 |
[This article by Prof. Ruel F. Pepa was first published on Global Research. You can read it here.]
U.S. President Donald Trump has long been known for his unconventional political moves and bold geopolitical ambitions. One of the most intriguing and controversial ideas attributed to him is the notion of acquiring Greenland and, more broadly, increasing U.S. influence over Canada. While this might seem like a far-fetched notion, there are strategic military and economic reasons behind such an ambition. By examining the Arctic map from a military and geopolitical perspective, the integration of the U.S., Canada, and Greenland into a single entity under American control could serve as a powerful strategic advantage against Russia.
A Strategic Arctic Stronghold
From an Arctic-centric perspective of the world map, Canada and Greenland hold a pivotal position, sitting directly opposite Russia’s vast Arctic expanse. This geographical reality underscores the immense strategic value of these territories in the evolving geopolitical landscape. If the United States were to assert full control over Canada and Greenland, it would dramatically shift the balance of power in the region, reinforcing Washington’s ability to project military strength and economic influence in the High North.
In recent years, the Arctic has emerged as a key battleground for global competition, driven by factors such as climate change, resource accessibility, and great-power rivalries. Melting ice caps have unlocked new shipping routes and untapped reserves of oil, gas, and rare minerals, intensifying the strategic importance of the region. As a result, the Arctic has become an arena for geopolitical maneuvering, with Russia actively expanding its military infrastructure, modernizing its Arctic bases, and increasing its icebreaker fleet. Despite the West’s often-exaggerated concerns about Moscow’s ambitions, the reality is that Russia has long viewed the Arctic as an essential frontier for both national security and economic growth.
For the United States, securing dominance over Canada and Greenland would provide an unparalleled advantage in countering Russia’s influence. Canada’s vast Arctic archipelago and extensive coastline would offer the U.S. enhanced surveillance and military staging capabilities, enabling it to monitor Russian activity more closely and deter any perceived threats. Additionally, Greenland’s strategic location between North America and Europe combined with its abundant natural resources would further bolster Washington’s position in Arctic affairs. Control over these territories would not only cement the U.S. as the dominant power in the region but also allow it to dictate the terms of Arctic governance, resource exploitation, and military operations.
Gaining full control over Canada and Greenland would transform the United States into the preeminent Arctic superpower, ensuring that it remains ahead of its adversaries in an increasingly contested and strategically vital region.
 |
Defense Considerations: A Northern Shield Against Russian Aggression
As geopolitical tensions between Russia and the West continue to escalate, largely fueled by strategic provocations and mutual distrust, the Arctic is rapidly becoming a crucial theater of military competition. The region’s significance extends far beyond resource exploitation and shipping routes; it is also a vital component of North American defense strategy. Given its proximity to Russia, the Arctic represents a potential flashpoint in any future conflict between global powers. If hostilities were ever to break out, Canada and Greenland would serve as the first lines of defense against any military incursion from the Russian north.
Historically, the Arctic has been an essential factor in North American defense planning, particularly during the Cold War. The establishment of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the construction of the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line were direct responses to the perceived Soviet threat. However, as military technology has advanced and Russia has revitalized its Arctic military infrastructure, the US has seen the need for an even more robust northern defense strategy has become apparent.
By bringing Canada and Greenland under direct U.S. control, Washington could significantly enhance its ability to secure the northern front. This would involve the deployment of state-of-the-art missile defense systems, advanced radar installations, and an expanded network of air and naval bases. These strategic assets would create an impenetrable defensive shield, capable of detecting and neutralizing potential threats before they reach the continental United States. Modern hypersonic missile defense systems, integrated satellite surveillance, and unmanned aerial reconnaissance could be stationed across the Arctic, ensuring constant vigilance against any adversarial movements.
Furthermore, U.S. control over these territories would allow for seamless military coordination and rapid deployment capabilities, eliminating the need for bureaucratic negotiations with allied nations during a crisis. This level of operational control would be particularly critical in the event of a high-stakes confrontation, where immediate response times could determine the outcome of a conflict.
Beyond traditional military deterrence, a fortified Arctic presence would also serve to counteract Russia’s growing influence in the region. Moscow has invested heavily in modernizing its Arctic forces, constructing new air bases, expanding its fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers, and conducting frequent military exercises in the High North. A reinforced U.S. presence in Canada and Greenland would send a clear message that North America’s Arctic territories are not vulnerable to external threats, ensuring strategic superiority in one of the world’s most contested regions.
Securing direct U.S. control over Canada and Greenland would not only safeguard North America from potential Russian aggression but would also cement the United States’ position as the dominant military power in the Arctic for decades to come.
