GREENLAND is proving to be a major source of friction between the United States and Europe.
Everyone knows why United States President Donald Trump wants that little piece of real estate, but that does not make the situation any better. It is too exposed, too vulnerable, and the truth is that the Danes cannot defend it against Russian incursion or Chinese infiltration.
Even the European Union (EU) cannot do it, because they have structured their economies and governments under the assumption that they have reached the end of history.
For the US, therefore, Greenland is not just territory. It is a liability, an exposed position where the enemy might slip in and flank them. It needs to be fortified, secured so that the Russians (and the Chinese) will not be able to exploit that particular vulnerability.
For the Danes and the Americans, the optimal solution would be to allow the US to deploy military assets there, allow for mineral/oil exploitation investment and generally increase North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) presence in the area, while retaining sovereignty.
But is that enough? The Greenland issue is more than just about Greenland. It’s about the Arctic. The former is only the gate and presently, it’s flimsy.
There’s no doubt that Russia will expand their arctic presence. They are already investing 1.8 trillion roubles (and who knows how much military assets) into the area. China is also trying to move in, and that adds further complications.
It may be that as far as the US is concerned, stationing military may not be enough. They must have direct control over Greenland. Not likely but not out of the possibility either.
The more probable outcome is that the Danes and the Americans will come to some kind of agreement, though what that will look like is still anyone’s guess.
In any case, Greenland is what happens when a previously irrelevant geographic area suddenly becomes prime geopolitical real estate./PN
