Blog

Carte Blanche in the Arctic

How Venezuela’s Oil Just Sealed the Greenland Deal

When whispers of Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland started circulating, I posted yesterday about a potential U.S. Compact of Free Association (COFA) with the Arctic territory, modeled after deals with Pacific islands. It would offer billions in aid for defense control, easing Denmark’s financial burden while securing America’s northern flank. Fast-forward to today, and here we are: the White House is drafting exactly that, amid threats of outright purchase or even force. As the dust settles from the audacious Venezuela operation, Trump’s second term is off to a roaring start, and Greenland looks like the next domino.

The developments unfolded rapidly this week. On January 4, aboard Air Force One, Trump declared, “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security.” Allies like Stephen Miller amplified the message, emphasizing Arctic security and NATO’s interests. By January 6, the administration confirmed a “range of options,” including military force as “always an option.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio briefed Congress that the goal is to buy it, framing the bellicose rhetoric as negotiation tactics. This revives Trump’s 2019 push, but with fresh momentum from snatching Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro in a lightning raid that left no U.S. casualties.

The Economist’s January 5 piece, “The White House weighs how to acquire Greenland,” captures the shockwaves. It details Trump’s “insatiable” appetite in the Western Hemisphere, invoking Monroe Doctrine echoes to counter Russian and Chinese encroachments. The article reveals a two-pronged strategy: fomenting Greenland’s independence movement to divide it from Denmark, and dangling a COFA deal directly to Nuuk. U.S. officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance in a March 2025 visit, have criticized Denmark for “failing Greenlanders” and backed independence talks. The appointment of Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as special envoy signals treating Greenland as a separate entity. Even CIA and NSA surveillance on pro-independence locals has drawn Danish ire, with summonses over spying and influence campaigns.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen fired back: “Enough is enough. No more fantasies about annexation.” Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen urged Trump to drop the threats, warning any attack could spell “the end of NATO.” Europe rallied swiftly: Nordic and Baltic leaders, plus Britain and France, reaffirmed Danish-Greenlandic sovereignty. Germany’s foreign minister even invoked NATO’s Article 5-ironically, against potential U.S. predations. Behind the unity, The Economist notes a “sense of panic.” Greenland, with its 56,000 mostly Inuit residents, braces for the “Trumpian storm,” as pro-independence MP Kuno Fencker put it, aware of its place in the Monroe Doctrine’s shadow.

But of course they’ll bite. We’re gonna make them an offer they can’t refuse. The economic carrot is irresistible: billions annually to replace Denmark’s $600 million subsidy, plus infrastructure, tech transfers, and duty-free trade. Greenland’s untapped riches-rare earth elements (25% of global reserves), copper, diamonds, gold, zinc, oil, gas, and vast fisheries-could boom under U.S. investment. Melting ice opens Arctic shipping routes like the Northwest Passage, slashing global transit times by 40%. For a territory eyeing independence but shackled by subsidies, this is a lifeline.

If you look at the flight path (ballistic or powered) from Kola to anywhere on the lower 48, then everything goes over Greenland.

Greenland is the theatre where any strategic exchange between Washington and Moscow is contested.

If you want to intercept a ballistic missile, the best point to do so is at the apogee, at the top of the flight path. The shortest route for an interceptor to get to an apogee is from directly below the apogee.

That’s where Greenland is.

So, without stating what should happen here, this is **why** the Trump administration says they **need** Greenland for national security.

The other thing that is happening is that the Northern Passage through the Arctic is opening up, and soon there will be Chinese cargo ships sailing through the Arctic to Rotterdam. It’s faster than the Suez and the ships aren’t limited to Suezmax size so China and EU trade is going to accelerate a lot.

This means Chinese submarines will also be venturing under the Arctic into the Northern Atlantic, IF THEY AREN’T ALREADY DOING SO.

Hence, the North East coast of Greenland serves not 1 but 2 critical strategic security objectives of US national security.

If this wasn’t clear to you, please understand that the Mercator global map projection is for children and journalists only. It is not a useful guide to where any countries or territories actually are in the real world that we live in.

No self respecting adult should be using Mercator for their worldview. Anyone saying “there must be some other secret reason for Trump being interested in Greenland” is a certified ignoramus.

The strategic consideration is not to be discounted. It takes an arrow out of Putin’s quiver. As X user Object Zero highlighted in a viral thread, Greenland sits astride great-circle missile routes from Russia’s Kola Peninsula to North America. Ballistic trajectories arc over its airspace, making it ideal for intercepts at apogee. Expanding the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule) would lock down hypersonic threats, sub access, and the Northern Sea Route, countering both Moscow and Beijing. The Arctic Institute’s azimuthal map in that post underscores how Greenland isn’t peripheral-it’s the frontline. With climate change melting ice caps, U.S. control secures surveillance and chokepoints, weakening Russia’s deterrence without a shot fired.

X user The Calvin Coolidge’s manifesto amplifies the upside: 836,300 square miles (1.5 times Alaska), with ice-free zones ripe for hydro power and mining jobs. They invoke manifest destiny and “God’s will,” urging Trump to redirect foreign aid and slash “pointless” spending. Replies debate ice melt and ethics, but the resource bonanza is undeniable-freshwater reserves, platinum, rubies, and more.

