Dr. Samantha Hagle: ‘We Already Had What We Wanted’

In the hotly contested race to the Arctic region, Dr. Samantha Hagle believes each of the three global superpowers, the United States, China, and Russia, have different aspects that are driving factors in their interest.

For the U.S, it’s national security, even though she believes “we already had what we wanted” with the Pituffik Space Base. Rare earth metals and minerals are listed number two by Hagle.

Hagle is a professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Hagle specializes in comparative politics and international relations, with a focus on ethnic conflicts and indigenous policies. She wrote a book about the evolution of indigenous rights in the Americas.

Greenland’s positioning presents an interesting perspective to Hagle, and the idea of one global superpower, the United States, China, or Russia, in charge would provide “great” positioning militarily. Another aspect of Greenland is its valuable mineral deposits and rare earth metals. Due to the rapidly melting ice caps, Hagle said there’s a “first-arrivers advantage” to tap into Greenland’s critical minerals.

“In terms of military and economics, there’s reason for multiple parties to be interested in this [Greenland] from a theoretical perspective,” Hagle said.

Hagle acknowledges that the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement has allowed the U.S. to maintain a consistent military presence in the region, which once housed multiple bases but has since been reduced to a single base, the Pituffik Space Base. With a current military presence, Hagle said the U.S. already has an advantage in the region.

“The U.S. already had a huge ability to put these bases there,” Hagle said. “That’s where, politically for the U.S., it’s extra kind of confusing, because we already had what we wanted or what he’s [President Donald Trump] saying that we want as an outcome.”

Trump’s renewed push in his second term for Greenland is the latest of the three total attempts the U.S. has made to control the world’s largest island. The first happened after World War II in 1946, when President Harry Truman offered to buy Greenland from Denmark for $100 million. The second, and first time under Trump, was in 2019, when Trump openly brought up the idea of purchasing Greenland, prompting then-Greenland MP Aaja Chemnitz to say in a X post, “No thanks to Trump buying Greenland!”

“There’s a lot of talk in the U.S. to this kind of reverting back to some of these Cold War era lines, which also makes us more confused because we already had our allies there,” Hagle said. “It’s still the same kind of idea of expanding U.S. influence vis-à-vis these other ideological powers at the same time.”

Back in January, Trump said that if the U.S. does not take over Greenland, Russia or China will, vowing “that’s not going to happen,” according to USA Today. Despite the president’s comments, Hagle does not believe there is an imminent threat.

“I don’t buy that there again was some sort of imminent threat,” Hagle said. “But of course we do see increased, especially Chinese, influence. They kind of do like to push the buttons a little bit with Greenland.”

Hagle feels that China is the “one to watch” and is expanding its trade routes, increasing shipping routes, road routes, and trade initiatives, capitalizing on the quickly melting ice caps that are creating new shipping routes.

“That’s been an ongoing rhetoric for them for 10 years,” Hagle said. “I’d probably lean in that direction because militarily, there’s a lot more focus in the South China Sea by Japan, by Korea.”

For Russia, Hagle said, Russia wants security and thinks they “want to survive right now” due to the ongoing war in Ukraine. She believes the Russian conflict in Ukraine is their main concern, and the conflict has Russia’s “hands tied” and “stretched pretty thin.”

In the broader scope of the U.S., China, or Russia in a potential takeover of Greenland, Hagle said it is “very common” for powers to take over and colonize largely indigenous populations. Greenland’s native people, known as the Inuit population, account for roughly 89% of Greenland’s population, according to The World Data.

“It’s not unique in history for a strong nation to swing its will around if it’s given the opportunity and means to,” Hagle said. “We have the means. The question really is, ‘Is it worth the opportunity and cost?’ I’d say probably no.”

---

This story is part of a semester-long investigative reporting project into Greenland’s people, history, and culture. It was created by an advanced reporting class in the Journalism, Advertising, and Media Studies program at UW-Milwaukee. Other stories from the project are available on Edge of the Arctic: Greenland, the Land of the People.

This work was made possible through the support of MPC Endowment Ltd., the philanthropic affiliate of the Milwaukee Press Club, and a private donor.