COLD WAR: TRUMP’S GREENLAND AMBITIONS THREATEN NATO ALLIANCE

May 6, 2025

Arctic Ambitions: Trump Escalates Rhetoric on Greenland Acquisition

President Donald Trump has once again intensified his rhetoric regarding the acquisition of Greenland, the autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, raising alarm bells across Europe and threatening to strain America’s most crucial military alliance. In a weekend interview with NBC, Trump shocked observers by refusing to rule out military action to gain control of the strategically positioned Arctic island.

“I don’t say I’m going to do it, but I don’t rule out anything,” Trump stated when asked about potentially using force to acquire Greenland. “We need Greenland very badly. Greenland is a very small amount of people, which we’ll take care of, and we’ll cherish them, and all of that. But we need that for international security.”

The president’s comments represent a significant escalation from his previous attempts to purchase the territory, which date back to his first term. What was once dismissed as an eccentric fixation has evolved into something far more concerning, particularly given Trump’s willingness to publicly contemplate military options against a NATO ally.

Trump’s latest statements follow his March comments emphasizing Greenland’s strategic importance: “We need Greenland. Very importantly, for international security, we have to have Greenland. It’s not a question of, ‘Do you think we can do without it?’ We can’t. If you look at Greenland right now, if you look at the waterways, you have Chinese and Russian ships all over the place, and we’re not going to be able to do that. We’re not relying on Denmark or anybody else to take care of that situation.”

The president has made similar comments about Canada, suggesting it should become the 51st U.S. state, though he has explicitly ruled out military action in that case.

Article 5: The NATO Conundrum

Trump’s refusal to rule out military force against Greenland creates an unprecedented dilemma for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Since Greenland is an autonomous territory within Denmark, a founding member of NATO, any military action by the United States against Greenland would potentially trigger Article 5 of the NATO charter—the mutual defense clause stating that an attack against one member is considered an attack against all.

This paradoxical situation could tear the alliance apart. As Roger Hilton, a defense research fellow at the Slovakia-based think tank GLOBSEC, noted in January, Trump’s comments could signal “to external NATO adversaries that changing borders by force is potentially acceptable and that irredentism as policy is back in vogue.”

The invocation of Article 5 would require unanimous agreement among all NATO members that an armed attack had occurred. Since the United States would likely object to such a characterization of its own actions, the alliance would find itself in an unprecedented legal and diplomatic quagmire.

Denmark has other avenues for seeking assistance, however. As a member of the European Union, it could potentially invoke Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union, the EU’s mutual defense clause, which obligates other member states to provide aid and assistance if a member is a victim of armed aggression on its territory.

Greenland’s Response: “We Do Not Belong to Anyone Else”

Greenland’s leadership has been unequivocal in its rejection of Trump’s ambitions. Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen responded forcefully in March: “President Trump says that the United States ‘will get Greenland.’ Let me be clear: The United States will not get it. We do not belong to anyone else. We decide our own future.”

This firm rebuke reflects the strong independence sentiment among Greenland’s approximately 57,000 residents, most of whom are indigenous Inuit. While many Greenlanders support eventual independence from Denmark, surveys indicate that few wish to become part of the United States.

In response to Trump’s renewed interest, all five parties in Greenland’s parliament, the Inatsisartut, issued a joint statement in March rejecting the president’s repeated comments about annexation, demonstrating cross-partisan unity on the issue.

Greenland’s newly elected government, following elections in early 2025, is led by the Greenland Democrats, a party that advocates for gradual independence from Denmark. The territory’s strategy appears to be to avoid confrontation with the United States while firmly maintaining its right to self-determination.

Denmark’s Dilemma: Defending Sovereignty While Maintaining Alliance

For Denmark, Trump’s comments present an extraordinary challenge. As a country with an active-duty military smaller than the New York Police Department, Denmark relies heavily on its NATO membership and particularly on the U.S. security umbrella for its defense.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has consistently stated that “Greenland is not for sale,” a position she has maintained since Trump first expressed interest in purchasing the territory during his first term. Following Trump’s latest comments, she has expressed support for Greenlandic leaders while trying to avoid inflaming tensions with Washington.

