Things Are Heating Up in the Arctic: Why Trump Wants to Get Greenland

Summary

WSJ What’s News: Episode Summary Title: Things Are Heating Up in the Arctic: Why Trump Wants to Get Greenland
Release Date: February 9, 2025
Host: Alex Osola, The Wall Street Journal

---

Introduction

In the February 9th episode of WSJ’s What’s News Sunday, host Alex Osola delves into the escalating geopolitical tensions in the Arctic, with a particular focus on former President Donald Trump’s renewed interest in acquiring Greenland. This strategic move is examined against the backdrop of melting ice, emerging shipping routes, and the scramble for valuable Arctic resources.

---

Trump’s Interest in Greenland

Alex Osola opens the discussion by highlighting Trump’s persistent advocacy for purchasing Greenland, framing it as a necessity for enhancing U.S. national and economic security. To unpack this, WSJ UK correspondent Max Colchester provides insights into Greenland’s unique strategic significance.

Max Colchester (02:14):
"Greenland's important because really of where it's located. It is right at the top of the North American continent and it is a vast expanse of mainly frozen land... a buffer between the US and Russia in some way."

Colchester emphasizes Greenland's geographical position as a critical asset for the U.S., especially with the Arctic's climate warming and new trade routes emerging. The potential for increased U.S. surveillance and control over this region is seen as vital for safeguarding American interests against Russian advancements.

---

Greenland’s Strategic Importance

Greenland’s vast reserves of minerals like gold, silver, nickel, and copper are becoming increasingly accessible as ice melts, promising significant economic benefits. However, Colchester notes the current challenges in accessing these resources:

Max Colchester (03:01):
"They're not very accessible, is the truth. They are often in very remote places, which are extremely inhospitable and under a lot of ice... But there is a school of thought that as the ice thaws, they will become more accessible."

Drawing parallels to the U.S. acquisition of Alaska, which later proved rich in natural resources, Colchester suggests that Greenland could follow a similar trajectory, offering long-term economic gains despite the initial high costs of extraction.

---

Reactions from Greenland and Denmark

The potential acquisition has elicited varied responses from Greenland’s population and Denmark, its parent country. Colchester reports a nuanced perspective among Greenlanders:

Max Colchester (04:20):
"They have no desire to become American, and actually they'd much rather become independent of Denmark and be their own country. But equally, they are excited at the prospect potentially of more American investment or closer commercial ties to America."

Greenlanders view closer ties with the U.S. as a pathway to greater independence and economic self-sufficiency, rather than a desire to become part of the United States. Denmark, on the other hand, seeks to bolster Greenland’s defense capabilities in hopes of deterring American acquisition:

Max Colchester (05:07):
"They hope that if they spend a bit more on defense and put a few more ships around Greenland... then Trump will back down."

Denmark’s $2 billion investment in upgrading frigates around Greenland underscores their commitment to maintaining sovereignty and security in the region amid Trump's overtures.

---

Broader Arctic Geopolitical Tensions

Following the segment on Greenland, the discussion shifts to the broader geopolitical landscape of the Arctic. Reporter Tom Grove elaborates on the impact of melting ice and the race for control over new shipping routes and resources.

Tom Grove (07:26):
"The Northern Sea route... Putin's major goal is to turn it into a waterway that would connect Europe and Asia... they've been doing quite a bit up there."

Grove highlights Russia's ambitious plans to develop the Northern Sea Route, aiming to establish a year-round shipping lane that significantly reduces travel time between Europe and Asia. This development has intensified competition among Arctic nations, particularly with China’s growing interest and Russia’s collaboration with Beijing.

---

Emerging Shipping Routes and Economic Implications

As Arctic ice diminishes, new shipping routes like the Northern Sea Route and Canada’s Northwest Passage are becoming viable alternatives to traditional pathways such as the Suez Canal. These routes promise to cut shipping times by up to two weeks, offering strategic advantages for international trade.

Tom Grove (09:09):
"The shipping routes are important because they basically provide an entirely different way of moving goods in east and west Europe and Asia... ships can shave up to two weeks off their travel time."

The economic implications are significant, with faster delivery times boosting global trade efficiency. However, the geopolitical stakes are equally high, as control over these routes equates to substantial economic and strategic leverage.

---

Key Players in the Arctic Arena

The Arctic Council, comprising Arctic nations like Norway, Denmark (via Greenland), Canada, and Russia, has traditionally been a platform for cooperation. However, the Ukraine war has strained relations, particularly between Russia and the other member states.

Tom Grove (10:38):
"Russia's been working more and more with China. And so China has had a bigger and bigger foothold in the Arctic because Russia's basically given the opportunity to do that."

China's entry into the Arctic race, in partnership with Russia, marks a shift towards heightened competition. The United States, while possessing Alaska and existing military bases in Greenland, aims to enhance its Arctic presence through increased scientific, logistical, and military investments.

