Mike Baker

See, I pronounced it correctly again, Bidefik.

I just can't stop saying it.

It grants wide latitude to move personnel, aircraft, and equipment in and out of Greenland, and to build or upgrade infrastructure as defense needs require.

Denmark must be consulted, but it does not exercise routine obstruction.

Because Denmark is a NATO member, U.S.

operations in Greenland are embedded within the alliance framework.

Functionally speaking, Greenland already operates as part of NATO's Northern Defensive Shield.

In other words, the US already has most of the access it needs, without owning the island.

What's more, the US military footprint in Greenland has shrunk dramatically since the Cold War.

Today, here it comes again, Bidefik Space Base is the only permanent U.S.

installation on the island.

As of 2025 and 2026 now, it hosts roughly 150 to 200 U.S.

personnel, focused mostly on missile warning and space surveillance missions.

That's a fraction of past levels.

During the Cold War, the U.S.

operated dozens of facilities across Greenland, with thousands of troops stationed there, more than 6,000 at Bidefik alone at its peak, and over 10,000 across all installations.

If Washington wanted to expand its presence today, it couldn't do so substantially under the existing framework.

Which brings us to the real question.

Is this, you ask, about legitimate concern over America's long-term interest in the Arctic, or is Greenland being cast as something else entirely?

A geopolitical trophy, a symbol, or a legacy play aimed at territorial expansion on a scale not seen since the era of President McKinley, and we all remember him.