Trump might claim that building “Golden Dome” infrastructure there, possibly with the partial purpose of serving as a cover for deploying new offensive weapons systems in the Arctic for targeting Russia and China, is required for plugging the gap between the world’s largest island and Alaska.
Andrew Korybko
Trump framed his desired acquisition of Greenland
as indispensable to his “Golden Dome” missile defense megaproject and
hinted at the deployment of new offensive weapons systems there too in
his post announcing tariffs against several NATO allies
that symbolically dispatched military units there. He’s now reportedly
using similar language in private when discussing Canada, according to
several administration sources, both current and former, who recently
informed NBC News of this.
They
claim that Trump hasn’t discussed stationing US troops along Canada’s
allegedly vulnerable northern border, instead proposing “more joint U.S.
and Canadian military training and operations, and increasing joint air
and water patrols as well as American ship patrols in the Arctic.” The
ostensibly defensive purposes that those plans would advance, however,
would still leave a conspicuous gap in the “Golden Dome’s” Arctic
interception range between Alaska and Greenland over Canada’s Arctic islands.
It
therefore can’t be ruled out that the reported proposals are ultimately
meant to advance his goal of building “Golden Dome” infrastructure on
those islands for plugging this gap. Offensive weapons systems could
also be placed there too, including under the cover of interceptor
missiles exactly as Russia has long accused the US of plotting in
Central & Eastern Europe as regards its missile defense plans in
Poland and Romania, which were significantly the first source of 21^st^-century tensions between them.
History might be repeating itself as ominously hinted by Trump’s lack of interest
in extending the New START before its expiry early next month, let
alone negotiating an updated strategic arms control pact with Russia
that includes new offensive weapons systems. If the US lets the
agreement lapse, then it might be due to unstated plans to deploy
offensive weapons in the Arctic, whether Alaska, Greenland, and/or
Canada’s Arctic islands. These could cover all of Russia and even easily
reach China too.
On that topic, China is assessed by the US to be its only strategic rival, not Russia. Per the Elbridge Colby-influenced “Trump Doctrine”,
Russia’s role is relegated to a junior partner in a rejuvenated US-led
world order in which the US would invest in its resource deposits so as
to deprive China of access to them for decelerating its superpower
trajectory. If tensions with Russia abate, then the US would expect that
Russia wouldn’t try to intercept the US’ Arctic-launched missiles
headed for China in the event of war.
Regardless of however
the US’ relations with Russia evolve and whatever Russia might do in
the above scenario, the US is expected to pursue the expansion of its
sphere of military influence over North America’s entire Arctic domain,
beginning with Greenland and ending with Canada’s Arctic islands. Its
acquisition of the first can lead to a tariff-coerced deal for building
military infrastructure in the second, and possibly joint resource
extraction projects, which could be facilitated by promised tariff
relief.
Canada is incapable of defending its Arctic islands so
they’re the US’ for the taking if the push comes to shove, but Trump
doesn’t seem interested in annexing them, ergo why he’ll likely opt for a
coerced deal. Acquiring Greenland would enable Trump to argue that the
“Golden Dome’s” expansion to Canada’s Arctic islands would plug the gap
between the world’s largest island and Alaska. Canada could then reach a
relatively fair deal, be coerced into a worse one after tariffs, or
have the islands forcibly taken from it.