Why Greenland? FDR to Trump

Summary

Podcast Summary: History As It Happens

Episode Title: Why Greenland? FDR to Trump
Host: Martin Di Caro
Guest: Mikkel Oleson, Senior Researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies
Date: January 16, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores the peculiar and consequential history of Greenland’s geopolitical significance, especially through U.S. ambitions to acquire or assert control over the island—from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's secret WWII maneuverings, through Harry Truman’s postwar purchase offer, to Donald Trump’s public overtures and threats. Host Martin Di Caro and expert Mikkel Oleson untangle the legal, historical, and strategic factors that connect these episodes, offering insights into why Greenland has long been coveted, who truly has a say in its fate, and what the future of this massive Arctic territory might hold.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Origins of Danish Rule in Greenland

• Viking Arrival & Colonialism

  • Norse Vikings settled Greenland about a thousand years ago but died out after a couple of centuries. (07:34)
  • Denmark (in union with Norway at the time) reclaimed interest in Greenland in the 18th century for religious and trade purposes, finding only Inuit populations remaining.
  • “It definitely has all the markers of a classical European colony of the time.” — Mikkel Oleson (08:37)

• Greenland Today

  • Small population (~50,000) with a high degree of semi-autonomy; direct local government over domestic affairs, but foreign policy and defense largely under Denmark. (08:45)

2. World War II: Turning Point for U.S.–Greenland Relations

• Henrik Kaufmann’s Bold Move

  • Danish ambassador in Washington refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of Nazi-occupied Denmark.
  • Kaufmann negotiated with the U.S. to permit American defense and bases in Greenland, presenting himself as “the real Denmark.”
  • “That’s a pretty ballsy move from an ambassador, to say the least.” — Mikkel Oleson (09:23)
  • The U.S. accepted the offer due to Greenland’s vital weather stations and potential for military bases. (10:39)

• Weather War & Early Strategic Value

  • Greenland was crucial for meteorological data during WWII; also served as a stopover for planes and logistics. (10:57)
  • The U.S. ousted small German weather stations from Greenland early in the war. (12:05)

• Temporary U.S. Presence

  • WWII-era U.S. presence was legally tied to the conflict’s duration, protected under the Monroe Doctrine from a U.S. perspective. (13:20)

3. Cold War Dynamics & the 1951 Defense Agreement

• Staying Power After WWII

  • The U.S. wanted to maintain its military presence; Denmark used NATO accession as a means to regularize arrangements. (14:03)
  • The 1951 U.S.-Denmark Defense Agreement established broad U.S. latitude in Greenland’s defense areas and base rights. (14:46)

• Secret Nukes: The Danish Dilemma

  • Despite Denmark's anti-nuclear policy, the U.S. successfully stationed nuclear weapons in Greenland, with Danish complicity and secrecy.
  • “The Danish Prime Minister simply ends the letter with: ‘I do not see that this gives ground for me to make any comment at this point.’” — Mikkel Oleson (16:34)
  • Greenland became integral to U.S. early warning and tracking systems against Soviet missiles. (17:09)

4. Post–Cold War & Modern Era: Shifting Strategic Significance

• The Lull After the Cold War

  • The strategic value dipped with the Soviet collapse; U.S. closed many bases, resulting in today’s limited radar coverage. (19:37)
  • Consequence: U.S. now complains about insufficient Danish/NATO investment in Arctic defense infrastructure. (20:15)

• Legal Framework Remains

  • The 1951 agreement (amended in 2004 for more Greenlandic participation) still gives the U.S. considerable operational leeway regarding military and security arrangements in Greenland. (20:38)
  • “In practice, those things put together have created this result that the U.S. has pretty much gotten whatever it wanted when it came to security.” — Mikkel Oleson (20:56)

5. Renewed American Interest: Trump’s Greenland Gambit

• Public Musings and Threats

  • Trump repeatedly threatened to “take” Greenland if Denmark refused to sell, invoking the specters of Russian or Chinese designs on the island. (05:45, 21:32)
  • “If we don’t take Greenland, Russia or China will, and I’m not letting that happen.” — Donald Trump (05:45)

• Absurdity Meets Realpolitik

  • “Of all the insane and disturbing stories we've covered in the Age of Trump, this one might be the most preposterous.” — Martin Di Caro (06:28)
  • Nevertheless, the impulse reflects genuine anxieties about strategic competition matching those of the Cold War. (06:28)

6. Natural Resources & Economic Realities

• Untapped Wealth — or Mirage?
  • Greenland has large deposits of various minerals, including rare earths and uranium, but extreme costs and poor infrastructure hinder profitable extraction. (21:51)
  • “The business case just hasn’t really been there in a lot of cases.” — Mikkel Oleson (22:51)
  • Greenland’s government welcomes foreign investment (“Greenland is not for sale, but it’s open for business”) but bans uranium mining due to environmental concerns. (23:22, 23:48)

