US threatens military action regarding Greenland - what comes next? | Sky News analysis

Greenland & US National Security Interests: A Detailed Analysis

Key Concepts:

• National Security Interests: The strategic considerations driving a nation’s policies, particularly regarding defense and international relations.
• Oblate Spheroid: The shape of the Earth, flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator, impacting great circle routes.
• Great Circle Route: The shortest distance between two points on a sphere.
• Northern Sea Route: A shipping route along the northern coast of Eurasia, becoming increasingly viable due to climate change.
• Minimum Credible Deterrence: A military doctrine focused on maintaining a sufficient nuclear arsenal to deter attack.
• NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization): A military alliance established after World War II to provide collective security against the Soviet Union, now facing questions about its future relevance.

I. Historical Context & US Interest in Greenland

The United States has maintained a long-standing interest in Greenland, spanning over a century. This interest isn’t new, originating from strategic considerations during World War II when the US occupied the island following the German invasion of Denmark. Post-war, the US was initially hesitant to relinquish control, leading to the 1951 treaty obligating the US to defend Greenland. This commitment materialized with the establishment of Thule Air Base (later Pituffik Space Base) in 1953, a facility that remains operational today. In 1946, the US even offered Denmark $100 million (equivalent to over $1 billion today) to purchase Greenland, an offer Denmark rejected.

II. Strategic Importance of Greenland

Sha Bell, a military analyst, outlines three primary reasons for continued US interest in Greenland:

• Missile Warning System: Greenland’s location is crucial for early warning of ballistic missile launches. Due to the Earth’s shape (an oblate spheroid), the shortest route between two points on opposite sides of the globe is across the poles. This makes Greenland a prime location for missile defense systems and radar installations. The analyst draws a parallel to airline routes, noting that flying over the pole is often the quickest path despite appearing longer on a flat map.
• Space Operations: Greenland is essential for supporting polar orbit satellites, frequently used for military applications, requiring ground stations on the island.
• Sea Lines of Communication: The opening of the Northern Sea Route due to climate change presents a significant opportunity to drastically reduce shipping distances between Europe and Asia. Currently, voyages take approximately 13,000 miles; the Northern Sea Route reduces this to 6,000 miles, halving the distance.

Beyond these, the potential for mineral wealth, including uranium, oil, and gas (estimated at $50 billion), is also a factor, though extraction has historically proven challenging and financially unviable for companies. Climate change is expected to potentially ease extraction difficulties in the future.

III. Potential US Courses of Action & Challenges

Donald Trump has indicated that military action to acquire Greenland remains “an option.” Sha Bell identifies three main possibilities:

• Negotiation: The US already has a military presence in Greenland, and Denmark is reportedly open to increasing it. However, the US is concerned that Danish ownership ultimately limits its control.
• Purchase: As demonstrated by the 1946 offer, the US has previously attempted to buy Greenland, but Denmark has consistently refused to sell.
• Military Action: Greenland lacks a military, and Denmark’s military capabilities are limited (including reliance on dog sleds). This would be the easiest option for the US in terms of military resistance, but carries significant geopolitical risks.

A fourth option, doing nothing, is also acknowledged, but considered unlikely given President Trump’s national security strategy focused on countering the influence of China and Russia.

IV. European Response & NATO’s Future

The recent joint statement by EU leaders affirming their commitment to defending Greenland’s territorial integrity highlights European concerns. The analyst questions the long-term viability of NATO, founded 80 years ago, suggesting it might not be fit for purpose in the current geopolitical landscape. President Trump has expressed frustration with NATO, particularly regarding funding and burden-sharing. The Ukraine war has further fueled this sentiment, with the US questioning why it should bear the primary responsibility for European security.

The analyst suggests that a US decision to take Greenland militarily could be a catalyst for the US to withdraw from NATO, leaving Europe facing a significant security challenge. The recent gathering of European leaders was interpreted as an attempt to reassure the US and maintain its commitment to the alliance.

V. Nuclear Deterrence & European Defense Capabilities

The discussion touches upon the disparity in nuclear capabilities between the US (7,600 warheads) and the UK (210 warheads). However, the analyst argues that even a limited nuclear arsenal, like the UK’s, can provide a “minimum credible deterrence,” particularly when deployed on submarines, making it difficult to target. The UK and France are identified as potentially capable of providing Europe with a credible nuclear deterrent, but this would require significant investment and a fundamental shift in European defense policy.

VI. Notable Quotes

• Sha Bell: “It’s not new. The US has been interested in Greenland for well over a hundred years, uh, part of its own national security.”
• Sha Bell: “As soon as you use one nuclear weapon it's a disaster. So whether you got one or 10,000 there is a degree of survivability.”
• Sha Bell: “I do think it feels like President Trump's looking for an excuse to extract himself from from NATO anyway.”

Conclusion:

The situation surrounding Greenland represents a complex interplay of historical interests, strategic considerations, and geopolitical tensions. The US views Greenland as vital for missile defense, space operations, and access to emerging shipping routes. President Trump’s willingness to consider all options, including military action, has raised concerns in Europe and prompted questions about the future of NATO. The potential for a US withdrawal from NATO and the need for Europe to strengthen its own defense capabilities are key takeaways from this analysis, highlighting a potential shift in the global security landscape.