Is the whole Greenland and Canada saga all about controlling the Norwest Passage for the U.S. in the future? If so, what can Canada, Russia, China do to stop it?

The Northwest Passage

The whole Greenland and Canada thing is about controlling the Norwest Passage in the future

It’s speculated the reason why Trump wanted Greenland is all about the Northwest Passage, which has been navigable for a while, however, it takes specialized ships and equipment to navigate safely for now. Since the 1970s, we have lost 75% of the volume of Arctic summer sea ice, but recent technological developments in satélite navigation combined with the artic ice melting at an unprecedented rate means the passage is already relatively easy to navigate for big merchant ships. And some experts even predict the artic will be ice free during the summer before 2030.

The economic and geopolitical benefits of controlling such passage will be immense, charging fees for entrance of ships and stopping ships from competing nations, let alone the benefits to national industry since currently ships from the East coast of the US have to take the Panama canal in order to reach the West coast, or even take the longer and treacherous route down the drake passage. This combined with the fact that the USA is currently on a path to exacerbate global warming which gives a good idea of the whole picture.

Northwest Passage: The 300+ Year Search for a Route to Asia

That said,

Is the whole Greenland and Canada thing about controlling the Norwest Passage for the U.S. in the future?

Here is the expert analysis:-

Yes, the potential U.S. interest in Greenland and Canada’s Arctic regions is partly tied to the strategic Northwest Passage, but it’s not the only factor. Here’s a breakdown of the key dynamics:

1. Geopolitical Importance of the Northwest Passage

Melting Ice & New Shipping Routes: Due to climate change, the Arctic ice is receding, making the Northwest Passage (a sea route through Canada’s Arctic Archipelago) more navigable. This could become a major shortcut for trade between Asia, Europe, and North America, rivaling the Suez and Panama Canals.
U.S. vs. Canada Sovereignty Dispute: The U.S. considers the Northwest Passage an international strait (allowing free passage), while Canada claims it as internal waters (requiring permission). Controlling Greenland (or influencing Canada) could strengthen the U.S. position in this dispute.

2. Why Greenland?

Strategic Location: Greenland sits between North America and Europe, offering military and surveillance advantages (e.g., Thule Air Base, a key U.S. missile defense and space tracking site).
Resource Wealth: Greenland has rare earth minerals, oil, and gas—critical for future tech and energy security.
Trump’s 2019 Offer to Buy Greenland: While dismissed as a joke by some, it reflected real U.S. interest in securing Arctic dominance.

3. Canada’s Role & U.S. Interests

NORAD & Defense Cooperation: The U.S. and Canada already collaborate closely on Arctic security via NORAD. However, Canada’s limited military presence in the Arctic worries Washington.
Economic & Infrastructure Pressure: The U.S. may push Canada to develop Arctic infrastructure (ports, icebreakers) to keep the Northwest Passage under Western (not Russian or Chinese) influence.

4. China & Russia’s Arctic Ambitions

Russia is heavily militarizing its Arctic coast, reopening Soviet-era bases, and developing its Northern Sea Route.
China calls itself a “Near-Arctic State”, invests in Arctic projects, and could seek influence over future trade routes.
The U.S. wants to prevent rivals from dominating Arctic shipping or resources.

Conclusion: Is It All About the Northwest Passage?

Yes, but it’s broader—it’s about controlling the Arctic’s future. The U.S. wants to ensure that:

The Northwest Passage remains accessible (preferably under U.S./Western influence).
China and Russia don’t gain a dominant position.
Arctic resources (minerals, oil) are secured for U.S. allies.

While outright annexation of Greenland or Canadian territory is unlikely, the U.S. will continue expanding its military, economic, and diplomatic presence in the region to shape Arctic governance in its favor.

Is Greenland opposed to the takeover of their country by the U.S.?

Yes, Greenland is overwhelmingly opposed to a U.S. takeover or annexation, and any attempt by the U.S. to forcibly take control would face fierce resistance from Greenlanders. Here’s why:

1. Strong Desire for Self-Rule

Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, with its own government (Naalakkersuisut) and control over most domestic policies.
The majority of Greenlanders support full independence from Denmark in the long term—not swapping one foreign power (Denmark) for another (the U.S.).
A 2019 poll after Trump’s offer to buy Greenland showed that:
- 78% of Greenlanders opposed the idea.
- Only 16% were open to selling—mostly if it guaranteed independence.

