Trump exaggerates Chinese threat to Greenland

This is not the first time Donny has mentioned this largest island of glaciers, rocks, and critical mineral resources on it. And here again: "We really need Greenland. [It] is surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships. We need it for defense," the U.S. president said.

It should be noted immediately that Greenland has long been part of the U.S. defense system – since 1951 based on a defense agreement with Denmark. Initially it was the strategic aviation base Thule Air Base, and in the late 1960s it was transformed into a component of the early warning system for missile attacks. The Pituffik Space Base of the U.S. Space Force (as it has been called since 2023) houses an early warning radar that tracks intercontinental ballistic missile launches from the Arctic direction, that is, from Russia, and is an element of the U.S. and NATO missile defense system. It is part of the Arctic "sensor belt," together with Alaska and Northern Canada.

"This base performs the function of controlling the shortest missile-aviation route between Russia and the U.S."

It is noteworthy that in the pre-election programmatic 920-page treatise Project 2025. Mandate for Leadership, Greenland is mentioned once and in an entirely positive context: "...given Greenland's geographic proximity and its emerging potential as a commercial and tourist destination, the next administration should pursue policies that strengthen economic ties between the United States and Greenland." Although Denmark, whose sovereign territory Greenland is, is not mentioned, there is no talk of any disguised intentions of annexation.

In the U.S. National Security Strategy, approved in December of last year, there are no direct mentions of Greenland or even in a broader context – of the Arctic. It speaks of the Western Hemisphere, which encompasses both Latin America, the Caribbean Basin, and the Pacific zone and Canada and Greenland. The Western Hemisphere is now a priority for the United States. This is a significant change compared to previous U.S. national security strategies. In the analogous document from 2017 (from Trump's first presidency), the Western Hemisphere was in fifth place as a priority sphere, and in the 2022 edition strategy it was third.

"The expansionist intentions of the U.S. in the Arctic became clearly marked already in December of last year after the publication of the National Security Strategy. This is no longer just words, but also actions. On December 22, 2025, Trump announced on his social network the appointment of Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as U.S. special envoy to Greenland."

Whatever Trump does, he typically motivates it by the need to counter Chinese expansionism. Although in the case of Greenland this is far-fetched. Yes, Beijing had ambitious plans for Greenland – both in infrastructure and in the study and development of mineral resources. It is known that China positions itself as a "near-Arctic country" and is developing strategies related to the Polar Silk Road, which could potentially enhance Greenland's role as a logistics hub at the junction of the Arctic and the North Atlantic.

"However, Chinese expansion on the island was stopped by the Danish government in previous years, and the Danes took into account the negative position of the U.S. regarding possible Chinese strategic investments on the island. Therefore, the "Chinese threat" is clearly exaggerated."

What does this say? About the division of the world into spheres of influence. This is no longer about intentions. This is already about actions. Once again, the Chinese factor played the role of a trigger mechanism here. Of course, by controlling Greenland, the U.S. will control the North Atlantic and "loom" over Canada, which Trump has already designated as the 51st state of America.

However, control over Greenland does not automatically ensure control over the western sector of the Arctic. Here the control position belongs to the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, better known to us as Spitsbergen. I have addressed the topic of this Arctic archipelago more than once, so I won't repeat myself, I'll only note that whoever controls Spitsbergen controls the entrance-exit at the junction of the western sector of the Arctic with the North Atlantic. How this is done practically, the Kriegsmarine of the Third Reich demonstrated during World War II.

And here a dilemma arises for Trump – either he needs to further take Svalbard from the Norwegians (there is an important space communications station SvalSat there), or by default, agree to its annexation by Russia, leave something to satisfy the appetites of his idol Vladimir, again, to encourage him to "break away" from China. Russia has long "had its eye on" the archipelago, accusing Norway of violating its demilitarized status, enshrined in the Svalbard Treaty of 1920, and propagandistically claiming that it is actually the Russian archipelago of Grumant, discovered by the Pomors even before Vitus Bering.

Returning to Greenland. Denmark's reaction comes down to three main theses:

1. Greenland is not a subject of bargaining. 

2. Alliance with the U.S. does not mean renouncing sovereignty. 

3. Any U.S. interaction with the island is possible only with the participation of Denmark and the government of Greenland, which is an autonomy within the Kingdom of Denmark.

This is defensive diplomacy aimed at fixing legal status and preventing the creation of precedents that could be used by other states in the Arctic. It is clear that by other states, Russia is meant.

Moscow in this situation does not defend Denmark, does not support the U.S., because in a strategic sense it views this story as a potential opportunity to normalize the idea of revising the statuses of certain territories in high latitudes.

Neither in NATO nor in the EU do they support U.S. encroachments on Greenland, but Pandora's box in the Arctic has been opened.

Source

About the author. Mykhailo Honchar, expert on international energy and security relations.

The editorial board does not always share the opinions expressed by blog authors.