The Arctic Chessboard, The Strategic Imperative of American Dominance in Greenland

The Arctic Chessboard, The Strategic Imperative of American Dominance in Greenland

In the grand strategic calculus of the 21st century, the once-frozen periphery has become the central theater of great power competition. The Arctic, long dismissed as a remote and inhospitable frontier, has thawed into a nexus of geopolitical, economic, and military ambition. At the heart of this new arena lies Greenland, the world’s largest island, whose geographic and strategic significance is now the subject of a forceful and unambiguous American policy directive. As articulated by U.S. Special Envoy to Greenland, Governor Jeff Landry, the United States is pursuing a policy of “total access” to Greenland, framing it not as a colonial ambition but as a non-negotiable imperative for American and allied security. This assertive stance, championed by the Trump administration, represents a dramatic revitalization of Monroe Doctrine principles for a new age, a calculated response to perceived decades of neglect, and a definitive move to crowd out adversarial influence from Russia and China in a region deemed critical to the future balance of power.

Greenland’s Geostrategic Awakening: From Periphery to Pivot Point

For much of the post-Cold War era, Greenland receded in American strategic consciousness, treated as a relic of a bygone conflict. This complacency, as Landry’s argument contends, was a profound error. Greenland’s value is multifaceted and immense:

• Geographic Command: Situated roughly equidistant between Washington and Moscow, Greenland is a giant aircraft carrier and missile defense platform anchored in the North Atlantic. It provides a commanding position over the GIUK Gap (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom), the crucial naval choke point for Russian maritime access to the open Atlantic.

• Military Infrastructure: The island hosts the pivotal Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), a cornerstone of the U.S. space surveillance and missile warning network. Its location is irreplaceable for tracking satellites and potential ballistic missile launches over the polar region.

• Arctic Access and Resources: As climate change opens Arctic sea routes, the Northern Sea Route along Russia’s coast and the Northwest Passage through Canada’s archipelago promise to redraw global shipping maps. Greenland sits astride these emerging corridors. Furthermore, the island and its surrounding seabeds are believed to hold vast, untapped reserves of rare earth elements, oil, and natural gas—resources critical for modern technology and energy security.

• Denial of Adversaries: American dominance in Greenland directly complicates and deters Russian and Chinese ambitions. For Russia, a militarized Arctic is central to its doctrine of bastion defense for its nuclear submarines. For China, which declared itself a “Near-Arctic State,” access to Arctic resources and shipping lanes is a key component of its Belt and Road Initiative’s “Polar Silk Road.”

The Trump administration’s assessment, as laid out by Landry, is that the era of treating the Arctic as “remote, static, or secondary” is over. The reactive posture of recent decades has ceded the initiative to competitors who have not been idle.

The Adversarial Advance: Russian and Chinese Inroads

The urgency of the American push is framed as a response to aggressive moves by Washington’s strategic rivals. Russia has undertaken a comprehensive militarization of its Arctic coastline, reactivating Soviet-era bases, constructing new facilities, and deploying advanced air defense and anti-ship missile systems. Crucially, Russia boasts the world’s largest fleet of icebreakers, including nuclear-powered vessels, which are essential for projecting power and securing shipping lanes in ice-covered waters.

China, while geographically distant, has pursued a strategy of economic and scientific engagement as a wedge for influence. Chinese state-owned enterprises have sought investment in Greenland’s mining sector, particularly for rare earth elements. Beijing has also increased its polar research footprint, with icebreakers like the Xuelong conducting frequent Arctic expeditions, gathering data with dual-use civilian and military potential. The fear in Washington is that debt-trap diplomacy and strategic investment could, over time, give Beijing leverage over Greenlandic policy or even future basing rights, effectively piercing North America’s northern defenses.

Against this backdrop, America’s own Arctic capabilities have atrophied. The U.S. Coast Guard’s icebreaker fleet stands at a paltry two operational heavy icebreakers, with a third under construction—a fraction of Russia’s fleet. This capability gap is not merely symbolic; it represents a tangible deficit in the ability to operate, patrol, and assert sovereignty in the region year-round.

