President Donald Trump has evidently stepped back from his threatened fantasy of invading Greenland — the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally — to which many a sigh of relief has been expressed, including by the markets. There was next to no chance of such a thing actually happening, whether by force, annexation, or whatever other means might have been floating around in the president’s head; to purchase Greenland, even if the Kingdom of Denmark agreed to sell it, would require Congress to approve the massive appropriation, somewhere on the order of $700 billion (and if I were the King of Denmark I would hold out for quite a bit more), not to mention two-thirds of the Senate to approve the purchase treaty. U.S. Sen. John Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson, capable and intelligent as they are, can barely cobble together the votes required to pass a decent budget and to keep the government open. So, enough about that buying Greenland nonsense.

Which is not to say the events of the past week were neither inconsequential nor unimportant. At the time of writing this, there appears to be a deal of sorts in the works, one which, although the details are quite vague, would seem to satisfy everyone involved. It looks as though the U.S. may get some limited sovereignty on military bases on the island, comparable to the UK’s agreement in Cyprus, though even some of those details are disputed. At the very least, one suspects an arrangement will be arrived at wherein the U.S. expands its military presence, and probably some access for resource exploration in exchange for security guarantees.

In other words, pretty much exactly what the United States would have gotten had the president simply asked, and without the collateral damage. 

As with so many issues flying around the president, there are some underlying truths hidden beneath the mounds of bombast and hyperbolic flourish. Greenland, by dint of its very geographic location, is indeed of strategic importance and potentially vital to the long-term security of not just the United States, but the West in general. This was so during World War II and throughout the Cold War (probably long before that, if you believe in Vikings) and will become even more so as a changing climate allows for improved navigation in and around the arctic. It is no secret Russia and China both have designs on increasing their presence in the arctic, and Greenland’s location makes it prime strategic real estate, a tempting place to set up intelligence-gathering posts or even offensive weapons capabilities. It is also true Denmark does not have the capability to secure the gigantic frozen island by itself. Nor the rest of the northern European countries, whose eyes and weapons are concentrated eastward, toward Moscow. Finally, it is true NATO, and Europe by extension, has for too long been freeloading, in a sense, off American military and economic largesse. Fair enough.

But it would be a mistake to think it has been entirely to America’s disadvantage. The only time NATO’s Article 5 has been invoked — the one calling for alliance members to come to the military aid of another member if attacked — was after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the U.S. In the subsequent war in Afghanistan, Britain lost 457 service members. Canada, 159. And Denmark? 43, which may not seem like a lot, but from a nation of barely 6 million people it represents the highest per-capita casualty rate of any allied country involved. One cannot help but wonder how 43 Danish families must feel hearing the president of the U.S. talk about his desire for their territory, and the threat of punitive tariffs if he doesn’t get it, because he felt snubbed out of a Nobel Peace Prize.

The pointlessly antagonistic approach to Greenland has generated other strategic costs beyond threatening to tear the Atlantic alliance apart — which alone would have had the thugs in the Kremlin squealing with delight. China may come out the biggest winner here. As Europe and Canada start to contemplate a world where the United States is no longer a dependable ally, they begin looking about for alternative arrangements. In Canada’s case, Primer Minister Mark Carney seems to be setting eyes on China. In a fit of pique that was superficially more civilized than Trump’s, but just as puerile, Carney visited Beijing and swooned over the communist dictator Xi Jinping, and announced a major trade deal. The United Kingdom, meanwhile, just approved the design of a massive new Chinese embassy in the heart of London.

Greenland is important, yes, but it belongs to an ally, and can be secured easily within the framework of the Western alliance. If Trump wants to flex his international muscles, he should be flexing them toward Russia by backing up Ukraine, or China by following through on weapons sales to Taiwan. Or taking the Iran situation seriously. Hell, invade Cuba, finally, if you want to invade someone. At least they are an enemy and their wretched imprisoned population wants us there. And if you really, really need to be mad at an ally, ramp up the vitriol on Sir Kier Starmer to reverse his idiotic surrender of the Chagos Islands, a far more immediate and serious security threat. But leave Denmark alone.

Kelly Sloan is a political and public affairs consultant and a recovering journalist based in Denver.