…Topaz, and Zinc. In addition to this Greenland has natural Oil and Gas.

As Arctic ice melts, these resources will become more accessible, making Greenland an attractive investment.

If we are successful in buying Greenland then we won’t have to depend on oil from other countries. Natural gas is found in Greenland.

Did you know that Greenland is 47% larger than Alaska? Did you know that 166,800 square miles of land in Greenland isn’t covered in ice?

In the future, as more ice caps melt, Arctic shipping routes will become even more valuable. If we have control over these waters this will be a strong boost to our economy.

Owning Greenland will provide greater access to Arctic shipping routes, which are becoming more viable due to climate change, reducing global shipping times.

The Fishing industry in Greenland is very valuable. Greenland offers the world’s last reserves of natural fish. Greenland is a land filled with fresh water and rich oceans.

One of the major reasons why we need to buy Greenland is due to the military advantage that comes from controlling the island. In the future, we should build military bases in Greenland. This would be a very valuable asset to have for any future war in which we are involved.

Greenland’s location in the Arctic is geopolitically significant for defense and surveillance. The U.S. already operates the Thule Air Base which is critical for missile warning and space surveillance. Greenland could serve as a strategic foothold against other nations, such as Russia and China.

Purchasing Greenland will provide a major economic boom. With few people currently living there, this will provide Americans a chance to start a brand new life in Greenland.

By integrating Greenland into the U.S. economy, it could become a hub for renewable energy development, particularly hydroelectric power.

Greenland is sparsely populated and underdeveloped, with U.S. investment could improve infrastructure, create jobs, and enhance the standard of living for Greenlanders.

A major concern is China’s wanting to have a major influence over Greenland. Why? Because they understand the importance of Greenland.

The question is how do we buy Greenland?

Here is what I propose

1. Tell NATO that if we don’t get Greenland then we are officially withdrawing from NATO.

2. We cut off any unnecessary foreign aid to countries that aren’t our concern and that will be redirected to purchase Greenland.

3. We put an end to pointless government spending programs that aren’t needed.

Our founding fathers believed in manifest destiny. Therefore buying Greenland is a part of manifest density. I believe that buying Greenland is a part of God’s will for America.

I hope Trump will try with everything in his power to buy Greenland. If Trump is successful then it will be considered the deal of the century.

Another thread from Mikkel Rosenvold notes minimal local pro-U.S. support (1% vote share), yet sees positives for Denmark in offloading costs while affirming sovereignty.

The US presenting a deal directly to Greenland (and bypassing Copenhagen) is not that controversial. It has long been Denmark’s position that Greenlandic independence should be up to the Greenlandic people. So if they want to take Trump’s deal, Denmark will most likely not object.

For Denmark, this would honestly be a decent outcome in my opinion. We would be relieved of paying welfare checks to Greenland every year and can roll back the $4 bn defense investment plan for Greenland that was recently ratified.

But again – it’s up to the Greenlandic people.

Europe’s bluster masks vulnerability. NATO needs us more than we need them. They’ll fold. The U.S. foots 68-70% of allied defense spending, providing the nuclear umbrella and logistics no one else matches. Threatening pullout or tariffs could crack the facade. Denmark faces domestic pressures; quietly, they might relish shedding the fiscal drain without admitting it publicly. As I see it, Denmark may want the deal, but they can’t say that publicly. A COFA lets them save face, framing it as Greenland’s “sovereign choice.”

I think a deal has the potential to be done very quickly. With backchannels humming-direct Nuuk outreach, influence ops-it could happen within a month. Leaks suggest a $10 billion-plus package on deck. If Greenlandic leaders signal interest, internal coalitions form, and Denmark gets briefed as a done deal. Public announcement: a “Greenland Accord” with COFA elements, extra sweeteners for Copenhagen like nominal oversight.


We just took control of the world’s largest proven oil reserves and immediately added up to 50 million barrels available now. Right now, Trump has carte blanche. Venezuela’s 303 billion barrels, seized in “Operation Absolute Resolve,” prove unilateral action works. Maduro’s Manhattan trial underscores the narrative: justice with benefits. Oil flows could reimburse costs, inviting Chevron and others to revive PDVSA. Global backlash? Tepid. Markets stable. This emboldens the Greenland push-no quagmire, just gains.

If it seals by February, it’s a 21st-century real-estate masterstroke, echoing the Alaska Purchase. Arctic hegemony, resource dominance, Putin’s quiver emptied-all without full war. Risks? NATO drama, but asymmetry favors Washington. Europe talks tough; history says they concede. Trump’s got the wind at his back. Watch this space-the ice is cracking.

Like this post? Become a Citizen Producer!

James K. Bishop

James K. Bishop is a conservative writer and raconteur hailing from Texas, known for his incisive and often provocative takes on political and cultural issues. With a staunch commitment to originalist constitutional principles, he emphasizes limited government, individual liberties, and traditional American values. Active on X under the handle @James_K_Bishop, he frequently engages his audience with sharp critiques of progressive policies, media narratives, and overreaches by the federal government. His style is direct, often laced with humor and wit, which resonates strongly with his conservative followers.