This Is Why President Trump Wants Greenland and the Left Still Doesn’t Get It

WASHINGTON, DC- One thing that liberals fail to understand about President Trump is that he is always five steps ahead of them. When he imposed tariffs on numerous countries worldwide, leftists clutched their pearls and claimed the president was going to “crash the economy.” In most cases, those countries returned and negotiated tariff reductions with the United States, and a compromise was reached. While liberals play tiddlywinks, President Trump plays four-dimensional chess. 

A couple of months ago, the president said that Denmark needed to hand over Greenland, a territory of that country, to the United States. Most people, including some Republicans, were put off by what was perceived as Trump’s “threat” to use military force to take over Greenland. What, many people asked, is the benefit of taking over an ice-locked piece of land like Greenland?

Many Trump supporters understood that what he was trying to gain was leverage, with the true reason for his interest in Greenland being our national defense, which the president admitted. What strategic role would a snowbound territory such as Greenland play in our national defense? 

One need only look at a globe…not a two-dimensional world map, but a globe…to understand why Greenland is so important to our national defense. Just as Venezuela is important to our defense to the south, Greenland is just as vital to our defense to the north, or more precisely, the northeast. 

A Facebook post by Robert Eaton succinctly explains the importance of Greenland. 

Part of the issue, Eaton explains, is that the United States has been providing security for our European allies since the end of World War II, or, if you will, World War II. NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was born out of the death and destruction of World War II. Eaton explains that when NATO was formed, “Europe remembered what real war costs. Leaders understood how global conflicts begin, not just how they end.” 

To be frank, Europe is a hot mess. An influx of migrants into Germany, France, Spain, England, Ireland, and other countries, encouraged by complicit “leaders,” has completely weakened internal cohesion in those countries. Where the United States was always considered a beacon of freedom and power, European countries now view us as a necessary evil, an evil that is the primary financial support for their national security. As Eaton wrote, “The United States has been carrying the free world, and the free world got comfortable with it. NATO isn’t what it used to be, and everyone knows it.” 

How so? Most European countries have slashed their military budgets, opened their borders without control (sound familiar?), adopted policies that eviscerated national cohesion, and outsourced their security to us. 

NATO was formed as an alliance, not as America being the daddy handing out an allowance to the kids. In its current makeup, does anyone honestly believe that if the United States were attacked, England, France, or any other member of the EU would have our backs? 

More than anyone else, EU countries should understand that President Trump’s desire to gain control of Greenland isn’t only about American interests…it is about their survival. Why then, when the president showed designs on Greenland, did all the EU countries attack him? 

Eaton explains, “An ally isn’t someone who smiles when you fund them, then attacks you the moment you assert your own interests. An ally: shares your values, defends itself, and stands with you when it's uncomfortable, not just convenient.” 

He continued: “Allies are not unconditional [believe he meant conditional] friends. Nations don’t survive on emotion or moral signaling. They survive on reciprocity, strength, and shared interests.”

[...]

“When the U.S. demanded NATO countries pay their share and take responsibility, the response wasn’t cooperation. It was outrage. That reaction revealed everything. Real allies don’t complain when asked to carry their own weight.” 

Eaton then called out Canada, noting that if the U.S. decided tomorrow it would no longer militarily back Canada, it would be days, if not weeks, before Russia moved on Canada. While this is hyperbole, given Russia’s dalliances with Ukraine, is it out of the realm of possibility? Yet Canada never thinks twice about slamming the United States, especially since there is a new sheriff in town who isn’t about to let our neighbor to the north take advantage of us. 

 As our NATO allies have become overrun with foreigners and have lost their sense of identity, Liberalism has spread across them like a disease. Examples include in parts of Europe, the UK and Australia, where:

• Speech is fined or criminalized
• Governments decide acceptable opinions
• Dissent is treated as a threat

All of the above is antithetical to American values and how Democracies are supposed to operate. This is not freedom…it is tyranny, just like happens in communist countries like China and Russia. The only difference is that neither of those countries allows foreign invaders across their borders. 

If America is not there to defend these countries, who is? China? Russia? Russian President Vladimir Putin has made his desires well known, with Ukraine being a prime example. China has been on the move and has been rattling its sword toward Taiwan. Until the United States arrested Venezuelan dictator Maduro, China had been courting him. Admit it or don’t, but neither China nor Russia is our friend. 

