Russia and China Eye Greenland While Congress Hesitates on Arctic Security

The Arctic is no longer a frozen backwater. It’s a geopolitical chessboard where Russia and China are making aggressive moves, and the United States risks falling behind. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries recently declared there’s no bipartisan support in Congress for military intervention in Greenland. His statement, while grounded in the current political climate, exposes a dangerous complacency. Greenland, a strategic linchpin in the Arctic, is slipping into the crosshairs of our adversaries, and America cannot afford to sit idly by.

Russia boasts over 100,000 troops, 40 icebreakers, and sprawling military bases in the Arctic. China, with its Polar Silk Road, is sinking money into infrastructure and cozying up to Moscow for joint military drills. Meanwhile, the US scrambles to modernize its lone Pituffik Space Base in Greenland and expand a meager Coast Guard icebreaker fleet. This isn’t just a gap; it’s a chasm. Greenland’s vast mineral wealth and control over emerging sea routes make it a prize Beijing and Moscow won’t ignore.

Jeffries’ caution reflects a broader congressional hesitance, rooted in a desire to avoid rocking the boat with NATO ally Denmark, which governs Greenland. But this timidity ignores the stakes. The Arctic is heating up, literally and figuratively, and America’s national security demands a bolder stance. Conservatives understand that Greenland’s strategic value isn’t just about today; it’s about ensuring US dominance in a region that will define global power for decades.

Make no mistake: failing to act decisively now invites Russia and China to fill the vacuum. History shows that hesitation in the face of strategic competition—think pre-World War II appeasement—only emboldens rivals. The US must not repeat that mistake in the Arctic.

Greenland’s importance cannot be overstated. Its location is critical for missile defense, early warning systems, and monitoring new Arctic shipping lanes. The US has leaned on Pituffik Space Base since World War II, when securing Greenland was non-negotiable to counter Axis threats. During the Cold War, it served as a bulwark against the Soviets. Today, with Russia rebuilding its Arctic military might and China eyeing economic footholds, Greenland’s role is just as vital.

Senate Republicans have sounded the alarm, pointing to Denmark’s underwhelming security investments in Greenland. They argue, rightly, that Copenhagen’s lax approach leaves the door open for Beijing and Moscow to exploit. China’s investments in Greenland’s mining and infrastructure aren’t charity; they’re calculated moves to secure influence in a region rich with rare earth minerals essential for technology and defense. Russia’s military buildup, meanwhile, dwarfs NATO’s presence, with the alliance struggling to close the icebreaker gap.

Some in Congress, particularly Democrats, push back, insisting on diplomacy and multilateralism. They champion Greenland’s self-determination and warn against straining ties with Denmark. But this perspective underestimates the urgency. Diplomacy alone won’t deter adversaries who play by different rules. China’s economic coercion and Russia’s militarization demand a response rooted in strength, not hand-wringing. The US has a duty to protect its interests, and Greenland is ground zero.

Historical precedent supports decisive action. When the US secured basing rights in Greenland during World War II, it didn’t ask for permission; it acted to safeguard the free world. Conservatives today draw on that legacy, advocating for a proactive strategy—whether through expanded military cooperation, economic investment, or, if necessary, exploring acquisition—to keep Greenland firmly in America’s orbit.

Jeffries’ claim of no bipartisan support for military intervention isn’t wrong, but it’s shortsighted. Both parties in Congress have shown reluctance to greenlight force in Greenland, with figures like Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski emphasizing alliance unity over confrontation. Recent polls show 70% of Americans oppose annexation or intervention, reflecting public wariness of overreach. Even the 2020 resolution curbing unauthorized force against Iran, which passed with bipartisan backing, signals Congress’s intent to keep the president on a tight leash.

This caution, while principled, ignores the Arctic’s unique stakes. Unlike Iran, Greenland is a NATO-aligned territory where US interests are already entrenched. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 ensures Congress holds the reins on sustained military action, but it doesn’t preclude strategic posturing or preemptive measures. Conservatives argue that waiting for bipartisan consensus risks ceding ground to rivals who don’t play by our rules.

Democrats’ preference for soft power—climate initiatives, Indigenous rights, and endless talks with allies—sounds noble but falls flat against Russia’s brute force and China’s chequebook diplomacy. NATO’s recent expansion with Finland and Sweden is a step forward, but it’s not enough. The US must lead, not follow, in securing Greenland’s future. Congress’s hesitation, dressed up as restraint, could cost America its edge in the Arctic.

The path forward demands bold leadership. The Department of Defense’s 2024 Arctic Strategy lays out a roadmap: enhance surveillance, boost icebreaker capacity, and deepen ties with allies. But it’s not enough to tinker around the edges. Conservatives urge Congress to prioritize funding for Arctic infrastructure, from modernizing Pituffik to building new bases. Economic investment in Greenland’s communities could also counter China’s influence, aligning local interests with America’s.

President Trump, now in his second term, has long recognized Greenland’s value, floating acquisition as a legitimate option. While his rhetoric sparked debate, it forced a reckoning on Arctic security. Conservatives back his instinct to act decisively, whether through diplomacy, investment, or, as a last resort, military readiness. The US cannot afford to let Greenland become a pawn in Russia and China’s great game.

Congress must shed its risk-averse mindset. Bipartisan support exists for NATO expansion and aid to allies like Ukraine; Greenland deserves the same urgency. Lawmakers should rally behind a strategy that strengthens America’s Arctic foothold while respecting alliance commitments. Anything less hands our adversaries an unearned victory.

The Arctic is a test of America’s resolve. Russia and China are playing for keeps, and Greenland is their next target. Congress’s reluctance to embrace a robust strategy, as Jeffries’ comments reveal, risks undermining US leadership in a region critical to our security. Conservatives see the path clearly: prioritize Greenland through investment, military presence, and strategic foresight.

America has faced pivotal moments before—World War II, the Cold War—and risen to the challenge. Greenland is no different. By acting now, Congress can ensure the US remains the dominant force in the Arctic, safeguarding our homeland and our allies for generations. The time for half-measures is over; bold action is the only way forward.