In a significant defensive move, Denmark announced in January a $2.05 billion investment to boost its military capabilities in the Arctic. The funding will support three new Arctic naval vessels, two long-range surveillance drones, and increased Arctic military training—clear signs that Denmark is taking Trump’s rhetoric seriously.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen has adopted a nuanced position, acknowledging that while “Greenland can become independent,” it cannot become a U.S. state. This stance attempts to balance respect for Greenland’s self-determination with a firm rejection of U.S. annexation.

The Strategic Prize: Why Greenland Matters

Trump’s fixation on Greenland stems from genuine strategic concerns, even if his approach has alarmed allies. Greenland’s location makes it invaluable for North American defense, as it sits astride crucial shipping lanes and provides a vantage point for monitoring activities in the Arctic.

The island holds enormous mineral wealth, including rare earth elements critical for modern technology. As climate change makes these resources increasingly accessible, Greenland’s economic importance grows. Some estimates value Greenland’s untapped resources at over $1 trillion, though extracting them remains challenging.

Perhaps most significantly, both Russia and China have shown increasing interest in the Arctic region. Russia has invested heavily in its Arctic military capabilities, including nuclear-capable strategic bombers, missile systems, and surveillance infrastructure in northern Siberia. Chinese investments in Arctic infrastructure and research have also raised concerns about Beijing’s long-term ambitions in the region.

The United States already maintains a significant military presence in Greenland, primarily at Thule Air Base (now officially called Pituffik Space Base), which hosts radar systems crucial for missile defense and space surveillance. This presence stems from a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark that remains in effect today.

Trump and his advisers argue that direct U.S. control would enhance this strategic position, particularly as climate change opens new shipping routes and access to resources in the Arctic.

The EU Response: Solidarity with Denmark

The European Union has expressed firm support for Denmark in the face of Trump’s comments. When asked if the EU should negotiate regarding Greenland, the bloc’s foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas was unequivocal: “No, we are not negotiating on Greenland. Of course, we are supporting our member state Denmark and its autonomous region, Greenland.”

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot warned Trump against threatening the European Union’s “sovereign borders,” while a European Commission spokesperson emphasized that “the sovereignty of EU states has to be respected.”

Some European military officials have suggested stationing EU military forces in Greenland as a deterrent, though this proposal was quickly rejected by Danish defense minister Troels Lund Poulsen, who likely feared such a move would further provoke Washington.

The situation has led some EU leaders to accelerate discussions about European strategic autonomy—the idea that Europe needs to develop independent defense capabilities rather than relying primarily on the United States through NATO.

The Diplomatic Path Forward: Cooperation Without Annexation

Despite the alarming rhetoric, there are pathways toward addressing legitimate U.S. security concerns without resorting to annexation. Denmark has demonstrated willingness to cooperate with the United States on Arctic security, as evidenced by past collaboration to prevent Chinese investment in Greenlandic airports.

Greenland’s own 2024 foreign, security, and defense strategy acknowledges its “key role in the defense of the United States against external threats, especially from the Arctic region.” The document expresses “a desire for Greenlanders to take a more active role in Danish sovereignty enforcement” and establishes an administrative unit at the U.S. Pituffik Space Base.

These cooperative approaches could be expanded to address U.S. concerns about Russian and Chinese activities in Arctic waters without undermining Greenlandic sovereignty or Danish territorial integrity.

Some experts suggest that Trump’s interest in Greenland could potentially align with Greenland’s aspirations for independence. The United States could theoretically offer economic support to an independent Greenland in exchange for enhanced security cooperation, though this approach would need to respect Greenlandic self-determination rather than imposing U.S. control.

Historical Context: America’s Arctic Ambitions

Trump’s interest in acquiring Greenland, while shocking in its current form, has historical precedents. In 1946, the Truman administration secretly offered Denmark $100 million in gold for Greenland, seeing it as strategically vital in the early Cold War. Denmark declined the offer.