---

U.S. Role and Strategic Objectives

The U.S. seeks to ensure freedom of navigation in the Arctic, allowing it to project power and maintain strategic flexibility without necessarily controlling established shipping routes.

Tom Grove (11:41):
"The United States is trying to up its game quite a bit in the Arctic... It just wants to be able to make sure that it can go where it wants to, whenever it wants to."

This approach underscores a balanced strategy focused on maintaining open access and safeguarding American interests rather than outright territorial expansion in the Arctic.

---

Economic vs. Geopolitical Motivations

The interplay between economic incentives and geopolitical strategy is central to the Arctic discourse. While access to untapped mineral resources and lucrative shipping routes presents clear economic benefits, the geopolitical implications of controlling these assets cannot be overlooked.

Tom Grove (11:48):
"For the United States, it's a much more straightforward economic proposal. It's about potentially gaining access, gaining territory that does hold these minerals that perhaps we could use or exploit at some point."

Conversely, for Russia, the emphasis remains on strategic dominance and ensuring competitive parity in the Arctic region, driven by national security concerns.

---

Impact of Acquiring Greenland

Should the U.S. successfully acquire Greenland, it would significantly alter the balance of power in the Arctic. Enhanced access to critical minerals and strengthened strategic positioning would bolster U.S. influence in the region.

Tom Grove (12:26):
"From a strategic point of view, Greenland is important because that ice cap that covers the northern part of the island essentially blocks Russian ships from entering North American waters across the Arctic."

Controlling Greenland would provide the U.S. with a formidable advantage in monitoring and potentially limiting Russian naval movements, thereby reinforcing national security.

---

Conclusion

The episode concludes by highlighting the multifaceted dynamics at play in the Arctic, where environmental changes are accelerating geopolitical maneuvers. As nations vie for control over new resources and shipping lanes, the strategic importance of territories like Greenland becomes ever more pronounced.

Alex Osola (13:08):
"We'll be back on Monday morning with a new show. Thanks for listening."

This episode underscores the critical intersections of climate change, economic opportunity, and geopolitical strategy shaping the future of the Arctic region.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Max Colchester (02:14):
  "Greenland's important because really of where it's located... a buffer between the US and Russia."

• Max Colchester (04:20):
  "They have no desire to become American... they'd much rather become independent of Denmark."

• Tom Grove (07:26):
  "Putin's major goal is to turn [the Northern Sea Route] into a waterway that connects Europe and Asia."

• Tom Grove (09:09):
  "Ships can shave up to two weeks off their travel time."

• Tom Grove (11:48):
  "It's about potentially gaining access, gaining territory that does hold these minerals."

---

This comprehensive summary encapsulates the key discussions and insights from the episode, providing listeners and non-listeners alike with a clear understanding of the strategic significance of Greenland and the broader geopolitical tensions in the Arctic.

Transcript

[Alex Osola]

I can say to my new Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra, hey, find a keto friendly restaurant nearby and text it to Beth and Steve. And it does without me lifting a finger so I can get in more squats anywhere I can. 1, 2, 3.

[Tom Grove]

Will that be cash or credit? Credit. 4 Galaxy S25 Ultra the AI companion that does the heavy lifting. So you can do you get [e-mail] compatible with select apps. Requires Google Gemini account. Results may vary based on input. Check responses for accuracy.

[Alex Osola]

Hey, what's news listeners? It's Sunday, February 9th. I'm Alex Osola for the Wall Street Journal. This is what's News Sunday, the show where we tackle the big questions around the biggest stories in the news by reaching out to our colleagues across the newsroom to help explain what's happening in our world this week. President Trump has repeatedly talked about buying Greenland. He said it's necessary to shore up the US's national and economic security. But how realistic is this goal and how does it fit into the rising geopolitical heat in the Arctic region? Let's get into it. It's not the first time a politician has floated the idea of making Greenland a U.S. territory. But with Trump as president again, it's getting new attention. WSJ UK correspondent Max Colchester recently visited that self ruling part of Denmark and joins me now to explain what makes the place so special and so desirable for a country like the us. So Max, what's interesting to me is that Trump said that acquiring Greenland, and I'm using the word acquire kind of loosely here, is is necessary for national security. What does that mean and what makes Greenland important?

[Max Colchester]

Well, Greenland's important because really of where it's located. It is right at the top of the North American continent and it is a vast expanse of mainly frozen land, very, very large amount of land. And it is a buffer between the US and Russia in some way. And as the Greenlandic ice melts, as the climate warms, new trade paths are going to open up between east and west, which will speed trade dramatically. So it's really in America's interest to have eyes and a degree of control over this part of the world.

[Alex Osola]

Doesn't the US already have a stake in the Arctic? Like what about Alaska?

