Why Trump Says the United States Needs to “Own” Greenland

Why Trump Says the United States Needs to “Own” Greenland

Geopolitics, Arctic Power, and the Rising Russia–China Challenge

Introduction: A Statement That Shocked the World

When Donald Trump declared that the United States needs to “own” Greenland to prevent Russia and China from taking control of it, the statement immediately triggered global debate, ridicule in some quarters, alarm in others, and renewed attention on the Arctic as a strategic battleground. While the phrasing sounded blunt—even crude—the underlying logic reflected a growing geopolitical reality: the Arctic is becoming one of the most important strategic regions of the 21st century.

Greenland, the world’s largest island, sits at the crossroads of North America, Europe, and the Arctic Ocean. For decades it was considered remote, frozen, and geopolitically marginal. Today, climate change, melting ice, new shipping routes, vast untapped natural resources, and rising great-power competition have transformed Greenland into a key piece on the global chessboard.

Trump’s statement was not made in a vacuum. It was rooted in long-standing U.S. strategic thinking, renewed fears of Russian militarization of the Arctic, China’s growing ambitions as a self-declared “near-Arctic state,” and concerns that American influence in the region could erode if decisive action is not taken.

This article examines why Greenland matters, what Trump really meant by “owning” it, how Russia and China fit into the picture, how Denmark and Greenland themselves responded, and what this controversy reveals about the future of global power politics.

1. Greenland: Geography That Shapes Global Power

A Colossal Island in a Strategic Location

Greenland is massive—larger than Mexico—yet home to fewer than 60,000 people. Its importance lies not in population, but in location.

Greenland sits between:

North America (Canada and the U.S.)

Europe (via Iceland and Scandinavia)

The Arctic Ocean and North Atlantic sea lanes

This makes Greenland a natural strategic gateway. Any military or economic power operating in the Arctic must consider Greenland.

Control of Air and Sea Routes

During the Cold War, the U.S. recognized Greenland’s importance as an early-warning outpost against Soviet nuclear missiles. That logic still holds today.

Missiles, submarines, and aircraft traveling between Eurasia and North America often pass through Arctic corridors. Greenland offers surveillance, radar coverage, and basing opportunities that are crucial for missile defense and global security.

Trump’s concern, therefore, was not abstract. It was deeply tied to defense geography.

2. The U.S. and Greenland: A Long History

Not a New Idea

Trump’s comments were widely portrayed as bizarre or unprecedented. In reality, the U.S. has considered acquiring Greenland multiple times:

1867: After buying Alaska, U.S. officials explored the idea of acquiring Greenland.

1946: The U.S. formally offered Denmark $100 million in gold to purchase Greenland.

Cold War era: The U.S. established Thule Air Base, a critical military installation that still operates today.

Thus, Trump was reviving an old strategic conversation rather than inventing a new one.

Thule Air Base and U.S. Presence

Thule Air Base (now called Pituffik Space Base) is one of America’s most important overseas military facilities. It plays a role in:

Missile warning systems

Space surveillance

Arctic defense operations

For Washington, Greenland is already essential to national security. Trump’s statement simply made this reality explicit—and politically explosive.

3. Why Russia Is a Central Concern

Russia’s Arctic Militarization

Russia has invested heavily in the Arctic over the past decade. Its actions include:

Reopening Soviet-era military bases

Deploying advanced missile systems

Expanding its nuclear submarine fleet

Increasing Arctic patrols and exercises

Russia views the Arctic as a core national interest. Much of its coastline, energy reserves, and naval power lie in the region.

From a U.S. perspective, losing influence in Greenland would weaken America’s ability to monitor and counter Russian activity.

The Northern Sea Route

As ice melts, Russia is promoting the Northern Sea Route as a major shipping lane connecting Asia and Europe. Control of Arctic chokepoints could translate into economic and strategic leverage.

Trump’s warning reflects fear that Russia could dominate Arctic routes and reshape global trade flows—with Greenland playing a key role in surveillance and counterbalance.

4. China’s Quiet but Persistent Arctic Ambitions

China as a “Near-Arctic State”

China has no Arctic territory, yet it has declared itself a “near-Arctic state.” This concept has alarmed Western policymakers.

China’s interests include:

Access to rare earth minerals

Scientific research (with military dual-use potential)

Arctic shipping routes as part of the Belt and Road Initiative

Strategic footholds through infrastructure investment

Chinese Investment Attempts in Greenland

China has shown interest in:

Mining projects

Airport construction

Infrastructure development

Although many projects were blocked or scaled back due to Danish and U.S. pressure, Washington remains wary. Economic influence can become political and strategic influence over time.

Trump’s statement reflected fear that if the U.S. does not act, China might gain leverage through investment rather than invasion.