7. Melting Ice, Naval Access, and New Tensions

• Changing Arctic, Changing Security Calculus
  • Melting sea ice enables easier naval/undersea movement, heightening military interest from Russia and triggering NATO responses. (24:07)
  • Russia focused on moving its nuclear submarines into the Atlantic via the “GIUK gap,” but invading Greenland would be both infeasible and pointless. (25:33)
  • “For the Russians to sneak an invasion force…it would be virtually impossible. And what should they even do there when they’re there?” — Mikkel Oleson (25:33)

8. NATO Tensions & the Prospect of Invasion

• Would the U.S. Actually Invade Greenland?

  • Physically, no one could stop it, but it would provoke a political and alliance crisis, potentially ending NATO. (28:35)

  • “The Danish Prime Minister recently stated that she foresaw that a military invasion of Greenland would mean the end of NATO.” — Mikkel Oleson referencing Danish officials (28:51)

  • Danish Official Quote (29:15):

    “If the USA chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including our NATO membership and thus the security that has been established since the end of World War II.”

9. Greenlandic Autonomy and the Desire for True Independence

• Who Decides Greenland’s Fate?

  • Greenlanders have the legal right to pursue independence by referendum, per 2009’s Law of Self Rule; Denmark cannot block this. (32:19)
  • The drive for independence is strong but tempered by reliance on Danish welfare guarantees.
  • “Greenlanders have wanted independence for a long time…the reason they haven’t gotten it is because they haven’t been able to afford it.” — Mikkel Oleson (30:49)

• Why Not Become Americans?

  • Greenlanders prefer the Nordic welfare model to the American system; see U.S. territories like Puerto Rico as insufficiently appealing templates.
  • “They are not seeking to replace one dependency with another. They're seeking true independence.” — Mikkel Oleson (32:19)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Kaufmann’s WWII Diplomatic Maneuver:

  • “He says, well, the Danish government is under duress because of the Nazi occupation. I think that I should be the real Denmark…if I was the true Denmark, then I wouldn’t have any problems with you having bases in Greenland.” — Mikkel Oleson (09:23)

• On Nuclear Weapons in Greenland:

  • “The Danish Prime Minister simply ends the letter with: ‘I do not see that this gives ground for me to make any comment at this point.’” — Mikkel Oleson (16:34)

• On Trump’s Threats:

  • “If we don’t take Greenland, Russia or China will, and I’m not letting that happen.” — Donald Trump (05:45)
  • “One way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland…if we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way.” — Donald Trump (05:58)

• On the Consequence of Military Action:

  • “The Danish Prime Minister recently stated that she foresaw that a military invasion of Greenland would mean the end of NATO.” — Mikkel Oleson (28:51)
  • “If an invasion was to take place…that kind of thinking is really poison to an alliance.” — Mikkel Oleson (29:34)

• On Greenlandic Aspirations:

  • “Greenlanders have wanted independence for a long time…the reason they haven’t gotten it yet is because they haven’t been able to afford it.” — Mikkel Oleson (30:49)
  • “They are not seeking to replace one dependency with another. They're seeking true independence.” — Mikkel Oleson (32:19)

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:35 – Henrik Kaufmann announces WWII-era U.S.-Denmark agreement
• 01:15 – Trump and Truman’s interest in purchasing Greenland discussed
• 07:34 – Early Danish colonization of Greenland explained
• 10:39 – WWII: U.S.–Kaufmann negotiations and strategic rationale
• 14:03–14:46 – The 1951 defense agreement and Denmark’s NATO entry
• 16:29–16:34 – Secret nuclear weapons stationing on Greenland
• 20:38 – Amendments to U.S. military rights post-2004
• 21:32–23:22 – Discussion of Greenland’s mineral resources
• 24:07 – Melting ice and renewed military interest in the Arctic
• 28:35–29:34 – Theoretical U.S. invasion and impact on NATO
• 30:49–32:19 – Greenlanders’ independence ambitions and legalities

---

Closing Thoughts

This episode offers a brisk yet in-depth tour of Greenland’s odd place in global strategy, using both historical anecdotes and current events to question who truly controls Greenland’s destiny, what the U.S. really needs from it, and whether the security of the North Atlantic could hinge on the fate of one vast, icy island. The discussion maintains a tone both wry and sobering, reminding listeners that today’s most outlandish headlines often have deep historical roots.

---

For more:

• Podcast link
• Stay tuned for upcoming episodes on America 250, Venezuela, Iran, and more.

