Greenland: the key piece of the Arctic that is once again straining relations between Trump and Europe
- Greenland returns to the centre of international debate
- The Arctic as a strategic piece of the 21st century
- Climate change, trade routes and global power
- Strategic resources and Arctic thaw
- US military presence and defence agreements
- Historical background and likely scenarios
As he did during his first term, US President Donald Trump has once again placed the Arctic island of Greenland at the centre of geopolitical, economic and military debate, following the intervention in Venezuela that ended with the capture of Nicolás Maduro.
Greenland returns to the centre of international debate
Upon his arrival at the White House, Trump publicly suggested his intentions to purchase Greenland, which were rejected by the Danish prime minister. ‘Greenland is not for sale,’ Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said at a press conference in Copenhagen.
Trump has insisted in recent days, this time framing his ambition in terms of ‘national security’ and without ruling out more forceful options. After an appearance at the White House, the former president argued to the American press: ‘We need Greenland for national security reasons. It is surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships, and Denmark will not be able to handle it alone,’ words that have further heightened tensions with Europe, but does Greenland really belong to Denmark?
Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, with a population of just 57,000 and an area of 2.16 million square kilometres, making it the largest island in the world. Politically, decisions about its membership of Denmark or its independence depend exclusively on the citizens of Greenland.
According to a survey cited by the Sermitsiaq newspaper, 85% of Greenlanders do not want to be part of the US. The autonomous government has insisted that any change in status must be decided ‘by and for the Greenlandic people’.
The Arctic as a strategic piece of the 21st century
This condition has led the United States to use the rhetoric of purchase or acquisition, which would be legal as long as the citizens residing there accept it, although there are several unethical issues. Added to this is the White House's decision to leave 66 international organisations, and this is where one of the keys to the Trump administration's interest lies.
‘The United States cannot afford to ignore the strategic importance of Greenland in an increasingly unstable world,’ said Secretary of State Marco Rubio in an interview with Fox News, adding that ‘the Arctic will be one of the decisive regions of the 21st century.’
With rising temperatures and the exponential development of climate change, the future of global trade routes could depend on control of the Arctic region, meaning that Greenland's strategic importance would far exceed its demographic size. Located between North America, Europe and Russia, this enclave occupies a key position in the Arctic, a region increasingly disputed by the major powers.
Climate change, trade routes and global power
One plausible hypothesis would be to consider that Trump wants to abandon and exert pressure to weaken or directly dismantle the policies promoted by these 66 institutions in favour of reducing emissions and protecting the environment, with the aim of accelerating global warming and bringing forward the opening of maritime routes in the Arctic.
In this context, the White House could justify its position by arguing that rival powers such as China and Russia are not respecting climate commitments and continue to degrade the environment, which, according to this argument, would leave the United States at a strategic disadvantage if it maintained environmental restrictions that limit its ability to compete for control of these future trade corridors.
That is why Trump defended this strategy in an interview with Newsmax, where he asserted that ‘the United States cannot continue to fund structures that work against our interests.’ He expressed similar sentiments on his social media platform Truth Social, stating that ‘global agreements have weakened our sovereignty for decades.’
Strategic resources and Arctic thaw
‘Greenland is a place where the climate crisis, valuable resources and increasingly tense geopolitics intersect,’ explained Geoff Dabelko, professor of security and environment at Ohio University, in statements reported by the Associated Press.
Beyond the military factor, Trump's interest has a clear economic dimension. Greenland is home to significant reserves of strategic minerals, including rare earths essential to the technology industry, as well as uranium, nickel, cobalt and zinc.
‘It's a region that is warming four times faster than the rest of the planet,’ warned climate scientist David Holland of New York University in an interview with CNN. ‘What happens in Greenland will have global consequences,’ he added.
The accelerated melting of the Arctic is making the region more accessible, both for resource extraction and maritime trade. Greenland is located near routes that could become key corridors between Asia, Europe and North America.
US military presence and defence agreements
The United States has had a military presence in Greenland dating back to the Second World War, with facilities such as the Pittufik (formerly Thule) space base, which is essential for satellite surveillance and early missile warning. Peter Ernstved Rasmussen, a Danish defence analyst, explained to Berlingske that Greenland's military importance is undeniable, pointing out that it is the shortest route between Europe and North America.
This presence is governed by a 1951 defence agreement between the United States and Denmark, which gives Washington broad freedom to operate on the island. Mikkel Runge Olesen, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, told the New York Times that the United States can build, maintain and operate military bases without major restrictions. Olesen considers a possible purchase of the territory unthinkable.
The agreement was updated in 2004 to include the Greenlandic government, giving it a say on the impact of military operations on the local community. However, Rasmussen believes that if Washington wanted to increase its deployment, opposition would be minimal. If the United States wants to increase its presence, it would always get a yes, he said in an interview with Olfi, a defence media outlet. And if it wanted to act without consultation, it would only need to report that it would build a base, an airfield or a port.
However, Denmark has made it clear that any unilateral occupation of Greenland by force would not be tolerated. Danish media reported that the Danish government would respond with immediate fire to a US attack, reaffirming its sovereignty and commitment to defending the territory. This introduces a direct military risk into the discussion of Trump's intentions.
Historical background and likely scenarios
Trump's insistence is part of a long history of US territorial expansion. Throughout history, Washington has resorted to purchases, treaties and annexations for strategic reasons, from the purchase of Louisiana and Alaska to the acquisition of the Virgin Islands, precisely from Denmark in 1917. However, several legal experts consulted by Foreign Affairs point out that current international law, which is based on sovereignty and self-determination of peoples, makes a similar operation impossible today.
For now, the most likely scenario is not a formal purchase or annexation, but a gradual strengthening of the US military presence and security agreements. Greenland will remain Danish, but its role in the rivalry between the United States, Russia and China will grow, increasing diplomatic pressure on an island that, without seeking it, has become a key player on the global stage.