Nations survive not on sentiment, but on foresight. Great powers endure because they recognize geopolitical realities early-before those realities harden into irreversible threats. The United States now faces such a moment. In the rapidly changing world of the 21st century, control of Greenland is no longer a theoretical advantage. It is an indispensable requirement of American national security.
Senator Ted Cruz said it plainly and correctly: “I believe it is overwhelmingly in America’s national interest to acquire Greenland." That statement is not bravado or bluster. It is strategic common sense grounded in geography, economics, and the shifting political character of the Western alliance.
For generations, the United States relied on Europe as its natural partner: culturally aligned, politically stable, and militarily cooperative. That relationship formed the backbone of NATO and provided the architecture for global order. But sober observers must now acknowledge a difficult truth. Europe is undergoing profound demographic, social, and political transformations that will inevitably alter its priorities and its relationship with America.
In such a world, the United States cannot outsource its Arctic security to a continent whose future cohesion and strategic reliability are increasingly uncertain. Greenland must be brought firmly within the American sphere-preferably through peaceful purchase or compact-before the strategic window closes.
To understand why Greenland matters, one must first understand the Arctic.
Melting sea ice is transforming the polar region from a frozen backwater into one of the most contested arenas on earth. New shipping lanes are opening. Untapped mineral reserves are becoming accessible.
Most importantly, the Arctic is becoming the shortest route for missiles, bombers, and naval forces moving between the great powers.
Russia has recognized this reality. Moscow has rebuilt Cold War-era bases, deployed advanced missile systems, and constructed a fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers unmatched by any other nation. China, which calls itself a “near-Arctic state," has invested heavily in polar infrastructure and research, clearly signaling long-term ambitions.
Greenland sits at the very center of this emerging contest. It guards the air and sea approaches to North America. It hosts the vital Pituffik (Thule) Space Base, a linchpin of America’s missile-defense and early-warning system. It contains immense reserves of rare earth minerals essential for modern weapons and technology.
Whoever ultimately controls Greenland controls the northern gate to the Western Hemisphere.
Yet today, Greenland remains a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark-a small European nation with limited military capability and diminishing strategic bandwidth. Expecting Denmark, or even the broader European Union, to defend Greenland against Russian or Chinese pressure is an increasingly unrealistic proposition.
The United States must assume direct responsibility.
For decades, America has carried the lion’s share of NATO’s defense burden. That imbalance has grown worse, not better. European militaries are underfunded, understaffed, and frequently preoccupied with internal political disputes. Ammunition stockpiles are thin. Naval fleets are shrinking. Industrial capacity for large-scale rearmament is limited.
Even the ongoing war in Ukraine-an existential conflict on Europe’s own frontier-has failed to jolt many European capitals into sustained military readiness. The uncomfortable conclusion is that Europe, as currently constituted, cannot be relied upon to secure the Arctic frontier in the decades ahead.
This is not an insult to Europe; it is an honest assessment of capacity.
But there is a deeper issue than mere budgets and battalions. Europe itself is changing in ways that will shape its geopolitical orientation in the coming decades.
Across Western Europe, birthrates among native populations have been below replacement levels for generations. At the same time, Muslim immigration from the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia has increased dramatically. Major European cities-London, Paris, Brussels, Berlin, Amsterdam, Stockholm-are experiencing profound demographic shifts that are reshaping their cultural and political landscapes.
This reality is not controversial; it is documented fact. Government statistics in France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom show rapidly growing Muslim populations, with much higher fertility rates than traditional European demographics. Entire neighborhoods in major capitals are now culturally distinct from the societies that existed there a generation ago and Sharia law takes precedence among them.
As populations change, electoral coalitions change. As coalitions change, national priorities change.
Public opinion polling already shows significant differences between European and American attitudes on key issues. Large segments of Europe’s growing Muslim communities hold views on foreign policy-particularly regarding the Middle East-that diverge sharply from those of the United States. Protests against American actions, skepticism toward NATO missions, and opposition to close alignment with Israel are now common features of European politics.
Over time, these sentiments will inevitably influence national policy.
As new generations of voters come of age, European governments will face increasing pressure to distance themselves from American foreign-policy objectives. What is today a reliable transatlantic alliance could, within a few decades, become a far more complicated and conditional partnership.
This is not a matter of prejudice; it is a matter of political arithmetic.
A Europe whose domestic politics are increasingly fragmented and whose populations are increasingly diverse in outlook will be less able-and less willing-to act as a unified strategic partner of the United States.
Precisely because Europe’s future trajectory is uncertain, America must think in terms of self-reliance.
Greenland offers that self-reliance.
Acquiring Greenland would guarantee that the United States controls the Arctic approaches regardless of how European politics evolve. It would ensure that missile defense, early-warning systems, and naval operations in the High North remain firmly under American authority. It would prevent adversaries from exploiting European indecision or weakness.
Senator Cruz captured this logic perfectly: “Like Alaska, it is located on the Arctic, which is a major theater for major military conflict with either Russia or China."
History supports his analogy. The Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of the United States and secured the Mississippi River. The purchase of Alaska-once mocked as “Seward’s Folly"-proved indispensable during World War II and the Cold War. In each case, farsighted leaders understood that territory acquired peacefully could prevent wars later.
Greenland is the Alaska of our time.
Beyond military necessity lies economic opportunity. Greenland is rich in rare earth elements, uranium, oil, natural gas, and other critical minerals. These resources are essential for advanced electronics, renewable energy, and modern weapons systems.
Today, the United States depends heavily on China for many of these materials. That dependency is a strategic vulnerability. Securing Greenland’s resources would diversify supply chains, strengthen American industry, and reduce the leverage of hostile powers.
In a world where economic power increasingly determines military power, Greenland is not merely a defensive asset-it is a generational investment.
Critics recoil at talk of “acquisition," as if the idea were unprecedented. In fact, America’s rise has been built on precisely such acquisitions, achieved through negotiation and purchase. Louisiana, Florida, Alaska, and Hawaii all became part of the United States through legal and peaceful means.
Greenland’s people deserve respect and self-determination. Any path forward should involve negotiation, incentives, and democratic choice-perhaps a compact of free association, enhanced autonomy within an American framework, or eventual statehood if its citizens so desire.
What matters is that the end result places Greenland securely within America’s strategic orbit.
The United States cannot assume that the alliances of the past will automatically endure into the future. Europe’s demographic transformation, political fragmentation, and military weakness point toward a continent that will be less cohesive and less predictable in the decades ahead.
America must plan accordingly.
President Trump’s focus on Greenland is therefore not a distraction; it is a recognition that geography and power still determine history. Senator Cruz is right to champion this vision. The stakes are too high for complacency.
To secure Greenland is to secure America’s northern frontier, its technological future, and its freedom of action in a world that is becoming more dangerous and less familiar.
The choice before the United States is stark: act with foresight now, or face vulnerability later.
Great nations think in centuries, not election cycles. Greenland is the test of whether America still does.
Fern Sidman is Senior News Editor at The Jewish Voice.