Yes, We Need To Be An Active Player in Greenland

Rant masked as an opinion

Well, it's time to talk about the elephant in the room.

I had always planned to talk about Greenland at some point. Of course, those of you who are here often will know I talk about her a fair bit, but have so far stayed out of the... discourse, let's call it.

I was hoping to keep out of things until the heat died down a bit and things settled. Evidently that isn't happening, with the Trump Administration reportedly discussing plans for what a military intervention could look like and the Europeans now actively discussing deploying some form of task force to the island.

I don't think things are settling, and for that reason, I think it's time I get some of the thoughts I've been holding in out. This will be a bit more of a personal opinion than usual. For those of you who come for my analytical side, I apologize. I try to keep my opinions more professional and save my personality for notes and Q&A.

(Also doesn't help my original Opinion piece I wanted out this weekend was scrapped and is in the middle of being rewritten, but that’s a separate story...)

I don't have a plan for this one. I just feel like ranting a bit. It's all Noah here. So please bear with me! I have watched the Greenland controversy play out over the last week, as well as had numerous conversations about it.

I am the first to admit that I can be stubborn and complacent at times. I very much fall into the 'Nothing Ever Happens' crowd. That might be arrogance on my part, to believe that things will inevitably fall back into place.

Evidently, that isn't happening. First with Venezuela and now with Greenland. I was ready to dismiss many of the Trump Administration's bullying to mere projected egos. Greenland is a topic that has come up since the first Administration, and much like the 51st state discussions, I was personally ready to roll my eyes and move on.

However, the notable shift in tone, the pressing feeling among our allies, has given me some time to think and reflect on that belief. The threats coming out, the brandishing of force as a tool to manipulate Danish opinions, and the outright threat of military intervention if no one comes to the table have all been a worrying aspect for me.

The success of the operation in Venezuela has seemingly given Trump and his cohort a taste of what they could get away with. The lukewarm response among many, including our own, has seemingly emboldened some in the Administration that they can get away with using force to achieve their goals.

Never mind that the Administration, truthfully, doesn't really care if the likes of Macron are out there yelling about betrayal and the need for unity. Never mind that the Danes just a few weeks ago had reportedly turned down some form of deployment involving France and the UK.

The point is that the response that we, as Canada, have given to me has been a bit of a disappointment. Perhaps again that is my own arrogance talking, that I would know the kind of response that needs to be given.

While Canadian officials have been active in meeting with their Danish counterparts, and we will spout out the same lines on International Law and the Rules-Based Order, the fact that we, as the party trapped between all this, have been so quiet and out of the picture that it feels like we aren't involved at all.

To be blunt, these kinds of messages, this rhetoric that the United States is free to intervene as it sees fit for National Security is obviously something that can't be allowed to become mainstream, to be emboldened in the Intervention Hawks in Washington.

Yet, of course, Canada sits at a harsh position. We must maintain cordial relations, and not push too hard for risk of retaliation or further jeopardizing upcoming trade talks, yet our allies elsewhere are increasingly asking us to step up and be an active participant.

We want to diversify, yet continue to want to toe the ever-thinning line that exists between our two blocks of allies. This desire to play both and act as a great appeaser ends up doing nothing but further pushing us into a corner and making us look weak-willed in our decisions.

Again, I won't be the one to tell the federal government how to act here. Usually, I don't believe it's my place. However, there does come times where I feel the need to speak up a bit. This is one of those cases. The more we embolden these kinds of actions, these kinds of threats, the more risk we put ourselves in down the line when attention inevitably turns to us.

Eventually, we will piss the Trump administration off. Eventually, they will want us to do something, and when that time comes others will remember the stances we took, and this administration will remember what we allowed them to get away with.

That isn't to say we need to be condemning and screaming at the Americans to stop, which despite what the French seem to believe will never work on people who care little of your existence and opinions.

However, it certainly does mean that we can do more, and certainly we should. Protecting and supporting our allies doesn't always need to be direct and confrontational. Certainly, we need to put out there that this messaging isn't okay.

