Greenland may look like a distant slab of ice on a map, but in the 21st century, it has become one of the most strategically consequential pieces of real estate on the planet. Ignoring that reality is not neutrality — it's surrender by neglect.
For generations, Americans were encouraged to think of Greenland as a frozen curiosity — an enormous, sparsely populated island useful for geography quizzes and climate talking points, but otherwise irrelevant to serious geopolitics.
—Such an illusion is no longer harmless.
—It's dangerous.
—Greenland is not a novelty. It is a strategic keystone, and the growing fight over its future reveals how far the United States has drifted from the realities of power, geography, and survival.
At stake is not Greenland itself.
At stake is whether America still understands how to defend its own hemisphere.
The Monroe Doctrine was never about imperial ambition or territorial conquest.
It was about realism.
It recognized that geography matters, proximity matters, and allowing hostile powers to establish a foothold near the United States would eventually threaten American security. For nearly two centuries, that doctrine sent a clear signal: the Western Hemisphere was not open season for America’s adversaries.
That clarity collapsed under the foreign policy worldview that emerged under Barack Obama and continued under Joe Biden — a global view that treats American sovereignty as outdated, borders as negotiable, and American leadership as something to be restrained, apologized for, and subordinated to international opinion.
This New World Order approach assumes that if the United States retreats politely, global stability will somehow follow.
History teaches the opposite lesson.
Retreat creates a vacuum.
And vacuums never remain empty.
Greenland sits at the crossroads of the Arctic, the North Atlantic, and the northern defense perimeter of the United States.
It guards vital sea lanes, hosts critical early-warning and radar systems, and anchors America’s ability to detect and deter threats approaching from the Arctic.
It also contains rare earth minerals essential to advanced technology, defense manufacturing, and energy independence.
As Arctic shipping routes open and missile technology advances, Greenland is no longer remote or theoretical.
It is central.
America’s adversaries understand this perfectly.
China now openly calls itself a "near-Arctic state," an absurd claim backed by billions in investment, infrastructure projects, and long-term strategic planning.
Russia has aggressively militarized the Arctic, building bases, airfields, and missile systems designed explicitly to project power southward toward North America.
These regimes do not see Greenland as symbolic. They see it as a strategic high ground.
Washington, meanwhile, debates climate resolutions and diversity frameworks.
When Americans raise alarms about Greenland, the response from Europe and the political left is immediate outrage.
Greenland, they insist, belongs to Denmark, and any serious American interest is framed as colonial, reckless, or destabilizing.
But this moral posturing collapses under even minimal scrutiny.
Iceland was also once part of Denmark.
No one today questions Iceland’s independent role in NATO or its strategic importance in Atlantic defense.
No one accuses the United States of imperialism for treating Iceland as vital.
So why is Greenland different? The answer is denial.
Europe prefers denial because confronting reality would require admitting something deeply uncomfortable: Europe has largely surrendered the will to defend its own civilization.
Woke ideology has hollowed out confidence in borders, culture, and sovereignty, while Islamism steadily fills the vacuum. To pretend that this same Europe is now the moral authority on American security interests is not enlightened. It is delusional.
The United States does not need Europe's permission to protect itself.
This is why Greenland matters more than almost any other geopolitical flashpoint today.
It's not about territory for territory's sake.
It's about whether America still understands that power abhors a vacuum — and that if we do not fill it, our enemies will.
Some argue that America has more immediate threats closer to home. We heard the same logic about Venezuela.
We were told it was a regional issue, not a strategic one — until Nicolás Maduro transformed his country into a narco-state aligned with America's adversaries, exporting instability, drugs, and authoritarian influence throughout the hemisphere.
Confronting Maduro was necessary.
But it was tactical.
Greenland is strategic.
Maduro represents one regime.
Greenland represents a front line in the defining struggle of the 21st century: whether free nations retain the will to defend themselves in a world where authoritarian powers are expanding, while the West debates semantics.
The outrage from Democrats over renewed American assertiveness is not principled.
It's ideological.
The same voices that claim borders are meaningless suddenly rediscover sacred sovereignty when Greenland is mentioned.
The same leaders who champion global governance panic when the United States prioritizes its own survival.
China and Russia are not confused.
They see America’s retreat from the Monroe Doctrine not as progress, but as permission.
Reasserting the doctrine's core principle is not aggression.
It's self-preservation.
Greenland is not about flags or symbolism. It's about whether the United States still understands that defending liberty requires drawing lines — and enforcing them.
Greenland is cold, distant, and inconvenient. Which is exactly why it matters.
Robert Chernin is a business leader, political adviser, and podcast host. He's been a consultant on presidential, senatorial, congressional, and gubernatorial races, including roles in the campaigns of George W. Bush and John McCain. Robert serves as chairman of Israel Appreciation Day, American Center for Education and Knowledge, and The American Coalition. Read more Robert Chernin Insider articles — Click Here Now.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.