In a recent discussion, business commentator Steve Forbes tackled the controversial topic of the United States’ interest in Greenland, suggesting that the country should recalibrate its strategy. Forbes firmly believes it’s time to halt any misguided attempts to acquire the icy island, asserting that territorial acquisition is neither needed nor desired by either the U.S. or the Greenlanders themselves.
When President Trump made headlines with his bold suggestion to buy Greenland, some Americans might have chuckled at the idea. However, Forbes pointed out that the Danish government, which owns Greenland, has repeatedly and clearly said “no” to selling the vast landmass. This isn’t a new development; even after World War II, the United States tried to purchase Greenland, only to be met with a firm rejection. Times have certainly changed since the U.S. bought the Virgin Islands in 1917, and now Greenlanders—you know, the folks actually living there—aren’t keen on being absorbed into the U.S. They value their autonomy and don’t want to be dragged into any political antics.
For Forbes, the notion of forcibly taking Greenland resembles tactics employed by countries like China, which has historically sought to expand its influence through military might. In the realm of geopolitics, such aggressive maneuvers could undermine the U.S.’s standing on the global stage. Imagine how Russia would relish the opportunity to exploit a U.S. seizure of Greenland to paint America in a negative light. It might even give President Putin the perfect excuse to ramp up his aggressive tactics in places like Ukraine. Such a move wouldn’t just alienate American allies, but also shake the very foundations of NATO, the alliance that has ensured post-World War II security.
There could have been a time when a more thoughtful approach—perhaps wooing Greenland politically, encouraging it to sever ties with Denmark and become a U.S. state—might have been successful. However, Forbes litters his commentary with disbelief at the current situation. Uncharacteristically brash diplomatic overtures have made that possibility vanish like snow in the summer sun. Instead of working toward mutual benefits, the U.S. has put itself in a corner, likely to face backlash from both Congress and the American public.
The good news, however, is that Forbes underscored that the U.S. doesn’t need to take over Greenland for strategic defense. It already maintains a significant military presence in the region, benefiting from a longstanding partnership with Denmark. Greenland hosts a space base that supports vital defense operations like radar systems and surveillance, ensuring the U.S. can counter new threats arising from environmental changes and a more aggressive Russia and China. Rather than grappling for control, strengthening alliances with Nordic neighbors and Canada is presented as the wiser path forward.
Finally, Forbes suggests a practical look at military strategy, which prioritizes technological capabilities, intelligence sharing, and rapid response. The U.S. has numerous military bases worldwide without owning the land, and Greenland could open the door for beneficial mineral deals without a heavy U.S. presence and a potentially disgruntled local population. Encouraging collaboration rather than confrontation makes more sense for maintaining national security. In short, the call for territorial grabbing might just fall flat in the face of smarter, strategic cooperation with allies.