However, the present situation does provide us an opportunity to step up a bit, and I feel it would be lost if we didn't. Canada needs to be an active participant in Greenland. We need to have an active presence. Certainly, a consulate in Nuuk is a good step, but we need to do more.

No matter what, the Trump administration will never be happy with what we do in Greenland. It will never not be enough. Like many things, this isn't merely a security issue that can be fixed. There is a personal desire there that underpins these efforts.

And to credit, yes, Greenland is a highly important asset for the American government, as it is for us as well. Greenland is vital for our collective Continental defence. Pituffik forms the backbone of our continental IAMD and Space Observation. There is no one who would deny such things.

And while American screaming about Chinese and Russian vessels is overblown, and continues to propagate false narratives about what is going on and what our adversaries are doing, it isn't something that we can just dismiss and move on.

If that is their mentality, then we can't simply elect to ignore it, or to dismiss it. That gets us nowhere in this situation, and I'm disappointed how many commentators are quick to throw this out there and move on.

It doesn't matter what reality is nor what we believe. If they believe it, they will act as if it is true, and while we can spout on how they're wrong, they'll continue to do as they desire. To dismiss their concerns is to shut the door on the conversation.

Especially when that someone is both our neighbour and has come in to a healthy dose of jingoistic pride to the point that they feel they can do and say these things and get away with it. And no, I don't expect military intervention, but there are far more other ways in which this situation can escalate and hurt us.

I'm not in panic mode. I am worried and concerned, but not outright panicking or planning the end of NATO. I am though now having the thoughts on what the future looks like, and a NATO-less one, something I considered impossible, is now ever so slightly becoming a thought exercise.

A reality where the United States, in its own ego, decides to tear apart NATO and pull back from NORAD sounds silly. It sounds like a bad novel, yet I have found myself wondering of that future, of where that leads us. What happens when the choice comes to pick sides?

They're thoughts in my head, but for now I want to focus on the present. What can we do now? I try to see things as opportunities. Is that cruel in a case like this? To think of how we can benefit?

Of course, with the Europeans talking about deployments and task forces, the inevitable conversation will be on how Canada can play a role, and play a role I believe we need to.

Canada, despite our Coast Guard's aging fleet, still maintains the fleet most capable of patrolling around the Arctic. No one else, not even the Americans at present, have the capability to do so as we do, especially with the soon to be addition of the rest of the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Vessels. Those eight alone form the necessary backbone for Canada to take a wider role in Arctic patrols.

Similarly, as I have mentioned many times before, Canada should be taking an active role in being involved with our Northern neighbours, including Denmark. There is room for a proper Arctic bloc in NATO, one that ties directly in to the concerns being spouted, but it requires us to work for it, to be actively involved with partners in finding areas for cooperation.

One particular with Denmark could be regarding the P-8, of which we will both soon be users if all works out. Cooperation, and perhaps even Canadian P-8s operating from time to time out of Greenland, could significantly help bolster ongoing Danish efforts to maintain consistent awareness of Greenland's maritime domain. Even a single P-8 represents a 33.3% increase in the potential Danish fleet, assuming all three are in Greenland that is.

On that note, an agreement to such stationing can also be a net benefit to Canada in the long-term, primarily when it comes to infrastructure. As we often mention, Greenland maintains the only viable year-round ports in our area of the Arctic, primarily Nuuk where the Danish government plans to expand existing port facilities including with a new Naval Quay.

In fact, Denmark has approved as of last year a new Arctic Defence package valued at nearly 27.4 billion DKK (about $4.26 billion USD) to bolster infrastructure in places like Nuuk and Kangerlussuaq, to acquire new Arctic Patrol ships, Maritime Patrol Aircraft, and Icebreaker capacity.

It includes new Radar installations and a new Subsea cable system connecting Mainland Denmark to Greenland. To say the Danes are doing nothing is disingenuous. While we can argue more could be done, this package is extensive, well-thought-out, and will go a significant ways in bolstering Denmark's Arctic presence.

