Grönlands strategische Bedeutung für die Abschreckung einer russischen Aggression im Atlantik. Eine Karte der Heritage Foundation (!)

Somehow we managed to get from 1945 to 2024 without occupying Greenland.

SUBMISSION STATEMENT

The linked map comes from this strategic document on Iceland from the Heritage Foundation: [https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/report/iceland-outsized-importance-transatlantic-security](https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/report/iceland-outsized-importance-transatlantic-security)

As is known, the Heritage Foundation is behind Project 2025, the agenda that Trump seems to be enacting. [https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/project-2025](https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/project-2025) You could call the Heritage Foundation the MAGA think thank.

The aforementioned HF report goes on and on about Iceland and building partnerships with them, but is silent on Greenland. Here’s what they have to say about that…

>And if Greenland actually became a state, the liberal, socialist politics that dominate Greenland (and Denmark itself) would provide the Democratic Party in the U.S. with its best gift in years: guaranteed seats in Congress.

>All of which would be unnecessary, as there are two better options for cooperation with Greenland.

>The first is the type of relationship we have with the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau in the Pacific Ocean. The U.S. has a compact with these strategic islands as part of the “Freely Associated States,” which gives the U.S. the ability to maintain military bases and **make decisions on their external security.** In [exchange](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11208#:~:text=USAID%20assistance%20to%20the%20Pacific,prevention%20and%20treatment%20in%20PNG.), the U.S. provides the island nations with security guarantees and financial assistance, a commitment that was renewed by Congress in 2024 for another 20 years.

>The second would be to offer **territorial status to Greenland, as we have done with Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands**. At the moment, this seems unlikely to happen given the island’s pervasive separatist movement and the Danish government’s opposition. But since it might provide a very useful strategic and natural resource advantage to the United States, the possibility should be kept on the table during any negotiations in case these positions prove to be less intractable than they now seem.

[https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/buy-greenland-and-you-may-get-more-you-bargained](https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/buy-greenland-and-you-may-get-more-you-bargained)

While it is naturally an unthinkable idea for Denmark, it would appear that the MAGA think tank itself doesn’t wanto to actually bring Greenland in as a US state that has any kind of democratic power in the US. What they want is a vassalage, a territory whose foreign policy and natural resources they can fully control.

Greenland is no military emergency for anyone, just Trump’s megalomania and minerals, with the US imperialist desire to keep them all for themselves and not for others.
A territorial concession is something that should really have a lot in return; strong and free military support for a few years would be very little.

Europe has no significant enemies around it, except for a Russia that appears more powerful than it actually is, with a ridiculous economic and industrial capacity compared to Europe as a whole.
In less than a decade, Europe will no longer need any support from the US to defend itself: shouldn’t this make the MAGAs very happy?
If Russia isn’t a threat to a Europe, think about the US.

The US should only think about China and choose a less delusional and megalomaniacal president in the next elections.

So during the USSR somehow which saw Russia up to Germany was less off a threat that modern day Russia? A modern Russia with a vastly smaller navy and military. Whose overall GDP is a petrol station + strip mine that is nothing without it oil and gas flows.