If you missed my conversation with former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder here’s the recording. Ivo walks through the strategic importance of the Arctic, how Greenland fits in and why cooperation with NATO strengthen’s US security in the region. My take is below.
The United States doesn’t need to own Greenland to secure it. Under a 1951 defense agreement, the U.S. enjoys sweeping military access - the ability to “construct, install, maintain, and operate” military bases, “house personnel,” and “control landings, takeoffs, anchorages, moorings, movements, and operation of ships, aircraft, and waterborne craft.” We currently operate Pituffik Space Base, the northernmost deepwater port in the world, with a 10,000-foot runway and missile defense systems tracking threats across the North Pole.
A 2004 amendment made clear that expanding operations requires only consultation with Denmark and Greenland. In practice, the U.S. has a free hand.
More broadly, the Arctic is NATO territory defended by seven members with actual expertise: Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Canada, Finland, Sweden, and the United States. These aren’t theoretical allies - they’re countries that coordinate patrols, share intelligence, and maintain installations throughout the region. Norway monitors Russian naval activity in the High North. Denmark’s special forces conduct long-range patrols across Greenland using those dog sleds Trump mocked. Iceland’s location makes it essential for tracking submarines. Finland shares an 830-mile border with Russia and brings decades of experience managing that relationship.
Denmark just pledged $13.7 billion to upgrade Arctic security infrastructure and has repeatedly said it will accommodate any reasonable American security request. Finland and Sweden joined NATO specifically because they understand the Russian threat.
Trump claims “Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place” to justify the security threat. That contradicts both U.S. and Danish intelligence assessments. What’s actually happening is increased Russian and Chinese activity throughout the Arctic region - which NATO members are monitoring and responding to collectively.
None of this requires American ownership. It requires American partnership – which would require acknowledging that allies have value.
The new US world view
Stephen Miller made the administration’s worldview explicit on CNN: “We live in a world that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”
That’s the rejection of everything NATO was built to accomplish. The alliance was designed on the principle that collective security is stronger than individual might - that democracies working together could deter aggression better than great powers carving up the globe in spheres of influence.
The administration argues American security in the Arctic requires owning Greenland because NATO commitments aren’t sufficient. In their view, real security exists only for territories that are literally American.
Every NATO member is watching and adjusting their assumptions accordingly. If the United States doesn’t trust Article 5 to protect Greenland - NATO territory - why should Poland trust Article 5 to protect them? Why should the Baltic states believe American security guarantees?
What we lose
Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was stark about the stakes: “If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops. That is, including our NATO and thus the security that has been provided since the end of the Second World War.”
The alliance doesn’t survive the United States attacking a member. Even the threat fundamentally undermines trust. We just watched European leaders stand in Paris with Trump’s envoys announcing security guarantees for Ukraine - and hours later, the White House reiterated that military force is “always an option” for taking Greenland.
If the Trump administration genuinely cares about Arctic security - if this is really about deterring Russia and China rather than exploiting Greenland’s rare earth minerals - the solution is collective defense through the alliance that exists.
Increase U.S. military presence at Pituffik under the existing agreement. Expand joint exercises with Nordic allies. Invest in Arctic surveillance systems. Share intelligence more effectively. Support Denmark’s $13.7 billion infrastructure upgrade. Work with Finland and Sweden on the Russian threat they understand intimately.
All of this is not only possible but welcomed by allies who’ve been asking the United States to take Arctic security more seriously for years.
The opposite, blowing up up the alliance to seize territory from a country that’s been accommodating American security needs for 75 years is not a strategy. That’s not even particularly creative imperialism. It’s a self-inflicted wound born from the failure to recognize that cooperation is real power.
If the United States can’t figure out how
to work with willing allies on shared threats, the problem isn’t Greenland’s sovereignty. The problem is Washington’s rejection of the idea that alliances matter at all.
Thank you Margaret Groves, Levee, Susan J, Courtneye, HH, and many others for tuning into my live video with Ivo Daalder! Join me for my next live video in the app.
