Por Renan Filho · 2026-09-26The Arctic is heating up — and not just from climate change. President Xi Jinping’s high‑stakes visit to Moscow this week comes as reports surface that former President Donald Trump is again pursuing a deal to purchase Greenland from Denmark. While the two events are separated by an ocean, they are connected by a common thread: control over the Arctic’s strategic and economic future.
For years, Beijing has quietly advanced its “Polar Silk Road,” a branch of the Belt and Road Initiative aimed at securing shipping routes, natural resources, and military footholds in the region. China’s investments in Russian energy projects, its growing fleet of ice‑capable vessels, and its dual‑use research stations have alarmed NATO and Arctic Council members. Now, with Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland, the United States is signaling that it will not cede the High North without a fight.
The lead: Trump’s proposed Greenland acquisition — first floated in 2019 and dismissed as a joke by many — has taken on new life. Sources close to the former president’s campaign indicate that a formal offer to Denmark is being prepared, contingent on a favorable political climate. The strategic rationale is clear: Greenland sits astride the shortest air route between North America and Europe, hosts a major U.S. air base (Thule), and holds vast deposits of rare earths, uranium, and hydrocarbons. For a nationalist “America First” agenda, buying Greenland is the ultimate real estate deal — one that would lock out Chinese access and secure U.S. dominance for decades.
Context: Xi’s visit to Russia is equally strategic. Moscow, despite its war in Ukraine, remains Beijing’s primary partner in the Arctic. The two nations have deepened joint energy projects, such as the Yamal LNG plant, and increased military patrols in the Arctic Ocean. China sees the Northern Sea Route — which could cut shipping times between Asia and Europe by a third — as a critical piece of its global trade network. If Trump’s Greenland deal goes through, it would directly challenge China’s ability to project power into the region, as U.S. ownership would give Washington veto power over who enters Greenlandic waters and airspace.
From a liberal‑conservative perspective, this is a classic case of free‑market logic meeting national security reality. Private‑sector investment in Greenland’s mining and tourism sectors could boom under a U.S. umbrella, creating jobs and revenue for the island’s 57,000 inhabitants — many of whom already lean toward independence from Denmark. A federal U.S. purchase would minimize bureaucratic overhead and allow the market to allocate resources efficiently, provided property rights are respected. Critics on the left decry “colonialism,” but Greenland’s own government has expressed openness to closer economic ties with Washington, which offers a better trade partner than Beijing’s opaque state‑backed enterprises.
Yet the deal is far from done. Denmark has previously rebuffed Trump, and public opinion in Greenland is divided. Some see dependence on the U.S. as trading one colonial master for another. The legal and financial hurdles are immense: Denmark holds sovereignty, and a sale would require a referendum. Still, the very notion of a U.S. purchase has already shifted the debate. Xi’s presence in Russia is a reminder that Beijing is not idle. During his visit, the two countries are expected to sign new Arctic cooperation agreements, including joint icebreaker construction and satellite navigation improvements.
The FORTIS analysis: The Arctic is the world’s last great frontier for resource extraction and trade — and the United States cannot afford to be a passive observer. Trump’s Greenland gambit, while unorthodox, reflects a clear‑eyed understanding that state‑sponsored Chinese expansion will not respect traditional boundaries unless confronted. A market‑friendly, limited‑government approach would favor U.S. ownership of key assets (like Thule Air Base) combined with open trade agreements that attract private capital from Japan, South Korea, and European allies. The alternative — letting China plant state‑controlled flags on the polar ice — would undermine both economic freedom and national security.