[Max Colchester]

It does. And it also already has quite a big influence on Greenland. There's a treaty that was signed in the 1950s between Greenland's owner, Denmark, and the U.S. which essentially allows the U.S. to place whatever military resources it desires on Greenland. No one's quite sure of this, but it seems that Trump feels that if he's going to place all this money and military resource at Greenland's disposal, then maybe the US should benefit from some other advantages, be it geographic territorial control or access to a lot of the minerals that are frozen under the ice on Greenland's territory.

[Alex Osola]

What is the deal with those minerals? I mean, how accessible are they?

[Max Colchester]

They're not very accessible, is the truth. They are often in very remote places, which are extremely inhospitable and under a lot of ice and would cost a lot of money to take out of the ground. But there is a school of thought that obviously as the ice thaws, they will become more accessible. And as technology improves, there could be ways to try and access this in a more cost effective way in the coming years. Much in the same way, when the US Bought Alaska, it was seen as a sort of nothing zone on the edge of the world. Well, actually, it turned out to be full of natural resources that were later tapped. So one gets the feeling that the US Is hoping it can do a similar play with Greenland. For years, not much thought was given to Greenland. After the Cold War subsided, military defense in the region really dropped off, especially from Denmark. So I think they had a sort of quiet existence which suited them fine, actually. And now this has been thrown onto the world's news agenda. And Nuke, the capital of Greenland, has been inundated by journalists all trying to find out what is happening in this place and why Trump cares about it so much.

[Alex Osola]

Including you, right?

[Max Colchester]

Exactly. I mean, it's quite an extraordinary place. It's unbelievably wild and empty. I've never been to a place with so few people in such a large expanse.

[Alex Osola]

Yeah. How are the people of Greenland reacting to all of this hullabaloo?

[Max Colchester]

Well, I think it's quite interesting when you go to Nuuk, because obviously it's a very remote place. It's a capital city, of course, but it's got only maybe 20,000 people living there. The sense I definitely got when I was there was not that anybody was keen to be part of America, that the mainly Inuit population say that they have no desire to become American, and actually they'd much rather become independent of Denmark and be their own country. But equally, they are excited at the prospect potentially of more American investment or closer commercial ties to America. It's more that they saw America as a way of enabling their move towards greater independence and financial independence from Denmark.

[Alex Osola]

Is this kind of an opening bid for President Trump? Could he just be wanting to put some pressure on Denmark? To improve the US's stake in Greenland.

[Max Colchester]

Yes. And that's what the Danes are hoping is the case. They hope that if they spend a bit more on defense and put a few more ships around Greenland and improve surveillance on Greenland and give America the comfort that they are taking the security of Greenland seriously, then Trump will back down. And they announced a package of around $2 billion to upgrade a bunch of frigates they have sailing around Greenland. And it didn't seem to move the needle with Trump, who sort of dismissed it during a recent trip on Air Force One. But who knows? Who knows how Trump could force this at this point? Seems to be some sort of opening gamb, like Panama, where Trump has said, look, I want a better deal for US ships sailing through the canal. You can sort of see there's a transaction to be done there with Greenland. It's not quite sure what Trump wants. And so I think that's what the Danes are hoping is clarified in the coming weeks and months.

[Alex Osola]

That was reporter Max Colchester. Coming up, it's not just Greenland. Tensions are rising between countries all over the Arctic. We get into why relations are heating up after the break.

[McDonald's Advertiser]

With new McValue at McDonald's, you always get more than you expect every day. So even if gas prices go up, you can buy a double cheeseburger and add a McChicken for $1. Or before game time, you can get five dollar meal deals for the group. And if breakfast is about to end, get deals in the app to save before the bell. The choice is yours. And the choice with McValue is always more.

[Tom Grove]

Prices and participation may vary. Valid for item of equal or lesser value. Must opt in to rewards for app deals.

[Alex Osola]

Ice is melting all over the world, and According to a 2022 study published in Nature Communications, it's melting nearly four times as quickly in the Arctic. In the process, that melting ice is exposing valuable minerals like gold and silver as well as nickel and copper, which are critical for batteries and power grids. It's also opening up shipping routes that could change the game for international trade and the geopolitical dynamics that hang in the balance. Reporter Tom Grove joins me now to help navigate these rapidly changing waters. Tom, what are these shipping routes and are they already in use?

[Tom Grove]

The one shipping route that is kind of light years ahead of the others in the Arctic is the Northern Sea route. This is a route that Russia has been trying to develop for well over 10 or 15 years. It's been one of Putin's major goals to turn it into a waterway that would basically Connect Europe and Asia not through the Suez Canal and not around the Cape of Good Hope, but across Arctic waters. So there's been lots of investment that's been put into this route, and that means investment into ports, investment into icebreakers, and investment into communication networks as well. That's that far north. And they've been doing quite a bit up there.

