Mike Baker

Greenland also plays an increasing role in the protection of emerging Arctic sea lanes.

As ice recedes, new shipping routes are opening that could dramatically shorten transit between Asia and Europe and North America.

Those same routes could also be exploited by adversarial navies, making monitoring and access even more important.

And finally, from a broader alliance perspective, Greenland strengthens NATO's northern flank, complementing U.S.

and allied forces in places like Iceland, Norway, and Canada, at a time when Russia continues expanding its Arctic military footprint.

But here's where things get more complicated.

The president has begun to undercut that national security case or argument by making the issue personal.

According to reporting in a text message sent on January 18th to Norway's prime minister, Jonas Garsture,

President Trump wrote, "...considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped eight wars plus, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America."

In plain English, that comes across like this is what happens when I don't get my trophy.

It's not a good look.

There's another issue that complicates the argument even further.

The U.S.

already enjoys extensive access to Greenland under existing agreements.

Yes, we have existing agreements in place.

Under the 1951 U.S.-Denmark Defense Agreement, it's a Cold War-era deal that remains in force, the U.S.

has broad rights to operate, maintain, and expand military facilities in Greenland.

That agreement is the backbone of America's Arctic security presence.

It's what allows the U.S.

to operate Bidefik space-based today.