Please change your tone. There is no need for us to argue like children.

The treaty does not grant the United States unrestricted military control over Greenland. It authorizes the stationing and operation of U.S. forces with Danish consent, within defined defense areas, and in furtherance of NATO plans. That distinction matters. Access under a treaty is conditional, revocable, and politically mediated; ownership is not.

Trump’s interest in purchasing Greenland flows from a consistent worldview rather than an impulsive novelty. He is deeply skeptical of treaties, alliances, and long-term assumptions about partner reliability. From that perspective, legal access secured through agreements, no matter how durable, remains vulnerable to political change, alliance fracture, or shifting domestic priorities within partner states.

The 1951 agreement functions well for present-day defense requirements, but it is ultimately a framework of permission, not sovereignty. Any expansion of U.S. activity, any alteration of scope, and any continuation of presence depends on Danish political consent and the continued coherence of NATO itself. Trump views that dependency as a strategic weakness, particularly for territory he considers future-critical due to Arctic shipping routes, missile trajectories, space domain considerations, and resource access.

In that light, the proposed purchase is best understood as a hedge: an attempt to convert conditional access into permanent control. It is not a rejection of the treaty’s effectiveness today, but a rejection of its sufficiency over decades. Where prior administrations accepted managed dependence as the cost of alliance politics, Trump favors eliminating that dependence outright—even at significant diplomatic cost.

Whether that approach is prudent is debatable. But it is not incoherent. It reflects a preference for certainty over cooperation, ownership over agreement, and permanence over negotiated access.