By Siddarth Suresh

Maps make Greenland look empty. On most globes, the island appears as an expansive white shape at the top of the world, distant enough to feel abstract and easy to talk about in terms of minerals and military value rather than people. That illusion has helped revive an old idea in American politics, one that resurfaced most recently after President Donald Trump renewed attention around acquiring the island as American territory to protect national security interests. Framed as strategy, the proposal sounds bold. But beneath it lies a familiar and unsettling assumption: that distance makes land easier to claim and power easier to justify. Greenland is not an empty space, and treating it like one reveals the deeper problems with the idea of taking control of it.

At first glance, the argument can seem practical. The Arctic is warming, global competition is intensifying, and Greenland’s location and resources appear increasingly important. Ardent supporters frame control as a way to secure American military and economic interests amidst ever-changing geopolitics. But history shows that policies justified solely through power and profit often leave lasting, devastating damage behind in the rubbles. Looking closely at what invading or forcibly acquiring Greenland would actually mean reveals that the costs far outweigh any supposed advantage.

Violating International Law and Self-Determination

Greenland is not unclaimed territory. It is a self-governing region within the Kingdom of Denmark, with its own elected government and authority over most domestic affairs. International law, particularly the United Nations Charter, prohibits the acquisition of territory through force and protects the political independence of nations and peoples (Just Security, 2026). Designed after the devastating invasions and tragedies of World War 2, these principles exist specifically to prevent stronger countries from reshaping the world through coercion.

For the United States to ignore these rules would weaken its credibility on the global stage. It would make it harder for America to condemn territorial aggression elsewhere in the world and would invite accusations of hypocrisy, potentially rupturing decades-old supranational alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). More importantly, it would deny native Greenlanders their express right to self-determination. Inuit leaders and Greenlandic officials have repeatedly made it clear that their future is not something for foreign governments to decide. As one Inuit leader stated, there is no such thing as a “better colonizer,” only the loss of autonomy that follows outside control (RCInet.ca, 2026). Strategy cannot justify silencing an entire population.

Modern Neo-Colonialism

The way Greenland is discussed often reveals the deeper issue. It is described as valuable, strategic, or underused, language that turns a place into a possession or asset. This framing echoes problematic colonial logic, where land was defined by what it could offer powerful nations rather than by the people who lived on it.

Greenlanders have pushed back against this narrative, criticizing how foreign leaders speak about their home as if it were empty or waiting to be claimed (Business Insider, 2026). Treating Greenland as a prize rather than a society repeats patterns many believed the modern world had outgrown. In an era shaped by decolonization and growing recognition of Indigenous rights, reviving this mindset feels deeply regressive and sparks troubling concerns about ideas of territory ownership.

Ignoring Public Opinion

The idea of taking Greenland by force is also widely unpopular. Polling by Quinnipiac University shows that most Americans (86%) oppose using military power to acquire the island, with many expressing concern about damaging alliances and escalating global tensions (Vocal.Media, 2026). When a policy lacks public support, it raises serious questions about whose interests it actually serves and harms the credibility of elected officials.

Opposition is even stronger in Greenland itself. The Greenlandic government has consistently stated that the island is not for sale and does not wish to become part of the United States (Britannica, 2026). Democracy loses meaning when the voices most affected are the easiest to ignore.

Mining and Environmental Harm

Much of the interest in Greenland centers on its natural resources, particularly rare earth minerals used in electronics, renewable energy, and AI technologies. But large-scale mining in Greenland comes with serious environmental risks. Arctic ecosystems are fragile, and mining operations pollute water supplies and destroy habitats. Furthermore, the ramifications of this pollution are symbolized through toxic waste that will persist for decades.

These concerns aren’t theoretical either. Greenland has already restricted or halted certain mining and oil projects because of environmental risks and public opposition (CSIS, 2026). An American takeover would likely increase pressure to extract resources quickly in the name of economic pressures. For local indigenous communities that rely on land-based practices like fishing and hunting, environmental damage threatens not just nature but livelihood and long-term survival.

The Financial Reality

Even from a purely practical standpoint, invading and governing Greenland would be extraordinarily expensive. Its vast size, sparse population, and extreme climate make infrastructure development slow and costly. Roads, ports, housing, and energy systems would need to be built and maintained in Arctic conditions, potentially costing tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars over time (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2026).

These costs are difficult to justify given that the United States already benefits from Greenland’s strategic position through existing defense agreements with Denmark. The U.S. maintains military access without bearing the responsibility of governance (Britannica, 2026), and assuming control would only add obligation, resentment, and expense without delivering net benefits that cooperation seemingly already provides.

Conclusion

The debate over Greenland is not just about borders or resources. It is a test of how the United States understands power in the modern world. Greenland does matter. The Arctic matters. But importance does not grant ownership, and strategy does not excuse disregard for people, land, or law. If the United States claims to stand for democracy, sovereignty, and responsible leadership, those values must apply even when temptation and opportunity arise. Otherwise, these well-established principles become conditional ideals that can be ignored at will.

In an increasingly interconnected world, the strongest nations are not those that expand their control, but those that understand restraint. Greenland’s future should be decided by Greenlanders, not mapped out from afar. Anything less would be a step backward, not forward, for this country.

toto slot togel online