The United States has purchased territories from other nations in the past, most notably Alaska, which it acquired from Russia in 1867 for $7.2 million—equivalent to approximately $153.5 million in today’s dollars.

However, the international context has changed dramatically since these earlier territorial acquisitions. The establishment of the United Nations Charter and the evolution of international law have created strong norms against territorial acquisition by force. The post-World War II international order, which the United States played a central role in creating, is founded on principles of territorial integrity and sovereign equality of states.

Trump’s willingness to consider military options for acquiring territory from allies represents a significant departure from these principles and from decades of U.S. foreign policy.

The Independence Question: Greenland’s Path Forward

Complicating the situation is Greenland’s own movement toward greater autonomy and eventual independence from Denmark. Since gaining home rule in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009, Greenland has steadily increased its control over domestic affairs.

Independence remains a long-term goal for many Greenlanders, but economic realities present significant challenges. Greenland currently receives an annual subsidy of approximately $500 million from Denmark, representing roughly one-third of its GDP. Replacing this subsidy would require substantial development of the island’s resources.

A 2021 survey found that while many Greenlanders support independence, 68% want more cooperation with Denmark, suggesting a desire for a gradual and cooperative approach to sovereignty rather than a sudden break. The same survey found that 69% of Greenlanders wanted more cooperation with the United States, and 75% viewed NATO positively.

This complex dynamic creates both risks and opportunities. There is a danger that Trump’s heavy-handed approach could alienate Greenlanders and damage U.S. standing in the territory. Conversely, a more nuanced American policy could potentially support Greenlandic aspirations for sovereignty while securing U.S. strategic interests through mutual agreement rather than coercion.

Global Implications: Beyond the Arctic

The ramifications of Trump’s Greenland rhetoric extend far beyond the Arctic. By suggesting that borders can be redrawn through force or coercion, even against allies, Trump risks undermining the international norms that have helped maintain peace between major powers since World War II.

Russia, which has already demonstrated willingness to use force to change borders in Ukraine, could be emboldened by such rhetoric. Some analysts worry that Moscow might assert itself more aggressively in other parts of the European Arctic, such as the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, where Russia maintains a significant presence.

Similarly, Trump’s comments potentially undermine U.S. diplomatic efforts urging China to show restraint in the Taiwan Strait. If the United States is seen as willing to use force against allied territories, its moral authority to criticize similar behavior by others is severely weakened.

The situation also raises questions about the future of NATO itself. The alliance has been the cornerstone of European security for over 70 years, but Trump’s willingness to contemplate military action against a NATO member—however hypothetical—strikes at the heart of the mutual trust essential to collective defense.

A Cold Calculation: What’s Next?

As tensions continue to simmer, the question remains whether Trump’s comments represent serious policy intentions or merely aggressive negotiating tactics. The president has a history of making provocative statements to set extreme starting positions for negotiations, only to settle for more moderate outcomes.

However, the risks of miscalculation are significant. By refusing to rule out military options, Trump has created a situation where Danish and Greenlandic authorities must take defensive measures, potentially triggering an escalatory cycle that could damage relations even if no military action is ever taken.

The situation also presents challenges for NATO leadership. Secretary General Mark Rutte diplomatically sidestepped the issue when Trump raised Greenland during a March meeting, saying he wanted to “leave that [issue] outside… I do not want to drag NATO into that” while agreeing with Trump on the need for Arctic security cooperation.

For now, the diplomatic response from European allies has been measured, focusing on support for Danish sovereignty while avoiding direct confrontation with Washington. This restraint reflects the continuing importance of the transatlantic relationship and the hope that Trump’s position might moderate over time.

Yet the damage to alliance cohesion and trust may prove lasting, regardless of whether Trump pursues his Greenland ambitions further. By openly contemplating the use of force against an ally, the president has crossed a rhetorical line that will not be easily forgotten in European capitals.

For the people of Greenland, caught between great power politics and their own aspirations for self-determination, Trump’s words offer little comfort and much uncertainty about the future. As Prime Minister Nielsen declared, they remain determined to decide their own destiny, regardless of pressure from Washington or anywhere else.