01-19-2026, 05:07 PM
Military and many prominent think tanks stress that this qualifies as a major concern; we can agree or disagree, but military logic demands a larger American presence in the Arctic.
It's just in time, too, as Canada erodes into a 3rd world country in the east and now has provinces clamoring for independence in the west.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/8051373753fb4...fc2cac4c7a
![[Image: a52a6bb88266699525e513ee2d2429c7.jpeg]](https://denyignorance.com/uploader/images/a52a6bb88266699525e513ee2d2429c7.jpeg)
It's just in time, too, as Canada erodes into a 3rd world country in the east and now has provinces clamoring for independence in the west.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/8051373753fb4...fc2cac4c7a
Quote:Russia-China alliance: Their deepening ties include joint Arctic patrols, infrastructure, and resource projects, raising fears of encirclement. A closer Canada-China link could indirectly aid Chinese Arctic access via investments or routes, heightening U.S. worries over North American defense (e.g., Northwest Passage sovereignty).
Tensions remain high in this emerging great-power contest.
In the current context (as of January 2026), with a U.S.-Denmark working group established for "technical talks"
on acquisition-related issues, think tanks like the Atlantic Council highlight opportunities for compromise—e.g., enhanced access, mineral revenue-sharing, or security pacts—as ways to de-escalate tensions and emerge stronger.
Quote:American think tanks largely view a negotiated and compensated arrangement for enhanced U.S. control or access to Greenland (short of full sovereignty transfer) more favorably, though outright purchase or annexation remains highly skeptical or opposed.
The core perspective is that existing U.S.-Denmark defense agreements (e.g., the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement) already grant substantial military access, basing rights (like Pituffik Space Base), and flexibility to expand presence without needing ownership.
Think tanks emphasize that any deal must respect Greenland's self-determination, Danish sovereignty, and international law, while prioritizing pragmatic security partnerships over territorial acquisition.
Key point from major U.S. think tanks (updated with 2025-2026 analyses amid ongoing negotiations, working groups, and tariff threats):
Here's an updated summary table of positions, focusing on negotiated/compensated scenarios:
- Negotiated deals preferred over ownership: Options like deepened defense pacts, revenue-sharing on minerals, joint Arctic security arrangements, or "free association" models (if Greenland pursues independence) are seen as viable and mutually beneficial. These could include compensation via investments, infrastructure aid, or economic packages to Greenland/Denmark.
Think Tank
Views on Negotiated/Compensated Control or Access
CSIS
Seizing or forcing a sale is unnecessary and damaging. Current agreements allow U.S. objectives; prefers working with Denmark/Greenland for expanded access (e.g., more bases, mineral cooperation) without ownership. Negotiated enhancements are feasible and preferable to avoid alienating allies.
Atlantic Council
Strong support for pragmatic deals via working groups (e.g., recent U.S.-Denmark talks). Suggests landmark security agreements expanding basing rights, joint infrastructure, or mineral access with Greenland's participation—even post-independence continuity clauses. Avoids unilateral burdens of ownership; sees potential for "landmark" deals strengthening NATO if focused on mutual interests, not territory.
CFR
Europeans (including Denmark) could offer "everything but territory"—e.g., expanded basing, resource deals, trade concessions—to address U.S. concerns. Open to coordination on minerals/security, but outright purchase crosses red lines on sovereignty/self-determination. Locals in Greenland appear receptive to partnerships, not acquisition.
RAND
Direct ownership complicated by postcolonial history and governance; negotiating continued/expanded base use costs far less and is more practical. Emphasizes collaboration over control.
Heritage Foundation
Greenland merits attention for security/resources; prefers broadened diplomatic/military ties, investments, and partnerships (e.g., consulates, contracts) without acquisition. Historical focus on engagement, not purchase.
Brookings (implied from broader analyses)
Less direct commentary, but aligns with norms against coercive territorial changes; would likely favor compensated partnerships respecting self-determination over any form of control transfer.
In the current context (as of January 2026), with a U.S.-Denmark working group established for "technical talks"
on acquisition-related issues, think tanks like the Atlantic Council highlight opportunities for compromise—e.g., enhanced access, mineral revenue-sharing, or security pacts—as ways to de-escalate tensions and emerge stronger.
Quote:Chirag
@Chirag1542
·
Jan 17
Replying to
@visegrad24
The map explains why THE USA has to have Greenland. As the events happening suggest Canada is leaning more towards China. Russia and China are allies. Canadians don't want to associate with China but the government wants to. Alberta is having a referendum for independence.
It is a grave concern for the National Security of the USA and the world.
Greenland has a critical Arctic position — controlling key shipping routes, rare earth minerals, and military vantage points (e.g., Thule Air Base) as ice melts and new passages open. This makes it vital for U.S. national security amid rising Russia-China influence in the region.
U.S. push for Greenland:
In January 2026, President Trump has intensified efforts to acquire or control Greenland, citing threats from Russia (militarizing the Arctic) and China (seeking resources and "Polar Silk Road" access).
Options discussed include purchase, tariffs on Denmark, or even military means.
Canada's shift toward China: PM Mark Carney visited Beijing on January 16, 2026, securing a preliminary "strategic partnership." It slashes tariffs — Canada drops to ~6.1% on limited Chinese EVs
(up to 49,000 units);
China cuts duties on Canadian canola (~15% by March), lobsters, peas, etc. This diversifies trade away from the U.S., but many Canadians remain wary of China due to past coercion and security concerns. The government frames it as pragmatic adaptation.
Russia-China alliance: Their deepening ties include joint Arctic patrols, infrastructure, and resource projects, raising fears of encirclement. A closer Canada-China link could indirectly aid Chinese Arctic access via investments or routes, heightening U.S. worries over North American defense (e.g., Northwest Passage sovereignty).
Tensions remain high in this emerging great-power contest.
His mind was not for rent to any god or government
Always hopeful yet discontent, knows changes aren't permanent
But change is
Professor Neil Ellwood Peart
![[Image: PEART-2744335652.gif]](https://denyignorance.com/uploader/images/PEART-2744335652.gif)
Always hopeful yet discontent, knows changes aren't permanent
But change is
Professor Neil Ellwood Peart
