J. MICHAEL WALLER: Solid, sharp explanation of why Greenland is becoming more and more vital to US defense and security, and possible solutions. It has nothing to do with mining.

Solid, sharp explanation of why Greenland is becoming more and more vital to US defense and security, and possible solutions. It has nothing to do with mining. https://t.co/h2XDTm11Rp

— J Michael Waller (@JMichaelWaller) January 5, 2026

The most honest explanation for Greenland’s immediate strategic relevance has little to do with critical minerals or Arctic trade routes. Yes, Greenland has mineral deposits. But they are largely located in brutal environments that are politically and economically difficult to exploit. Kvanefjeld — the flagship rare earth project most often cited — illustrates the problem: rare earths are tightly entangled with uranium, making the project environmentally controversial, politically toxic locally, and expensive to permit and finance. Russia derives ~20% of its GDP from Arctic activity because it has to. The United States does not. We have cheaper, more accessible resource bases that dominate on cost and reliability. Greenland is not a decisive solution to US resource security. Arctic trade routes are similarly overstated. Yes, sea ice is melting, and traffic is increasing, but today that traffic overwhelmingly serves one purpose: moving Russian hydrocarbons and minerals to market (mostly China). The Northern Sea Route remains constrained by seasonal variability, insurance risk, limited SAR infra, weak comms, and dependence on icebreakers. For most container shipping, speed is not the binding constraint anyway. Ships deliberately travel slowly to conserve fuel and often wait days for port access on arrival. On many major routes — Rotterdam to Hong Kong, for example — Suez remains faster, cheaper, and more predictable than any Arctic alternative. The Arctic is becoming usable, but it will not reshape global trade anytime soon. China’s interest in Greenland over the past decade —airport financing, port proposals, mining projects, etc. — reflects this reality. These efforts were not about immediate economic returns, but long-term alignment and leverage. To Denmark’s credit, many of these initiatives were blocked or replaced with state funding (with the prodding of the US & EXIM). That response highlights the real strategic issue: who Greenland aligns with, not what it extracts. Denmark has increased financial support, but this hasn't stopped a growing independence movement. From a US defense perspective, the core concern is the Arctic as a strike vector toward CONUS. Pituffik Base already plays a central role in early warning/missile defense. We could see that extend to maritime monitoring of the North Atlantic (if it isn't already). But, critically, that mission does not require Greenland to become a US state. If the risk is that an independent Greenland might be pulled into alignment with unfriendly powers, the cleaner approach is not annexation but a Compact of Free Association — modeled on US agreements with the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau. Under COFA, sovereign states receive US funding, defense guarantees, and market access, while granting basing rights and strategic alignment. Applied to Greenland, this would allow them legal independence from Denmark and let them achieve a domestic political victory, while also deepening ties to the United States — all without the political, legal, or cultural costs of statehood. And those costs are not trivial. Greenland faces real social challenges — public health, economic dependency, limited administrative capacity— that would become US domestic issues overnight if Greenland were a state. Quietly but realistically, this is not something our political system is well-equipped or particularly eager to absorb. Alignment is far easier than integration. A good deal, as they say. Finally, Greenland matters in the context of Arctic seabed claims. In 2007, Russia’s decision to plant a flag on the seafloor at the North Pole was symbolic, but not meaningless. Control and alignment influence future legal claims over extended continental shelves, vast undersea resources, and maritime rights. These are slow, technical, legal contests, but they are precisely where long-term strategic positioning matters. Maybe not today, but in 50 years. In short, I think Greenland is uniquely important for America. Just not for the reasons I hear most people repeat. The case is about security, alignment, and law — not minerals or trade routes. At least not yet.