Trump wants a clear route to the Arctic

The world is experiencing a transition from legacy industries to those driven by cutting-edge technology, with requirements vastly different from that of the Industrial Revolution more than two centuries ago.

Tech advances have opened up uncharted territories, creating industries reliant on minerals and components unlike any seen before. This has sparked new conflicts over access to critical minerals and industrial resources, reminiscent of the oil discovery disputes that occurred a century ago.

As is often the case, these struggles are accompanied by efforts to dominate trade routes.

In this context, it becomes clear why President Donald Trump's policies regarding the Panama Canal, Canada, and Greenland were declared so unequivocally, despite questions surrounding his ability to implement them.

The US’ lack of access to crucial minerals—or its limited reserves—puts it at a disadvantage compared to countries that are rich in those very same resources, particularly China and Russia.

Both are actively seeking to control vital sea routes and supply lines: China through its massive ‘Belt and Road’ initiative, and Russia with its dominant control over more than half of the Arctic. As ice chunks melt due to climate change, new potential shipping routes between East and West are emerging, making these areas even more strategic.

The territories of the three regions that Trump expressed his intention to control either contain vast natural wealth, rich in minerals such as lithium and nickel—particularly in Greenland and Canada—or hold significant logistical value, like the Panama Canal. The latter is considered the primary corridor for US trade, with US ships accounting for 80% of all transit traffic.

However, this did not prevent Panama from joining China’s ‘Belt and Road’ project in 2017, a move that angered Washington. The US saw it as an attempt by China to exert its influence and potentially control this vital corridor for global trade, especially one so crucial to the US.

As for Canada, its vast lands are rich in minerals, along with significant reserves of oil and gas, including its extensive Arctic territory. Canada maintains strong economic and strategic ties with the US, which means it is forced to negotiate carefully to avoid potential conflicts.

In the case of Greenland, the world’s largest island, it holds two key advantages: a strategically important logistical location and rich natural resources. However, with a population of only 57,000 people, Greenland is vulnerable and practically indefensible against the world's largest military power.

President Trump's approach to Greenland is meant to take over its natural resources to address the shortages his country faces, which could hinder technological progress if these vital minerals are not available.

This approach also aims to control some of the most promising maritime routes in the Arctic, linking Asia, Europe, and the Americas, and to compete with Russia, which has long been ahead in securing these corridors with its fleet of over 50 icebreakers, compared to just three owned by the US.

The central question remains: do Trump’s directives and statements reflect a genuine attempt to exert control over the three regions, or are they merely a strategic pressure tool aimed at achieving indirect economic and logistical dominance?

This becomes pertinent considering his assertion that these actions are tied to the economic security of the US.

The second possibility seems more likely, especially given the strong resistance supported by the EU and several influential countries. Trump may seek to strike agreements with Canada and Denmark, offering significant privileges for American companies to invest in mineral extraction.

These agreements could also grant the US control over parts of the Arctic trade routes. Additionally, a deal with Panama to jointly manage the canal might help prevent China from gaining influence, blocking its efforts to extend its Belt and Road initiative near US borders.

In today’s landscape, the balance of power makes direct hegemony impractical, as it risks triggering widespread instability with potentially catastrophic consequences.