2. Cultural & Political Resistance

Inuit Identity: Greenland’s population is 88% Inuit, with a strong cultural attachment to their land. Many see U.S. control as a threat to their way of life.
Anti-Colonial Sentiment: Greenland has gradually gained more autonomy from Denmark (Home Rule in 1979, Self-Government in 2009). A U.S. takeover would be seen as a step backward.
Political Backlash: All major Greenlandic parties (Inuit Ataqatigiit, Siumut, Naleraq) reject U.S. annexation.

3. Economic & Strategic Concerns

Fear of Exploitation: Greenlanders worry the U.S. would prioritize military expansion (Thule Air Base) or resource extraction (rare earth minerals, oil) over local interests.
Dependence on Denmark: Greenland still relies on Denmark for defense and foreign policy, but many prefer this over U.S. dominance.
China & EU as Alternatives: Some Greenlanders favor diversifying investments (e.g., Chinese mining deals, EU partnerships) to avoid U.S. overreach.

What Could Greenland Do to Resist?

If the U.S. pushed for control, Greenland could:
✔ Declare independence preemptively (though economically risky).
✔ Strengthen ties with China/Russia/EU as counterweights to U.S. pressure.
✔ Mobilize international support via the UN, Arctic Council, and Indigenous rights groups.
✔ Hold a referendum to legitimize opposition (similar to Puerto Rico’s status votes).

Would the U.S. Force a Takeover Anyway?

Unlikely, because:
- Global backlash (UN, EU, NATO allies) would be severe.
- No strategic need—the U.S. already has military access (Thule Air Base).
- Greenlandic resistance would make governance difficult.

Conclusion

Greenlanders do not want to be part of the U.S., and any forced annexation would trigger massive political, cultural, and diplomatic resistance. The U.S. would gain little and lose much in terms of global reputation. Instead, Washington is more likely to increase influence through investments and defense deals rather than outright control.

Canada claims the Northwest Passage is their internal waters

Does Canada agree to Trump taking over Greenland? If not, what can Canada do to stop the takeover?

Canada would strongly oppose any U.S. attempt to take over Greenland, as it would directly threaten Canadian sovereignty, security, and economic interests in the Arctic. Here’s why—and what Canada could do to resist such a move:

Why Canada Would Oppose a U.S. Takeover of Greenland

Northwest Passage Sovereignty
- Canada claims the Northwest Passage as internal waters, while the U.S. insists it’s an international strait. If the U.S. controlled Greenland, it could strengthen its argument for freedom of navigation, bypassing Canadian authority.
Arctic Security & Militarization
- A U.S.-annexed Greenland would likely lead to increased American military presence (e.g., expanded Thule Air Base), which Canada might see as destabilizing.
- Canada prefers Arctic cooperation (via NATO and the Arctic Council) rather than unilateral U.S. dominance.
Economic & Environmental Concerns
- Canada has its own Arctic resource ambitions (oil, minerals, shipping). U.S. control of Greenland could shift power dynamics in energy and trade routes.
- Indigenous communities in Canada’s North would likely oppose disruptive U.S. policies.

What Could Canada Do to Stop the U.S.?

Canada has legal, diplomatic, and strategic tools to resist U.S. annexation of Greenland:

1. Diplomatic & Legal Resistance

Invoke International Law:
- The UN Charter prohibits annexation of territories without consent. Canada could rally the UN, EU, and Arctic Council to condemn any forced U.S. takeover.
- Denmark’s Sovereignty: Greenland is a self-governing part of the Kingdom of Denmark, so any U.S. move would require Danish approval. Canada could back Denmark diplomatically.
Arctic Council Pushback:
- Canada (a founding member) could work with other Arctic states (Russia, Norway, etc.) to isolate the U.S. on this issue.

2. Strengthen Canadian Arctic Presence

Expand Military & Coast Guard Patrols:
- Canada could increase its Arctic military bases (e.g., Nanisivik Naval Facility) and icebreaker fleet to assert control over the Northwest Passage.
Boost Indigenous Partnerships:
- Inuit organizations (like Inuit Circumpolar Council) have strong ties across Greenland and Canada. Canada could leverage these ties to resist U.S. influence.

