Analyzing Trump’s statements on Greenland and NATO’s role in the Arctic.
Tabbed around and fell in love .
????TRUMP: « Based upon a very productive meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, we have formed the framework for a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire arctic region. » pic.twitter.com/xkIdncUQIV— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) January 21, 2026
Ed: I am a little confused as to what Rutte would be able to do about Greenland, other than just act as an intermediary. NATO has no sovereignty over Greenland and no authority to dictate outcomes to Denmark. Nevertheless, using a negotiating framework is a better look than threatening military action, which Trump belatedly eschewed today in Davos.
===
Associated Press: A Danish government official told The Associated Press after Trump’s speech that Copenhagen is ready to discuss U.S. security concerns. But the official, who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity, underscored the government’s position that “red lines”— namely Denmark’s sovereignty — must be respected. .
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said he was encouraged by Trump’s comment about not using U.S. military force but called other parts of the speech “a way of thinking about territorial integrity that does not match the institutions we have.”
“Greenland is part of NATO. Denmark is part of NATO, and we can exercise our sovereignty in Greenland,” Løkke Rasmussen said.
Ed: Maybe we get a long-term lease to control the unpopulated parts of the island? That would allow us to explore rare-earth mineral reserves (about which more below), prepare for the Golden Dome, and extend more jurisdiction into the Arctic Circle. Would we really need more than a Gitmo-like agreement for the next few decades? And if that suffices, should we have just focused on that from the beginning?
===
???? BREAKING: NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stuns the world, says President Trump is RIGHT, we MUST defend the Arctic and Greenland from China and Russia
« Trump is right. We have to do more there! We have to protect the Arctic against Russian and Chinese influence! »
IMAGINE… pic.twitter.com/H02IzkGxlb— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 21, 2026
Ed: The strategic value of Greenland is pretty obvious. The question is which country would be able to do more to protect Western interests in the Arctic. Rutte sounded as though he thought NATO could do that without changing Greenland’s status, which makes Trump’s announcement a little later even more interesting — not to mention Rutte as the main mediator of these discussions, as Trump suggests.
===
Josh Wolfe on X: The force rhetoric was never the plan. It was the anchor. Denmark is no longer defending sovereignty against an imperial aggressor; Denmark is evaluating a financial proposition. The frame has moved.
And i feel crazy saying this.
The math is not absurd. The deal probably pays for itself within a generation. The minerals alone are worth multiples of the purchase price. Greenland’s 57,000 residents become millionaires on paper. Denmark sheds a fiscal dependent and erases its debt. The United States secures the rare earth supply chain for the military of the 2030s.
What is actually underway is a supply chain annexation dressed in the costume of territorial ambition. The target is not an island; it is two geological formations in Southern Greenland—Kvanefjeld and Tanbreez—that contain the heavy rare earth elements without which no advanced weapons system can be built.
Ed: Interesting. Greenland has strategic value for plenty of other reasons, as one peek at a map would prove. However, if there are large reserves of rare-earth minerals proven to be in these formations, then the US would be one of the few nations with the resources to access them. The others would be China, Russia, and maybe the EU as a bloc, if it were not so tied in knots over global warming and other radical Green agenda items.
===
Tucker Carlson says a nuclear armed Iran could be beneficial
Tucker Carlson: “What are the chances Iran would actually launch a nuclear attack? History suggests they’re zero, no matter what Senator Graham says.
