January 20, 2026

Strategic Ice Box

Timothy Birdnow

This was posted by Wretchard T. Cat on Facebook. It is an angle I hadn't really considered:

Why did Greenland suddenly become an issue? The aggressive efforts of the US to purchase Greenland – and potentially encircle Russia – would not have been politically possible, or perhaps even necessary, without a proximate cause – the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Russian threat in Ukraine has put a gun to the Euro’s heads and given Washington the leverage it otherwise lacked in European capitals because they need to keep the US onside.
It is fascinating to compare the Greenland situation to the Alaska purchase. In 1867 it was Russia which was afraid. Russia feared that Great Britain (with its strong presence in Canada and British Columbia) might seize Alaska in a future conflict, especially after Russia's vulnerabilities were exposed in the Crimean War (1853–1856).
By selling to the U.S., Russia aimed to place a friendly (or at least non-British) power between its Siberian territories and British North America. Europe's reaction to the U.S. purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867 was generally one of concern and alarm, particularly among the major powers, though it varied by country and was often overshadowed by pressing European issues like post-Crimean War tensions, German unification efforts, and the Eastern Question.
The deal highlighted the growing strength of both the United States (fresh from its Civil War) and Russia, while raising fears of shifting power dynamics in the Pacific and potential U.S.-Russian alignment against European interests. Substitute Trump’s America for Andrew Johnson’s and China for Czarist Russia and you can see the resemblance. The world is changing and Greenland, a one-time backwater, is suddenly on the crossroads.

Granted Trump wanted Greenland BEFORE Putin invaded the Ukraine, but he understood it's importance even during his first term.

This is an excellent point; Trump has really ramped up his call for Greenland because of changing geopolitical alignments. He needs to keep the Russians and Chicoms out of our hemisphere.

It is, of course, the same reason Napoleon sold Louisiana; he needed money and wanted to keep Britain from simply taking it. Louisiana made the U.S. a great power, as Napoleon observed when handing it over.

Greenland, sitting athwart the largest entry to the Arctic Ocean, is the key to the whole region in terms of military and economic access. The only other entry points are around Iceland or through the Bering Strait, which we control. With Greenland in our hands the best the Russians could do would be to sail out of Archangel and try to round the Norweigan coast. We could close the Baltic to them easily, even if Denmark doesn't want to cooperate.

It's increasingly obvious we need Greenland. There are minerals there to be developed, there is it's geopolitical importance, and we are defending it anyway so we should be able to develop it to make that chore easier.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:22 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 3 kb.

1 No doubt about it. I really wish, though, that Mr. Trump had gone about this differently. 

I've pointed out before that as a technique of his "Art of the Deal," Trump often begins his negotiations by throwing a grenade on the floor, and after the smoke from the explosion settles, he starts the actual negotiations. I'm not quite sure if he's throwing only one grenade this time...

Posted by: Dana Mathewson at January 20, 2026 11:03 PM (k9h1C)

2 It's called the "GIUK Gap," Greenland, Iceland and the UK, and we already control it with SOSUS, nuclear submarines, and bases on Greenland, Iceland, Scotland and England. During the Cold War Russia could not access the North Atlantic from their north coast because we had that transit completely blockaded. That's why they need Crimea, for access to the Atlantic without a route that is already controlled by NATO. We do not need to "own" Greenland to take control of a sea lane that we already fully control.

Posted by: Bill H at January 21, 2026 10:01 AM (FRG6e)

3 I agree Dana; Trump went about this the wrong way. But then American Presidents have been trying for some time to do this without any luck.
You are absolutely correct Bill, but given the way thinngs are going in the U.K. and Iceland and with the Chinese nosing around there it becomes imperative to have greater control of Greenland. 
Last June the Danish Parliament amended long-standing rules that limited American access to Greenland to the old Thule base (which is now a Spaceforc base with a name I can't remember at the moment - Pufikin or something). They did this out of fear Trump would keep pushing for the island. But being able to "enter" it and being able to build covert bases and place strategic forces there isa  whole different matter. 
This article shows that Trump wanted military bases there all along and that is the driving force behind what he is doing As Dana says, Trump tosses hand grenades in then negotiates from a position of strength. That's clearly what he's doing here. From the Hindustan Times:
"However, the New York Times cited three sources to reveal key terms of the deal. The publication reported that a potential compromise under which Denmark would grant the US sovereignty over limited areas of Greenland to establish military bases has been approved. An official told NYT that Rutte had pushed the idea."
end
These are the most recent negotiations with Denmark and Trump is being offered a lot more than what he had before - and he already got half a loaf last year.
This is vintage Trump.
This also puts not just Denmark but all our erstwhile "allies" in NATO on notice, making it clear we aren't going to let them continue to screw us over, especially where China and Russia are concerned. Trump is telling them that if they cut a deal with either they may wind up getting Daned.
Your point about Ukraine is spot on Bill! The Russians need warm water ports and with Americans at that Gukky Gap it is hard to use the North Atlantic for nefarious purposes - and using the Bosporus and Dardenelles still leaves them in the Mediterranean, so they either have to go through Suez or Gibralter.




Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at January 22, 2026 08:49 AM (umJ+Y)

Hide Comments | Add Comment




What colour is a green orange?




28kb generated in CPU 0.1836, elapsed 0.3365 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.325 seconds, 186 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Always on Watch
America First News
The American Thinker
Bird`s Articles
Old Birdblog
Birdblog`s Literary Corner
Behind the Black Blaze News
Borngino Report
Canada Free Press
Center for Immigration Studies
Common Sense and Wonder < br/ > Christian Daily Reporter
Citizens Free Press
>Climatescepticsparty> Daily Caller News Foundation
Conservative Angle
Conservative Treehouse
Daren Jonescu
The Daily Fetched
Dana and Martha Music Discern Report
From the Heart Music
On my Mind Conservative Victory
Eco-Imperialism
Gelbspan Files Just the Facts
Infidel Bloggers Alliance
J.D. Rucker
Jo Nova
Lifezette
Let .the Truth be Told
Newsmax
Not the Bee
>Numbers Watch
OANN
Real Climate Science
The Reform Club
Revolver
FTP Student Action
Veritas PAC
FunMurphys
The Galileo Movement
Intellectual Conservative
br /> Liberty Unboound
One Jerusalem
Powerline
Publius Forum
Ready Rants
The Gateway Pundit
The Jeffersonian Ideal
Thinking Democrat
Ultima Thule
Western Journalism
Science Daily
Science Tech Daily
Young Craig Music
Contact Tim at bgocciaatoutlook.com

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 346377
  • Files: 19966
  • Bytes: 8.3G
  • CPU Time: 715:59
  • Queries: 11864060

Content

  • Posts: 32950
  • Comments: 134288

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0