Greenland, Geopolitics, and the Weight of History: A Conservative Case for Prudent Interest, Not Conquest
The US Once Had Greenland:
Early in WWII Denmark signed over Greenland to the US. Germany invaded Denmark and took the place in 6 hours. Germany tried to invade Greenland and the US held them off.
At the end of WWII the US gave it back. It looks as Trump is getting it back for the US.
The recent resurgence of discussion around Greenland, fueled by historical footnote and modern political theater, presents a valuable opportunity to examine core conservative principles regarding foreign policy, national sovereignty, and strategic responsibility. A social media post recalling that “The US Once Had Greenland” during World War II, and suggesting a reclamation, simplifies a complex historical episode into a soundbite. From a serious conservative perspective, this moment demands not nostalgia for temporary administrative control, but a clear-eyed assessment of America’s interests, alliances, and the appropriate use of national power in a new era of great-power competition.
The historical facts, while often condensed, are instructive. In April 1940, following Nazi Germany’s swift occupation of Denmark, the United States—still officially neutral—acted to prevent Greenland from falling under Axis control. The Danish minister in Washington, lacking contact with his occupied homeland, signed an agreement acknowledging U.S. responsibility for Greenland’s defense. American forces established weather stations and airfields, most notably Bluie West One, which became a critical node in the Allied air ferry route to Europe. This was not an annexation, but a wartime trusteeship born of dire necessity. Crucially, in 1945, the United States honorably returned administrative control to a liberated Denmark, cementing a transatlantic alliance that would become a cornerstone of the post-war free world.
This history underscores two foundational conservative foreign policy tenets. First, **the pragmatic defense of the homeland is paramount.** The U.S. action in 1941 was not imperial ambition; it was a preemptive move to secure a strategically vital landmass that, in enemy hands, could have threatened North American security. It was an exercise in realist statecraft, recognizing that geography and technology (in this case, weather forecasting for transatlantic flight and the threat of German U-boats) created a legitimate defensive interest. Second, **keeping one’s word and respecting the sovereignty of allies is the bedrock of durable power.** By returning Greenland after the war, the U.S. demonstrated that its actions were born of temporary exigency, not permanent design. This fidelity built immense goodwill and trust with Denmark and Europe, trust that paid incalculable dividends throughout the Cold War. Conservatism values the binding strength of treaties and the moral authority that comes from principled consistency.
Today, the geopolitical landscape has shifted, but Greenland’s strategic significance has only magnified. Its location commands the northern approaches between North America and Europe, and its waters are increasingly navigable due to changing climate patterns. Furthermore, it possesses vast untapped deposits of rare earth elements, minerals critical to modern technology and defense systems, currently dominated by the Chinese market. It is precisely this combination of geography and resources that has drawn the gaze of a revanchist Russia and an expansionist China, both of whom are actively courting influence in the Arctic.
It is within this context that President Trump’s publicly aired interest in purchasing Greenland—while diplomatically clumsy and widely mocked—touched upon a legitimate conservative concern: **the imperative to protect national security and economic interests from adversarial encroachment.** The conservative critique of the Obama-era foreign policy was that it often withdrew U.S. influence from strategic theaters, creating vacuums that adversaries like Russia and China were all too eager to fill. A proactive, albeit more tactfully executed, strategy to deepen ties with Greenland and ensure it remains within the Western sphere of influence is not only reasonable but necessary. The goal is not colonial acquisition, but ensuring that a vast, strategically located territory allied with a NATO partner does not become a beachhead for our adversaries.
However, the blunt instrument of a purchase proposal fails the test of conservative prudence in several key ways. First, it ignores the **primacy of alliance management.** Denmark is not a rival but a steadfast NATO ally. Treating its autonomous territory as a real estate commodity profoundly disrespects that partnership. True conservative statecraft strengthens alliances through diplomacy and mutual interest, not through transactions that humiliate friends. Second, it misconstrues the nature of the challenge. The threat is not that Denmark will sell Greenland to China, but that Chinese state-owned enterprises will secure critical mineral rights, or that Beijing’s “Polar Silk Road” investments will create a dependency that Copenhagen and Nuuk cannot later escape. The response, therefore, should be strategic competition, not annexation.
A truly conservative approach to Greenland would be multi-faceted, quieter, and more effective:
1. Deepen the Diplomatic and Economic Partnership: The U.S. should formally elevate its engagement with Greenland’s Home Rule government, opening a consulate in Nuuk and increasing development aid and investment specifically targeted at infrastructure and education. This fosters goodwill and provides a preferable alternative to Chinese capital.
2. Secure the Arctic Through NATO: The U.S. should lead within NATO to reaffirm the Arctic as an area of strategic interest to the Alliance, conducting more frequent joint exercises with Danish and Canadian forces and investing in Arctic-domain awareness. This projects collective strength and deters adventurism under the legitimate umbrella of collective defense.
3. Create a Strategic Minerals Alliance: Instead of a unilateral grab, the U.S. should work with Denmark and Greenland to develop a Western consortium, potentially including other allies like Canada and Australia, to finance and develop Greenland’s rare earth deposits. This creates a secure supply chain for the West, provides economic benefit to Greenland, and counters Chinese monopoly—all through free-market partnership.
4. Invest in Defense Infrastructure: Negotiate a permanent, modernized basing agreement with Denmark for upgraded facilities at Thule Air Base and potentially new locations. This is a continuation of the existing, mutually beneficial defense relationship, not a takeover.
The call to “get it back for the US” fundamentally misunderstands both history and conservative doctrine. We never “had” Greenland in the sense of ownership; we had a defensive mandate during a world war. Seeking to own it now would be a radical departure from our republican principles and a repudiation of the alliance structure that has secured our safety for 75 years. It would be an act of imperial overreach that would alienate every one of our allies, validate every critique of American hegemony, and likely prove fiscally and administratively catastrophic.
In conclusion, the conservative perspective on Greenland is not one of nostalgic reclamation. It is one of sober, strategic interest. Our history there reminds us of our capacity for both decisive action in defense of our homeland and honorable conduct towards our allies. The present moment calls for us to channel that same spirit: to be clear-eyed about the competition with China and Russia, to be robust in defending our interests in the Arctic, but to do so through the frameworks of alliance, diplomacy, and mutually beneficial partnership that have long been the true source of enduring American strength. The task is not to purchase an island, but to fortify a frontier of freedom, ensuring that Greenland remains a partner in security and prosperity, not a chess piece won or lost in a new cold war. That is the path of principled, conservative realism.
#US #Trump #Denmark #Germany #Greenland
Trump touts 'total access' Greenland deal as NATO asks allies to step up
