Greenland's New Agreement: The U.S. Wins Face, But the Substance Awaits—A Black Hole?

【Answer 1】 In fact, Greenland’s annual construction window lasts only about 8 to 12 weeks. If construction is forced outside this period, the project timeline would be at least five times longer than in temperate zones—and costs would become entirely unpredictable. Compounding this challenge is Greenland’s widespread permafrost: in winter, water within the frozen ground freezes and expands; in summer, the active surface layer thaws and the ice melts into water, causing dramatic volume reduction. The ground behaves like a sponge—constantly absorbing and releasing water—resulting in severely uneven, undulating ‘sponge roads’. 3. Technical (Cost) Deadlock Ore grades are extremely low (under 1%, far below the 5%–10% typical of mainstream deposits), and minerals are mostly embedded in complex eudialyte rock. To date, no one globally has developed an economically viable extraction method. As the Associated Press put it bluntly: ‘It may never be feasible.’ Rare-earth mining in Greenland incurs costs five to ten times higher than in temperate regions. The U.S.-based Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) invested over $275 million cumulatively—but ultimately abandoned its mining rights due to plummeting oil prices and prohibitively high polar operating costs, writing off all prior exploration expenditures. U.S. think tanks have also highlighted a critical reality: China controls roughly 85%–90% of global rare-earth separation and refining capacity. Thus, even if the U.S. successfully extracts ore from Greenland, it cannot bypass China—a fact starkly at odds with Trump’s vision of decoupling. II. Military Value The U.S. Thule Air Base has operated continuously for over seventy years—from the Cold War to today. The U.S. does not need sovereignty over Greenland to use it. Although the new agreement grants the U.S. ‘island-wide deployment rights,’ the actual incremental gain is limited. A true qualitative shift would occur only if the U.S. deployed medium-range missiles or missile defense interceptors there. Yet the progress and interception effectiveness of the U.S. ‘Golden Dome’ missile defense system remain highly uncertain. Within the nuclear ‘mutual suspicion chain’ deterrence framework—where the P5 nuclear powers have never engaged in direct confrontation, nor even experienced accidental escalation—the NATO early-warning value, especially that offered by Greenland, has already been significantly diluted. That said, island-wide deployment still holds tangible strategic value for Arctic shipping lane monitoring, detection of Russian submarines, and extending missile early-warning time windows. III. China’s ‘Passive Loss Mitigation’ Shenghe Resources’ investment in the Kvanefjeld project totaled RMB 24.34 million—but the project never secured mining rights and never commenced substantive production. That money is already ‘sunk.’ If Greenland’s mineral resources remain undevelopable, it is not a ‘loss’ for China—but rather an avoidance of an open-ended, bottomless pit of continued investment. Should Greenland’s resources eventually prove commercially viable, can the U.S. and the West truly circumvent China’s industrial ecosystem? IV. Positions of Stakeholders Denmark has explicitly affirmed its sovereignty over Greenland—a non-negotiable red line. Should the U.S. attempt to seize Greenland, NATO would effectively collapse. Europe welcomed Trump’s abandonment of military threats and suspension of tariffs—but such optimism applies only superficially, bordering on self-deception. French President Emmanuel Macron voiced a more sober and candid assessment: ‘False security does not exist; the next threat will inevitably return.’ As for the U.S.–EU–Denmark ‘drama’ over Greenland, Russia is undoubtedly the biggest beneficiary. Officially, Russia claims the matter concerns only Denmark and the U.S.—but behind the scenes, it delights in fanning the flames and mocking the situation. Russia has even ‘encouraged’ Trump to seize Greenland by force, calling it ‘the collapse of the transatlantic alliance.’

