Although he did retreat a bit, U.S. President Donald Trump has expressed his intention to bring Greenland under U.S. influence. Depending on international opinion, he has alternated between proposing outright annexation and suggesting a compulsory purchase. The central question now: Is this simple ambition for territorial expansion or far beyond it?
At first glance, Trump’s claim evokes the imperialist practices of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when territories were annexed, merged or seized through force. From this historical perspective, his recent remarks merit criticism. Nevertheless, his proposal warrants closer and more careful examination.
Considering the strategic importance of Greenland, the establishment and operation of U.S. military bases designed to block Russia’s projection of influence should not be constrained. Indeed, some NATO member states have already begun to suggest that support for U.S. forces stationed in Europe should be reduced, and voices have emerged calling for the reassertion of national control over U.S. military bases. At present, U.S. European Command maintains approximately 67,500 troops across 31 locations in Europe.
From a geopolitical perspective, however, Russia’s navy poses a potential threat to North America through the vast maritime space stretching from the Arctic to the Atlantic Ocean. Greenland represents a critical chokepoint, capable of constraining the expanding Russian and Chinese presence in the Arctic region.
In response to criticism from major powers such as the U.K., France and Germany, Trump has moderated the intensity of his annexation rhetoric. Nevertheless, his underlying intent remains alive. This situation should not be viewed or criticized from a single, narrow perspective. Such a limited viewpoint risks weakening the security environment of the Western world and may restrict freedom of its navigation in the Arctic.
In essence, the free world should understand Trump’s interest in Greenland not merely as a territorial ambition, but as one rooted in a long-term military and security strategy. Recently, Trump stated during discussions with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte that a future framework for Greenland and the Arctic region had been prepared. He reportedly indicated that the agreement had been reached to significantly expand access rights for the military use and support of Greenland.
From a security standpoint, Trump must recognize Denmark’s sovereignty. This approach would avoid the pitfalls of imperialist territorial expansion and lend greater rationality to his argument. On this basis, it would be possible to explore military and security cooperation with Denmark and to expect sufficient support from NATO member states.
It should also be noted that Denmark and the United States signed a Greenland Defense Agreement in 1951. Nonetheless, for many years, Russian fleets have approached the island as if it were their own backyard, increasingly interfering with the freedom of navigation and aviation of Western civilian vessels and naval battleships.
The Western world must take this reality seriously. At this point, what is required is not unilateral U.S. action, but the activation of collective NATO measures to expand military bases and enhance their roles. Only such collective action can block the continued projection of influence by Russia and China and allow the West to freely develop Greenland’s resources. Strategic visions aimed at counterbalancing Russian and Chinese influence should be set for peace and security for the free world.
Heo Mane, professor emeritus at Pusan National University, is a former president of the Korean Society of Contemporary European Studies. The views expressed in this article do not represent the editorial stance of The Korea Times.
Source: Korea Times News