---

Transcript

[Martin DeCaro]

Hey, are you tired of listening to ads and sales pitches? Well, go to historyasithappens.com and subscribe. Support the show. You'll never have to listen to an ad again. Plus, you'll get bonus content and 24. 7 access to the entire catalog of 500 episodes. Historyasithappens.com Subscribing is easy. Supercast will set you up so you can listen to the podcast in the same place you're listening to it right now. History as it happens January 16, 2026 why Greenland?

[Henrik Kaufmann]

This agreement between the United States and Denmark relating to the defense of Greenland is by now known to my countrymen in Denmark.

[Narrator/Reporter]

War's dramatic action reaches the far north as coast guardsmen blast their way through ice floes off Greenland.

[Historical Figure (e.g., NATO official or speech excerpt)]

Men with courage and vision can still determine their own destiny. They can choose slavery or freed war.

[Martin DeCaro]

RP that we would take Greenland, an independent territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, is absurd.

[Danish Official]

Soldiers from NATO countries have begun arriving in Greenland, and more military flights and ships are expected in the coming days.

[Mikkel Oleson]

So I just reminded them of the fact that not only did Truman want to do it, but President Trump's been talking about this since his first term.

[Donald Trump]

Well, we're going to see what happens with Greenland. We need Greenland for national security. So we're going to see what happens.

[Martin DeCaro]

Donald Trump is not the first president to covet Greenland. That was Harry Truman. But Truman never made his sales pitch public and he never threatened to annex Greenland by force either. The world's largest island, more than 800,000 square miles with a population of just 50,000, has been strategically important to the United States since the Second World War. Does the United States really need to take it? That's next as we report History as it happens. I'm Martin DeCaro.

[Mikkel Oleson]

Denmark does not have the authority to to sell Greenland according to the law of self rule of 2009. It is a Greenlandic decision to go for independence. Denmark will not stop it if Greenland goes for independence and has a referendum votes its way out of the Kingdom of Denmark. However, when we then sort of compare to what about the US Then, can't the US Help with that and sort of be ready to swoop in? Well, the fact of the matter is, why do Greenland want independence? It's because they fundamentally want to take control of their own destiny.

[Martin DeCaro]

April 1941. US forces occupy Greenland under an agreement between the Roosevelt administration and the Danish ambassador, Henrik Kaufmann. He had refused to recognize the Nazi occupation of his country. He acted on his own initiative.

[Henrik Kaufmann]

This agreement between the United States and Denmark relating to the defense of Greenland is by now known to my countrymen in Denmark, sitting by their radios under the blackout that covers Denmark. Now, they will have heard the President's statement and they will have felt grateful and encouraged when the President expressed his hope for a speedy liberation of Denmark and they heard the President's assurance that Greenland will remain Danish. In this world of broken treaties, they know the word of the American people and their government can be trusted.

[Martin DeCaro]

When he made that announcement, the United States wasn't quite in the Second World War, but it soon would be, and the Allies would have legitimate reasons to keep an eye on Greenland. The Germans set up secret weather stations on its eastern shore, leading to the so called weather War of 1944.

[Narrator/Reporter]

The hunt went on for two months, just a few hundred miles from the North Pole. Among the Navy task force objectives were armed German trawlers and a heavily mined radio and weather station in service on the island. The relentless search continued day and night. 60 Nazi prisoners were taken.

[Martin DeCaro]

The year after the war ended, prison President Harry Truman offered to buy Greenland from Denmark for $100 million in gold. Denmark said no, but no one knew about this until the Associated Press found the relevant documents in the national archives in 1991. So Greenland would remain a Danish possession, but in 1949, it became an official ally of the United States.

[Historical Figure (e.g., NATO official or speech excerpt)]

On April 4, 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed by Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Italy, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Iceland, Canada and the United States. This Union of 12 nations became known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We do not believe that there are blind tides of history which sweep men one way or another. In our own time, we've seen brave men overcome obstacles that seemed insurmountable and forces that seemed overwhelming. Men with courage and vision can still determine their own destiny.

[Martin DeCaro]

And as the Cold War set in in 1951, a defense agreement gave the US sweeping military access across the massive island. That agreement was modified in 2004 to provide Greenlanders with a bigger voice in decisions. But Washington to this day does not need to buy or invade Greenland to pursue its security interests there. No matter what President Trump might say or believe about imaginary Russian and Chinese ships surrounding Greenland.

[Donald Trump]

We don't take Greenland, Russia or China will, and I'm not letting that happen. If we don't take Greenland, Russia or China will take Greenland, and I am not going to let that happen.

[Mikkel Oleson]

Is there any deal they can offer here?

