Retired Navy SEAL Explains the Strategic Importance of Greenland

And joining us now to discuss Trump's ambitions for Greenland and the commencement of military drills on the island is retired Navy SEAL Mike Cirelli, and he's the Chief Talent Officer for Overwatch Mission Critical. Thanks for joining us, Mike. Your reactions to seven European countries sending a total of what appears to be about 30 troops to join the already 150 military civilian Danish personnel that are there. Yeah, it's an extremely small number if that's Europe's response to resistance to Trump's plans. You can only classify that as weak. Now I want to get your view on how focal Greenland is, specifically with Russia and China ambitions. Trump's citing that as the need for why the U.S. should bring Greenland into the fold. The Arctic is going to become the new battleground. As we see the ice caps melt, the navigable routes increase. So Russia's one, their icebreaking fleet capability is one of the largest in the world. The U.S. plans to catch up to that. But if you draw, and here's the strategic nature of it, the great circle routes between Russia and North America, those are the routes that most of the ballistic missiles would take, which ultimately makes Greenland an ideal location for early warning and sensor and monitoring that detect and track ballistic missiles in early fight, and then feedback that information to NORAD. Additionally, the G.I.U.K., which is the Greenland-Iceland-U.K. gap, is of strategic importance. Russia has built up their Arctic fleet well beyond many capabilities. So they are the current competitor. China is a long-term competitor. But that gap, the G.I.U.K. gap, allows us to monitor that choke point for Russian submarines traveling from the Arctic into the North Atlantic. So that's why this is of such strategic nature. Now what Trump is doing is, does he plan to invade Greenland? No. We recognize that Greenlanders have a right to self-determine and self-govern, but he is forcing NATO, which requires 27 countries, to take a vote and move at the speed of molasses. So he's forcing them to, one, focus on the strategic importance of Greenland, which will most likely result in a partnership with Denmark and the NATO countries. But if we don't act now, China will become an increasing player in that space, and ultimately this is to get ahead of the long-term problem that Trump foresees of the strategic nature of the Arctic and what it's becoming. It's really interesting how you phrase that. We saw that certainly back in his first term, where he very strongly called out NATO for under-investing in their own pact at 5 percent of GDP, and then of course that was before Putin had invaded Russia. So your view is that any outcome is good because it gets friendly forces to invest and take note of Greenland, or does ultimately he feel that NATO isn't up to the task the way that the Americans are in doing what needs to be done to prevent any additional Russian and China aggression? The way you phrase it, it's probably a bit of both. NATO is already fractured, and if anyone says this has the potential to fracture NATO, that's existed for over a decade because our partners, our allies, have not carried the burden, as you referred to, their lack of GDP spent on defense. So this is, I think, a beautiful tactic. We know Trump is a negotiator, to force them to the table and hold them accountable. But they do not have the military capability that the U.S. has. We need, and we have Petrific, which is run by Space Command, located, I believe, in northwest Greenland. But we need sub-bases, we need ship bases, not only for trade but also for defense. So, you know, I sort of bucket NATO and the U.N. in the same category, and that category is ineffective. Mike, you bring up Petrific, and the U.S. having no claim to Greenland already has about the same size of investment as do the Danish. What has been happening under Danish involvement, of course, their claim to Greenland goes back to colonial times, but it seems like they haven't really put too much investment as it relates to military or security in that region. No, you're absolutely right, and I think what set up alarm bells is when China began conversations to invest in airports. That's sort of their, you know, road and belt initiative. It's what they've done with Africa, and they've essentially bought the rights to Africa. Trump is stepping in, much like removing Maduro from Venezuela, he's removed Russia and China from the Western Hemisphere. He's leaning forward to remove China from this area as well. But it also brings up the subject of rare earth and critical minerals, which we know that Greenland is rich in minerals, poor in infrastructure. So this is a future investment, especially from a trade perspective and a resource perspective that can not only be accretive for NATO, Denmark, Greenlanders, but also the United States. And Mike, in terms of like the phrase, you know, everything is for sale, it's just about negotiating and getting to the right price. What are your expectations in Greenland and the posturing of Denmark and NATO to some extent? Yeah, again, it is a negotiation tactic. Trump has come in with a heavy hand, which ultimately forces conversations. What I foresee is a very strong partnership between Greenlanders, Denmark, and the United States. Of course, NATO will be involved, a NATO framework with that. But this is a tactic to stop delaying the inevitable and allowing Russia to, let's say, establish dominance over the Arctic region. Again, those trade routes are invaluable to not only our NATO partners, but the United States and Greenlanders themselves. I appreciate you breaking it all down for us. Mike Cerelli, good to see you. Thank you.