the United States must own it to prevent Russia or China from occupying it.

Or, you know, Europe could own it to prevent Russia, China AND the US from occupying it?

This is both frustratingly symbolic and meaningfully symbolic. More would be better. But even a single soldier is a serious and important symbol of commitment and literal “skin in the game”.

Why do you need to take control over an ally's territory? The US already has a shot of pretecting Greenland from China or Russia occupying it, because it will be essentially attack on Denmark which is a NATO member.

If there is still anyone out there that believes that the orange turd wants Greenland for security reasons, they must have some negative IQ.

Now, those minerals mentioned... They are another story. That will be for the financial security of Trump's family and friends.

Is not like Europe could grant protection from a USA all-out military action, but it must grant that such attempt must have reasonable consequences, from not making it a free looting or make it dissuasori in cost for USA due to the losses with Europe to not dilapidate European resources (Orange's words are worthless, only actions should matter), then it will be their call.

With t at the helm — WWIII here we go!