Phil Stewart

adversaries like Russia, China, Iran.

And so is there a security upside there?

Is there less of a need to have –

I don't know.

There are so many variables when you start talking about future effects that it's one of the things that kind of paralyze a lot of policymakers even, you know, from doing a lot overseas in the short run because they just don't know.

Because they don't know what's next.

And so, you know, as journalists, we're all asking that very question is, you know, what could be the repercussions to the United States for this?

And that's the big question we all have.

That's a great question.

I don't know that there is an easy answer for that.

There is a lot of potential security implications for Greenland falling under the

Let me start again.

I mean, I guess a lot of journalists are kind of trying to understand what the United States would gain militarily, diplomatically, economically by acquiring Greenland, given the treaty arrangements and the U.S.

military relationship with Denmark, which is a close NATO ally.

Right.

Well, I think the answer the administration gives is that Denmark simply can't defend the island by itself.

Denmark just isn't the U.S.

and doesn't have the reach of the U.S.

military.

And if you really want to make sure that Greenland is secure and that its assets in the Arctic are available to Americans, then you need to have it be American.