Insidious Intent

Predator (Merriam-Webster): 

1) an organism that primarily obtains food by the killing and consuming of other orgnaisms; especially, an animal that preys on other animals;

2) one who injures or exploits others for personal gain or profit.

This is repulsive:

Rep. Ogles: "It's important that we have a stake in Greenland, that they are quite frankly a protectorate of the US. They've been in relationship with Denmark -- that needs to end. We have spilled more blood protecting Greenland than the Danes ... we are the dominant predator… pic.twitter.com/uAtHMMV0hL

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 7, 2026

The USA does have a stake in Greenland. However, Danish involvement has been deeper and more lengthy. And according to Mikkel Runge Ollesen of the Danish Institute for Inernational Studies

When the monarchy of Denmark and Norway broke apart in 1814, Denmark kept Greenland. Danish-Greenlandic colonial relations in the 19th and early 20th centuries were characterized by a Danish paternalistic policy for cautious development, ensuring that Greenland would be a profitable colony. In 1916, Denmark’s rights to Greenland were confirmed by the United States, as part of a deal that facilitated the American purchase of the Danish West Indies. A controversy concerning a Norwegian claim to parts of Greenland ended in 1933, when the Permanent Court of International Justice, founded by the League of Nations, ruled against Norway.

Allen Frazer on the Military.com website explains that as combat reached the Arctic in 1943, the Danish-led  Sledge Patrol comprising Danes, Norwegians, and Greenlanders, was formed. Using its reports American planes bombed the German base on Greenland and later went to destroy the camp. However, they found it abandoned, merely capturing a lone German staffing the station. Then 

In October 1944, USCGS Eastwind seized the German weather station on Little Koldewey and took twelve German prisoners. Eleven days later, she boarded and captured the trawler Externsteine, taking seventeen more prisoners and ending Germany’s weather operations on the coast. These were the only direct engagements between American and German troops on Greenland.

That was the first presence of the USA in Greenland and, Ollesen notes, in

1949, the United States and Denmark became allies through NATO. During the Cold War and the decades after, the U.S. safeguarded its security interests in Greenland: tracking Russian missiles, bomber planes, and nuclear-armed submarines from that location. This became the basis for the “Greenland card” in U.S.-Danish relations: the idea that base rights in Greenland constituted an important contribution from Denmark and Greenland to the U.S. and NATO.

So the USA, as well as Denmark and Norway, collaborated to throw the Nazis out of Greenland in world War II. This apparently transpired without a staggering loss of life, or "blood spilled" as Representative Ogles of Tennessee would put it.  This is not- or, rather, should not be- a competition as to whether Danes or Americans have "spilled more blood protecting Greenland."

Merriam-Webster, again; a "protectorate" is "the relationship of superior authority assumed by one power or state over a dependent one."  Obviously, President Trump and adviser Stephen Miller wouldn't be threatening to gain control (in whatever way) over Greenland if the latter were already a protectorate of the USA. Presumably, Representative Ogles invoked the term "protectorate" because it harkens back to the word "protect" and implies, incorrectly, that helping to protect a territory results in the latter being a protectorate. "Protecting" may be necessary; it is not sufficient.

The USA has no nationals security interest in acquiring Greenland because our national security interests already are promoted by our presence in Greenland. The New York Times reported early last year that the Air Force and Space Force personnel at Pituffit Space Bse (formerly, Thule Air Base), "handle missile defense and space surveillance and the Upgraded Early Warning Radar (which) can detect ballistic misslies in thir early trajectory of flight."  A Danish deefense analyst says the base is "where the U.S. can detect a launch, calculate the trajectory and activate its missile defense systems." 

Consequently, the status quo helps Greenlanders, but especially USA national security. If they want to opt out, they can do so by referendum. A poll taken twelve months revealed majority support for becoming independent, yet with 45% opposing independence if the standard of living would be at all harmed.  That would be likely because

the Greenlandic government remains dependent on a yearly block grant from Denmark of roughly $600 million, as well as on the Danish state supporting services in areas such as defense, coast guard, and law enforcement. Greenlandic independence, therefore, depends on substantial continued Danish assistance after independence, something the Greenlandic government has yet to convince Denmark to accept.

What kind of a person would argue in full view that his country is the "dominant predator"? A supporter of Donald Trump would. The head of the Washington, D.C.-based security think tank Artic Institute believes it would "mean the end of NATO" (and the "U.S. would be .... shooting itself in the foot and waving goodbye to an alliance it has helped created." A former commander of U.S. troops in Europe argues that also a "loss of trust by key allies.... culd result in a eduction in their willingness to share intelligence with the U.S. or a reduction in access to bases across Europe. Both of these would be severely damagint to America's security."

Destructive to NATO and damaging to America's security? That sounds like a win-win to a President who believes his country is "evil" and a congressman who craves recognition as a "predator."

Share |