In 2025, President Donald Trump once again proposed purchasing Greenland, revisiting a controversial initiative he first raised in 2019. This move must be analyzed within the geopolitical and economic context of Greenland and within the broader strategic framework of the United States under Trump 2.0.
Why Does the U.S. Need Greenland?
Firstly, Greenland holds significant value to the U.S. for several reasons: (i) Geopolitical significance: Greenland is strategically located between the United States, Russia, and Europe, near two potential Arctic shipping routes - the Northwest Passage along the North American coastline and the Transpolar Sea Route across the central Arctic Ocean; (ii) Economic and resource potential: Greenland possesses abundant natural resources, particularly large reserves of rare earth elements (REEs) essential for battery production, wind and solar technologies, and advanced military equipment. This could help the U.S. reduce its reliance on China; and (iii) Security and defense considerations: Greenland hosts the U.S. Thule Air Base (now Pituffik Space Base), a critical military installation for early warning systems, missile defense, and space surveillance.
Secondly, beyond its inherent strategic value, recent developments further reinforce U.S. interest in Greenland: (i) Climate change and resource access: Melting ice in Greenland due to climate change is making resource extraction and Arctic shipping routes more accessible; and (ii) Intensifying U.S.-Russia-China Arctic Competition: China’s growing economic engagement in Greenland, including investments in mining and infrastructure and Russia’s expanding military presence in the Arctic are escalating strategic competition in the region.
Is This a Genuine Offer or a Tactical Maneuver?
Despite Greenland’s strategic importance, the U.S. does not face immediate security risks without ownership of the territory. Key resources can be accessed through extraction agreements rather than outright territorial acquisition. Additionally, past U.S. foreign policy patterns suggest that Trump often employs bold, controversial statements as negotiation tools rather than fixed policy objectives. Previous cases, such as pressuring Mexico on border control policies, leveraging economic power against Canada in USMCA negotiations, and influencing Panama, indicate a pattern of using shock-value diplomacy to gain leverage. This raises the question: Is Greenland the ultimate objective, or is this proposal merely a tactical move to achieve broader strategic goals?
One hypothesis is that the U.S. proposal is not genuinely aimed at purchasing Greenland but rather serves to: (i) gain leverage over Denmark and Greenland by pressuring them into concessions on military cooperation, mineral extraction rights, or limiting Chinese influence in Greenland; (ii) pressure NATO allies by unsettling European partners, pushing them to increase defense spending or commit to security arrangements more favorable to U.S. interests.; and (iii) revive the "Madman Theory" strategy, employing unpredictable and extreme rhetoric to keep adversaries uncertain and coerce them into making concessions.
HC
An original version of this article was published here
-giữa-Nhật-Bản-và-Philippines.jpg&w=200)