Take China, for example. As Eaton writes, China has nearly doubled its military spending, built the world’s largest navy, developed hypersonic missiles, and purchased land worldwide to secure strategic positions. Does anyone believe, for one moment, that Denmark could protect Greenland from either Russia or China? That is why President Trump realizes the importance of Greenland to our national security posture. 

“Greenland is one of the most strategically critical defense positions on Earth. It’s a gateway to North America,” Eaton wrote. 

The only country between Russia and the United States is the UK. The UK stores its nuclear warheads at RNAD Coulport in Scotland, with subs based at Faslane. Was Russia to somehow take out that base, there is nothing between there and the United States to stop Russia from parking nuclear submarines off the coast of Canada and the United States. That is why a strong US presence in Greenland is vital. 

“Greenland is essential for early detection and interception before threats reach American cities,” Eaton wrote. “Military planners know this. NATO knows this. Denmark knows this. But the U.S. cannot build permanent, trillion-dollar defense infrastructure, including next-generation missile defense on land governed by foreign law. Treaties aren’t secure enough for systems of that scale.” 

That is precisely why the president wants Greenland, preferably through a purchase or long-term lease agreement. 

Why then, is NATO opposing us protecting ourselves, and by extension, them? By sending military forces (as paltry as they were) to Greenland before we could even begin negotiating, NATO is showing their definition of a “partnership” is one-way. 

Remember, the NATO countries need us a hell of a lot more than we need them. As Eaton wrote, “NATO has become more burden than benefit. America has already increased military spending from foughly 3% toward 5% of GDP. That alone tells you how serious the threat picture really is.” 

Another Facebook post by Kevin Hayslett explains the importance of Greenland, likening it to the game of Monopoly. 

“...in Monopoly, you don’t lose by bad luck. You lose by misunderstanding the board–and laughing while someone else quietly buys the square that decides the game ten turns later.” 

Hayslett noted that when Trump first mentioned acquiring Greenland, it was met with mockery by the usual suspects, such as late-night television “comedians,” left-wing media, and of course, “experts.” And the public, sheep that they are, followed along, with polls showing Americans widely opposed to the idea. Hayslett even admitted that he, too, thought it was a joke…until he “actually looked at the board.” 

He contrasted the difference between a politician and a builder–”A politician sticks a finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. A builder studies the board and asks what will matter ten moves from now. Builders don’t ask what polls well. They ask what controls the game.” 

Critics, Hayslett noted, looked at Greenland and “saw a massive block of ice and assumed ‘empty’ meant ‘worthless.’” That, he said, was the wrong question. 

“Who wasn’t laughing?” 

People who know how the “game” of global power works. 

“They were tracing shipping lanes. They were running geological surveys. They were asking a question that should make every American uncomfortable…If we don’t control this square, who will? Because Greenland isn’t Baltic Avenue. Greenland is Park Place–before the hotels go up. And once the hotels go up, the game doesn’t last long.” 

This is where “normal” people get it wrong, and it brings us back to looking at a two-dimensional map of the world. 

“But the world doesn’t work on flat paper. Missiles don’t fly left to right. Radar doesn’t respect margins,” Hayslett wrote. 

“When militaries look at the planet, they look from the top down–with the North Pole at the center. And from that view, Greenland isn’t ‘out of the way.’ It is the way. It is the northern gate to the Atlantic. The early-warning corridor. The doorman,” Hayslett highlighted. 

“Whoever controls Greenland controls early warning for the Western Hemisphere. This isn’t ideology. That is geometry. And if that geometry flips, the consequences are not theoretical.

What does that mean? Any theoretical Russian missile launches against the U.S. arrive with less warning. There would be radar blind spots over the North Atlantic. American cities would lose precious minutes preparing for any such attack.

‘Whoever controls Greenland doesn’t just watch the board. They shorten the game,” Hayslett noted. 

 Naysayers and Trump haters can laugh all they want, but Greenland is much more than a gigantic, floating island of ice. It is a vital strategic piece of land that someone will take at some point. Will it be China? Russia? Or the United States? 

The future of our country may well depend on the answer to that question. 

“Because in Monopoly, just like geopolitics, you don’t lose by landing on the cheap squares. You lose by laughing while someone else quietly buys Park Place. And the rent is always due. The only question is who collects it.”