Reflections on Greenland and Global Strategy
Angelo Codevilla had a unique talent for dissecting foreign policy, making it more understandable. In a piece from the 2019 Claremont Book Review, he posed a thought-provoking question: “What does Russia mean to us?” This wasn’t out of admiration for Russia, but rather highlighting how Washington has turned it into a convenient adversary. This villain role, he argued, helps justify budgetary decisions, suppress dissent, and maintain control among the ruling elite. Codevilla’s core message was stark: strategy is fundamentally about profit, which demands a careful selection of interests. Much of what is considered “grand strategy” often seems more rooted in habit and ego than in pragmatic assessment.
His inquiry resonates especially in light of recent events surrounding Greenland, perhaps even more so than discussions from last week’s Davos meeting.
European leaders appear eager to frame this narrative around President Trump’s behavior and perceived unpredictability. They prefer to discuss “norms,” “tone,” and the delicate feelings among allies. There’s a concerted effort to convince Americans that the real scandal lies in how the U.S. President articulates his objectives, often too bluntly.
Trump did communicate directly during the Davos meeting. The discussions led to calls for “immediate negotiations” regarding Greenland, explicitly ruling out military action. He also suggested a framework focusing on Arctic security after talking with NATO’s chief and surprisingly stepped back from threats of tariffs. This approach rattled both allies and markets.
However, it’s hardly surprising that Trump behaved like Trump. The real shock is how Europe reacted. It exposed the continent’s dwindling seriousness, even regarding something as pressing as Greenland.
Rather than engaging in adult discussions or rigorous negotiations on vital territories, European capitals resorted to indignation, lecturing, and a predictable symbolic “show of force” fashioned for domestic audiences. The Numbers tell the story. Sweden sent a mere three officers, Norway two, Finland two liaison officers, while the Netherlands contributed one naval officer. Britain sent one officer, and France dispatched around 15 mountain experts. Germany’s reconnaissance team was only 13 strong, with Denmark leading about 100 troops, which Reuters deemed “modest” albeit kindly.
This illustrates the essence of Europe’s ruling class: a vigilant stance against a crisis of their own making, followed by displays of commitment, and ultimately, declarations of victory.
In this scenario, there is a unifying narrative that suggests Greenland needs safeguarding… from the U.S. That notion is simply absurd.
Greenland’s significance lies in its potential to bolster U.S. defenses. The Pitafik Space Base, previously known as Thule, allows the U.S. military to track threats from the polar regions. The Arctic is indifferent to European platitudes, and despite allied protocols, geography, quite simply, dictates military capabilities.
European Commissioners are aware of this, even if they hesitate to voice it. It strikes at the heart of a deal they wish to obfuscate: America provides authentic security, while Europe offers little more than theatrical responses.
The uproar over Greenland reveals a dissonance that ought to concern sensible American policymakers, if they still exist. The foundational power dynamics of industry have resurfaced, yet the West behaves like an empire that has lost its capacity for development.
Rare earth minerals, often dismissed as mere investment jargon, have critical implications. They are essential for modern weapons systems and advanced electronics. Keeping the F-35 operational and ensuring missile precision relies on minerals like neodymium, dysprosium, samarium, and yttrium, many of which the average person may not recognize.
Yet the supply chain is tightly controlled, with China dominating processing, especially of heavy rare earth elements. It’s estimated that China commands over 90% of the global market for these critical materials, representing a substantial vulnerability in national security.
Greenland holds potential as a solution, though not an instant fix. It harbors significant mineral deposits, which could reshape strategic balances, provided they are developed.
However, the politics of Greenland complicate those prospects. In 2021, the territory reinstated an effective ban on uranium mining, complicating initiatives like the Kvanefjeld project, recognized as one of the world’s most significant rare earth discoveries. The co-location of uranium with rare earth ores triggers regulatory and political hurdles that stifle large-scale mining prospects.
Greenlandic voters have every right to consider environmental repercussions. Yet strategy should be results-oriented. In this instance, the practical limitations of the ban benefit only the Chinese government.
Ironically, Europeans often embrace the idea of green virtue signaling that imposes minimal costs on their continent. Meanwhile, Europe continues to depend on American military strength, requires Chinese processing, and increasingly relies on superficial slogans.
Trump’s assertive posture undoubtedly complicates things. Discussions about potential agreements place Denmark in a difficult position and challenge its ideals in alliance negotiations. European leaders could unwittingly gain a platform they don’t rightfully deserve, allowing them to treat American interests as a moral dilemma.
However, it’s clear that trying to address strategic realities with mere theatrics won’t suffice. Sending a handful of liaison officers and reconnaissance teams won’t protect Greenland from real threats. Their symbolic displays of power often inspire ridicule instead of respect.
Codevilla’s critique from 2019 pointed out how the establishment exaggerates foreign threats to manage domestic concerns. The Greenland situation serves as a mirror; Europe’s elites seem to push America into a crisis because they overstate negotiations while struggling to engage with America as a serious player stymied by rhetoric.
Greenland’s strategic implications for national defense are undeniable. It borders critical Arctic territories and plays into the supply chains for advanced systems. These points should supersede any concerns about Davos etiquette.
So we return to Codevilla’s challenges. Let’s clarify our motivations. Assess our interests, and proceed as though our conclusions matter.
What does Greenland mean to us?
A great deal.