The Time War for Energy Hegemony: America’s Strategic Shift from the ‘Petrodollar’ to the ‘Electrodollar’

【Answer 2】 This investment project—exceeding $3.3 billion—will position Mexico as a reliable supplier of ultra-low-carbon methanol to Asian markets, while simultaneously securing over $4 billion in U.S. natural gas exports and consumption. Mitsubishi Gas Chemical has committed to purchasing approximately 50% of the project’s output. Strategically, this collaboration achieves multiple U.S. objectives: first, it secures a stable export market for U.S. natural gas; second, it deeply integrates Mexico’s clean-energy industrial chain with the U.S. through energy supply linkages; third, it incorporates Mexico into America’s energy transition roadmap under the ‘nearshoring’ framework. As experts observe, the U.S. is employing an ‘economically pragmatic’ strategy to gradually draw Latin American countries into its exclusive energy-economic system. 2.4 Iran: Maximum Pressure and the Composite Strategy of ‘Talk While Sanctioning’ Regarding Iran, the U.S. pursues a composite pressure strategy—simultaneously engaging in negotiations and imposing sanctions. In February 2026, Iran and the U.S. held their third round of indirect talks in Oman, mediated by Omani officials. Yet just before the talks, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) updated its ‘Specially Designated Nationals List,’ imposing sanctions on over 30 individuals, entities, and vessels linked to Iran. Sanctioned targets include individuals tied to Iran’s aviation industry, as well as numerous shipping and trading companies based in Iran, Turkey, the UAE, Panama, the Marshall Islands, and Liberia. At least 13 oil tankers and liquefied gas carriers were added to the sanctions list. U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent stated explicitly that these measures aim to disrupt Iran’s ‘illegitimate oil sales’ and networks supporting its weapons programs. The core impasse in negotiations centers on scope: Iran insists talks be limited to nuclear issues, whereas the U.S. demands inclusion of Iran’s ballistic missile program. In his State of the Union address, Trump warned that Iran is nearing development of missiles capable of striking the U.S. homeland. Iran dismissed such claims as ‘blatant lies,’ emphasizing its missiles have a maximum range of 2,000 km—strictly for defensive deterrence. This ‘talk while sanctioning’ approach is, in essence, a continuation of America’s maximum-pressure campaign—tightening petroleum export channels and financial sanctions to compel Iranian concessions on both nuclear and missile programs. 2.5 Greenland: Seizing the ‘Vitamin’ of the New Energy Era Unlike earlier efforts focused on controlling petroleum resources, U.S. interest in Greenland looks squarely toward the future. The White House has declared it will ‘keep all options on the table’ to acquire Greenland—a Danish autonomous territory—including purchasing it, provoking independence, or even deploying military force. Trump and his national security team have formally designated Greenland acquisition a top-tier ‘U.S. national security priority.’ Greenland’s strategic value unfolds across three dimensions: First, critical minerals. Of the 34 minerals deemed ‘critical’ by the European Union, 31 are found in Greenland. According to data released by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in January 2025, Greenland holds an estimated 1.5 million tons of rare-earth reserves—ranking eighth globally, comparable to the U.S. (1.9 million tons). Rare earths serve as the indispensable ‘vitamins’ for wind turbines, electric vehicle motors, and energy-storage batteries—irreplaceable in the new energy era. Second, Arctic shipping routes. As Arctic sea ice melts, future Arctic shipping lanes are poised to become golden maritime corridors linking Asia and Europe.

Trump Says Oil, Gas, and Mineral Exploration to Begin in Greenland

Oct 13, 2026

US President Donald Trump announced via Truth Social that massive oil, gas, and mineral exploration is set to begin in Greenland. This move signals significant potential for Arctic resource development.

reuters

Trump Says Oil, Gas and Mineral Exploration in Greenland Is Set to Begin

apnews

Trump Announces Massive Oil, Gas, and Mineral Exploration in Greenland

france24

2026-01-05

US to Send Oil Companies to Fix Venezuela's Infrastructure, Boost Output: Trump

2026-02-23

Chemicals mostly spared under new Trump tariff plan

2026-03-10

Oil prices tumble after Trump says Iran war may be nearing end