A Launching Pad for Offensive Capabilities
Beyond serving as a formidable defensive shield, direct U.S. control over Canada and Greenland would also offer a highly strategic advantage for offensive military operations against Russia. These territories’ geographical proximity to critical Russian military and economic hubs would enable Washington to project power deep into Russian territory with unprecedented speed and efficiency. In the event of a conflict, the U.S. could leverage these positions to launch rapid, high-impact strikes, ensuring military dominance in the Arctic and beyond.
One of the most significant advantages of controlling Canada and Greenland is the ability to station a diverse range of offensive military assets across the Arctic. The region’s vast, sparsely populated landscapes provide the perfect environment for deploying advanced missile systems, long-range bombers, and nuclear-capable submarines. From bases in Canada’s northern territories and Greenland’s coastal waters, American forces could position ballistic and cruise missile systems capable of reaching Russia’s strategic command centers, energy infrastructure, and military installations within minutes. This would drastically reduce Moscow’s reaction time in a crisis, forcing the Kremlin to remain on constant high alert.
Additionally, the Arctic’s geography makes it an optimal staging ground for U.S. submarine warfare. The region’s frigid waters offer an ideal operating environment for nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) and ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), which could patrol beneath the ice undetected, maintaining a near-permanent presence on Russia’s northern doorstep. These submarines would be capable of launching precision strikes on key Russian assets, reinforcing America’s strategic deterrence posture.
The vast, open airspace over the Arctic would also be an advantageous deployment zone for U.S. stealth bombers and hypersonic missile systems. With shorter flight paths to major Russian cities and military installations, bombers such as the B-2 Spirit and B-21 Raider could execute long-range strike missions with minimal exposure to Russian air defenses. Moreover, Greenland’s location between North America and Europe would allow the U.S. to reinforce NATO’s offensive capabilities by providing a launch platform for joint air and missile operations against Russian targets.
Beyond its tactical advantages, the mere presence of overwhelming American offensive capabilities in the Arctic would serve as a powerful deterrent against what the West perceives as Russian aggression. Knowing that U.S. forces could strike at a moment’s notice from a highly fortified northern stronghold would force Moscow to reconsider any aggressive maneuvers in the region. This deterrent effect could extend beyond conventional warfare, influencing Russia’s geopolitical calculations in areas such as Eastern Europe, the Baltic states, and the Pacific.
The militarization of Canada and Greenland under U.S. control would not only neutralize Russian threats but would also place Washington in a commanding position to dictate the strategic balance in the Arctic. By transforming these territories into forward operating bases for offensive military power, the United States would reinforce its status as the dominant force in the region, ensuring it remains prepared to counter any potential threats from its long-time adversary.
Economic and Resource Exploitation
Beyond its strategic military importance, the Arctic is a treasure trove of untapped natural resources, making it one of the most economically valuable frontiers in the world. Canada and Greenland, in particular, sit atop vast reserves of oil, natural gas, and rare earth minerals, critical commodities that are essential for modern industries, from energy production to high-tech manufacturing. If the United States were to gain control over these territories, it would secure a dominant position in Arctic resource exploitation, reducing its reliance on foreign energy supplies and significantly strengthening its global economic influence.
Access to Energy Resources
The Arctic region is estimated to contain approximately 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of its undiscovered natural gas reserves. Canada’s Arctic territories hold immense deposits of crude oil and natural gas, particularly in the Beaufort Sea and the Mackenzie Delta, while Greenland’s offshore waters are believed to contain significant hydrocarbon reserves. However, development in these areas has been slow due to environmental concerns, logistical challenges, and political considerations. Under direct U.S. control, investment in Arctic energy extraction could be accelerated, with American companies leading the way in developing new drilling technologies and infrastructure to tap into these resources.
Securing these energy reserves would have profound economic and geopolitical implications. The U.S. could reduce its reliance on Middle Eastern and Russian oil, bolstering energy independence while increasing global market leverage. Control over Arctic oil and gas supplies would allow Washington to dictate energy prices, influence global supply chains, and even weaken economic competitors who rely on these resources.
Monopoly Over Rare Earth Minerals
Beyond fossil fuels, Greenland is home to some of the world’s largest deposits of rare earth minerals essential in the production of advanced electronics, military hardware, and renewable energy technologies. Currently, China dominates the global rare earth supply chain, controlling over 60% of worldwide production. By taking control of Greenland’s rare earth mines, the U.S. could break China’s stranglehold on these critical materials, securing a domestic supply for its industries while limiting Beijing’s economic leverage over global tech markets.