3. Economic & Political Countermeasures

Block U.S. Arctic Projects:
- Canada could restrict U.S. access to Canadian Arctic infrastructure (ports, airspace) in retaliation.
Partner with China or EU for Greenland Investments:
- If the U.S. pressures Greenland, Canada could support alternative investors (EU, China) to reduce American leverage.

4. Public & Political Pressure

Domestic Backlash:
- Canadians overwhelmingly oppose U.S. encroachment in the Arctic. The government could use this sentiment to justify strong countermeasures.
U.S. Political Constraints:
- Even if Trump (or a future president) wanted Greenland, Congress, the Pentagon, and U.S. allies might block it—Canada could lobby these groups.

Would Canada Succeed in Stopping the U.S.?

Full Annexation? Unlikely – The U.S. probably wouldn’t forcibly take Greenland due to global backlash.
Soft Control? Possible – The U.S. might instead increase military and economic influence (e.g., bases, investments), which Canada would still resist but couldn’t fully block.

Final Verdict

Canada can’t single-handedly stop the U.S. if it’s determined, but it can make any takeover politically costly by:

✔ Mobilizing international law & allies (Denmark, EU, Arctic Council)
✔ Strengthening its own Arctic defenses
✔ Leveraging Indigenous and economic partnerships

If the U.S. pushed too hard, Canada might even align closer with China or Russia on Arctic issues—a nightmare scenario for Washington that could deter aggression.

Does Russia support Trump annexing Greenland? What about China?

Russia and China would likely oppose any U.S. attempt to annex or exert greater control over Greenland, but their reactions would differ based on their strategic interests in the Arctic. Here’s how each might respond:

1. Russia’s Position

Strong Opposition – Russia would see a U.S.-controlled Greenland as a direct threat to its own Arctic ambitions.
- Military Concerns: Greenland hosts Thule Air Base, a critical U.S. missile defense and space surveillance site. Further U.S. expansion would escalate Arctic militarization.
- Northern Sea Route (NSR) vs. Northwest Passage: Russia wants its NSR (along Siberia) to dominate Arctic shipping. A U.S.-aligned Greenland could strengthen the competing Northwest Passage, undermining Russia’s economic plans.
- Propaganda & Diplomatic Pushback: Moscow would likely frame U.S. actions as “imperialist” and rally opposition in international forums (UN, Arctic Council).
Possible Support for Greenlandic Independence? – If Greenlanders resisted U.S. influence, Russia might covertly support separatist movements (as it has in other regions).

2. China’s Position

Economic & Strategic Concerns – China has been investing in Greenland (mining, infrastructure) and wants access to Arctic resources.
- Rare Earth Minerals: Greenland has vast deposits of rare earths (critical for tech). China, the world’s top producer, wouldn’t want the U.S. to monopolize them.
- Polar Silk Road: China’s Arctic policy aims to integrate Arctic shipping routes (like the NW Passage) into its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). U.S. control would block this.
Diplomatic Resistance – China would likely:
- Work with Denmark & Greenland to counter U.S. influence.
- Use its UN position to condemn annexation as a violation of sovereignty.
- Increase investments in Greenland to maintain leverage.

Would They Openly Support Trump on Greenland?

No, but they might exploit the situation:
- Russia could use it to justify further Arctic militarization.
- China might position itself as a “neutral partner” to Greenland while undermining U.S. control.

Bottom Line

Both Russia and China strongly prefer a weak U.S. presence in Greenland and would work to block annexation or domination. However, neither would risk direct confrontation—instead, they’d use economic, diplomatic, and informational tools to counter U.S. moves.

What can Russia and China do to stop Trump since they both oppose to any U.S. attempt to annex or exert greater control over Greenland?

