"Trump's Greenland Ambitions: Four Possible Scenarios for the Saga"
.jpeg "trump")
In recent weeks, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has reignited interest in gaining control of Greenland, a largely self-governing territory of Denmark in the Arctic and the world's largest island.
Trump initially expressed his desire to purchase Greenland in 2019 during his first presidential term. However, this week, he escalated his stance by refusing to rule out the use of economic or military measures to achieve control.
Danish and European officials have firmly rejected the idea, emphasizing that Greenland is not for sale and that its territorial integrity must be respected.
This unusual situation raises questions about how the tensions between two NATO allies could unfold over a massive, ice-covered territory that boasts significant untapped mineral resources.
Additionally, how might the aspirations for independence among Greenland's 56,000 residents—who have been under Danish rule for 300 years—shape the ultimate outcome?
Here, we explore four potential scenarios for Greenland's future.
Trump disengages, and no action is taken.
There is speculation that Trump’s remarks may have been a strategic move to pressure Denmark into enhancing Greenland’s security, given the growing influence of Russia and China in the region.
Just last month, Denmark unveiled a new $1.5 billion (£1.2 billion) military package for the Arctic. While this plan was prepared before Trump’s comments, its timing—announced just hours afterward—was described by Denmark’s defense minister as an “irony of fate.”
“What Trump highlighted was Denmark’s need to meet its Arctic obligations or allow the U.S. to take over,” says Elisabet Svane, the chief political correspondent for Politiken newspaper.
Marc Jacobsen, an associate professor at the Royal Danish Defence College, suggests that Trump’s actions reflect a strategy of “positioning himself before entering office.” Meanwhile, Greenland has seized the opportunity to bolster its international profile, a crucial step toward eventual independence.
Even if Trump’s interest in Greenland diminishes, which Professor Jacobsen considers likely, he has undeniably brought significant attention to the issue.
However, Greenland’s independence has been a longstanding topic of discussion, with some suggesting the debate could take a different direction.
“In recent days, the Greenlandic Prime Minister has adopted a calmer tone—acknowledging the desire for independence but emphasizing that it’s a long-term goal,” observes Svane.
Greenland pushes for independence, aims to strengthen ties with the US.
There is broad agreement in Greenland that independence is inevitable, and if Greenland votes for it, Denmark is expected to accept and ratify the decision.
However, Greenland is unlikely to pursue independence unless its citizens are assured they can maintain the subsidies currently provided by Denmark, which fund essential services like healthcare and the welfare system.
"The Greenland Prime Minister may be vocal now, but if he actually calls a referendum, he will need a compelling plan to address the economic and welfare challenges facing Greenland," Ulrik Gad, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, told the BBC.
One potential pathway could involve a free association arrangement, similar to the relationship the United States has with Pacific nations such as the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau.
Historically, Denmark has opposed granting this status to both Greenland and the Faroe Islands. However, according to Dr. Gad, the current Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, is not entirely opposed to the idea.
"Danish understanding of Greenland's historical experience has significantly improved over the past 20 years," he explains, noting that Denmark now acknowledges its colonial responsibilities.
These evolving discussions "might convince Frederiksen that it’s better to maintain Denmark’s presence in the Arctic through a looser connection to Greenland than to lose the relationship altogether," he adds.
Yet, even if Greenland achieves independence from Denmark, it remains evident that the United States’ influence is inescapable. The U.S. has maintained a strategic presence on the island since World War II and views it as critical to its national security.
A 1951 agreement affirmed Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland but effectively granted the U.S. wide-ranging rights on the island.
Dr. Gad noted that Greenlandic officials have engaged with the last two U.S. administrations regarding Washington’s role. "They now understand that the U.S. will never truly leave," he said.
Trump intensifies economic pressure.
There is growing speculation that Trump's economic rhetoric could pose a significant threat to Denmark. A sharp increase in tariffs on Danish or EU goods by the US could pressure Denmark into making concessions, potentially related to Greenland.
According to Professor Jacobsen, Danish governments have been preparing for such scenarios, and not solely because of the Arctic territory. Trump's proposal for a universal 10% tariff on all US imports could disrupt European economic growth. In response, some Danish and other European companies are exploring the possibility of establishing manufacturing bases in the US.
Options for imposing such tariffs could involve invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), as noted by Benjamin Cote of the international law firm Pillsbury in an interview with MarketWatch.
One key Danish industry at risk is pharmaceuticals. Denmark supplies the US with critical products, including hearing aids, insulin, and the diabetes medication Ozempic, produced by Novo Nordisk. Analysts warn that the resulting price hikes from these measures would likely be unpopular with the American public.
.jpeg "trump attack Greenland")
Trump launches an operation in Greenland.
The "nuclear option" may seem extreme, but with Trump not ruling out military action, it remains a possibility.
In reality, the US could easily assert control, as they already maintain military bases and a significant presence in Greenland.
"De facto, the US already has control," notes Professor Jacobsen, suggesting that Trump's comments appeared to be poorly informed and lacking clear purpose.
However, any use of force by Washington would spark an international crisis.
"If they invade Greenland, they invade NATO," says Svane. "That’s where it ends. Article 5 would have to be activated. And if one NATO country invades another, it would effectively end NATO."
Dr. Gad compares Trump's rhetoric to that of China's Xi Jinping on Taiwan or Russia's Vladimir Putin on Ukraine.
"He's suggesting it's legitimate for us to claim this territory," he says. "If we take him seriously, this spells trouble for the entire Western alliance."
