How Trump's Greenland ambitions could test NATO unity

Tucked away in the Arctic, Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. As the world’s largest island, Greenland has long been a quiet player in global geopolitics.

But in recent years, it has become the centre of a high-stakes geopolitical drama, especially with the Arctic’s increasing strategic importance. As the ice melts and new shipping routes open, Greenland’s vast natural resources—oil, gas, and valuable metals like zinc, copper, and nickel—are poised to become coveted assets in the race for global dominance.

All these factors help explain why United States President-elect Donald Trump has a keen interest in Greenland. During his first term, he spoke about purchasing the world's largest island and incorporating it into the US.

At the time, Denmark denied his request, with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen saying that she hoped Trump was not serious about his "absurd" proposal.

Trump responded by cancelling a state visit to Denmark and calling Frederiksen's statement "nasty" hours after the Scandinavian country's prime minister said she was sorry that Trump decided to cancel his visit.

Greenland and Trump 2.0

Trump remains vocal about the strategic value of this Danish-administered island. While preparing for his second term, Trump has continued to press the idea of acquiring Greenland.

Late last year, when he announced his decision to select PayPal co-founder Ken Howery as the new US ambassador to Denmark, Trump stated, "For purposes of national security and freedom throughout the world, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity."

Earlier this month, the president-elect started a transatlantic tempest when he refused to rule out using military force to seize Greenland in response to a reporter's question at a press conference.

After questioning Denmark's legal claims to this North American territory, Trump stressed how Greenland is critical to US national security and that of the rest of the "free world" while pointing to Chinese and Russian activities in the Arctic.

Some European leaders and high-ranking officials were quick to respond.

"The principle of the inviolability of borders applies to every country, regardless of whether it lies to the east of us or the west, and every state must keep to it, regardless of whether it is a small country or a very powerful state," declared outgoing German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

Six days after refusing to rule out using military force to annex the island, Greenland's Prime Minister Mute Egede, while open to bolstering defence and mining ties with the US, asserted that the territory is not for sale.

He declared: "Greenland is for the Greenlandic people. We do not want to be Danish, we do not want to be American. We want to be Greenlandic."

Considering an extreme scenario

The possibility of the US taking unilateral military action to seize control of Greenland can't be entirely ruled out, given Trump's unpredictability and his view of the North American island being critical to US national security.

It is also necessary to note that the US military has maintained a base–the Pituffik Space Base (formerly known as the Thule Air Base)–in the northwestern part of Greenland since 1951.

Such an extreme scenario would constitute an attack on a founding NATO member and trigger Article 5, requiring the rest of the Transatlantic Alliance to fulfil its collective defence obligations by mobilising NATO military forces and logistical support in defence of Denmark's sovereignty.

But with the most powerful military force in the alliance being the potential aggressor against Denmark, what realistic options would NATO's European members have for defending the Scandinavian country's territory?

"NATO members could collectively condemn the action, isolate the US diplomatically, and impose economic sanctions to pressure a reversal. Denmark could bring the matter to the UN Security Council or the International Court of Justice to assert its sovereignty and seek global support.

Denmark and NATO could enhance Arctic defence capabilities, including increasing military presence and surveillance in the region to deter further escalation," Hasini Ransala Liyanage, a doctoral research fellow at the University of Oslo's political science department, told TRT World.

"But then again this is most likely going to be difficult given the strong US military footprint in Greenland … direct military confrontation with the US would be challenging, given its superior capabilities. This scenario would likely lead to severe fractures within NATO," she added.

Hanna Ojanen, research director at Tampere University in Finland, explained how NATO, under these circumstances, would lack the means to intervene in such a conflict mindful of the fact that it would be between two members of the alliance.

"The Nordic and European leaders would no doubt strongly condemn the actions and seek ways in which the US could withdraw again or its presence be redefined as not violating Denmark's sovereignty. Their long-term task would be to keep the US committed to the rules and seeing the value of NATO, but also to find ways of dealing with China that do not go above anyone's head,” Ojanen told TRT World.

Thankfully, this scenario is anything but inevitable. In fact, it seems unlikely. Even some European leaders such as Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni did not take Trump's talk about using military force to annex Greenland seriously.

"I think we can exclude that the United States in the coming years will try to use force to annex territory that interests it," said Meloni, who explained that she understood Trump's remarks about Greenland to be interpreted within the context of a "long-distance debate between great powers."

