Trump has Alaska and if he takes Greenland he’ll surround Canada and take Canada, then Russia, Japan, Korea, China, Mongolia, India, Etc. until someone stops him.
Executive summary
The scenario — that holding Alaska plus seizing Greenland would allow a U.S. president to “surround Canada” and roll through a chain of countries from Canada to Russia, Japan, Korea, China, Mongolia, India, etc. — is geopolitically simplistic and legally implausible; recent reporting shows the White House is openly agitating for Greenland for security and resource reasons, but allies, treaties, and operational realities impose powerful brakes on any rapid territorial expansion [1] [2] [3]. Analysts warn the Greenland gambit could strain or break NATO and has prompted strong pushback from Denmark, Greenland and other partners [4] [3].
1. The claim unpacked: what is actually being asserted and why that matters
The underlying claim rests on three linked assumptions: that control of Greenland is militarily decisive for North American posture; that acquisition of Greenland enables a straightforward encirclement or takeover of Canada; and that once that momentum started it could cascade across Eurasia — a chain of conquest model that modern reporting treats as rhetorical escalation rather than a concrete operational plan [3] [2] [5]. Trump and his team have explicitly discussed acquiring Greenland — even saying military options are “always” on the table — and have framed it in terms of Arctic security and resources, which helps explain the statements driving this speculation [1] [2].
2. Legal, diplomatic and treaty limits that make seizure implausible
Greenland is a semi‑autonomous territory of Denmark; foreign affairs and defence remain Danish responsibilities under existing arrangements, and Denmark and Greenland have both rejected U.S. takeover efforts while NATO partners have publicly rallied to Denmark’s side — a diplomatic wall the White House has run up against repeatedly [3] [4] [6]. International law, allied commitments, and explicit political rebukes — including Danish warnings that an attack would imperil NATO — create profound legal and political constraints that make a lawful, peaceful annexation unlikely without massive allied rupture [4] [1].
3. Military and logistical reality: bases, geography and limits of power projection
The U.S. already operates strategic facilities in Greenland, like Pituffik (Thule) Space Base, and planners cite Greenland’s position in the GIUK gap and as a place for missile defenses, but basing and presence are not the same as sovereign control, and Arctic weather, infrastructure deficits and the logistics of occupation complicate any putative “easy” takeover [2] [5]. Reported White House talk of “plans for any contingency” and bills in Congress pushing symbolic measures do not translate into an operational pathway for conquering a vast neighbor like Canada, much less leapfrogging across Eurasia [1] [7].
4. Motives, narratives and who benefits from escalating the rhetoric
Reporting shows multiple motives behind the push: resource access (rare earths, minerals), strategic missile and naval positioning, and domestic political signaling — including a broader pattern of expansionist rhetoric that analysts say extends to Canada and other territories [5] [8] [9]. Some commentators and scholars argue the Greenland gambit is a template for “function-based” expansion through investments and legal maneuvers rather than classic conquest, a strategy that could reshape norms without overt military empire-building [9]. That framing benefits actors seeking leverage over allies and commercial access to resources; it raises alarms among those protecting rules-based order [10] [9].
5. Allies, deterrence and the brakes on unipolar march
Both Canadian analysts and NATO members have signaled readiness to push back; Denmark increased forces around Greenland and engaged allies in talks, and Canadian commentators caution against overreaction while noting real risk if the U.S. abandoned norms [11] [12]. Collective defence, economic interdependence, domestic politics in target countries, and the logistical impossibility of projecting sustained occupation across continents all make a domino territorial conquest highly unlikely without triggering a coordinated international response — the very “someone” the user posits would stop such an expansion [4] [1] [11].
Conclusion
In short, the premise — Alaska plus Greenland as a springboard for swallowing Canada and then a chain of Eurasian states — is rhetorically vivid but not supported as a plausible strategic path in contemporary reporting: the White House has publicly pursued Greenland for security and resource reasons and has flirted with coercive language, but legal constraints, allied resistance, logistical realities and the specter of coordinated international retaliation stand squarely in the way [1] [3] [5]. Alternative viewpoints exist: some see Greenland as a legitimate strategic priority and argue for stronger U.S. posture; others see the administration’s posture as destabilizing grandstanding that risks breaking alliances — both frames are present in the reporting [2] [4] [9].