by Monica Showalter
After a huge round of huffing and puffing, Denmark has finally agreed to come to the negotiating table for the sale of Greenland. If a sale, reportedly for $700 billion cash, goes through, welcome to the real estate deal of the year.
Here is how the White House announced it:
BREAKING: The White House comments on the meeting between Denmark and the US:
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) January 15, 2026
"The two sides agreed to establish a working group for technical talks on the acquisition of Greenland."
"President Trump has made it clear, he wants to acquire Greenland," she adds. pic.twitter.com/Srd0eu6nbu
Which is quite a change from all the reflexive 'Greenland is not for sale' talk coming from Denmark.
Meetings are being held, and the Danes, out there in the Washington, D.C. cold smoking their cigarettes afterward as news photos showed, do seem to be feeling the pressure. Their statements have gone the Fully Delcy, in that they seem to be saying the opposite of what the Trump administration is announcing, as the New York Times reports:
NEW: The Danish foreign minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, told The New York Times that a US takeover of Greenland was a red line. He said Vance and Rubio had agreed to a working group on solutions. But the White House said the group will discuss the US acquisition of Greenland. pic.twitter.com/8zSJ7GWlTW
— Edward Wong (@ewong) January 16, 2026
But the fact that they agreed to the meetings at all suggests a potential deal in the works. If they really would never change their position, they wouldn't talk at all.
The Trump administration says it needs Greenland for national security purposes, given its plans to create a Golden Dome over North America to protect the U.S. from Iranian, North Korean or Chinese potential nuclear attacks, same way Israel protects itself from terrorist attacks with its Iron Dome. That the U.S. has a lot of land to protect makes the prospect infinitely more complicated than what Israel has in front of it, even with Israel's more frequent attackers. That would explain a reasonable U.S. interest where Greenland ownership would be better than an alliance, if possible.
There are also the minerals to mine, which nobody is mining, and the deep-freeze climate that is so good for data storage. The business angles can't be ignored if the U.S. is to progress in its development, which, in the end, benefits all of the allies, including Denmark, too.
Two things might have made a difference in Denmark's agreement to talks:
One, the much-vaunted military mobilization of European forces to protect Greenland was kind of a dud -- Europe sent 34 troops to defend the giant island for a two-day exercise in the ice-cold weather.
That's not going to scare anyone, and worse still, it points to the low value and low commitment of non-U.S. NATO forces. They aren't serious.
And for Denmark, it means they really can't defend the island from attack. If you can't defend what you own, you don't really own it. It reminds me of various South American nations claiming 2,000-mile fishing zones off their coasts in the 1970s, in territory so vast it could never be defended unless they wanted to spend all their energy doing it and maybe not even that. It was territory that they could not defend. Extravagant claims, and no capacity to defend them, is not what works, and far more reasonable territorial water zones eventually were declared.
The second factor is more serious: Danish intelligence has admitted that Russia and China do have designs on the island.
According to ZeroHedge:
A 2025 Intelligence Assessment by the government of Denmark highlights the long term Russian and Chinese 'threat' in Arctic waters, at a moment Greenland officials have rejected the US assertion that the large resource-rich island and its waters are being gradually influenced and taken over by the Russia/China 'menace'.Trump has recently stated, "We need that because if you take a look outside of Greenland right now, there are Russian destroyers, there are Chinese destroyers and, bigger, there are Russian submarines all over the place. We’re not gonna have Russia or China occupy Greenland, and that’s what they’re going to do if we don’t."
... and ...
For a sampling of official quotes from the Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS) - Intelligence Outlook 2025, complied by Conservative pundit Nick Solheim:
"In recent years, the United States has significantly increased its security policy focus on the Arctic, while Russia continues its military build-up, and China continues to develop its capacity to operate both submarines and surface vessels in the region." (p. 30)
"Russia remains the strongest military power in the Arctic but sees itself as being challenged by the West. As a result, Russia will increasingly assert its interests through a more confrontational approach, both politically and militarily." (p. 30)
"Most of Russia’s nuclear-armed submarines are stationed in the Arctic. They form a key component of Russia’s plan to deter the United States from attacking, providing Russia with the capability to launch a potential retaliatory nuclear strike." (p. 31)
"The United States’ assessment of the scale and nature of future Chinese military activity in the Arctic is a key factor shaping its engagement in the region. Any Chinese military activity in the Arctic – particularly in proximity to US territory – would be regarded as a serious concern." (p. 31)
"China aims to develop the capacity for independent military operations in the Arctic. Chinese activities are primarily concentrated in the waters north of the Bering Strait, extending towards the North Pole." (p. 35)
"China’s long-term goal is to deploy missile submarines beneath the ice, thereby attaining the same nuclear second-strike capability as Russia and the United States." (p. 36)
"Although Chinese companies have shown interest in investing in Greenland, this has so far not produced tangible results. Nevertheless, China’s long-term Arctic interests include Greenland, and it is expected to continue pursuing cooperation with Greenland, particularly in research but also in commercial ventures." (p. 36)
"Despite the considerable geographical distance, Russia periodically deploys submarines, surface vessels and aircraft near both Greenland and the Faroe Islands, as well as throughout the waters between them." (p. 38)
"In addition, Russia employs civilian vessels operating in the area to carry out tasks such as surveillance on behalf of the Russian state." (p. 38)
"For Russia, the waters between Greenland, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and the United Kingdom – the so-called GIUK Gap – form the main maritime gateway to and from the Arctic. Thus, the GIUK Gap is vital for Russia in the event of an armed conflict with NATO." (p. 35)
"In such a conflict, Russia would seek to disrupt the supply lines between the United States and Europe by deploying attack submarines capable of transiting the GIUK Gap undetected." (p. 35)
So the Danish do know they're up to no good.
Russia, of course, has loudly proclaimed its support for Denmark, obviously preferring a weak Denmark to a strong U.S. island ownership, and hoping no one will notice its Ukraine invasion.
With that reality on the ground -- an incapacity to defend the island, a dependence on the U.S. for defense, and a dismissal of the prospect of purchase -- what do they think the U.S. is going to do if Russia or China set up their own bases on Greenland?
China's South China Sea behavior and for that matter, illegal New York City police stations, already indicate they are capable of doing this.
What are they going to do if Russia muscles in with its already advanced quest for Arctic dominance? We know what they did to Ukraine and Georgia.
Are they going to come crying to the U.S. to defend Greenland when the proper defenses could have been put in place by the U.S., maybe with an extra Golden Dome for Europe, too, and then expect the U.S. to expend blood and treasure for them, doing its work for it? It doesn't seem like a very bright idea, given the mood in the U.S. now.
In contrast, taking the money and running with it, and maybe demanding a few extras, such as a Golden Dome or a tropical island, thrown in, could be immensely beneficial to Denmark, with its net worth rising to levels resembling oil-rich Norway's or more.
What could they do with $700 billion cash? They could set up a space company or create the mother of all medical innovation centers, what with their prowess with Ozempic and other highly sought-after weight-loss drugs. They could save the cash for a rainy day, or they could upgrade all their homes to the highest tech possible. Maybe they could buy tropical islands for the Danish alone to vacation at, creating their own national Club Med.
The possibilities are endless.
Trump loves real estate deals, but he loves legacy more, and national security for all of us the most. All three of these things could come together if this goes through. According to hedge fund manager Bill Ackman, it would increase the U.S.'s landmass by an impressive 22%.
Now there's a working group. Let's hope something agreeable comes of it for all sides.
No comments:
Post a Comment