Nordic leaders mostly see Trump's remarks as part of the US president-elect's outlandish rhetoric, rather than a signal that Greenland would be literally taken by military force.

Impact of Trump's words

Even if the chances of Washington coercively taking Greenland are low, rhetoric from Trump about the Danish-administered island has already impacted European perceptions of the US president-elect, and how fellow NATO members see Washington as an ally.

"Danish and EU officials should not discard the underpinning ideas of such statements," Liyanage told TRT World.

"While the likelihood of actual military action is very slim, such rhetoric could signal broader US interest in Greenland's strategic value. Denmark and NATO allies/EU should prepare for heightened interest in the Arctic either way. Even if military action is unlikely, dismissing the statement could lead to complacency in addressing potential diplomatic or economic manoeuvres by the US related to Greenland," she added.

Perhaps Trump is simply trying to catch Denmark and Greenland's officials off-guard, in hopes of beginning future negotiations with them feeling somewhat thrown off balance and under more pressure to make concessions to the US vis-a-vis the island's status.

Such a strategy would undeniably be perceived by the incoming administration and the president-elect's supporters as a huge triumph for the "America First" agenda.

After all, as Trump demonstrated during his first term, he is often willing to break from traditional norms of diplomacy and embrace unorthodox approaches to foreign policy.

"Overall, the European responses to Trump's Greenland comments have been firm but measured. Few question the importance of Greenland in a changing geopolitical environment in the high north and a transatlantic context.

But most in Europe also better understand President-elect Trump's approach to negotiations, his strategy of maximum leverage, and how to react. That experience helps contextualise such threats better," Jorn Fleck, senior director of the Europe Center at the Atlantic Council, told TRT World.

"Depending on how far this goes, US-EU relations may be negatively impacted. Europeans should prepare for this issue to become part of the larger series of gripes Donald Trump will bring to Europe after he is inaugurated," he added.

EU members would be wise to unite behind a strong message regarding the status of Greenland but avoid dismissing Trump's remarks out of hand, said Fleck, who also recognised that "there could be things to negotiate like US access to certain reserves or trade deals to be made."

Ojanen explained how she would wait until Trump's second term begins to see if he continues making similar remarks about Greenland.

"Should he continue, I'd expect the European leaders to mark much more clearly where the limits go. Using military force to move borders between countries is explicitly ruled out including in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe," she told TRT World.

NATO's cohesion

Even if Trump would not actually take such a 19th-century-style approach to US territorial expansion, his own words about annexing Greenland through military force could have rather serious implications for NATO, EU-US relations, and dynamics in transatlantic relations moving forward.

NATO is an alliance founded on a certain set of principles such as mutual defence.

"Any implication that the US might consider unilateral military action against a NATO member (or its territories) undermines the alliance's cohesion and shared principles. European nations, particularly Denmark, might perceive Trump's stance as aggressive and dismissive of international norms," Liyanage told TRT World.

She warned that a "cooling of diplomatic relations and increased scepticism toward US leadership in global security matters" could result from Trump's recent refusal to rule out using military coercion to usurp control of Greenland.

"What makes the matter even more serious is that (this episode over Greenland is) about the relations between two NATO countries. So, it would show that the US president is simply not taking seriously what NATO is as an alliance, in addition to not taking seriously international norms," Ojanen told TRT World.

It is reasonable to expect such rhetoric from Trump and those in his incoming administration to result in EU members accelerating their efforts to create a more autonomous defence framework.

Under such circumstances, non-Western powers such as Russia and China could perhaps find it easy to take advantage of such a rift between Washington and its European allies, especially vis-a-vis the Arctic.

Noting that Trump's second administration will have strategic interests in Greenland, European officials should take him "seriously but perhaps not literally," said Fleck, who added that "amid changing weather patterns, implications for important shipping routes, and the aggressive posturing of Russia and China in the region, Europe out of its own self-interests should take these same concerns seriously."

Meanwhile, officials in Washington should not lose sight of Denmark's value as an important US ally. Denmark, with its history of working closely with Washington and various issues, including basing rights, stands out among European nations for being one of the most pro-US countries on the continent and most committed to the transatlantic alliance, explained Fleck.

While recognising the room probably exists for dialogue and negotiations on issues pertaining to Greenland, including those that matter most to Trump, the US president-elect's "methods are not a good starting point for those efforts," he told TRT World.