[Alex Osola]

Let's go back for a second. Why do you need icebreakers if the ice is melting?

[Tom Grove]

Whenever it comes to the far north, if you want to be shipping in the Arctic anywhere, you only have about two to three months of potentially ice free waters. After that, you're dealing with small and large ice floes and in some cases, just complete polar ice that you are cutting across. And basically, one thing that Russia wants to be able to do is make sure that the Northern sea route can function year round. And that means basically by pushing icebreakers through there, back and forth almost with pretty much any voyage of any ship through there.

[Alex Osola]

But it's not just the Northern sea route that countries are looking at for shipping through the Arctic, right?

[Tom Grove]

No. So Canada also has the Northwest Passage. And this is a little bit more complicated because whereas the Northern sea route kind of cuts across a very wide swath of open water, if you look on a map, the Northwest Passage, it cuts and dodges around these various islands that make up the northern archipelago of Canada. And so from a logistical point of view, it's much more difficult to really make that work.

[Alex Osola]

How important are these routes for trade?

[Tom Grove]

So the shipping routes are important because they basically provide an entirely different way of moving goods in east and West Europe and Asia. That has nothing to do with generally accepted shipping routes. What this allows is for ships, in some cases, to shave up to two weeks off their travel time. You get to see faster delivery times, and you get to see potentially, and particularly in China's case here, you're seeing uncontested waters. I mean, as much as there have been tensions arising in various spots around major shipping routes, the northern sea route just basically gives them wide open, clear waters in a friendly country.

[Alex Osola]

So it sounds like there are a lot of players potentially that are touching these routes. Can you just break down who are some of the players in the Arctic game?

[Tom Grove]

Obviously, you have the Arctic countries themselves, right? So you have Norway, you have Denmark via Greenland, you have Canada and Russia. And so all of these countries are in the mix here whenever it comes to developing Arctic policy, deciding how we're going to exploit the resources there. And by and large, the region was kind of an arena for international cooperation for quite a while, up until the Ukraine war. And that's when Russia kind of hived off, or rather the rest of the Arctic Council decided not to cooperate with Russia. And since then, Russia's been working more and more with China. And so China has had a bigger and bigger foothold in the Arctic because Russia's basically given the opportunity to do that.

[Alex Osola]

And where does the U.S. fit into this?

[Tom Grove]

So the U.S. obviously, with Alaska, they certainly have a claim on the Arctic. Under President Trump, at least in his first administration, there was a big push to create more icebreakers. There was somewhat of an icebreaker gap that people talked about because Russia had so many and the United States had so few. And so I think the United States is trying to up its game quite a bit in the Arctic. It does have a base in Greenland already that it uses, and that is one asset that does help the United States tremendously in the Arctic. But in terms of being more present logistically, more present scientifically, militarily, it has a long way to go. The US doesn't necessarily want to create its own shipping routes in the Arctic, but I think what it does want is greater freedom of navigation in the north so that it could potentially project power across the Bering Straits towards Russia, or at least in the Sea of Okhotsk further south. It's not looking to necessarily control any of these sea routes, but it just wants to be able to make sure that it can go where it wants to, whenever it wants to.

[Alex Osola]

It sounds like both economic and geopolitical issues are at play here. Which one seems to be predominant?

[Tom Grove]

Well, it depends on which side you're looking at it from. The Russians see melting ice, and with that, they have a sense that there is going to be greater competition in the north. That's what they say whenever they try to explain why they've opened up new bases in the Arctic or, you know, why they're militarizing different parts of the Arctic. For the United States, it's a much more straightforward economic proposal. It's about potentially gaining access, gaining territory that does hold these minerals that perhaps we could use or exploit at some point.

[Alex Osola]

We're talking today because of Trump's stated intention to acquire Greenland. How would Greenland change that calculus of power in the Arctic?

[Tom Grove]

We're still going to be talking a lot in terms of potentials here, potentially being able to dig up rare earths, potentially being able to gain other minerals that Greenland is supposed to hold. From a strategic point of view, Greenland is important because that ice cap that covers the northern part of the island, basically blocks Russian ships from entering North American waters across the Arctic. And if that does melt, you know, to the point where ships can pass through there on a regular basis, then the United States would want to be there, just from a purely strategic point of view.

[Alex Osola]

That was WSJ reporter Tom Grove. Tom, thank you so much.

[Tom Grove]

Thank you for having me.

[Alex Osola]

And that's it for what's new Sunday for February 9th. Today's show is produced by Charlotte Cartenberg with supervising producer Michael Kosmides. We got help from deputy editor Scott Soloway and Chris Zinsley. I'm Alex Osolo. We'll be back on Monday morning with a new show. Thanks for listening.