Jesse Kline: The Arctic cold war depends on Greenland — and Trump knows it

Less than a day after the U.S. launched air strikes against Venezuela and captured its president, U.S. President Donald Trump started spouting off about his desire to take over Greenland, highlighting the fundamental problem with his approach to foreign affairs: while many of his policies — such as imposing tariffs on China and toppling Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro — could strengthen the West and weaken its enemies, his propensity to impose equally punitive measures on friendly nations has us continually fighting among ourselves, playing right into the hands of our adversaries.

Trump claims that the U.S. needs Greenland, a self-governing autonomous territory of Denmark, for “national security” reasons, and he’s not entirely wrong. The U.S. tried numerous times in the past to purchase the world’s largest island, most recently in 1946, but ultimately concluded a 1951 defence pact with Denmark that allowed it to establish a military base to guard against Soviet missile attacks during the Cold War.

At its height, the Thule Air Base in northwestern Greenland, now known as Pituffik Space Base, housed 6,000 U.S. military personnel. That footprint was reduced as the Cold War came to a close, and it is now home to just 150 service members. But in recent years, the strategic importance of the Arctic has once again come into focus.

As Arctic ice melts, it will continue to open the Far North to shipping and exploitation of its vast mineral wealth. But the region is hotly contested by the various northern states, who know that dominion over the Arctic will ultimately not be decided in the halls of the United Nations, but by which countries can control the region through military force.

Russia’s spent the past two decades constructing the world’s largest fleet of icebreakers and building northern ports equipped with surveillance systems, air and naval defences, and airfields. And, like Washington’s raid on Caracas, Moscow’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine put the world on notice that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not afraid of using force to achieve his aims. China has also been building its presence in the North, having unilaterally declared itself a “near-Arctic state” in 2018.

Greenland is strategically located, serving as the gateway to the Northwest Passage, and straddling the GIUK gap, the naval choke point between North America and Europe. The island is therefore critical for guarding against missile attacks from hostile northern states like Russia, controlling ships sailing between the Atlantic and Pacific, and preventing naval incursions into the southern Atlantic.

As per usual, the Trump administration has been using a “flood the zone” strategy when it comes to Greenland, sending mixed messages in an attempt to keep everyone on their toes. On Sunday, Trump told reporters that Greenland is “covered with Russian and Chinese ships,” and suggested Denmark was not up to the task of doing anything about it.

Later in the week, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly told lawmakers behind closed doors that the U.S. is merely looking to buy Greenland, an option that Denmark has already ruled out. Yet White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that, “Utilizing the U.S. military is always an option,” and Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s top advisors, suggested that force could be used because “nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.”

That’s true. But it is also the case, as many world leaders have warned, that such an attack would spell the end of the NATO alliance. “The international community as we know it, democratic rules of the game, NATO, the world’s strongest defensive alliance — all of that would collapse if one NATO country chose to attack another,” said Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.

After all, Article 5 of the NATO Charter says that an “attack against one (member) shall be considered an attack against them all.” No one would likely be willing to go to war with the U.S., but nor would they continue supporting a military alliance that has turned on itself.

The threat posed by authoritarian states like Russia, China and Iran has breathed new life into an alliance that spent decades after the Cold War struggling to find its purpose. As of last year, NATO is home to seven of the eight Arctic states. And, due to pressure from the Trump administration and the Russian threat, those allies have significantly increased defence spending in recent years, with NATO reporting that all members are believed to have reached the two per cent of GDP target in 2025.

Far from buying “one more dog sled,” as Trump characterized Denmark’s military buildup, the Danish government increased defence spending from 1.15 per cent of GDP in 2014 to 3.22 per cent in 2025 — the exact same percentage as the U.S.

Rather than trying to take the territory by force, the U.S. should look to increase its presence at Pituffik Space Base under existing treaties — something Denmark has already said it’s willing to accommodate — and work with NATO, an organization that is stronger and more motivated than at any point since the collapse of the Soviet Union, to strengthen Arctic security, open safe passages for shipping and exploit the region’s natural wealth.

Given the geopolitical implications, it’s unlikely that Trump will follow through on his threats against Greenland. But Venezuela proved that he’s unpredictable, and his rhetoric can’t always be passed off as the depraved ramblings of a madman.

There’s a non-zero chance that the U.S. could launch an invasion of Denmark in the next three years. And, by the same token, a possibility, however slight, that Trump might follow through on his threat to turn Canada into the 51st state. Now would be a good time for Ottawa to get serious about Arctic sovereignty.

National Post
jkline@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/accessd