It is here where I see a role we can play, as a collaborative partner that can help work towards a unified Arctic network. Canada can benefit from further access to Infrastructure in Greenland, while Denmark can have potential commitment to permanent deployments of Canadian Air and Naval assets.

We explore further cooperation in shared assets like the P-8 and F-35 while also exploring opportunities to, say, interconnect this future Danish Cable network to future cable networks in Canada’s Arctic. Another thing I have argued for.

Nuuk provides a year-round option to help mitigate the lack of viable ports in Canada’s Arctic. It doesn't provide a permanent alternative, but establishing a routine Canadian presence does provide a supplement to future facilities in the Canadian Arctic. Allies benefit when we have capacity to share.

Of course, this move also helps to justify expediting certain projects tied to Arctic Security that could quickly be acquired if needed. Projects like the Containerized On-Board Reelable Array (COBRA), as an example, is a project that has solutions available and could provide a significant capability to contribute to Arctic and Northern security, especially if the concern is involving Chinese and Russian submarines potentially operating around Greenland.

Optics. It's good optics to say "Hey! Look what we're doing. Look how the alliance is contributing to Arctic Security" get the easy wins where you can. If there is an Arctic project that can show effort is at least being done, and it can be expedited, then I see no reason at this time that it shouldn't be explored.

Others like the Uncrewed Underwater Surveillance System (UUSS) and Canadian Arctic Suite of Sensors (CASS) are other options though a bit more down the road than COBRA. Other options include cooperation in the Space Domain and on integrating C2 infrastructure. There is quite literally a treasure trove of potential that both benefits us and contributes to Greenland's security.

It doesn't need to be boots on the ground. It doesn't need to be grand. What we need to be is an active partner, to establish relationships and contribute in ways that we both have the unique capacity to and can help benefit Continental Security as a whole.

The point is we can't be toeing the middle. We can't rely solely on meetings and vague support that tries to keep both sides happy. We need to show that, when it comes to Arctic Security, Canada is a player, an Active one who can step up when concerns are levied, and can meaningfully contribute not just with words or on occasion, but permanent, physical capabilities being brought to the table.

If that's a P-8, or a CQ-9, or through AOPS? Then so be it. Yes, there might be a sacrifice on our end to dedicate assets in Greenland, however the collective security of the Alliance, and the potential doors it opens to further cooperation and access to Greenlandic infrastructure, is to me worth the consideration. That's without talking about leveraging the future Coast Guard fleet, or perhaps exercising on those extra P-8s. Assuming we can find the people to crew them, which I am always hopeful for.

I apologize for a bit of a rant again. I have a lot of big feelings, as my youngest would say, and rarely do I get the chance to casually rant on here without structure or deep analysis. This feels like the kind of topic where I can do that, so why not?

I want us to be an active player. I want us to have active partnerships. I believe in the Arctic Bloc. I believe we can do more. I believe we can be a far bigger player than we are now, and I want to see someone step up to do so. The current government has done well at times, but the current responses are not enough, and I'm not confident these hard conversations are being had. I'm not confident we can escape our risk-adverse nature and will continue to try to play everyone while getting nothing for it in the end.

We gotta at least try, at least give it a shot, see what we can do, take the risks. It's gonna be hard, yeah. We aren't in a great spot even if things are improving. We are a far way off from the place we want to be on our collective security.

Having these conversations, taking the sacrifices, and trying to do more though can't wait for when we are 100%. They need to start happening as we're figuring out exactly what we want to do, and what kind of country we want to be. Are we the reliable middle power? The mediator? Or are we just the person on the sidelines trying desperately to keep relevant.

Choices like those on Greenland set the bar, and determine where our destiny will take us. We can be so much more than we believe we are, yet sadly I think we aren't ready to step out of our comfort zone. I don't think our institutions are at that stage of maturity yet.

I hope I am wrong.