A U.S.-dominated rare earth supply chain would have far-reaching consequences, particularly in the defense and high-tech sectors. These minerals are vital for manufacturing semiconductors, electric vehicle batteries, aerospace components, and missile guidance systems. By securing Greenland’s mineral wealth, the U.S. could gain a strategic advantage in both economic competition and national security, ensuring that its industries remain independent of Chinese supply chains.
Arctic Trade and Shipping Dominance
As climate change accelerates the melting of Arctic ice, new shipping routes are becoming accessible, dramatically altering global trade dynamics. The Northern Sea Route (NSR) along Russia’s coast and the Northwest Passage (NWP) through Canada’s Arctic waters are emerging as viable alternatives to traditional trade routes, such as the Suez and Panama Canals. These Arctic passages could cut shipping times between Asia, Europe, and North America by as much as 40%, reducing fuel costs and increasing global trade efficiency.
If the U.S. were to take control of Canada and Greenland, it would effectively dominate the Arctic’s most strategic maritime pathways. This would allow Washington to regulate global shipping through the Arctic, setting the terms for commercial access, imposing tariffs, and prioritizing American economic interests. Such control would also enable the U.S. to restrict adversaries, such as China and Russia, from freely utilizing Arctic trade routes, leveraging its authority over the region to advance its economic and geopolitical goals.
Infrastructure and Economic Growth
U.S. control over Canada and Greenland would also drive significant infrastructure investment in the Arctic, transforming the region into a hub for economic growth. New ports, railways, and energy facilities could be developed to support resource extraction and commercial trade, creating new job opportunities and stimulating industrial expansion. The U.S. could attract private sector investment into Arctic infrastructure projects, further solidifying its economic grip on the region.
Moreover, the growing interest in renewable energy sources such as wind and hydroelectric power could be capitalized upon in the Arctic. Greenland, in particular, has significant potential for hydroelectric energy generation, which could be harnessed to support both domestic energy needs and export markets. The Arctic’s unique geography presents opportunities for research and innovation in sustainable energy development, positioning the U.S. at the forefront of green technology advancements.
Gaining control over Canada and Greenland would provide the United States with an unparalleled opportunity to exploit the Arctic’s vast natural wealth while securing its dominance in global trade and energy markets. By harnessing the region’s untapped resources, monopolizing rare earth mineral production, and establishing control over Arctic shipping routes, Washington could significantly enhance its economic and geopolitical power. In an era where energy security, resource independence, and trade supremacy are paramount, controlling the Arctic would cement the United States as the world’s preeminent economic force for generations to come.
Political and Diplomatic Challenges
While the strategic and economic benefits of acquiring Canada and Greenland are evident, the political and diplomatic obstacles to such a move are immense. Both territories possess strong national identities and a long-standing resistance to foreign control, making any attempt by the United States to integrate them a highly contentious issue. Beyond local opposition, such an endeavor would provoke significant backlash from the international community, potentially straining alliances, violating international norms, and triggering severe geopolitical consequences.
Canadian Resistance and Sovereignty Issues
Canada, as one of the United States’ closest allies, would fiercely oppose any efforts to undermine its sovereignty. The country has a deeply entrenched national identity, shaped by its historical struggle to maintain independence from both the British Empire and U.S. influence. Any attempt by Washington to assert control over Canadian territory, whether through political maneuvering, economic pressure, or military coercion, would be met with strong resistance from both the Canadian government and its citizens.
Canada has long viewed its Arctic territories as a core part of its national sovereignty, and any U.S. encroachment would likely be perceived as an existential threat. The Canadian government has consistently pushed back against American claims over Arctic waters, particularly regarding the Northwest Passage, which Canada considers an internal waterway while the U.S. views it as an international strait. An outright attempt to take control of Canada’s Arctic territories would escalate these disputes to a full-blown diplomatic crisis, likely severing decades of strong bilateral relations between the two nations.
Domestically, such an attempt would unite Canadians across the political spectrum in staunch opposition. Nationalist sentiments would surge, with protests, civil disobedience, and possibly even violent resistance emerging in response. The Canadian military, despite its smaller size compared to the U.S., would undoubtedly mobilize to defend the country’s sovereignty, forcing Washington into a potential armed conflict with a close ally.
Greenland’s Autonomy and Danish Opposition
Greenland, while geographically isolated, presents its own set of political and diplomatic challenges. As an autonomous territory of Denmark, Greenland has been gradually moving toward greater self-governance, with many of its citizens aspiring for full independence rather than integration into another foreign power. The U.S. has previously expressed interest in acquiring Greenland, most notably in 2019 when then-President Donald Trump proposed purchasing the island, a move that was swiftly and unequivocally rejected by Danish officials, who described the proposal as “absurd.”