[Donald Trump]

Yeah, sure, I'd love to make a deal with them. It's easier but one way or the other, we're going to have Greenland. I'm not talking about money for Greenland yet. I might talk about that. But right now, we are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not. Because if we don't do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland and we're not going to have Russia or China. As a neighbor, I would. I would like to make a deal, you know, the easy way. But if we don't do it the easy way, we're going to do it the hard way.

[Martin DeCaro]

Of all the insane and disturbing stories we've covered in the Age of Trump, this one might be the most preposterous. An American president is threatening to take territory by force if necessary of a treaty ally. But it would also be wrong to dismiss Greenland as unimportant when it comes to national security and natural resources. Mikkel Oleson is a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies. Our conversation next. Remember, you can enjoy ad free listening by tapping subscribe now in the show notes or go to history as it happens dot com. Mikkel Oleson, welcome to the podcast.

[Mikkel Oleson]

Thank you for having me joining us.

[Martin DeCaro]

From Copenhagen and in the five years plus I've been doing this podcast, you are my first guest from Copenhagen because I've never done a podcast about Greenland. The world is full of surprises. Who knew I'd have to do something about the history of us Greenland relationship. So why don't we begin just briefly though. How did Greenland come to be part of the kingdom of Denmark?

[Mikkel Oleson]

Well, depending on temperament, one can go way back or really way back. We can start a thousand years ago when Norse Vikings went to Greenland and settled there. Then they died out after a couple of hundred years. But back in Denmark and Norway, which was once state back then, eventually this idea came up that maybe we should go look for those guys and see if they're still alive and God forbid, still Catholics. So. So around the 18th century, a new expedition is sent out. It's headed by a priest named Hans Eil. It's partly religiously motivated, it's partly motivated by interest of trade. So they land in Greenland. They find no Norse people there because they've died out a long time ago by then. But they do find the Inuits. They begin a project of converting the Inuits to to Christianity and setting up trade relations and gradually taking over Greenland.

[Martin DeCaro]

So it became a colony. Really?

[Mikkel Oleson]

Yes, yes. I think there's no other way of saying it. It definitely has all the markers of, of a classical European colony. Of the time.

[Martin DeCaro]

And today there are what, about 50,000 people living there, but they have semi autonomy. Correct. Semi autonomy. So the modern history of US Greenland relations, maybe it's best to start really in the Second World War.

[Mikkel Oleson]

I agree.

[Martin DeCaro]

The Danish minister or the ambassador who is in Washington after the Nazis conquered Denmark and Norway in the early years of the Second World War, he starts to freelance. His name was. Yeah, his name was Henrik.

[Mikkel Oleson]

Henrik Kaufmann.

[Martin DeCaro]

Henrik Kaufman. That's right. What does he do in Washington, and how does this solidify or initiate the U.S. greenland relationship?

[Mikkel Oleson]

The thing is, he becomes dissatisfied with the Danish government. He argues, and quite rightly so, that he. It cannot be regarded as a legitimate government anymore because the Nazis, quite frankly, has a figuratively and perhaps even literally gun to their heads. So he decides that he doesn't want to take orders from Copenhagen anymore, and he rebels. And then he goes to the US with a fairly ambitious offer for a diplomat. He says, well, the Danish government is under duress because of Nazi occupation of Denmark. I think that I should be the real Denmark. I think I should be the representative of the real, real Denmark, not my government back home. So that's a pretty ballsy move from an ambassador, to say the least. Right. And the Americans, sort of, in the beginning, they're sort of. Yeah, that's. That's a lot that you're asking. But then, of course, Henry Kaufmann has an extra card to play, and he says to the Americans, well, if I was the true Denmark, then I. I wouldn't have any problems with you having bases in Greenland. And then the US begins to see his point that maybe indeed he is the true Denmark. There you have it. An agreement is signed.

[Martin DeCaro]

Because even then, Greenland was seen as strategically important for what would become the US war effort. Right. It's like a stopover between the United States and Europe. Iceland as well. What was the strategic importance importance for Greenland from Washington's point of view here in 1940, 41?

[Mikkel Oleson]

Well, there are multiple things going on, and actually a common theme for this entire history is that Greenland is important for most of the time period, all the way up to today. But it's not always for the same reasons. Those reasons, they change with the geopolitical landscape and they change with technology. Those two factors. The US and Nazi Germany are not at war yet, but the US is thinking that it might come to that. And right now, at that moment in 1941, Greenland plays a role, a very important role when it comes to predicting the weather in Europe. So if you want to know what the weather in Europe is. Weather stations in Greenland are absolutely key. Predicting the weather is a very, very important thing if you're fighting a land war in Europe. So that's one thing. And the other thing that as you rightly pointed out, it's a stopover point. You can land planes there, you can build harbors, you can do a lot of things. And indeed the Americans end up realizing that they can and do do a lot of things in Greenland and they end up building a lot of bases.

