A geopolitical analyst laid out the perfect case for American strength in the Arctic. Then he flinched.
I came across a video this week from a Greenland strategic analyst named Peter Zeihan. He has credentials. He has sources. He’s done the reading. And he laid out, point by point, exactly why taking Greenland makes sense—then somehow arrived at the opposite conclusion.
Watch it yourself:
Let me walk you through what he actually said, because the facts are devastating—just not in the direction he thinks.
The Case He Made (Without Realizing It)
Zeihan admits that Denmark “allows us to do whatever we want in Greenland pretty much whenever we want.” He says they’re “happy to help” and “happy to help pay for it.” He calls them “the most loyal and enthusiastic ally we have ever had.”
He thinks this is an argument against acquisition. I heard something different: the groundwork is already laid. A loyal ally that does whatever we ask is an invitation to finish the job.
He admits the Russian Navy is “a pale shadow” of what it was. He admits China can’t project power to the North Atlantic. He admits there’s no credible opposition. And his conclusion? Don’t act.
He calls that strategy. I call it hesitation dressed up as analysis.
What This Greenland Strategic Analyst Missed
Zeihan talks about cost—trillion-dollar infrastructure, floating platforms, processing facilities. He talks about ice coverage and port limitations. He talks about rare earths being “not rare.”
You know what he doesn’t talk about? Will.
America didn’t become a superpower by running cost-benefit analyses on every acre of territory. We didn’t purchase Louisiana because the spreadsheet worked out. We didn’t take the Panama Canal Zone because the ports were already built. Strength creates conditions. It doesn’t wait for them.
Zeihan warns that taking Greenland would “wreck” our alliance with Denmark. But what is an alliance that exists only on their terms? What is a partnership where we have to ask permission to secure our own hemisphere?
The Real Lesson
The Greenland strategic analyst is worried about what happens if America “goes it alone.” He invokes history—the last time we withdrew from Europe, we had to go back with “several hundred thousand men.”
He’s right about that history. He’s wrong about the lesson.
We went back because we were weak when we should have been strong. We hesitated when we should have acted. We let threats grow because analysts told us the cost of prevention was too high.
Zeihan laid out every fact that matters: compliant ally, no credible opposition, strategic position, mineral potential. Then he did what analysts always do. He flinched.
I’ve been warning about Arctic vulnerability since 2007. The timeline has accelerated. The window is open. And the only people telling us not to walk through it are the ones who’ve never had to make a hard decision in their lives.
I’m no geopolitics expert, but I’ve been right about everything since 2007. Experts get tangled up in facts. I never let the facts stop me from decisive action.
About the Author
