I guess in the CNN interview he said that? I just read the article, which would make me think his response would simply be “Well Denmark’s smaller military means they have no rights”.
But you are absolutely right that USA can pretty much already stage whatever military presence they want in Greenland so long as everyone can rationalize it as supporting NATO objectives, which would generally rubber stamp Greenland. The ‘we need Greenland for defense’ rings hollow with that.
However, I think the military is an excuse, and they really want:
To have probable ports in a potentially more relevant shipping activity and extract some economic control from that position
To hedge bets against warming to have some land that might be more attractive if local temperatures rise a certain amount
Exert greater pressure on Canada to join up, being surrounded basically on all sides by USA.
They see a significant land mass with fewer than 100k as a cakewalk, from a force perspective, and given their ‘might makes right’ philosophy, it could be a likely next stepping stone.
I guess in the CNN interview he said that? I just read the article, which would make me think his response would simply be “Well Denmark’s smaller military means they have no rights”.
But you are absolutely right that USA can pretty much already stage whatever military presence they want in Greenland so long as everyone can rationalize it as supporting NATO objectives, which would generally rubber stamp Greenland. The ‘we need Greenland for defense’ rings hollow with that.
However, I think the military is an excuse, and they really want:
They see a significant land mass with fewer than 100k as a cakewalk, from a force perspective, and given their ‘might makes right’ philosophy, it could be a likely next stepping stone.