[Martin DeCaro]

The first thing they had to do was get rid of the Germans that showed up there. Right.

[Narrator/Reporter]

Hidden in icy caves. Much scientific equipment was captured along with the crew of the Nazi weather station. From this point, valuable information had been radioed to enemy planes and bases. Two Coast Guard cutters tracked down a brand new 180 foot Nazi trawler and cornered her in the ice.

[Mikkel Oleson]

Sure, sure. Not a large number. So it's not something that's particularly difficult. But that was also something that the US quite frankly, of course was happy to do also because it was seen as, as a dangerous interference in the Western hemisphere. And then the focus is on building US bases. And according to the agreement with Kaufman, and this is also important, These bases, this U.S. presence in Greenland, it's tied to the Second World War. They have the right to be there as long as the Second World War is still going on.

[Martin DeCaro]

Sure, we'll get to the Cold War agreements in a little bit. Nazi Germany invaded Denmark April 1940. Kaufman refused to accept the legitimacy of the German controlled government. The Greenland Defense agreement comes in 1941. That's what we've been discussing here. Doesn't FDR declare that Greenland is part of the Monroe Doctrine? Right. Or protected under the Monroe Doctrine.

[Mikkel Oleson]

But as I said, under the terms of the agreement, they can stay until the war ends.

[Martin DeCaro]

Right, sure. And as you say, was to secure vital meteorological data and valuable cryolite mine. I guess they're already. Yeah, they're already aware that there are some natural resources there that made Greenland valuable and U.S. airfields. All right, so we'll move along here to the post war period. What happens after the war? You said that the US troops are allowed to stay there as long as the war lasted. In 1945. The war ends. 1949. NATO is formed. Denmark is a founding member of NATO. So that means Greenland becomes part of NATO, right?

[Mikkel Oleson]

Indeed. And it actually kind of saves Denmark from a tough spot because in 1945 the new Danish government actually had the expectations that the US would leave because the war was over. But the US wanted to stay because these bases proved to be very valuable. And that sort of creates a back and forth that isn't actually solved until denmark and the US becomes allies in NATO. A treaty is formed then in, in 1951, a defense agreement that sort of sets the new rules of engagement, so to speak. As for the US presence, and that.

[Martin DeCaro]

Agreement is still in effect today, what does it say? Or what did it say then? Why was that important? What was the significance?

[Mikkel Oleson]

It doesn't talk about bases, actually, it talks about defense areas. But it's almost the same thing. Sort of stipulates that the US can have a number of defense areas in Greenland, that it can reduce them, it can increase them. But if it increases them, it has to do so after consultation with the Danish government back then. And if it reduces them, it has to keep the Danes up to date about what's going on. One thing is the letter of the agreement, another thing is how it's being implemented. And one thing that's very clear throughout the Cold War is that Denmark is willing to go quite far to be as open and as forthcoming with the US as possible. And this even includes some tough decisions on the parts of the Danes. When we get to, for instance, 1957, the US wants to have nukes in Greenland. And this is a problem because the Danish government has a strict policy of not allowing nukes in its territory in peacetime. To make matters worse, the Danish Prime Minister at the time, Jose Hansen, he had actually just had an election campaign where he had said specifically that the Danish objection to nuclear weapons also included Greenland. However, just a few months after that election, the US ambassador asks for a meeting and presents him with the information that the US would indeed like to store nuclear weapons in Greenland. This creates a heck of a problem for the Prime Minister because Denmark doesn't like to say no to the US when it's vital security interests at play. And nuclear weapons are almost always very, very important.

[Martin DeCaro]

So I take it the nukes never made it there.

[Mikkel Oleson]

Well, they did.

[Martin DeCaro]

Oh, they did. I did not know that. Okay.

[Mikkel Oleson]

The only sort of piece of paper we have on it is a Prime Minister's reply. We don't have anything written on the meeting itself, but we have his reply to whatever he was asked at the the meeting. And he just says that, well, the ambassador visited me today. He asked about whether he could store ammunitions of a special kind. That's sort of the lingo they use for nuclear weapons. And then he sort of goes through that. The ambassador came with all These technical arguments for why he thought that he could, according to the agreement. And then the Danish prime minister simply ends the letter with, I do not see that this gives ground for me to make any comment at this point.

[Martin DeCaro]

And Green could also be used to track Soviet missiles coming over the Arctic Circle. Right?

