Commentary: Why Greenland Is Too Important to Invade
In a Jan. 14 opinion piece published by Bloomberg, retired US Navy Admiral and former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO James Stavridis provided expert analysis of the arguments being made by the administration for acquisition of Greenland by force, if necessary, concluding that there are better alternatives.
In the face of escalating pressure by the administration and strengthening resistance by NATO members, including Denmark, which has sovereignty over the semi-autonomous territory, and by Greenlanders themselves, Stavridis reviewed and challenged the administration’s arguments:
- Critical and strategic minerals;
- Encroachment by China and Russia;
- A crucial geostrategic position astride the North Atlantic Sea routes;
- And — above all — the growing importance of the Arctic
Minerals
Stavridis referred to a review by Bloomberg commodities expert Javier Blas, who has written: “Greenland is not a new and exotic source of mineral supply that will solve the world's shortages, despite its mineral deposits. The island's mineral riches are not as vast as claimed, and most deposits are small, expensive to extract, and often located in remote areas.”
Referencing a 2023 Danish government survey, Stavridis reported that half the valuable resources are north of the arctic circle, and those in southern Greenland “don’t appear to be sufficiently large to make mining them commercially feasible”.
“It would be easier to mine in the US (which has larger deposits than Greenland), Brazil, Chile, Peru, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Vietnam and a handful of other known locations”, Stavridis wrote.
Russia & China
Stavridis agreed that military and commercial intrusion by Russia and China are of greater concern. But he argued that Greenland is already covered by the NATO mutual defense treaty, the US already has a base there, and that both Denmark and Greenland are favorable to an increased US military presence on the island, provided it is done under NATO auspices.
“Yes, we need to counter China and Russia — but this is well within the grasp of the US under the current arrangement”, Stavridis concluded.
Arctic Sea Routes
As a naval historian and tactician, Stavridis acknowledged that “the island is a vital link in the chain across the top of the North Atlantic. This passage, called the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap, is the route Russia would use to flood the Atlantic with naval forces.” He cited the particular threats posed by Russia’s increasingly difficult-to-detect nuclear submarines and its efforts to develop long-range nuclear-capable drone torpedoes.
However, Stavridis said, “Keeping them at bay would be easier with anti-submarine bases linking Greenland to other US and NATO military installations.”
Growing Importance of the Arctic
The future commercial importance of a Transpolar Sea Route, which may open as climate change leads to melting of the polar ice cap, is also recognized in Stavridis’ analysis. “Russia, with its immense coastline, dominates one side of the Arctic Ocean. On the other side are arrayed seven NATO Arctic nations: the US, Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Iceland, Norway and the two recent additions, Sweden and Finland. China is building a formidable fleet of icebreakers and considers itself, oddly, an Arctic nation.”
The problem the US faces in its bid to acquire Greenland, however, is that every other NATO member opposes it. “The Europeans understand that the path to security in the north lies with standing together as allies”, Stavridis stated. “So often in life, how you do something is more important than what you are doing. Washington needs to build greater security in the Arctic and North Atlantic — but not through a military action that would shatter the NATO alliance.”
Whether we agree with Stavridis’ analysis or not, the technical arguments he makes should not be summarily dismissed due to the political discomfort they may cause to some. While expert technical opinions generally do not make headlines or compelling sound bites, they often make a great deal of sense. People who have acquired an exceptional depth of knowledge through a lifetime of study and work involving the critical intricacies of complex subjects are not always right, of course. Real experts openly acknowledge their reservations and limitations. Unfortunately, American culture has increasingly turned to distrust of experts as part of the broader atmosphere of political polarization.
A guest on Colin McEnroe’s CT Public Radio show in a recent episode on “Experts” referred to a scene in the film Castway, in which a marooned Tom Hanks has to cut out an infected tooth with an ice skate. His point was that he would rather have the worst board-certified dentist perform that task, as that person has at least enough expertise to be licensed, and can certainly do it better than we could do it ourselves.
At the very least, expert opinions should compel us to ask the question as to what compelling technical facts are being offered by an opposing expert to argue for a different conclusion.
