President Donald Trump has renewed his long‑standing interest in acquiring Greenland, the vast, sparsely populated Arctic island that is a semi‑autonomous part of Denmark (an EU and NATO state). In a speech, he said the USA would intervene “whether they like it or not,” emphasising that Washington must act before rival powers gain ground. Trump has asserted that Greenland’s position above the GIUK Gap, a key naval and submarine route between the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, and its natural resources make it too important to leave to Denmark alone. He told reporters the island is “covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place” and argued that owning Greenland is preferable to merely having long-standing leasing or basing rights.
The impact of climate change is another reason that Greenland is becoming more strategically valuable. As ice melts due to climate change, new Arctic shipping lanes are becoming viable, creating economic incentives linked to the Northern Sea Route which would link China and Europe directly, bypassing the Suez Canal. Resource extraction, including rare earth minerals, uranium and hydrocarbons, would also become much easier as the Greenlandic ice and permafrost begins to melt.
However, European and Greenlandic leaders have been unequivocal in rejecting annexation. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens‑Frederik Nielsen described America’s threats as “completely unacceptable” and insisted Trump “will not get Greenland.” Polls show about 85 % of Greenlanders oppose joining the USA, and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said Greenland is not for sale. A joint statement issued by leaders of key European countries including Britain, Poland, France, Italy and Germany, on the sidelines of a Ukraine-related summit, firmly stated that Arctic security must be achieved collectively by NATO rather than unilaterally by any one country.
Trump’s demands, and his statement that US control over Greenland would happen “the easy way” or “the hard way” again reflect the realist view that hard power is paramount, and that all states seek security and power in an amoral manner. While previously many commentators would have viewed Trump’s claims as bluster and unlikely to materialise in practise, the USA’s recent intervention in Venezuela have upended assumptions that a “rules-based order”, conventions or norms would constrain American action. Even if the worst-case scenario of an American military invasion of Danish sovereign territory does not materialise, the risk of economic and military pressure leading to a coerced annexation remains substantial. In this case, it is very likely that NATO and the transatlantic alliance which has broadly ensured European security for the past eight decades would completely fracture. This would radically shift the parameters of regional politics and requiring Europe to develop its own independent military and international position, potentially drawing closer to China as a way to counterbalance a predatory and unreliable USA.
Europe’s hope would clearly be to preserve the transatlantic alliance, if it were viable to do so. At a Ukraine summit in Paris, both Britain and France pledged that they would commit troops to Ukraine – “boots on the ground” – to protect a ceasefire in the case of a peace deal. Last week, the UK also helped the US to seize a Russian-flagged oil-tanker linked to sanctioned crude in the North Atlantic. In both cases, European states are trying to demonstrate to Trump the cooperative value that they add to the USA’s security. Nevertheless, European leaders such as Macron are also talking about “US coercion” and it is clear that the age of unconditional partnership where the US can be regarded as a steadfast ally are over – the transatlantic alliance, at best, is evolving into a much more cautious and transactional link.