[Mikkel Oleson]

Sure. And the further we get, again, as I said, as technology develops, Greenland shifts in importance. But the only reason I wanted to just highlight that instance is because it sort of shows that even if in a very, very difficult situation for a Danish government, when the US Wants something really badly, priority was given to make sure that. That they got it. Even though the Danish government had to keep this a secret for the entire Cold War because they didn't dare tell the Danish population, they did a good.

[Martin DeCaro]

Job because I didn't know that either about the nuclear weapons there. Truman, President Truman, he offered to buy Greenland. Right. What happened?

[Mikkel Oleson]

Well, the Danish king and the Danish government were quite clear on it. They didn't want to sell, and that was that.

[Martin DeCaro]

Oh, so Truman didn't threaten to invade the.

[Mikkel Oleson]

He did not threaten to invade. No. He made an agreement instead. Right. Or eventually, at least.

[Martin DeCaro]

Sure. So when the Cold War comes to an end, did that change the dynamics here at all? I mean, I got to be honest with you, I've hardly ever heard global Greenland, which we know is an important place for the reasons we've been discussing. We can discuss why it's strategically important today as the ice begins to melt or continues to melt up there in and around the North Pole, not just Greenland, but after the end of the Cold War, did that change anything?

[Mikkel Oleson]

Yes, it certainly does, because what changes then is geopolitics. The Soviet Union collapses, Russia emerges. And there's this period of time where Russia and the US they may not be allies, but they are not enemies anymore. And that changes the calculus immensely. Because bear in mind that at this point, at the end of the Cold War, the importance of Greenland, the importance of the Arctic region, has mostly been as a place that missiles, planes and submarines has to pass through in order for the Soviet Union and the US to be able to hit each other with nuclear weapons, among other things. That changes. Right? Because the moment that there's no enemy at the other side, why is it then that important to keep track of everything in between? Right. We have this period, especially in the 90s, but it actually continues a bit further than that, where the Arctic and Greenland are relatively unimportant strategically. And this is not a bad thing if you live there, because it's not necessarily Something to be wished for, to live in a geopolitical hotspot.

[Martin DeCaro]

Sure. And there had been multiple U.S. bases, but now there's just one.

[Mikkel Oleson]

So the U.S. gradually closes bases. The U.S. used to have, among other things, this radar chain, radar bases across Greenland. And this is one of the things that they close after the end of the Cold War. Right. And that's one of the reasons why today there is no adequate radar coverage when it comes to Russian planes. One of the chief American concerns and one of the things that the Trump administration had been blaming the Danes for not setting up. But we have to remember here, the history is the US Used to do this and decided not to do it anymore. So that's why it's not there.

[Martin DeCaro]

So you were quoted in a New York Times article that had the headline Buy Greenland, Take it. Why an old pact already gives Trump a free hand. That is the 1951 defense agreement. The United States still can do as it pleases there. I'm referring to military preparations, things like that. Right. It has a free hand when it comes to security.

[Mikkel Oleson]

Absolutely. I mean, it has to ask nicely first.

[Martin DeCaro]

But the people there have a say. Right. Because this 1951 agreement was amended in 2004 to give the people of Greenland more, more say in what's happening there. But for the most part, when it comes to security, the United States can do as it needs in this area.

[Mikkel Oleson]

Right, Exactly. Because one thing is the letter of the agreement, another is how it has been interpreted in practice. And in practice, those things put together has created this result that the US has pretty much gotten whatever it wanted when it came to. When it came to security.

[Martin DeCaro]

The conversation continues for ad free listening tap. Subscribe now in the show notes or go to history as it happens.com. So natural resources. Donald Trump says the US Needs Greenland for a number of reasons.

[Donald Trump]

If we don't go in, Russia's going to go in and China is going to go in, and there's not a thing that Denmark can do about it, but we can do everything about it.

[Martin DeCaro]

Let's talk about natural resources. Which resources are we referring to? How would they be useful? Who has access to them now? Who owns them now?

[Mikkel Oleson]

Sure. The fact of the matter is, for a long time there was this hope that Greenland would be able to strike oil or gas in its waters. Those hopes have largely been put to shame. So that leaves us to look at the land area instead. And here it's quite clear that Greenland pretty much has, I wouldn't say everything, but it has a lot of a Lot of different types of very valuable minerals, including rare earth minerals. The problem, however, is that it's not necessarily ever going to be profitable to extract it because in order for a mine to be set up, a couple of things is required. Right. There's certain price for setting up the mine, there's a certain market price for whatever the mine is going to extract. And then there is, is it going to be stable? Can we count on that price going forward? Right. What's the infrastructure in the area again, that affects the costs connected with extracting and distributing. Right. And there we just have to say that the business case just hasn't really been there in a lot of cases. And for that reason, Greenland is home to a lot of potential sites that hasn't been worthwhile exploiting as of yet.