The Trump-Landry Doctrine: Monroeism Reborn for the Polar Age

The policy prescription offered by Landry is a clear-eyed, hard-power revival. It draws a direct line from the 1823 Monroe Doctrine—which declared the Western Hemisphere off-limits to European colonization—to the modern Arctic. In this updated doctrine, the hemisphere’s defense perimeter extends north to encompass Greenland (and the Panama Canal to the south). The argument is that just as no European power should be allowed to establish a foothold in the Americas in the 19th century, no adversarial global power (namely Russia or China) can be permitted to do so in the 21st.

This is not framed as aggression but as “preventive” and necessary reinforcement of the existing NATO security architecture. As Landry quotes President Trump from a 2026 Davos address, “every NATO ally has an obligation to defend its own territory,” implying that Denmark (which handles Greenland’s foreign and defense policy) cannot fulfill this obligation for Greenland without the full might of the United States. Therefore, unfettered U.S. access becomes synonymous with Greenland’s and NATO’s own security.

The centerpiece of this renewed commitment is the proposed expansion of military infrastructure, most notably through advanced missile defense systems like the “Golden Dome.” This project is touted as more than a technical upgrade; it is a potent symbol of American resolve and technological superiority, designed to signal an enduring commitment to dominate the Arctic high ground. Landry’s mission as Special Envoy is to translate this strategic vision into reality: securing agreements for new bases, modernizing existing facilities like Pituffik, and deepening partnerships with local Greenlandic authorities to ensure the presence is sustainable and mutually beneficial.

Historical Precedent and the Rejection of Strategic Drift

A powerful pillar of Landry’s argument is history. He reminds readers that a sustained, robust American military presence in Greenland is the historical norm, not the exception. During World War II, the U.S. established a network of 17 bases across the island to counter German weather stations and secure Atlantic convoy routes. In the Cold War, Thule Air Base became a bustling hub for 10,000 personnel, a key node in the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line against Soviet bombers.

The post-Cold War drawdown is thus characterized as an “alarming departure” from a proven, successful strategy of forward defense and containment. The current push is framed not as innovation, but as restoration—a return to the strategic clarity that once secured victory. This narrative dismisses the “end of history” optimism of the 1990s, asserting that strategic competition never truly ended; it merely shifted forms and theaters. The neglect of Arctic readiness is portrayed as a bipartisan failure now being urgently corrected.

Implications, Challenges, and the Road Ahead

The pursuit of “total access” is not without its significant complexities and potential points of friction:

• Sovereignty and Diplomacy with Denmark: While Denmark is a steadfast NATO ally, Greenland has a self-rule government increasingly assertive of its own interests. Negotiations for expanded U.S. access must navigate a delicate tripartite relationship. Heavy-handed demands could fuel Greenlandic nationalism and resentment, potentially backfiring.

• Environmental and Social Impact: Large-scale military construction and increased activity raise legitimate concerns for Greenland’s fragile environment and the livelihoods of its Indigenous populations. The U.S. will need to couple its security proposals with credible environmental safeguards and meaningful economic benefits for local communities.

• Alliance Dynamics: While framed as strengthening NATO, an overly unilateral American approach could strain relations with allies like Canada, which has its own sovereignty claims in the Arctic, and European partners who may favor a more cooperative, rules-based Arctic governance model.

• Escalation Risks: The deployment of advanced missile defense and the establishment of new bases will be perceived in Moscow and Beijing as provocative, likely triggering counter-moves and accelerating an Arctic arms race. The administration’s bet is that demonstrating overwhelming strength is the best deterrent, but it carries inherent risks of miscalculation.

Conclusion: Securing the High North in an Age of Competition

Governor Jeff Landry’s manifesto is a clarion call for American strategic primacy in the Arctic. It is a doctrine of preemption, dominance, and unabashed realism. It argues that in the face of resurgent authoritarian powers, the United States cannot afford ambiguity or weakness in a region of such consequence. The thawing ice has revealed not just new waterways and resources, but a new frontline in the contest to define the 21st-century world order.

