Greenland Debate: Militarily Strategic, Offers Mineral Deposits, and Trade Route for Russia, China

Joining us now to discuss the latest on the Greenland debate is Gerard Felitti, senior counsel at the Lawfare Project and political strategist. Gerard, thank you for joining us. So President Trump posting on Truth Social saying that he's formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and in fact the entire Arctic region. And that was with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. Can you interpret this for us? What does this mean? I think it tells us two things. First of all, that this is coming out of a meeting with the Secretary General of NATO tells us that the primary interest here was and has been defense. It has been the strategic military interest of the United States. So what we can expect a future deal to look like would be the permission or the use of Greenland by the United States for military installations, especially for a missile shield to protect against ballistic missiles launched from Russia. The other thing that this tells us is that NATO and by extension, the European Union do understand the threat that's posed by Russia and especially China, which is something that did come up in the discussions today. Okay, Gerard, can I ask you about the question of ownership? Trump had questioned Denmark's historical right of ownership over the island saying, quote, there are no written documents. It's only a boat that landed there hundreds of years ago, and that the U.S. also had boats landing there. What does it mean to have ownership? What does the right to ownership usually look like? Well, first, we have to look at the historical context. The area that's Greenland was explored by many different groups, many different cultures, but the territorial claim vested both in Denmark and at some point in Norway. We have to remember that Norway and Sweden were part of a kingdom, a larger kingdom, and that when these split off in early 1800s, Greenland stayed with Denmark. Greenland remained a possession of Denmark, the same as the United States has, for example, Puerto Rico, which is not a state but is nevertheless a territory. So this administration has continued since 1814 when there was a treaty by which Denmark ceded Norway to Sweden, and this was reinforced by international law by a settlement at the beginning of the 20th century. So what this means is that this is a self-autonomous, meaning that they govern themselves, but it's within a territory of Denmark. It belongs to Denmark. So, you know, at the core of the situation is security, right? And Trump has stressed that Denmark has not done well to defend Greenland and that threats in the form of Russia and China are moving closer. What is the situation then with Russia and China? What are they doing there? And is it in coordination with each other? Well, there are two things to bear in mind here as well, that this is an issue that goes back—military use goes back to the Truman era, to the end of World War II, when the United States realized that we were in an arms race with the Soviet Union, what is now Russia, for missiles and technology to bomb one another. And most of the flight path of intercontinental ballistic missiles, of ICBMs, especially nuclear ones, would be over the North Pole. So Greenland would be a very strategic point both to have a defense station to intercept whatever is being aimed at the United States and to monitor via satellite what's going on in Russia and now in China. So this has always been militarily strategically important. Now, what Russia and China have ambitions in the Arctic are trade routes. When you have the cheaper and faster way to ship products through territory that is now by the Greenland coast, it opens up a sea route as the Arctic ice is melting. You also have minerals, earth minerals that are being exploited or that want to be exploited, especially by China. So China's interest has been to try to wedge themselves in like they have in other countries, to have investments to build infrastructure, but to have those rights to expropriate minerals and other valuable things that Greenland has to offer. So this is both a mineral deposit, it's strategically important for the military, and it's a trade route that Russia and China would use for shipping. Okay, so you're saying that this is militarily important for the U.S., Trump has also said it's a point of security for the entire world as well, global security. So can you talk to us about the importance of Greenland in that context? Well, in large part, it comes down to the fact that Greenland is uniquely situated. Where it's positioned at the Arctic Circle, the Arctic is really the last place in the world that has yet to be explored and exploited for its resources, for its oil. There are significant oil and gas reserves in the Arctic. So whoever has control of that area doesn't just have a geographical position for war, but it has the ability to exploit economically and benefit from that. So this is really important to keep that in Western control, to keep that under American influence so that it doesn't fall into the hands of China, so that it doesn't fall into the hands of Russia, and give those countries which have totalitarian communist system in China, and we have Putin in Russia, we don't want them enriching themselves from Greenland at the expense of the world. And quickly, Gerard, just one final question. Where do you stand on the administration's position that if the U.S. does not take Greenland through whatever means that China and Russia will? Well, I think we've seen President Trump back down from the position of by any means. I don't think we're going to see military force. We did have the announcement of the framework of a deal today that's going to be negotiated by Vice President Rubio, by Steve Whitkoff, and by Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State. I think that in the future, there is the possibility for conflict as resources dwindle, as countries look to exploit other resources in other locations. Greenland is an empty land. It's 60,000 people in a huge territory. So yeah, that would be the possibility of conflict in the future militarily for that territory, just like there is for other undeveloped or underdeveloped parts of the world. Okay, Gerard, always great to speak with you. Thank you so much. A pleasure. Thank you.