[Martin DeCaro]

Graphite is one of the rare earth minerals. I don't know if that's a rare earth, but it's one of the resources there. It's important for batteries. China is number one in the battery market globally right now. So I think there's an interest there. How about uranium as well? The government, it has uranium. Yeah. The government though bans uranium mining because of the.

[Mikkel Oleson]

Sure. Greenland has generally, and this is when it comes to, to. To the extractive industries, this is one of the areas where Greenland has taken over responsibility for that area from Denmark. The Greenland government has generally been. Their main point has been Greenland is, Is not for sale, but it's very much open for business. So Greenland has been trying to attract investors, attract companies that would be willing to set up these.

[Martin DeCaro]

Sure.

[Mikkel Oleson]

But the mines.

[Martin DeCaro]

The uranium issue though is the ecological.

[Mikkel Oleson]

Exactly. You're absolutely right. So the uranium issue is a. What should we say, an exception to the rule where the Greenlandic government wishes to safeguard nature, possibly avoid some security issues concerned with the extraction of uranium. Right. Yes.

[Martin DeCaro]

So the ice melt, that's another issue here, makes naval operations easier. I know that Russia is spending a lot of money to build icebreakers. Can you address that issue? How? The ice melt is now also bringing in a defense or national security or a military element to Greenland's importance.

[Mikkel Oleson]

Again, the most important thing there would actually be for Russia. Russia has much of its strategic deterrence is due to its northern fleet. The northern fleet also is comprised of a number of nuclear armed submarines. These submarines are absolutely key for Russian second strike capability. And the ice melting has made the Russians feel less secure and has made them feel more vulnerable to a possible NATO attack actually. So that has affected Russian strategy in the area, for that matter. This should Be coupled, of course, to worsened relations between the Western Russia, which has brought back once more, or should we say this strategic cat and mouse game. The Russians sail around with their. Both the nuclear submarines, but also the attack submarines that they want to have go to the Atlantic to disrupt naval communication across the Atlantic. And then NATO that seeks to catch.

[Martin DeCaro]

These submarines, sure, but is Russia threatening Greenland at all?

[Mikkel Oleson]

No, not at this time, because that's not really the point. Why would they need Greenland? What they need is to sneak their submarines through the Greenland, Iceland, UK gap. But they don't need to take Greenland in order to do that. They just have to sneak their submarines through. For the Russians to invade Greenland, it would be a logistical nightmare. Keep in mind that NATO has a significant advantage over the Russians when it comes to naval power. For the Russians to sneak an invasion force to nuke it would be virtually impossible. It would be impossible to supply them. And what should they even do there when they're there?

[Martin DeCaro]

They're not threatening Greenland right now. However, here's a headline from CBS News. Russia says geopolitical tension in the Arctic is of the gravest concern as European NATO members ramp up for war games in the region and Moscow seeks to highlight the disagreement between the Trump administration and its closest allies over Greenland. I mean, why would Russia have to do anything? NATO could be at war with itself, crazy as it is to say it. Here's the statement from the Russian embassy. NATO has embarked on a course of accelerated militarization of the north, increasing its military presence there under the fictitious pretext of a growing threat from Moscow and Beijing. The statement went on to say Russia advocates for peace, cooperation and dialogue in the region, but that NATO members show no disposition to resolve issues in a constructive manner.

[Mikkel Oleson]

Yeah, well, it's an interesting statement. And the Russian attitude towards Greenland is very interesting in and of itself because it has so many different angles. You have the, the embassy, who was it? The Russian embassy in Copenhagen?

[Martin DeCaro]

In Belgium, In Belgium.

[Mikkel Oleson]

Nevertheless, you have those frontline diplomatic posts that have a knee jerk reaction saying that any NATO military is generally not something they like. Embassy in Copenhagen had a similar reaction in the beginning of the Greenland crisis where it sort of condemned the US trying to get more access to Greenland. But then on the other hand, you have Putin and his people seeing it as a strategic opportunity to sow discord in the west and sort of even jumping on the opportunity to say to Donald Trump, well, if you take Greenland, I take Ukraine. Right, and why not from a Putin perspective, right. Why not sell the U.S. something that has full access to already. That's a good deal for the Russians.

[Martin DeCaro]

Sure. You know, there are real issues here. I mean, when this issue, the idea of the US Taking Greenland first popped up, I don't know, a year or so ago, I think the initial reaction on the part of some people was why? Why? Why? Well, there are actual issues here as we've been discussing. And as the ice melt accelerates, it'll be easier to navigate that part of the globe, which, as you say, is very sensitive from the perspective of both Washington and Moscow. So, Mikkel, do you think the United States might actually invade Greenland? I mean, there's really nothing that would stop, physically, I'm talking physically, militarily, stop the US from doing this if it so chooses.

