putin's dream to fatally undermine US security arrangements…” He believes this would isolate the US and benefit the imperial ambitions of both Russia and China.

Domestic Political Obstacles

Forbes predicts that any attempt at seizure would face significant opposition within the US, specifically from Congress and public opinion, leading to “humiliation” for the President. He notes the potential for Greenland to become a state, with two Democratic senators aligning with the far-left, referencing Bernie Sanders, but argues this possibility is now lost due to the “caveman approach” taken.

Existing Strategic Capabilities & Alternative Approaches

The argument pivots to the assertion that the US does not need to own Greenland to maintain its strategic defense interests in the Arctic. Forbes points to the existing US space base in northwest Greenland, operating under a long-standing agreement with Denmark, which provides “early central warning radar systems and satellite tracking capabilities.” He emphasizes the strong defense cooperation already in place through NATO, including coordination on Arctic security. He highlights Denmark’s historical receptiveness to a US military presence and its recognition of the mutual benefits in countering threats from Russia and China.

He stresses that modern military strategy prioritizes “technological superiority, intelligence sharing, and rapid deployment capabilities over physical territorial control.” Forbes notes that the US maintains numerous bases globally without owning the territory, and Denmark would be open to mineral deals. He argues that owning Greenland with a potentially “sullen population” would create challenges hindering core military missions.

The Importance of Alliances & Cooperation

Forbes concludes by advocating for strengthening ties with strategic allies – Nordic countries and Canada – rather than pursuing “brute territorial expansion.” He emphasizes the need to “strengthen ties with our strategic allies, not unnecessarily alienate them.”

Notable Quote

“To be blunt, the effort by President Trump to forcibly grab Greenland is doing his reputation and that of the US no good.” – Steve Forbes.

Technical Terms

• NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization): A military alliance established in 1949 to provide collective security against the Soviet Union.
• Arctic Security: Concerns related to military presence, resource competition, and environmental changes in the Arctic region.
• Strategic Defense: Military strategies focused on deterring attacks and maintaining a secure position.
• Territorial Expansion: The act of a country increasing its land area through annexation or conquest.

Synthesis

Steve Forbes delivers a compelling argument against the US acquisition of Greenland, framing it as a strategically unsound, politically damaging, and morally questionable endeavor. He advocates for a continued focus on strengthening existing alliances, leveraging existing agreements, and prioritizing technological advancements over territorial control in the increasingly important Arctic region. The core takeaway is that the US can effectively safeguard its interests in the Arctic without resorting to a potentially disastrous and ultimately unnecessary takeover of Greenland.