The “annexation” of Greenland isn’t just dumb. It’s ridiculous.
As a security proposal, this is a lame version of very old Cold War strategy, and the Cold War made it obsolete generations ago.
Against what would the US security be protected by annexing Greenland?
Hypersonic ICBMs? No.
Conventional ICBMs? No.
Nuclear attack subs? Hardly.
Sleeper agents disrupting the US from the inside with massive cyberattacks and terrorism? Not at all.
Fentanyl? No.
Other random boogeymen like pet-eating Ohioans or single mothers from Mars? Not at all.
What about those Greenland mineral assets, you ask with starry eyes?
Getting any of those assets to market, let alone all of them, would take at least a decade and cost many billions. It’s much worse than Venezuelan oil. Mining is always a heavy-duty, capital-intensive cost.
What about territorial advantages?
There aren’t any. Any degree of territorial development would take generations and require huge budget commitments from future American governments just to maintain. It’s a formula for massive failure through capital overextension alone.
A few scenarios
These scenarios are pretty bizarre.
Scenario 1: Direct military annexation
This scenario is likely to cause the most hostile and widespread long-term reactions. American forces arrive in Greenland in force. 82nd Airborne follows up special forces deployment as the US Navy effectively blockades Thule.
NATO objects strongly and deploys friendly forces elsewhere in Greenland A furious Canada stops all talks with the US and sends Canadian special forces to Greenland as a NATO exercise. NATO ground and air troops also arrive but there is no actual combat. The result is an ongoing, expensive, and utterly pointless military standoff. The US military quite rightly objects to any operations whatsoever against NATO forces. Deadlock.
American non-NATO allies like Japan, South Korea, and Australia refuse to cooperate with the US. They either pull or mothball defense and a vast range of other deals.
The military option goes stale in 3 years after much expense and no actual achievements. The irony is that the US military said there was no point in the exercise from any security perspective.
Scenario 2: Diplomatic and economic factors and political maneuvers. Purchasing?
Greenland becomes the subject of political negotiations which drag on for years. Denmark and Greenland refuse to negotiate at all.
Purchasing is off the agenda before it starts. Greenland is worth trillions of dollars. Does the US have trillions of dollars to spare? Is this “impulse buying”?
The EU is by now as furious as Canada and Denmark. The rest of the world ignores the US territorial claims and refuses to recognize American sovereignty over any part of Greenland. The UN calls the US attempts to annex Greenland illegal and infringing on the rights of Greenlanders. No territory is or can be legally acquired.
US trade with the EU is poleaxed. The EU imposes sanctions on the US. EU trade with the US tanks completely. The US is about as popular for doing business as the UK was after Brexit and the result is much the same. The US is progressively excluded from global trade.
The US dollar nosedives in the furore, with some help from China and annoyed Europeans. Even US assets overseas are suddenly under threat of seizure. That’s not good news for America’s vast overseas tax havens.
Scenario 3: US internal political and administrative developments
The US political situation alone effectively derails the Greenland project. The sheer cost of annexation is prohibitively expensive. US Federal revenue stagnates and/or shrinks in real terms. Debt payments increase and blow out due to the rising cost of government.
The 2026 midterms effectively neuter the Greenland project. Political options for Greenland operations are blocked. In 2028, Greenland becomes “just another Trump thing,” which America instantly disowns. There’s no future in it.
The word is no, and there are no other words required.
_______________________________________________________________
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.
