Table of Contents
Peter MacDonald
President Trump’s repeated statements about Greenland, ranging from offhand comments to serious proposals, have drawn incredulity and firm rejection from Denmark and Greenland. Yet these public utterances are only the visible surface of a much deeper strategic calculus. Greenland’s geography, resources, and military potential make it a linchpin for US Arctic and global defence planning, and much of the leverage the US possesses is hidden from public view in Denmark.
A Protectorate Born of War
Greenland’s strategic importance first became clear during World War II. Its cryolite mine, essential for aluminium, and its role in accurate North Atlantic weather forecasting made it indispensable to the Allies. When Germany occupied Denmark in 1940, Greenland faced the real possibility of German Axis control.
Even before formally entering World War II, in December 1941 the United States deployed forces to Greenland after signing an accord with the Danish ambassador in Washington; establishing airfields, ports and radio stations and effectively making the island a US protectorate. US forces targeted German military weather station crews and had small, five-man teams of highly trained special units operating in extreme isolation to provide vital Arctic meteorological intelligence for U-boat and Luftwaffe operations. With assistance from Danish officials and Greenlandic personnel, US Army and Coast Guard units conducted patrols across remote frozen terrain, some German teams were captured after armed encounters and firefights, while others abandoned their stations. Those that attempted escape would hike to pre-arranged extraction points, carrying survival equipment and waiting for the next scheduled aircraft or submarine extraction, which operated continuously on a seven-day, 24-hour basis. Teams that reached these rendezvous points were covertly evacuated by U-boat or ski-equipped aircraft, though many failed due to exposure, illness, or Allied interception.
These actions were part of a broader, largely unpublicised northern defense strategy, which also included the deployment of a 1,000-strong US force in the Aleutian Islands, an operation so marginal to the main war narrative that most Americans were unaware it existed. Among those serving in the Aleutians was a young Gore Vidal, whose experiences later informed his debut novel, Williwaw (1946). The book recounts the harrowing life of a US Army transport crew navigating treacherous Arctic waters and vividly captures the extreme weather, isolation and psychological strain that underpinned America’s early and largely hidden Arctic military operations during World War II.
The 1941 agreement with the Danish ambassador recognised Danish sovereignty but granted the US broad rights to build military infrastructure and operate bases for Greenland’s defence. While Denmark retained legal ownership, the US obtained operational authority that is rarely highlighted in contemporary media or political discussion – a fact largely absent from Danish mainstream coverage and often unacknowledged by political leaders, as it conflicts with their domestic narrative portraying the US as a bully.
Cold War Expansion, Thule Air Base and Nuclear Experiments
Greenland’s strategic significance continued into the Cold War. The 1951 US-Denmark defence agreement enabled construction of Thule Air Base, a linchpin for missile warning and radar surveillance. Between 1960–1964, Camp Century, a subglacial installation, was powered by the PM‑2A nuclear reactor, part of Project Iceworm, which explored the feasibility of permanent, nuclear-powered Arctic bases capable of independent operations. Incidentally a YouTube video exists of its construction.
Similar projects in Antarctica, like the PM‑3A reactor at McMurdo Station, constructed 1963 and decommissioned 1972, demonstrate US experience in nuclear self-sufficiency in extreme environments. These installations established a precedent for permanent, autonomous Arctic military infrastructure, all under Danish sovereignty but largely out of public and political awareness.
Operational Control Without Oversight
Today, Thule (now Pituffik Space Base), hosts radar arrays, satellite tracking and missile warning systems. While Greenland remains legally Danish, operational control rests with the US, which dictates logistics, infrastructure and strategic priorities.
Herein lies the critical point: most Danish leaders and the mainstream media do not fully recognise the scope of US rights and capabilities in Greenland. Whether due to a lack of briefing, obfuscation or deliberate narrative shaping by US channels, Denmark has very little practical ability to halt the full militarisation of Greenland. Operational dominance can, in practice, proceed largely unimpeded.
Scenario Pathways: The Technate Logic
Using a scenario-based framework, Greenland’s future can be modelled as follows.
Incremental Dependency: Greenland’s infrastructure and security systems increasingly rely on US military support – narrowing Greenlandic autonomy while sovereignty remains nominally Danish.
Soft Annexation via Emergency Powers: Arctic instability, Russian threats or climate narratives [melting ice flows] justify renewable emergency powers. Technocratic, expert-driven governance supersedes normal democratic processes.
Narrative Normalisation: Media and policy elites frame US integration as inevitable. Climate change and security narratives reinforce functional control, while dissenting voices are marginalised. Over time, resistance among Danish leaders and Greenlandic populations erodes.
Infrastructure Lock-In: Modern small modular nuclear reactors could power expanded bases, ensuring autonomy and operational permanence. Greenland’s ice zones and sparse population allow infrastructure growth with minimal civil friction.
In this scenario Greenland becomes the northern keystone of a global technate (technocracy rule), where expert authority, emergency governance and strategic infrastructure converge creating practical dominance without legal annexation.
Conclusion
Greenland has never been formally American. Yet from expelling Nazi forces during World War II, deploying Aleutian marines, to constructing nuclear-powered subglacial bases and to modern so-called Space Force operations, Greenland has long been treated as a strategically critical hub.
The repeated ‘nagging’ about Greenland from Trump and US officials is not mere provocation, it is part of a narrative and operational framework, normalising US presence while keeping much of the operational authority invisible to Danish political leaders and the public. Combined with infrastructure permanence, emergency governance frameworks and technocratic oversight, Greenland’s functional US control is difficult to reverse even while formal sovereignty remains Danish.
Postnote one: The climate narrative is the ‘emergency’ that fits neatly into the US operational framework for Greenland. The State Department has long framed Arctic operations as urgent due to melting ice and emerging sea lanes. Yet ice conditions in the Greenland Northwest Passage have remained essentially unchanged since the ill-fated Franklin expedition of 1845, when the ships Erebus and Terror became permanently trapped and the crew perished from starvation and deficiencies in vitamins C and D – nutrients that the Inuit traditionally obtained from seal fat. The British Navy had not formally trained the crew in Arctic survival, as the expedition was intended to last only one year. The Inuit could offer only limited assistance when they encountered the desperate crews, as they themselves had families and survival to attend to. By contrast, explorers like Roald Amundsen, who later navigated the Northwest Passage in a small fishing vessel, survived Arctic winters by living with the Inuit for six months prior to his voyage, learning to hunt and subsist on seal meat.
Contemporary photographs of Greenland’s Arctic regions are tightly controlled, as they contradict the prevailing climate change narrative. A similar situation exists in Antarctica, where ice levels are currently at record highs, forcing tourist vessels to retreat back to New Zealand after being unable to approach the continent. The hyperbolic ‘melting ice’ story functions less as science than as a justification for US strategic emergency powers and permanent operational presence in the Arctic.
Postnote two: It is entirely plausible that Denmark’s current political leadership, including Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, may not be fully aware of the detailed history of US operations in Greenland during World War II. The Arctic campaigns were top secret, involving covert patrols, firefights with German weather teams, and clandestine infill and extractions by submarine and ski-equipped aircraft. Even at the time, the broader US public and much of the Danish Government had little knowledge of these operations. Today, this historical obscurity helps explain why repeated US pressure and public ‘nagging’ about Greenland can appear surprising or provocative: much of the operational groundwork for US presence and control was quietly laid decades ago, long before contemporary debates over sovereignty and strategic access.
