From: jameskerlindsay
In December 2024, President-elect Donald Trump caused an international stir by refusing to rule out using military force to seize Greenland, a Danish territory he views as vital to US security interests [00:00:06]. While some dismiss these comments as hype, others perceive a dangerous intent behind the threats [00:00:19]. This situation raises critical questions about the consequences of military action and potential alternative solutions [00:00:26].
Challenging International Norms
The modern international system is built on the principle that countries respect each other’s territorial integrity, and state borders are considered sacrosanct [00:01:04]. This principle has held remarkably well since 1945, with few wars of conquest across continents [00:01:15]. However, this understanding is now being challenged as never before, exemplified by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and increasing threats from Donald Trump against territories like Canada, Panama, and now Greenland [00:01:28].
Greenland: Geography, Population, and History
Greenland, the world’s largest island at 2.2 million square kilometers (840,000 square miles), lies between the Atlantic and Arctic oceans [00:01:50]. It has a population of around 56,000, with nearly 90% of native Inuit origin [00:02:14]. Most inhabitants live along the coastal regions as 80% of the country is covered in ice [00:02:18].
Greenland’s history includes early North American settlers, the arrival of Inuit ancestors in the 11th century, and Norse settlers who disappeared by the 15th century [00:02:36]. The Danes began arriving in the early 18th century, leading to Greenland becoming part of Denmark-Norway until 1814, when Denmark retained control [00:03:03].
During World War II, the United States oversaw the territory and established an important airbase following Denmark’s fall to Nazi Germany [00:03:31]. This base remained vital throughout the Cold War [00:03:47]. Greenland’s colonial status was abolished in 1953, becoming a Danish province, and it gained self-rule in 1979 [00:03:59]. Since 2009, Greenlanders control most aspects of governance, including health, education, and natural resources, though Denmark manages foreign affairs, security, and defense, and provides a significant annual grant [00:04:10].
There have been growing calls for independence, but concerns exist about Greenland’s viability as a country due to its small population and economic reliance on Denmark [00:04:49]. However, geopolitical and environmental factors, such as melting Arctic ice creating new shipping routes and accessible resources, are changing this debate [00:05:21].
Trump’s Interest and Growing Concerns
In December 2024, the president-elect asserted that the US considered ownership and control of Greenland essential for national security and freedom [00:06:02]. This is not a new idea; Trump previously proposed purchasing Greenland in 2019, but Denmark’s Prime Minister dismissed the suggestion as “absurd” [00:06:27].
Despite renewed rejections from Danish and Greenlandic officials, there are fears of a more dangerous intent [00:06:44]. At a press conference in January 2025, Trump explicitly refused to rule out military action to seize Greenland [00:07:04]. Observers suggest these comments have a more serious and calculated intent than previous remarks, driven by genuine security concerns over Greenland’s status in a changing geopolitical context, particularly regarding Russian and Chinese activities in the Arctic [00:07:23].
International Reactions and Potential Consequences
The strong international responses to Trump’s latest comments indicate a belief in his seriousness [00:08:01]. Denmark has increased its defense commitment to Greenland, and key European partners like France and Germany have insisted that Greenland falls under the European Union’s mutual defense provisions [00:08:07].
Potential Acquisition Scenarios
There are several ways the US could potentially acquire Greenland, leaving aside questions about its necessity given Denmark is a NATO partner with an existing US base [00:08:50]:
- Peaceful Acquisition (Purchase): This is the most obvious route Trump has suggested [00:09:01]. However, Denmark cannot sell Greenland without its approval, which would likely require significant public spending promises [00:09:11]. Greenland’s exact status would also need to be determined; full federal statehood is unlikely, suggesting a status akin to Puerto Rico or other US overseas territories [00:09:22]. Concerns remain whether initial funding would continue, leading many to view Denmark’s current stewardship as preferable in the long run [00:09:45].
- Military Action: If peaceful efforts fail and Trump pursues an invasion, the diplomatic and political implications would be immense [00:10:04].
- NATO Crisis: An attack on Greenland would be a direct strike against a NATO ally, creating an unprecedented crisis within the organization [00:10:12].
- EU Response: While military response is unlikely, Denmark’s EU partners would likely pursue strong diplomatic, political, and economic measures, such as imposing sanctions [00:10:40]. This could lead to US retaliation and a fundamental breakdown of Western relations [00:11:07].
- US Withdrawal from NATO: Trump might use such an opportunity to withdraw the United States from NATO, a possibility he has repeatedly suggested [00:11:17].
The Dangerous Normalization of Force
Even if the worst-case scenario is avoided, Trump’s statements are considered extremely dangerous [00:11:31]. They normalize the idea that states can threaten to use force to seize territory [00:11:42]. If major powers like Russia and the United States openly discuss seizing land, it is likely others will follow suit, returning international relations to a “might-is-right” era marked by regular wars [00:11:51].
Alternative Solution: Free Association
An acceptable alternative for all parties could be the concept of “free association” in international relations [00:12:12]. This arrangement allows small independent states to develop a formal relationship with a larger country, which oversees their foreign and defense policies [00:12:17]. The United States already has such agreements with the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau, all of which are separate UN members [00:12:27].
This could be an option for Greenland, perhaps even in conjunction with Denmark, creating a unique hybrid model [00:12:41]. This would give Greenland the independence many desire, the security and support it needs, and provide the United States with direct control over important aspects of security and defense [00:12:57]. The key question remains whether this would satisfy Trump’s ambition, or if his goal is complete US control [00:13:13].