Not sure about how Greenland compares to Alaska, but it also could be a perfect home for a private doomsday seed vault (like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault which is controlled by Norway)
Jack Lifton in [0] adds the perspective that rare earth processing involves a large amount of institutional knowledge, that would take time for the US to reacquire, since we forget everything when we stopped mining many decades ago. While in the interim, China has spent its time as the world's rare earth monopoly optimizing the chemical processes, widening their moat. It's like the manufacturing question, where's it about institutional knowledge and industrial ecosystems—nothing at all like oil/gas where it's solely about where the minerals are.
This is exactly why Greenland could be needed to compete with Chinese production. With Greenland an offshore legal gray area like Guantanamo, you just need to add work camps stuffed with "Illegal Immigrants" and other Enemies of the State. In fact, why have prisoners on shore at all when it is more profitable to have them work offshore? With foreign news sources banned because of False News, the huddled masses will be educated that this is a good thing.
You can do it all via Canadian waters and you can't do it at all without using Canadian waters so no need to even consider greenland as they don't have any waters that would speed up the transit.
Just one example. There are others of China and/or Russian interests buying up British, Dutch, Australian, etc companies that have existing contracts and then switching it over to their control.
https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/11/23/greenland-mining-ch...
Trump is the antithesis to "speak[ing] softly and carry[ing] a big stick" [1]. He's constantly blustering and retreating from his own lines.
The last big-stick President we had was probably Obama, though Bush and H. W. strike closer to the mark.
Whether my assumption is right or wrong its a different vibe then the peacemaker image/vibe previous administrations have followed.
This saber rattling had the desired effect and result. More military investment in Greenland. But, using other ppl's money... Denmark.
And in Canada's case with becoming a 51'st state... they too are now committed to meeting NATO $ obligations.
Where does this idea come from that Europe wasn't spending any money on defense?
It has also certainly served US interests to keep certain European countries "down" and have them reliant on the US for their security for other reasons too.
The idea that the US decided to "subsidize" European defense for multiple decades, out of their own generosity is.... nothing short of completely laughable imo.
Keeping it cheaper.
When the Suez was blocked by a sideways ship[0], some of shipping went around Africa[1].
The USA also notably made it clear to the European powers that European powers absolutely didn't have any right to be the powers who controlled the Suez[2].
I also note that the official position of the Houthis is their attacks on shipping are supposed to be about Israel, the problem from the perspective of everyone else in Europe is that they're idiots hitting unrelated ships as well[3].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Suez_Canal_obstruction#Ec...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Route
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_attacks_on_commercial_v...
Finally, Greenland would fall under NATO protection so who exactly would Denmark need to protect them from?
All of this complaining about NATO, or WTO, or IMF, etc... Any globalization.
People forget -> The US designed and setup these systems. These were all founded and built by the US, to project US power and interests. How can we complain now for things we designed and wanted.
It sounds like a bunch of whining. "Oh Boohoo, We got what we wanted. I'm the most powerful country on the planet because we forced globalization on everybody and now I don't like it, boo hoo."
If you're a country, reserving the right to use military force is a way of setting boundaries.
Think of it like this, your friend Darald never pays for anything and expects you to foot the bill for all group activities, and even pay his rent and deal with his crazy ex-wife (paying his alimony, etc). Darald also talks shit about you every chance he gets, in front of your other pals. You eventually get fed up with enabling his destructive / lazy behavior and stand up for yourself. Do you: a) punch him in the nose; b) use court action to seize his assets to recoup some of your losses; c) go to his house and take the money he owes you out of his mattress, and push him off you when he tries to stop you; d) all of the above; e) do nothing, keep letting yourself get abused.
???
the latest example being Afghanistan
Instead, current administration favors Russia and do what Russia asks them to do.