Greenland: What’s at stake (Part 1)

The U.S. first entertained the idea of purchasing Greenland way back in 1867, again in 1946, then again in 1955. Trump’s fixation on Greenland dates back to 2019 when he first floated the idea of the U.S. buying it, citing national security and resource potential – think rare earth minerals, oil, and its strategic Arctic position. Fast forward to his second term in 2025, and he’s doubled down. On March 28 he told reporters at the White House, “We need Greenland, very importantly, for international security. We have to have Greenland,” pointing to Russian and Chinese activity in the region’s waterways. Vice President Vance echoed this during a visit to the U.S. Pituffik Space Base in Greenland that same day, scolding Denmark for “underinvesting” in the territory’s security and suggesting Greenlanders would be better off under the U.S. umbrella.

Neither Trump nor Vance has explicitly committed to using force, but they’ve been cagey. When pressed on military action during the Greenland visit, Vance dodged, saying he didn’t think it would be necessary, envisioning Greenlanders choosing the U.S. over Denmark instead. Trump, though, has been less subtle, saying on March 24 that the U.S. would go “as far as we have to” to gain control. This ambiguity keeps force on the table, especially since Greenland and Denmark have flat-out rejected any takeover.

The backdrop here is geopolitical. Greenland’s got a tiny population (about 56,000), vast resources, and a key spot near the Arctic Circle, where melting ice is opening new shipping routes and military opportunities. Russia and China are sniffing around, and the U.S. wants to lock it down. Denmark, a NATO ally, has leaned on its sovereignty over Greenland, but its military presence there is thin – hence Vance’s jab about underinvestment.

Could a Forced Takeover Escalate?

If the U.S. tried to take Greenland by force, it would be a wild card move with big risks. Here’s how it could play out:

Immediate Fallout with Denmark and NATO

Denmark’s not packing a huge military punch (about 20,000 active personnel), and Greenland’s got no real armed forces of its own – just a small police unit and some coast guards. A U.S. operation could overwhelm them fast, as one analyst put it: “quick and largely bloodless.” But politically? It would be a gut punch to NATO. Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called the Vance visit “unacceptable pressure”, and Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen admitted Denmark’s been light on Arctic spending but still bristled at the U.S. attitude. Forcing the issue would shred trust in the alliance, especially since the U.S. would be attacking a fellow member’s territory. NATO’s Article 5 (collective defense) could get murky – would allies back Denmark against the U.S.? Unlikely, but it would fracture unity.

Greenland’s Resistance

Greenlanders hate the idea – polls and their March 11 election showed near-universal rejection of U.S. control. New PM Jens-Frederik Nielsen’s coalition formed partly to defy Trump’s push. A military move might spark protests or low-level resistance, but nothing that’d stop U.S. boots on the ground. Still, occupying a resentful population across a massive, icy island with no roads between settlements… Logistics would be a nightmare.

Russia and China’s Reaction

Here’s where it gets dicey. Russia’s got Arctic bases and a beefy Northern Fleet; Putin’s already modernising military infrastructure up there. On March 27, he said Russia’s “closely monitoring” the situation, hinting at a response if NATO (via the U.S.) ramps up in Greenland. China’s less vocal but has economic stakes – mining deals and Arctic shipping interests. Neither wants the U.S. owning the Arctic gateway. If the U.S. moved forcibly, Russia might flex with troop buildups or naval maneuvers, and China could counter with economic pressure on U.S. allies. Escalation odds? Not a direct war, but a tense standoff.

Broader Conflict Odds

A full-on global conflict (say, World War III) is less likely. NATO’s too tangled with the U.S. to turn on it outright, and Russia/China aren’t itching for a hot war over Greenland when they can just exploit the chaos. Europe’s freaking out over Trump’s Ukraine “spat” with Zelenskyy, and leaders such as Germany’s Friedrich Merz are already pivoting to self-reliance. A Greenland grab might push them to arm up or cozy up to Russia for energy, but not fight the U.S. directly. The real risk is a proxy escalation – think cyber-attacks, Arctic skirmishes, or sanctions wars.

Bottom Line

The U.S. could probably pull off a takeover militarily with ease – Denmark’s not stopping a superpower. But the blowback would be brutal: a crippled NATO, pissed-off Greenlanders, and a gleeful Russia/China duo stirring the pot. Escalation into a wider conflict isn’t the base case – diplomacy’s messy fallout would dominate – but the Arctic’s a tinderbox, and Trump’s “go big or go home” style doesn’t help. If they tried it, I’d peg the chance of some international escalation at 50/50, mostly cold-war vibes rather than hot battles.

Australia’s response would be a puzzle, especially with the election looming on May 3, 2025. It is a big moment for us, and the Trump factor definitely adds a twist.

To be continued … (Link to Part 2)

References

Mapping Greenland’s resources, population centres and US military base, Hanna Duggal and Marium Ali, Al Jazeera 

Why Is Trump So Obsessed With Greenland?, Christina Lu, Foreign Policy

Vance in Greenland: ‘We do not think military force is ever going to be necessary’, Laura Kelly, The Hill

Trump says US will ‘go as far as we have to’ to get control of Greenland, David Brennan, abcNEW

Vance accuses Denmark of underinvesting in Greenland as Trump presses takeover, Kirsten Grieshaber et al, Global News

Denmark to start conscripting women for military service, the BBC

Greenland as 51st State: What US Taking Over Arctic Island Could Look Like, Jordan King, Newsweek

Danish PM accuses US of ‘unacceptable pressure’ as JD Vance says he will join Greenland visit, Miranda Bryant, The Guardian

Collective defence and Article 5, NATO

Donald Trump’s Greenland Takeover Idea Is Unpopular – What Polls Show, Jason Lemon, Newsweek

Greenland’s new PM shares defiant message after Trump claims US will take control of the island, Sky News UK

Russian Arctic Military Bases, Nicole Franiok, American Security Project

Russia keeping close eye on Trump’s claim to Greenland, Paul Kirby, the BBC

China’s growing interest in the polar regions, World Ocean Review

Western allies rally around Zelensky after Trump spat deepens rift with Europe, Edward Szekeres, CNN

Germany’s Merz ‘Hopeful’ On U.S. Ties Despite Recent Trump Moves, RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

 

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969