President Donald Trump makes it all sound very simple: The U.S. should simply have Greenland, an island three times the size of Texas administered by a NATO ally in Europe. And while he has walked back from demanding “the acquisition of Greenland” for a deal that reportedly could involve a boosted U.S. military presence there, he still appears to dismiss the complexity of expanding our presence on the frozen island. To understand what is at stake, I spoke with Malte Humpert, the founder of the Arctic Institute think tank, about the president’s polar obsession, the national security options already available to him, and why Greenland’s natural resources look better on paper.

At Davos, President Trump claimed there was a “framework of a future deal” in which the U.S. would gain “total access” to Greenland. How do you think this could play out in the coming weeks?
I think if the U.S. brought up Arctic security within the framework of NATO — and wanting to improve missile defense over the North Pole — then stationing more troops in Greenland or opening bases would all be perfectly reasonable.

Perhaps the working group with the Danish government could come to some kind of agreement that lets Trump come out as a winner. Then the Europeans would “allow him” to station 5,000 troops in Greenland and put some missiles or whatever, which he would already be allowed to do anyway. But I could see the Europeans pursuing the path of at least publicly allowing him to pretend to come out as a victor from this. That would fall in line with the tariff stuff, where he always presents himself as being victorious, even though in the end it was most likely a wash or the U.S. population is left to pay for it.

Trump has been fixated on acquiring Greenland for “national security.” What is the argument that Greenland is necessary to protect the United States?
I think there’s........

© Daily Intelligencer