Market
What will be the primary focus of U.S. activities in Greenland in 2025?
2
Resolution / Starting Odds
Military presence • 25%
Resource exploration • 25%
Diplomatic engagement • 25%
Other • 25%
Statements from U.S. government or military, reports from major news outlets
Story
JD Vance: No Military Force Needed for Greenland Due to US Troop Presence, Cites Strategic Importance and Natural Resources
Jan 12, 2025, 03:15 PM
Vice President-elect JD Vance has stated that the United States does not need to use military force to take control of Greenland, as American troops are already present there. Vance emphasized Greenland's strategic importance to the U.S., citing its natural resources and the need for American leadership in securing and developing these assets. He criticized the Danish government for not adequately securing Greenland, suggesting that there is an opportunity for the U.S. to take a leadership role. Vance's comments align with President-elect Donald Trump's views on Greenland's strategic value to American security interests.
View original story
Similar markets
Other • 25%
Strategic military presence • 25%
Natural resource exploration • 25%
Environmental research • 25%
Oil and gas exploration • 25%
Military strategic positioning • 25%
Rare earth minerals • 25%
Trade route access • 25%
Military expansion • 25%
Diplomatic negotiations • 25%
Environmental concerns • 25%
Economic investment • 25%
Greenland becomes part of the U.S. • 25%
No significant change • 25%
Economic agreements without territorial change • 25%
Increased U.S. military presence • 25%
Other • 25%
Mineral resources • 25%
Military presence • 25%
Shipping routes • 25%
Economic Coercion • 25%
No Action • 25%
Military Action • 25%
Diplomatic Negotiation • 25%
Economic Interests • 25%
Environmental Concerns • 25%
National Security • 25%
Other • 25%
Influence over Russia/China • 25%
Security concerns • 25%
Mineral resources • 25%
Other reasons • 25%
Trade agreements with Denmark • 25%
Military base expansion • 25%
Environmental research projects • 25%
No significant initiatives • 25%
Other reasons • 25%
Strategic positioning • 25%
Economic interests • 25%
National security • 25%
Military actions • 25%
No significant action • 25%
Diplomatic negotiations • 25%
Economic actions • 25%
Economic Coercion • 25%
No Action • 25%
Military Action • 25%
Diplomatic Agreement • 25%