If the U.S. under Trump (or another administration) made a serious push to annex or dominate Greenland, Russia and China would employ a mix of diplomatic, economic, military, and informational strategies to counter U.S. influence. Here’s how they could respond:

1. Diplomatic & Legal Warfare

Russia’s Moves:

UN & Arctic Council Opposition: Russia would frame U.S. actions as neo-colonialism, rallying allies (China, BRICS, Arctic states) to condemn the move in the UN General Assembly or Security Council (if China backs it).
Support Greenlandic Independence: Russia could recognize Greenland’s right to self-determination, pushing for a referendum (like in Crimea) to legitimize resistance.
Exploit Canada-Denmark Tensions: Since Canada and Denmark have unresolved Arctic territorial disputes (e.g., Hans Island), Russia might amplify these to weaken Western unity.

China’s Moves:

Economic Leverage on Denmark: China is Denmark’s largest non-EU trade partner. It could threaten trade sanctions or offer sweetheart deals to pressure Copenhagen against U.S. control.
Arctic Council Sabotage: China, as an observer state, could lobby for emergency sessions to challenge U.S. actions.
“Peaceful Development” Narrative: Beijing would position itself as a defender of “Arctic stability”, contrasting U.S. “bullying” with China’s “win-win” investments.

2. Economic & Investment Countermeasures

Russia’s Playbook:

Energy & Mineral Deals: Offer Greenland lucrative partnerships in oil, gas, and rare earth mining to reduce reliance on U.S. firms.
Shadow Finance: Use shell companies to fund pro-independence or anti-U.S. groups in Greenland (similar to tactics in Ukraine pre-2014).

China’s Playbook:

Belt & Road in the Arctic: Accelerate infrastructure investments (ports, airports, 5G networks) to make Greenland dependent on Chinese capital.
Rare Earth Monopoly: Greenland has vast rare earth deposits. China could lock up supply chains before the U.S. does.
Buy Political Influence: Fund Greenlandic politicians, media, and NGOs to resist U.S. overtures.

3. Military & Strategic Counterpressure

Russia’s Response:

Arctic Military Buildup: Expand nuclear submarines, hypersonic missile deployments, and bomber patrols near Greenland to deter U.S. forces.
“Freedom of Navigation” Challenges: Send warships near Greenland (like in the South China Sea) to contest U.S./Canadian control.
Hybrid Warfare: Cyberattacks on U.S. bases (Thule Air Base), disinformation campaigns painting the U.S. as an occupier.

China’s Response:

Naval Presence: Deploy “research vessels” (spy ships) or icebreakers near Greenland to monitor U.S. activity.
Cyber & Espionage: Hack U.S. defense contractors or Greenland’s government to gather intel and sow discord.
Space Warfare: Since Thule Air Base is key for U.S. missile defense, China could test anti-satellite weapons as a warning.

4. Information & Propaganda War

Russia: Use state media (RT, Sputnik) to amplify stories of U.S. “imperialism” in Greenland, comparing it to Iraq or Puerto Rico.
China: Push narratives via CGTN and social media that Greenland’s resources are being “stolen” by America.
Both: Fund fake grassroots movements (“Greenland for Greenlanders”) and exploit Inuit grievances against U.S./Danish rule.

5. Alliance-Building to Isolate the U.S.

Russia-China Arctic Pact: Formalize joint Arctic patrols, research, or trade deals to counter U.S. dominance.
EU Leverage: Pressure Europe (especially Germany & France) to side against U.S. aggression, framing it as a threat to global norms.
Proxy Support: Arm Greenland with legal/political tools to resist—e.g., helping it sue the U.S. in international courts.

Would It Work?

Full Annexation Blocked? Yes—the global backlash would likely make outright U.S. control impossible.
Soft Control Thwarted? Partially—Russia/China could make Greenland a geopolitical battleground, but the U.S. still holds military superiority in the region.

Final Assessment

Russia and China can’t physically stop the U.S., but they can:

✅ Make Greenland a diplomatic and economic quagmire for Washington.
✅ Increase the cost of U.S. dominance via military posturing and sanctions.
✅ Exploit divisions in NATO (e.g., Turkey, Hungary) to weaken consensus.

Their goal wouldn’t be to “win” Greenland but to ensure the U.S. doesn’t either—turning it into a contested zone rather than an American asset.

The Great North American Channel — What if the Northwest passage existed?

What if the Northwest passage existed? The Great North American Channel
byu/Holy_Isaaguv inimaginarymaps