As Russia aggressively expands its presence in the Arctic Circle, claiming over 460,000 square miles of territory since 2022, America’s northern frontier faces unprecedented challenges.
Indeed, the strategic significance of this polar region, home to an estimated $1 trillion in untapped minerals, has never been more critical to national security.
This from thepatriotjournal.com.
Recent satellite imagery from December of 2024 reveals Chinese and Russian military installations just 400 miles from Greenland’s shores. Their joint Arctic partnership threatens to alter the balance of power in this vital region. Military analysts warn that without decisive action, America risks losing its strategic advantage in the High North.
Now, a bold new proposal aims to reshape the Arctic landscape entirely.
President-elect Donald Trump declared Sunday that American “ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity” for national security and global freedom. This reignited a strategic initiative that could fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Arctic region. The statement came alongside his announcement of Ken Howery as his choice for U.S. Ambassador to Denmark.
Trump stated on Truth Social:
For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.
This demonstrated his administration’s commitment to securing American interests in the strategically vital region.
The timing could not be more crucial:
– A 2024 U.S. Geological Survey confirmed Greenland’s massive deposits of rare earth elements, estimated at 38.5 million tons, along with significant reserves of gold, silver, copper, and uranium, and
– Perhaps more significantly, the territory provides critical access to Arctic shipping lanes that are becoming increasingly important as polar ice recedes.
But the stakes extend far beyond natural resources. In November of 2024, Russia formally submitted claims to the UN Continental Shelf Commission for territory reaching within 100 miles of Greenland’s Exclusive Economic Zone. This was part of a broader pattern of Arctic expansion that threatens American security interests. The massive island, technically part of North America, serves as a crucial buffer against growing Russian military presence in the region.
The historical precedent for such a bold move exists. The United States has previously considered purchasing Greenland at least twice, with the first time being in 1867. The second time was in 1946, when President Harry Truman offered Denmark $100 million for the territory. Today, with Greenland’s strategic value exponentially higher, the proposition takes on new urgency.
Danish and Greenlandic officials have responded swiftly to the proposal.
“Greenland is ours,” declared Greenlandic Prime Minister Múte Egede in an official statement on Monday. “We are not for sale and will never be for sale.”
This mirrors the response to Trump’s 2019 interest in acquiring the territory. That led to diplomatic tensions between the U.S. and Denmark.
However, the strategic calculus has shifted dramatically since 2019. Russia’s Arctic expansion, including the deployment of hypersonic missiles to its northern bases in 2023, combined with China’s growing influence through its “Polar Silk Road” initiative, has created new imperatives for American security interests.
The proposal comes as Trump has also called for reasserting American influence over other strategic assets. This includes the Panama Canal, highlighting a broader strategy of securing vital global chokepoints and resources crucial to American security.
For conservative Americans concerned about maintaining U.S. global leadership and protecting vital national interests, the focus on Greenland represents more than just territorial expansion. It symbolizes a bold approach to securing America’s future in an increasingly competitive world where strategic resources and military positioning could mean the difference between global leadership and decline.
As the Arctic continues to emerge as a critical theater for global influence, the question is not whether America can afford to secure its interests in Greenland—it is whether we can afford not to.
