Alaska or Greenland? Why America Is Looking in the Wrong Direction

There was a lot of talk not too long ago about Greenland and whether the United States should take over that country and make it the 51st state of the nation. The U.S. has a robust military presence there, and this is not the first time our country has tried to acquire Greenland. In 1946, the United States offered to buy Greenland from Denmark for one hundred million dollars; the offer, of course, was rejected because Denmark saw the island as an integral part of its kingdom.1 Currently, Greenland’s desire is to become an independent state.2

So with all that talk about Greenland, it was interesting to read an article about a strategic place in the Arctic that is actually part of the United States. You probably guessed what place that is. Yes, that’s right—Alaska, the 49th state of the United States, admitted to the Union on January 3, 1959.

Why are we not focusing on Alaska and instead wasting our foreign capital and upsetting our allies? I’m sure some billionaire is selling something to this administration, and since our leaders don’t do much studying or reading—being concerned only with money—they are willing to push aside decades of partnerships and reliable allies for whatever might be found under Greenland’s frigid land to keep filling their pockets.

With that said, the article provides an excellent analysis of Alaska and its potential to secure the Arctic from threats coming from China and Russia. Below is a summary of the article.

The remote Alaskan island of Adak, once a major U.S. military base during War World II, is emerging again as a strategic focus in America’s competition with Russia and China in the Arctic. While President Donald Trump fixates publicly on Greenland, military leaders argue that the greater and more immediate threat lies on the Pacific side of the Arctic, where Russian and Chinese ships, aircraft, and submarines frequently operate near Alaska.

Activity in Alaska’s air-defense identification zone has surged: since 2020, 91 out of 95 Russian and Chinese incursions have occurred near Alaska, compared to none near the Greenland corridor. Joint Russian-Chinese patrols, new Russian submarines, and China’s long-range missiles and surveillance missions highlight rising risks.

U.S. military leaders with responsibilities in the Arctic and Pacific want to revive the abandoned base at Adak, which offers runways, a deep-water port, fuel storage, and a prime location near Arctic and trans-Pacific shipping routes. Some Republicans, including Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan, support reopening the base.

The Arctic is no longer a remote, neutral zone focused on science and conservation. Warming seas are opening the Northern Sea Route and increasing shipping traffic—mostly Russian oil and cargo headed to China. Russia maintains a vast icebreaker fleet, and China is expanding its research and military presence, advancing visions of a “polar silk road.” Meanwhile, America lags behind, with only a couple of icebreakers and suboptimal coastal infrastructure.

Trump has shifted U.S. Arctic priorities toward security over science, backed by major spending packages for new icebreakers, missile-defense systems, and Arctic infrastructure. Yet U.S. strategy remains fragmented.

Amid this geopolitical tension, Adak’s few remaining residents hope that renewed military investment could revive their dying town.

The article included an amazing map showing the Northern Sea traffic, but even more concerning was the depiction of Arctic ice and how much has been lost since 1980—a powerful reminder of the effects of climate change.

Map included in The Economist article, with my highlights of some strategic locations

I wanted to pass along what I discovered, and hopefully on Thursday I can discuss the U.S. National Security Strategy that came out recently.

Does the new National Security Strategy mention anything about Russia and investing more resources in Alaska? We’ll see.

  1. https://web.archive.org/web/20100107010850/http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment050701b.shtml ↩︎
  2. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2154896X.2024.2342117#d1e758 ↩︎

59 thoughts on “Alaska or Greenland? Why America Is Looking in the Wrong Direction”

  5. It would be nice if your thoughtful approach to Iceland and Alaska were taken on by those closer to making decisions. Not your fault, for sure. The voters, on the other hand…

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  6. It’s so hard to keep track of that proposed 51st state. One day it’s Greenland, the next it’s Canada. Yet, they’ve made it blatantly clear Puerto Rico will not become the 51st star on our flag. Such a bunch of hypocritical morons.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Absolutely! Oh, and I read recently that Guam is seeking statehood. I guess my island of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the other territories are not considered good enough to join as states. They don’t even want to resolve our territorial statuses.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  8. Don’t recall where I read this, but it mentioned the current US administration is focused on strategic land acquisition in the hemisphere while leaving former allies such as Asian countries such as South Korea and Japan, the European Union (in violation of NATO) at greater risk. It does appear this could be the case. I hadn’t thought of Alaska though until I read this post.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  9. Thanks for the well thought out info Edward! The map says it all with climate change and it’s critical to focus on finding ways to stop this decline! This is vital. I thought we had closed this chapter with Greenland!
    💕

