Michael McFaul rejects US annexation of Greenland and says missile defenses can be deployed without it

More from Author

Ruta R Deshpande
Ruta Deshpande is a seasoned Defense Technology Analyst with a strong focus on cutting-edge military innovations and strategic defense systems. With a deep-rooted interest in geopolitics and international relations, she brings nuanced insights into the intersection of technology, diplomacy, and global security. Ruta has reported extensively on defense modernization, space militarization, and evolving Indo-Pacific dynamics. As a journalist, she has contributed sharp, well-researched pieces to Deftechtimes, a reputed defense and strategy publication. Her analytical writing reflects a strong grasp of global military doctrines and regional conflict zones. Ruta has a particular interest in the Arctic race, cyber warfare capabilities, and unmanned combat systems. She is known for breaking down complex defense narratives into accessible, compelling stories. Her background includes collaborations with think tanks and participation in strategic dialogue forums.

The Greenland debate has resurfaced. Former US ambassador Michael McFaul says the United States can deploy missile defenses there without annexation. He is directly challenging President Trump’s claim that Greenland is vital to American security.

Why Greenland Matters in Global Security

Greenland is a massive Arctic island and an autonomous territory of Denmark, located strategically between North America and Europe. Its position makes it important for military purposes, including early warning systems, radar stations, and missile defense. The United States already has a long-standing military presence there, operating bases and radar systems with Denmark’s permission to monitor missile activity and northern skies.

The Trump administration argues that this is no longer sufficient. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Greenland is “essential to U.S. national security” and highlighted plans for a new missile defense system, nicknamed the “Golden Dome,” in which Greenland would play a key role. According to Bessent, President Trump is being “strategic” by pushing harder on the island.

Trump criticises UK over Chagos deal and says move supports case for US role in Greenland

Trump himself has repeatedly emphasized Greenland’s importance. In a Truth Social post, he said he spoke to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and claimed there was broad agreement on Greenland’s strategic value. He described the island as “imperative for National and World Security” and said, “There can be no going back.” He also reiterated that the US is the world’s strongest military power and maintains peace through strength.

Critics, however, argue that there is a crucial difference between using Greenland for defense and attempting to control or annex it, warning that annexation is unnecessary and could harm relations with allies.

McFaul Says Annexation Is “Illogical”

Michael McFaul, a former US ambassador to Russia and a well-known foreign policy expert, strongly disagrees with the idea that the United States needs to annex Greenland. He was responding to comments by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and said the logic behind annexation simply does not make sense.

McFaul said the US can place missiles and radar systems in Greenland without taking control of the island. He pointed out that the United States has already installed missile defense systems in other countries, such as Poland and Romania, without taking over their territory. In simple terms, he believes the US does not need to own land to defend itself from there.

Trump claims Greenland is vital for Golden Dome missile shield, but experts question the need

He called the idea of annexing Greenland “illogical” and said that President Donald Trump is being “petulant, not strategic,” suggesting that Trump is acting out of pride rather than careful planning. McFaul also questioned why Trump’s new National Security Strategy does not even mention Greenland if it is truly so important.

He warned that trying to take over Greenland could seriously damage relations with allies, weaken NATO, and at the same time strengthen Russia. McFaul also described the Greenland push as a “vanity project” that could cost the US trust and unity among its partners.

NATO, Denmark, and Rising Tensions

Greenland belongs to Denmark, a close US ally and a NATO member, and any move to take control of the island would seriously strain relations between allies. Michael McFaul has warned that such a step could damage NATO, which the US depends on for shared defense and cooperation.

In a direct message to President Donald Trump, McFaul urged him to stop pushing the issue. He said that after Trump’s strong statements, Denmark and other allies had already increased their efforts to protect Greenland, which in his view achieved a useful result without any need for annexation.

Denmark bolsters Greenland security with military deployment amid Arctic and NATO tensions

President Trump, however, has not stepped back. He said he had a “very good” phone call with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and that talks would be held in Davos, Switzerland. Trump also said there is broad agreement on Greenland’s strategic importance and repeated that the US military is growing stronger and keeps peace through strength.

The disagreement remains sharp. The Trump administration says Greenland is so important that the US must take a stronger stance, while McFaul and other diplomats argue the US already has what it needs there and that annexation would be risky and harmful to alliances.

- Advertisement -
Exit mobile version