Whether one views this policy as a necessary correction or a dangerous overreach, its underlying premise is difficult to dismiss: the Arctic has fundamentally changed, and American strategy must change with it. The quest for “total access” to Greenland is more than a real estate negotiation; it is a statement that the United States intends to write the rules for the polar future, not merely react to them. The success of this endeavor will hinge not only on military investment and diplomatic skill but on the ability to articulate a vision for the Arctic that secures American interests while fostering stability and cooperation among those who call the region home. The chess pieces are being moved on the polar board, and the United States, after a long hiatus, is declaring its intention to play for victory.

Q&A on U.S. Strategic Aims in Greenland

Q1: According to the article, why is Greenland considered so strategically vital to the United States in the current geopolitical climate?
A1: Greenland is vital for four interconnected reasons:

1. Geographic Command: Its position in the North Atlantic makes it a strategic platform equidistant from North America and Eurasia, controlling key maritime approaches.

2. Existing Military Infrastructure: It hosts the Pituffik (Thule) Space Base, a critical node for U.S. missile warning and space surveillance systems.

3. Arctic Access: As climate change opens new shipping routes and access to resources, Greenland provides a foothold in this emerging theater.

4. Denial of Adversaries: A dominant U.S. presence prevents rivals like Russia and China from establishing influence that could threaten North American security or undermine NATO.

Q2: How does the article use historical precedent to justify the current push for “total access” to Greenland?
A2: The article argues that a robust U.S. military presence in Greenland is the historical norm, not a new invention. It cites the 13 Army and 4 Navy bases built during World War II and the 10,000-personnel strong Thule Air Base during the Cold War as proof that sustained investment in Greenland’s defense was a successful, foundational element of American security strategy. The post-Cold War drawdown is framed as a period of dangerous neglect, and the current policy is presented as a necessary restoration of a proven strategic posture that ensured containment and victory in the past.

Q3: What specific actions and projects are central to the U.S. strategy for Greenland as described by Special Envoy Jeff Landry?
A3: The strategy focuses on concrete military and infrastructure enhancements:

• Securing “total access” agreements with Denmark and Greenland for expanded operational freedom.

• Building new bases and infrastructure to support increased presence.

• Deploying advanced missile-defense systems, specifically highlighted as the “Golden Dome,” to enhance regional security.

• Reversing the icebreaker gap through executive orders like “Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance” to rebuild a fleet capable of year-round Arctic operations.

• Modernizing existing facilities like the Pituffik Space Base to maintain technological edge.

Q4: How does the article frame the actions of Russia and China in the Arctic, and why are they presented as a justification for the U.S. policy?
A4: Russia and China are depicted as aggressive, opportunistic powers rapidly advancing their Arctic capabilities while the U.S. lagged. Russia is highlighted for its comprehensive militarization of its Arctic coast and its dominant fleet of over 40 icebreakers. China, though not an Arctic state, is shown pursuing a strategy of economic investment and scientific research in Greenland to gain strategic influence. Their actions are presented not merely as competition but as a direct challenge that has filled a vacuum left by U.S. neglect, making the American response an urgent, defensive necessity to prevent adversaries from “setting the rules” in a critical region.

Q5: What is the “Monroe Doctrine” connection, and how is it applied to the modern Arctic context?
A5: The 1823 Monroe Doctrine declared the Western Hemisphere off-limits to further European colonization, establishing a U.S. sphere of influence. The article argues for a revived, expanded doctrine that includes the Arctic approaches to North America. In this modern interpretation, Greenland (and the Panama Canal) are declared vital territories within America’s strategic hemisphere. Just as European powers were excluded in the 19th century, contemporary global adversaries (Russia, China) are to be excluded from establishing strategic footholds. This frames the U.S. pursuit of dominance in Greenland not as optional foreign policy but as a core, non-negotiable national security imperative for homeland defense, a direct continuation of America’s historic hemispheric defense policy.