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. You’re welcome, and climate change came to mind when I saw the map—incredible! The chapter is still open, and it’s the reason Denmark is spending more money there to improve its defense as a way to push back against U.S. desires to acquire the island. I think the news has moved on to the next shiny object, which is now Venezuela.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Totally incredible and we’ll never make it back to where we were and the deficit is huge. It just keeps moving this moving target. It was interesting to talk to Juan’s parents about the crime which was why they left and moved to Panama. sooo sad. 🥹

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  12. National security aside, the Arctic (and Alaska) may provide new sources of rare earth minerals and other necessary resources that have been unavailable. People miss the fact that computer technology and A.I. depend on minerals that are becoming harder to obtain. I have often predicted that WWIII will be over water or these minerals as countries compete to become technological superpowers. If Greenland wanted to become part of the United States, they would have every right to do so. People need to open their minds and start looking at the larger picture.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  13. I live in Alaska- and I can tell you- we have a HUGE military presence. We have 2 major instillations in my small interior region alone. I am not in the know about Adak specifically- but I do know there is a lot going on up here that even we Alaskans are not privy to. and just fyi- Dan Sullivan does not have Alaska’s best interest at heart in any of his decision-making.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Absolutely! I was almost assigned to one of the units there. The Army presence is very significant, but what the Department of Defense needs is a stronger Navy presence to close the gap, along with Air Force bases a little closer to the countries I mentioned. Adak and the rest of the islands are key to that.

      I’m sure you’re right about the senator, since you’re closer and can see what he’s doing in your state.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  15. The avarice of a few can compromise the harmony of many! Wanting more at all costs, just for the sake of money, can truly ruin solid partnerships and even the security of their people. You explain it well in this very interesting and strategic post, Edward. It’s truly important to call attention to these political games that always serve other purposes in the backstage. Thank you for bringing it to light! Much enjoyed! Lots of light and blessings to you, my friend! ✨🙏

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  16. Fascinating rundown — and honestly, given all this, I’m starting to assume our leaders must secretly believe Greenland is some sort of frozen cosmic vending machine that might cough up ancient alien tech if you just jiggle it hard enough.

    Meanwhile, Alaska sits there like the world’s most strategically placed ‘lost and found’ bin, quietly holding the real essentials while everyone chases shiny rumors.

    Your analysis nails it — the Arctic story isn’t where the noise is, it’s where the neglected logic is humming. 💁

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. 😂 I think that’s exactly what our leaders are thinking, a frozen cosmic vending machine that’s going to require some very expensive coins to get whatever they believe is underground.

      There’s already a base in Greenland. They need to focus on Alaska, where you could probably throw a rock and hit Russia.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  17. I feel like everything in our ‘national security plan’ cuts out our allies and is selfishly aligned toward us making money and gaining minerals and oil, along with favoring our new superpower authoritarian ‘friends’

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  18. I’m so taken by your comment about the current administration’s focus on money. So true. Not cooperating with others costs a lot of money.

    But that aside, this article and map are so interesting. I hope we can consolidate our strategy on the land that’s already part of our country (and also do something about that shrinking ice)!

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Absolutely! I’m thinking the same. It will boost the economy not just on the island but also in Alaska, because they will need to expand operations in the state, and it will also put pressure on Russia and China by having a presence so close to them.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  23. great post Edward. i’m very curious about this indeed. the trade route angle is very fascinating as the way the map is displayed makes the arctic region a coincidentally humorous historical counterpart to what the Mediterranean Sea was throughout the history of the classical West, Middle East and African interaction.

    just to have a little fun with this, I will tell you one of the inferences I have with this pivot; VP Vance has indicated some apprehension regarding – and this is an important nuance – the “administrative branch” of both the French and UK governments increasingly controlled by biases hostile to the national security of the U.S. as well as the countries they govern. I am compelled to envision a situation where an enhanced presence in Greenland would be necessary to keep a closer eye for “accidental” ICBM missile launches that could originate from those countries within the next 15-20 years. Mike

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Very interesting indeed. Regarding France and the UK, I’m not concerned at all about those two countries. The VP knows that there is no threat if he is reading what he is supposed to, and the narrative is just part of some weird strategy that the current administration is pursuing, which no one understands.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

Leave a reply to Liz Gauffreau Cancel reply