[Mikkel Oleson]

Of course it can invade Greenland if it so chooses. There's nothing that neither Denmark nor Greenland nor the Europeans would be able to do about it. The US is simply too strong.

[Martin DeCaro]

Who wants to spill blood over over that? But would that be the end of NATO?

[Mikkel Oleson]

Well, that's the thing, right? The Europeans may not be able to inflict military damage upon the US in any significant way, but it sure would be able to inflict political damage and possibly even economic damage. Well, the Danish Prime Minister recently stated that she foresaw that a military invasion of Greenland would mean the end of NATO. The Danish Minister of Foreign affairs recently also said that, first of all, I.

[Danish Official]

Believe that we should take the American President seriously when he says that he wants Greenland. But I also want to make it clear that if the USA chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including our NATO membership and thus the security that has been established since the end of World War II.

[Mikkel Oleson]

And I think the rationale is pretty straightforward, right? I mean, if an invasion was to take place, not only would there of course be sympathy from the other NATO members, but I think all around in the European capitals, I think state leaders would sit and wonder and say, okay, so the US does this to Denmark, Greenland, a loyal democratic ally that has followed the US into combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. If they're willing to do that to them, what might they then be willing to do to the rest of us at some point? And that kind of thinking is really poison to an alliance. Anyway. I wouldn't say definitely in this world, nothing is certain, right? I wouldn't say definitely that it will lead to the end of NATO, but I would say that it will definitely lead to the biggest existential crisis in NATO history. It is quite possible that it will also lead to the End of NATO. Yeah.

[Martin DeCaro]

It's not the normal practice for allies to annex each other's territory. So my final question here is, and it may seem like a strange one, because if you were to ask me, hey, Martin, do you want to be a citizen of Denmark? I'd say, I don't know, it might not be such a bad thing, but it's not something that really occurred to me very often over the course of my life. Why don't Greenlanders want to become Americans?

[Mikkel Oleson]

You also have to consider that the Greenlanders, their entire, what should we say, society model is based on the Danish model center left welfare state. The Greenlanders are very happy to have free health care and all that kind of stuff, right? And I think they look to the US and they look to Puerto Rico and they look to the Marshall Islands and they look to Guam and they say, okay, having this kind of connection with the US doesn't magically solve all problems, right? Then these ideas about, well, what if you get a million dollars or something like that? And of course, a million dollars is a nice thing, but two things, right? First of all, if it means that your entire society changes, well, maybe $1 million will not be able to be enough to make your life happy for the rest of your life, right? And the other thing, of course, and I think this is actually the most important point, is that the Greenlanders have wanted independence for a long time. They wanted independence. The reason they haven't gotten it yet is because they haven't been able to afford it. Also, a poll got an agreement that says there are two poles. One, that they really want independence, a second, that they don't want independence if it costs the Greenlandic welfare state. So therefore, squaring that circle has been what been really occupying them for all that time.

[Martin DeCaro]

And this is a Greenlander thing, because even if Denmark were to say, sure, we'll take your money, President Trump, we'll sell it, it has to go through the people in Greenland, right? The referendum.

[Mikkel Oleson]

Right, exactly. I mean, Denmark does not have the authority, authority to sell Greenland. According to the law of self rule of 2009, it is a Greenlandic decision to go for independence. Denmark will not stop it if Greenland goes for independence and has a referendum, votes its way out of the Kingdom of Denmark. However, when we then sort of compare to what about the US Then, can't the US Help with that and sort of be ready to swoop in? Well, the fact of the matter is, why do Greenland want independence? It's because they fundamentally want to take control of their own destiny. So they they are not seeking to replace one dependency with another. They're not seeking a formal state of independence only to have the US Dictate a lot of things across the board, certainly security, but probably also minerals as well. Right? They're seeking true independence. And I just don't really see that this is something that the US Is really going to be able to and willing to help that much with.

[Martin DeCaro]

Coming up on History as it Happens Soon I'm going to kick off an occasional series, one or two episodes a Month on America 250, and the first episode in the series is going to be about Thomas Paine and common sense. And my guest is going to be the great Lindsay Chervinsky, who is the executive director of the George Washington Library at Mount Vernon. I'm still working on more episodes about Venezuela and Iran and everything else going on in this crazy world. Remember, you can easily stay up to date on what I'm doing by signing up for my newsletter. It is free. Go to Substack and search for History as it Happens.