Providence -
He hadn't thought of the idea himself. The New York Times' David Sanger among others credits Estee Lauder heir and Republican megadonor Ron Lauder with putting the thought of annexing Greenland in the U.S. president's mind. The idea is so preposterous, of course, that it makes sane people blush and many people angry. It's working in one sense, however, as the Epstein Files recede into the wilderness.
Sanger joined Greenland/Arctic experts on a Council on Foreign Relations panel last Friday focused on the insanity and inanity (my words) of swiping Greenland and, in the process, conjuring images of NATO Article 5 enactment. This would make the U.S. both attacker and legally bound defender of the Danish territory of Greenland.
Here's the rub. The 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement between the U.S. and Denmark continues to give the former vast military and economic rights in the territory. The U.S. once operated as many as 15 bases in Greenland during the Cold War. It now maintains two bases including Pituffik Space Base, the former Thule Air Force base in northwest Greenland where I once spent two weeks on Navy duty. The treaty heavily favors U.S. prerogative since Denmark, as an original NATO member and loyal U.S. ally, hitched its national-security wagon to the United States a long time ago. The U.S. can reopen those bases and make substantial infrastructure investments and adjustments in Greenland at any time.
When advised of this, the U.S. president told Sanger in a recent interview, "You know, psychologically, I just need to own it." Notice the "I" in this statement. It has never been about we the people and never will be. Sanger added that the president sounded like a New York real estate guy who understands the difference between buying and leasing. Oh, great! There's a top-drawer foreign policy credential and instinct. Sanger said that Denmark believes this is the greatest crisis it has faced since World War II, and it could soon be NATO's biggest-ever problem, initiated by a convicted-felon real-estate guy with a trail of bankruptcies and broken businesses and an heir to a make-up kingdom.
Greenland and the entire Arctic sphere have returned to prominence for many reasons, starting with the fact that the U.S. is once again in a Cold War with Russia:
- National Security Value: The Arctic has vast national security value because of the shorter distances for undersea cables, missiles, and transits. Climate change is ensuring that Arctic ice is melting and creating open-water passages for military and commercial vessels. Don't think climate change is real? Well, just ask anyone involved in Arctic military, shipping, energy, and telecommunications realms.
- Cold-Weather Warfighting: Heather Conley of the American Enterprise Institute reminded us that U.S. cold-weather warfighting capabilities have greatly deteriorated. This is ironic as this new Cold War finds Russia remilitarizing and reopening its Arctic bases. Conley said, "We just let our cold-weather combat skills atrophy."
- Critical Minerals: The U.S. president says he wants Greenland because of its critical minerals. Oh, so they're just America's to take? Is that the idea? Yes, the U.S. must reduce its dependence on China for critical minerals. Illegally and immorally seizing Greenland, however, is not the way to do it. Instead, the U.S. already has options for the private-sector to invest billions into Greenland infrastructure, a territory with only 100 miles of paved road, for the purpose of mineral extraction over a decades-long timeline. It hasn't happened yet, and it's not going to happen. Businesses are not likely to invest vast resources into such speculative, long-term potential with eye-watering, front-end costs - even with U.S. Government backing. For example, who's going to build and operate a needed deep-water port in Greenland? Let's instead stay focused on the United States' first deep-water Arctic port in Nome, Alaska. which is needed both for strategic and commercial purposes.
- Golden Dome: The Oval Office occupant throws out that Greenland is essential for realization of his Golden Dome missile defense system. Tactical and theater missile defense works well; overarching strategic shields such as this one remain a flight of fancy. Anyone remember Reagan's "Star Wars" notion and the countless billions invested in the scheme? Analysts report that the U.S. spent $60 billion on Star Wars and failed to develop let alone deploy what remains science fiction. Golden Dome would be colossally expensive with daunting technical hurdles at every step. And it's not likely to work. Maybe in 50 years. Rebecca Pincus of the Foreign Policy Research Institute added that, "Besides, there is no clear articulation of need." What else is new?