Is it true that greenlands waters are filled with russian and chinese ships?

1. What was actually said and how it spread

The assertion originated in repeated public comments by the U.S. president — quoted across outlets — that Greenland must be acquired for U.S. national security because it is “covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place,” a formulation carried verbatim by BBC, PBS, Politico, TIME, CNN and others ^{[1] [4] [5] [6] [7]}.

2. What experts and allied governments say in response

Security analysts and Danish/GREENLANDIC officials rebuked the characterization: researchers at the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) and other experts say there are Russian and Chinese ships in the Arctic, but “these vessels are too far away to see from Greenland with or without binoculars,” and Greenland’s leaders and Denmark have pushed back on the notion that Greenland is surrounded by foreign navies ^{[8] [3] [9]}.

3. Where Russian and Chinese maritime activity actually concentrates

Reporting indicates most current activity tied to Russian and Chinese interests focuses on the eastern Arctic and Northern Sea Route — for instance LNG shipments from Russia’s Yamal peninsula and related commercial and dual‑use traffic — rather than blanket operations around Greenland’s entire coastline ^{[2] [3]}. Analysts warn that receding ice will open longer northern passages and increase merchant and potentially naval transits over time, which is why strategic concern exists even if this is not today a Greenland coastal occupation ^[2].

4. The strategic geography that complicates simple claims

Greenland sits astride the Cold‑War era GIUK gap (Greenland–Iceland–UK), a choke point NATO monitors because submarines and surface vessels transiting from Russia’s northern bases can enter the North Atlantic that way; this keeps Greenland strategically important even if most foreign shipping is not loitering in Greenland’s immediate waters ^{[2] [3]}.

5. Existing arrangements and why the claim matters politically

Denmark and the U.S. already have long‑standing defense arrangements covering Greenland; DIIS notes the U.S. effectively controls aspects of military security there under agreements dating back decades, and Danish and Greenlandic leaders say the island’s sovereignty cannot be unilaterally overridden — arguments used by allies to rebut any implication that foreign ships justify annexation ^{[3] [9]}. The political effect of the president’s rhetoric, however, has been to amplify anxiety among Nordic partners and to frame Greenland’s strategic value in stark, contested terms ^{[8] [7]}.

6. How to read “presence” versus “covered” — evidence limits

Available reporting documents a growing Russian and Chinese Arctic presence and commercial interest in ports, infrastructure and routes, and analysts project increased traffic as ice recedes, but none of the cited sources supplies comprehensive ship‑count data proving Greenland is “covered” by those navies; DIIS explicitly characterizes the president’s remark as a misleading conflation of different Arctic zones ^{[2] [3]}. Open‑source AIS or defense tallies would be needed to substantiate any precise numerical claim, and those are not provided in the sampled reporting ^[3].

7. Bottom line: accurate framing for a concerned public

It is accurate to say Russian and Chinese maritime activity in the Arctic is real and rising — a genuine strategic trend that justifies allied attention — but it is inaccurate and misleading to state Greenland’s waters are literally “covered” by those ships; the evidence in mainstream reporting points to concentrated routes and activity areas, expert rebuttals about distance from Greenland’s coasts, and strong political pushback from Denmark and Greenland against framing that supports unilateral U.S. action ^{[2] [8] [3] [9]}.