Will Trump's Greenland Deal Come With Any Actual Benefits?

"President Donald Trump makes it all sound very simple: The U.S. should simply have Greenland, an island three times the size of Texas administered by a NATO ally in Europe. And while he has walked back from demanding "the acquisition of Greenland" for a deal that reportedly could involve a boosted U.S. military presence there, he still appears to dismiss the complexity of expanding our presence on the frozen island."

"Perhaps the working group with the Danish government could come to some kind of agreement that lets Trump come out as a winner. Then the Europeans would "allow him" to station 5,000 troops in Greenland and put some missiles or whatever, which he would already be allowed to do anyway. But I could see the Europeans pursuing the path of at least publicly allowing him to pretend to come out as a victor from this."

U.S. interest in Greenland is driven by growing Arctic strategic importance, missile defense considerations, and perceived resource opportunities. NATO and bilateral frameworks could permit increased U.S. basing without territorial acquisition, and Denmark might publicly acquiesce to enhanced American deployments. Greenland’s resource potential is constrained by harsh climate, infrastructure deficits, environmental risks, and legal hurdles, making extraction costly and uncertain. Purchasing territory faces diplomatic and domestic opposition. Existing agreements already allow some U.S. activity, so political framing and long-term costs, rather than immediate capability gaps, largely shape any expansion of presence.

Read at Intelligencer