Denmark, a NATO ally, has consistently asserted its authority over Greenland while respecting the island’s self-governance. Any U.S. attempt to take control of Greenland, whether through diplomatic pressure or economic incentives, would provoke strong resistance from both Greenlandic and Danish governments. Such a move could also destabilize Denmark’s political landscape, potentially leading to heightened tensions between Copenhagen and its autonomous territory.
International Backlash and Diplomatic Consequences
Beyond opposition from Canada and Greenland, the broader international community would view any U.S. takeover attempt as an outright act of imperialism. Western allies, including the European Union, NATO members, and the United Nations, would condemn such an action as a violation of international law and an affront to the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination.
A forced or coercive U.S. acquisition of these territories could lead to severe diplomatic consequences, including:
Economic Sanctions: The U.S. could face retaliatory economic sanctions from key trade partners, damaging American businesses and disrupting global markets.
Weakened Alliances: NATO and other alliances could be fractured, as European and North American allies turn against the U.S. for its aggressive territorial ambitions.
Increased Global Instability: Other major powers, such as China and Russia, could exploit the situation to justify their own territorial expansions, further destabilizing international relations.
Potential Military Escalation
If the U.S. were to pursue an aggressive strategy to gain control of Canada and Greenland, there is also the risk of military confrontation. Canada, backed by its NATO allies, could mobilize its forces to resist any encroachment, leading to an unprecedented conflict between two historically allied nations. Denmark, though militarily smaller, could also seek EU and NATO support to protect Greenland’s autonomy. In a worst-case scenario, the international community might impose military interventions or peacekeeping operations to deter U.S. aggression.
Additionally, Russia and China that both have strategic interests in the Arctic could capitalize on the crisis to expand their own influence in the region. Moscow, already wary of U.S. military buildup in the Arctic, could view such an action as a direct threat, potentially escalating tensions to a dangerous level. China, which has invested heavily in Greenland’s rare earth minerals and Arctic infrastructure projects, would likely oppose any U.S. takeover and may respond with economic or geopolitical countermeasures.
Conclusion
Trump’s interest in acquiring Greenland and extending U.S. influence over Canada may seem like an extreme geopolitical maneuver, but it is not without strategic reasoning. From a military standpoint, controlling the Arctic would provide the U.S. with a formidable defense system against Russia while also granting an advantageous position for offensive operations if necessary. Economically, access to Arctic resources and trade routes would further solidify U.S. global power. However, the political feasibility of such a move remains highly questionable, as it would likely face intense opposition from both Canada and Greenland, as well as from the international community at large.
While Trump’s Arctic ambitions may never materialize, they highlight the growing importance of the Arctic in global power dynamics. As the region becomes increasingly vital for security and economic interests, the U.S., Russia, and other global players will continue to compete for dominance in this crucial part of the world.”
The prospect of the United States controlling Canada and Greenland presents undeniable strategic and economic advantages. However, the political and diplomatic challenges of such a move would be overwhelming. Fierce resistance from Canada and Greenland, combined with international condemnation and the potential for military escalation, makes any U.S. attempt to integrate these territories highly impractical. Rather than securing dominance in the Arctic, such an action could isolate the United States diplomatically, weaken its alliances, and trigger a global crisis with far-reaching consequences.
***
Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. A retired academic (Associate Professor IV), he taught Philosophy and Social Sciences for more than fifteen years at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Sources
Trump and Greenland: Geopolitics, Sovereignty, and the Future of the Arctic by James John. Independently published in 2025.
Arctic Geopolitics, Media and Power by Annika Nilsson and Miyase Christensen. Published by Routledge in 2019.
The Military and Strategic Importance of Greenland to the United States by Roberto Miguel Rodriguez. Independently published in 2025.
America in the Arctic: Foreign Policy and Competition in the Melting North by Mary Thompson-Jones. Published by Columbia University Press in 2025.
The Scramble for the Poles: The Geopolitics of the Arctic and Antarctic by Klaus Dodds and Mark Nuttall. Published by Polityvin 2017.
America’s Arctic Moment: Great Power Competition in the Arctic to 2050 by Heather A. Conley. Published by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers in 2020.
The Arctic and World Order edited by Daniel S. Hamilton. Published by Brookings Institution Press in 2020.
Arctic Passages: A Unique Small-Boat Journey Through the Great Northern Waterway by John Bockstoce. Published by Island Press in 1997.
U.S. National Strategy for the Arctic and Analysis of Changes and Issues for the Region by the Congressional Research Service published by Nova Science Publishers in 2020.