5. What Trump Meant by “Own”

Literal Ownership vs Strategic Control

Trump’s phrasing—“own Greenland”—was widely criticized as colonial and outdated. However, analysts argue he likely meant:

Permanent strategic control

Exclusive military and security dominance

Preventing rival powers from gaining influence

In Trump’s worldview, clarity and bluntness are virtues. What diplomats say indirectly, Trump says directly.

A Transactional View of Geopolitics

Trump approaches international relations like business deals:

Assets matter

Control matters

Rivals must be blocked

From this perspective, Greenland is not just land—it is a strategic asset. Allowing Russia or China to gain influence there would be, in Trump’s logic, a catastrophic failure.

6. Denmark and Greenland Respond

Danish Rejection

Denmark, which governs Greenland as an autonomous territory, firmly rejected the idea of selling it. Danish leaders called the suggestion “absurd” and emphasized that Greenland is not for sale.

The reaction highlighted the tension between:

Get Wasif Ali’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

Subscribe

Subscribe

U.S. strategic thinking

European norms of sovereignty and diplomacy

Greenlandic Voices

Greenlanders themselves were largely sidelined in the global debate. Many expressed frustration at being treated as an object rather than a people.

Greenland has its own parliament and increasing autonomy. While some Greenlanders welcome U.S. investment and protection, most oppose any idea of forced ownership or external control.

This raises a deeper question: Can 21st-century geopolitics coexist with self-determination?

7. Climate Change: The Game Changer

Melting Ice, New Opportunities

Climate change is rapidly transforming the Arctic:

Ice coverage is shrinking

Shipping seasons are lengthening

Resource extraction is becoming feasible

Greenland holds vast reserves of:

Rare earth minerals

Uranium

Oil and gas

Freshwater locked in ice

Whoever influences Greenland could shape the future of resource competition.

Security Risks

Melting ice also increases military vulnerability. New routes mean new threats. Early-warning systems in Greenland become even more vital.

Trump’s statement reflected the belief that climate change is accelerating geopolitical urgency, not reducing it.

8. NATO, Allies, and Strategic Friction

Greenland and NATO

Denmark is a NATO member, and Greenland is covered by NATO’s collective defense framework. In theory, this should reassure the U.S.

However, Trump has often expressed skepticism toward alliances, arguing that they:

Move too slowly

Depend too much on U.S. protection

Fail to respond decisively to threats

From this viewpoint, “owning” Greenland removes uncertainty and guarantees American control.

European Unease

European leaders worry that Trump’s rhetoric:

Undermines international law

Encourages power politics

Weakens alliance trust

Yet many quietly share U.S. concerns about Russia and China—if not Trump’s blunt methods.

9. Media Reaction and Public Perception

Mockery vs Substance

Much media coverage focused on the novelty of the idea rather than its strategic logic. Late-night jokes overshadowed serious analysis.

This created a divide:

Critics saw imperial nostalgia

Supporters saw strategic realism

Over time, more analysts acknowledged that while Trump’s language was provocative, the Arctic security issue he raised was real and urgent.

10. What This Reveals About the Future World Order

Return of Great-Power Competition

Trump’s statement reflects a broader shift away from:

Globalization optimism

Post-Cold War cooperation

Toward:

Power politics

Strategic territories

Zero-sum thinking

Greenland symbolizes how geography is reclaiming importance in a digital age.

From Soft Power to Hard Control

The controversy highlights a global trend:

Economic investment becomes strategic leverage

Infrastructure becomes influence

Science becomes security

In such a world, symbolic ownership matters less than effective control.

11. Is U.S. Ownership Realistic—or Necessary?

Legal and Political Barriers

Actual U.S. ownership of Greenland is highly unlikely:

Denmark will not sell

Greenlanders oppose it

International norms forbid coercion

However, ownership may not be necessary.

Alternative Paths

The U.S. can:

Expand military cooperation

Increase investment

Strengthen diplomatic ties

Block hostile foreign influence

In practice, this may achieve Trump’s goal without formal ownership.

Conclusion: Blunt Words, Strategic Reality

Donald Trump’s claim that the United States needs to “own” Greenland to prevent Russia and China from taking it was controversial, undiplomatic, and widely mocked. Yet beneath the rhetoric lay a serious strategic warning.

The Arctic is no longer a frozen backwater. It is a frontline of global competition. Russia is militarizing it. China is investing in it. Climate change is opening it. And Greenland sits at its center.

Trump’s language shocked the world, but it forced attention onto a question policymakers can no longer ignore: Who will shape the Arctic’s future—and at what cost?

Whether through ownership, alliance, or partnership, the struggle for Greenland reflects a larger truth of the 21st century: power, geography, and security are returning to the heart of global politics.

And Greenland, once forgotten under ice, is now impossible to ignore.