Why on Earth Would We Take Greenland?
Peter Zeihan
5 min
The United States taking Greenland is one of the dumbest ideas that I have heard in my life. So no, not worth it.
-
Donald Trump
Chapters
-
0:00
Defense Misconceptions
The argument that Greenland is needed for defense against China and Russia is flawed because the Russian Navy has disintegrated over 30 years, lost fleets due to the Ukrainian war, and lacks the ability to project power to the North Atlantic. The United Kingdom serves as a better counter with existing naval bases.
-
1:19
Infrastructure and Military Limitations
Militarizing Greenland is impractical because 80% of the country is under permanent ice, there are no good ports, and any infrastructure would require floating platforms off the coast. Mining Greenland for rare earths is not cost-effective because no one has prospected functionally yet, 80% is under an ice cap, and processing requires massive infrastructure that costs a trillion dollars.
-
3:17
Strategic Alliance Risks
Taking Greenland would wreck the United States' alliance with Denmark, a loyal ally that allows US access to facilities without direct control, unlike the UK or France.
Key points
- 0:00
The Russian Navy has been in a not-so-slow disintegration now for 30 years.
- 0:00
Because of the Ukrainian war, they've basically lost one of their entire fleets.
- 0:00
The Russian ability to project power to the North Atlantic simply does not exist.
- 1:19
No good ports at all.
- 0:00
80% of the country is under permanent ice, another 5% is moving glaciers.
- 1:19
No one has prospected functionally in Greenland yet.
- 2:26
You're now talking about either building a trillion dollars of infrastructure just to process metals that you can get somewhere else at a tenth the cost.
- 3:17
They have made it very clear in Trump 2 that if we want to go back and reopen any of those facilities or build new ones, they're happy to help.
- 3:17
You wreck that relationship, and it's difficult to imagine that we have any alliances where we would still be seen as a trusted partner.
- 4:52
So no, not worth it.
Who and where
People · 1
-
Donald Trump 1
President of the United States (2017–2021; since 2025)
Photo 1
1. Photo: Daniel Torok, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons · Wikidata · redrawn in our house style (Donald Trump)
Related episodes
The U.S. Plan for Greenland is Worse Than You Think
Paul J. Warburg
The real justification for the United States controlling Greenland is access to the rare earth metals, not merely Greenland's position. Instead of focusing on the actions that these countries might or might not take in the future, you can focus on the actions that they are actually taking today.
Iceland and Norway Ponder EU Membership
Peter Zeihan
Iceland and Norway are reconsidering EU membership because the United States is acting as a predatory security guarantor demanding Greenland. The Nordic countries are shifting their strategic policy away from relying solely on the United States.
Canada's China Option
Peter Zeihan
Canada has no viable alternative trading partner because all provinces trade more with the United States than with each other. The United States gains a uniquely beneficial deal by accessing Canadian workforce and infrastructure without paying for them.
Ukraine’s New Strategy is QUICKLY Breaking Russia
Paul J. Warburg
A new multi-layered strategy combining Ukrainian attacks and NATO enforcement is rapidly breaking Russia's energy revenue. Russia is in a massive dilemma with no effective response, as its net position is worse than before the war in Iran.
Would You Like Some Plutonium with That?
Peter Zeihan
The US lacks the materials processing capabilities and civilian plutonium infrastructure required to safely implement MOX fuel for grid expansion. The only country in the world that has decided that putting weapons-grade plutonium in civilian hands is a good idea is Russia.
AI-generated summary · model qwen3.5:9b-12k · prompt version whole-3.window-7.combine-10.s-f4be8e ·
video id rFNqCZCDkXA ·
Watch on YouTube