President Donald Trump‘s plan to acquire Greenland, despite its potential strategic and natural resource benefits, could cost the U.S. nearly $1 trillion over the next 20 years, with minimal economic return, according to industry and geopolitical analysts.
Even though the acquisition of Greenland would represent the largest geographic addition in U.S. history, surpassing the Louisiana Purchase, experts argue that the economic justification for this move is flawed.
They point out that the U.S. already has significant access to Greenlandic territory for both security and economic interests.
Despite Greenland’s large reserves of critical minerals and crude oil, these resources are cheaper to extract elsewhere, including within the U.S., Otto Svendsen, an Arctic specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Fortune.
The White House’s own estimations place the cost of purchasing Greenland close to $700 billion, with additional hundreds of billions required for infrastructure development.
Trump, however, remains undeterred. He views the acquisition of Greenland as a national security imperative, despite the potential violation of international laws and the risk to the NATO alliance. The president has expressed his determination to annex Greenland, either through purchase or military action.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio is focusing on a negotiated purchase, an approach that both Denmark and Greenland have repeatedly rejected. The Trump administration is already planning a significant upgrade of its only military base in Greenland, the Pituffik Space Base.
Why It Matters: The proposed acquisition of Greenland by the U.S. has raised eyebrows due to its enormous cost and questionable economic return. The U.S. already enjoys significant access to Greenlandic territory for security and economic interests, making the economic rationale for this move questionable.
Furthermore, the acquisition could potentially violate international laws and pose a risk to the NATO alliance. Despite these concerns, President Trump remains committed to the acquisition, viewing it as a national security imperative.
This move, however, has been met with resistance from both Denmark and Greenland, who have repeatedly rejected the idea of a negotiated purchase.
Image: Shutterstock/Ivan Marc
Recent Comments