What Trump just did is a master class on how to get what you want. Let me explain. Take a look at the location of Russia’s strategic forces:
If you draw a great circle route from Russia’s missile fields to the US, two things become apparent:
- The route for missiles launched from Russia’s Asian missile fields headed to the US west coast fly over Alaska.
- The route for missiles launched from Russia’s European missile fields headed to the US east coast fly over southern Greenland and Iceland.
Since we already have missile interceptors in Alaska, the western routes have some protection (although there aren’t nearly enough of those interceptors to handle a massive attack). What we need is a place to put interceptors that cover those eastern routes. Iceland only covers a few of those approaches, but Greenland is ideal for a US missile defense base. Defending the US from a European based missile threat vitally requires interceptors (missile or energy weapon) in Greenland.
That’s why Trump wants Greenland. Everyone thinks that it is about mineral rights. I don’t believe that. If it were minerals, there were easier ways to do that. We don’t need the entire island, just a small part of it. It can’t be something another nation can take from us by simply demanding that we leave.
Sure, we have a base there now, but it isn’t a permanent one. Under the 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement, the United States was allowed to operate the base under a NATO framework, as long as both Denmark and the United States remain NATO members. Under the agreement, the Danish national flag must be flown at the base to recognize that the base is on Danish territory. In other words, when we leave NATO, we lose the base.
No, the land where those interceptors will be must be US territory. Of course, Denmark wasn’t just going to GIVE it to us, so Trump had to do some creative acquisition.
That’s what he did- he got NATO to believe the US was going to invade. Europe, being the pussies that they are, decided to cave in to his demands without a shot being fired. The US has now secured a deal for some of Greenland to be ceded to the US. The NYT notes that according to officials who attended the meeting, the deal is similar to the United Kingdom’s bases in Cyprus, which are regarded as British territory. No matter what, this was a masterful demonstration of how to get what you want.
Once that is secured, I am wondering if the NATO accords are going to be pushed aside. After all, Trump has long declared the treaty to be a huge cost to the US with little benefit in these post-Soviet years.
8 Comments
SiG · January 23, 2026 at 8:29 am
I think I ought to add “The Art of the Deal” to my collection. He sure comes up with some novel approaches. I’ll never do dealing of any size and scope like he has done – and is doing – but it seems like a good way to get into his mindset.
Canuk · January 23, 2026 at 9:46 am
You may be correct but it is interesting how unconcerned the Russian government is about the possible US takeover of Greenland. If it were such a game changer that would not be the response.
The conclusions I draw from the “not our concern” reaction are:
Russia does not believe Greenland -based ABM systems would shift the nuclear balance of power (MAD)
and/or their new systems (Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile, Poseidon nuclear-powered underwater doomsday weapon and RS-28 Sarmat super-heavy ICBM), maintain Russia’s second-strike capability.
That’s four new nuclear systems introduced in the last decade while the USA’s land-based ICBM force is 55+ years old, the B2s are 30 years old and the B52s are 65+ years old. Even the Ohio boomer subs are 30-40 years old and awaiting replacement with the new Columbia class next decade.
All this can be traced by to GWB’s idiot decision to pull out of the 1972 ABM treaty in 2002.
Divemedic · January 23, 2026 at 10:20 am
The reason they aren’t too worried at this time is there are such a small number of GBIs that they can’t intercept more than a few missiles. What’s interesting is Russia is doing away with silo based missiles and going to mobile launchers. Reagan and his rail based missiles were an idea that had great promise.
The game changer is going to be rail gun defenses or energy weapons.
Canuk · January 23, 2026 at 2:17 pm
From what I have read, Russia likes a roughly 50-50 mix of siloed and mobile ICBMs and that is not expected to change much. Mobile provides the obvious advantage of first-strike survivability which seems to be an obsession with the Russians, especially based on their new strategic weapons development.
I’m too lazy to do much research on the SDI part two scenario of rail guns/energy weapons.
Here’s a bit from AI which is pessimistic. Short answer: railguns are effectively out of the ICBM-defense race; energy weapons (lasers) are much closer, but still limited to niche roles.
A realistic timeline: Lasers: limited defensive use now–2035 (boost phase / drones / short-range threats) Lasers for true ICBM midcourse defense: unlikely before 2040s–2050s, if ever. Railguns for ICBM defense: very unlikely this century.
Why ICBMs are brutally hard to stop.
An ICBM warhead: Travels 6–7 km/s (Mach 20+) Is tiny, cold, and often hidden among decoys. Appears in space for only ~20 minutes. May include maneuvering reentry vehicles. Is hardened against radiation and heat.
Any defense system must: Detect Track Identify the real warhead
Hit or disable it. Do so in seconds. That’s an extreme technical problem.
Many of the new weapons would not fly over Greenland. The range of the Sarmat (Satan II) is great enough that it can fly over the south pole to bypass known defenses while the nuke-powered cruise missile can linger out in mid-ocean for weeks presumably.
Compared to the Minuteman III, Sarmat is a monster. 18,000KM range, 10,000 kg payload (10-15 MIRVs) vs 13KM range, 1,150kg payload and just one MIRV for the M3.
The Poseidon is an absolute nightmare weapon. Profiled in detail recently by Black Mountain Analysis. “It most likely uses a compact liquid-metal-cooled fast reactor to achieve long-range, high-speed operation at great depths, carries a warhead of 2-100 Mt, and could inflict catastrophic local damage and contamination on any coastal target.”
if anyone wants to geek out on this.
https://bmanalysis.substack.com/p/poseidon-the-ultimate-weapon-of-vengeance?publication_id=1105422&post_id=177880124&isFreemail=true&r=l0gl9&triedRedirect=true
EN2 SS · January 23, 2026 at 8:58 am
The US should have dropped NATO and the UN, the instant the soviet union died. Both have been a money laundering grift for decades.
Dan D. · January 23, 2026 at 4:57 pm
There are not likely any viable missile interceptors in Alaska, especially for ballistics which must be caught in boost phase. All that stuff is smoke and mirror BS from the Primes: Patriots, the SBX, etc. are all grift on par with the Somali effort just wrapped in a different flag.
Oreshnik flight time to both London and Paris is approx. 20 minutes. Currently that is all that is playing in the bigger theaters.
NIdahoOrthodox · January 24, 2026 at 12:40 pm
Interceptors in Alaska aren’t much defence against the new Samat missile which has the range to be fired over the South Pole to hit targets in CONUS, or hypersonics fired from SSGN’s off our coasts. Why can’t we just stay in our own lane and leave other countries the f alone?
Divemedic · January 24, 2026 at 1:31 pm
The Soviets even had FOBS, so that is nothing new. In this case, it’s a matter of our nation’s survival. Why can’t we leave other nations alone? In many cases that’s a good policy, in others it isn’t. Remember just because you leave other nations alone doesn’t mean they will leave you alone.
A nation is merely a group of people that lays claim to a geographical area and can defend it from invaders. Anything else is wishful nonsense.
Canada and Europe have been living off the American teat for well over 80 years. Time for them to go it alone.
Comments are closed.