{"id":42167,"date":"2026-03-17T18:25:25","date_gmt":"2026-03-17T18:25:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/42167\/"},"modified":"2026-03-17T18:25:25","modified_gmt":"2026-03-17T18:25:25","slug":"how-trump-can-take-greenland-the-easy-way-or-the-hard-way-international","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/42167\/","title":{"rendered":"How Trump can take Greenland: \u2018The easy way or the hard way\u2019 | International"},"content":{"rendered":"

Whether \u201cthe easy way or the hard way,\u201d Donald Trump wants to \u201cdo something\u201d about Greenland, an autonomous territory that has been part of the Kingdom of Denmark for more than two centuries. In Copenhagen, the Danish capital, and in Nuuk, Greenland, authorities are taking this threat seriously. They are studying historical precedents (Alaska, Louisiana, the Virgin Islands) and parallels in other parts of the world (Venezuela<\/a>, Crimea, the Marshall Islands, Panama). They are dusting off old treaties. They are speculating about how the president of the United States might seize the Arctic island. They are proposing solutions. And unease is growing among local leaders.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs leaders of Greenland\u2019s political parties, we reiterate our firm position: that the United States\u2019 contempt for our country must end,\u201d Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen and parliamentary leaders said Friday in Nuuk. This was in response to Trump\u2019s latest remarks, in which he stated: \u201cWe are going to do something in Greenland, whether they like it or not, because if we don\u2019t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we\u2019re not going to have Russia<\/a> or China as a neighbor.\u201d<\/p>\n

Here are six potential scenarios, based on several conversations with experts and former diplomats this week in Denmark:<\/p>\n

1. A military intervention<\/p>\n

After the brief U.S. incursion into Venezuela on January 3, alarm bells went off in Nuuk and Copenhagen. Could a similar operation in Greenland<\/a> be conceivable? Would the U.S. deploy special forces in this territory, which is 50 times larger than Denmark but has fewer than 60,000 inhabitants? What it would have in common with the Venezuelan operation would be the use of force and the will to exert control. But in this case, it wouldn\u2019t be about capturing a foreign leader wanted by U.S. justice, nor simply about controlling its government, but about incorporating the territory into the United States.<\/p>\n

It could happen violently. A handful of U.S. troops taking control of strategic buildings: the parliament, the police, the public media outlets, the airport. The Star-Spangled Banner flying over Nuuk.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s not the most likely scenario, but it can\u2019t be completely ruled out,\u201d says Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen, head of the strategic studies section at the Royal Danish Defence College. A poll by the Voxmeter institute, published this Saturday, indicates that 38% of Danes believe the U.S. will conquer Greenland by force.<\/p>\n

How would Denmark respond? Militarily, there is little it could do. But in discussions about possible scenarios, options are being suggested, such as a military deployment in the Greenlandic capital, as a signal to the U.S. A 1952 order is cited that obliges Danish soldiers to fight if their territory is attacked, which would also apply to a U.S. attack.<\/p>\n

Lars Bangert Struwe, of the analysis firm Geopol Strategi and a former official in the strategic office of the Danish Ministry of Defense, points to one of the potential complications in this scenario: \u201cConducting military operations in the Arctic<\/a> is very difficult because it is so cold that it requires highly trained and skilled personnel. This was evident during World War II,\u201d he says. \u201cThe cold and weather conditions could kill more Americans than an actual invasion.\u201d<\/p>\n

2. Hybrid warfare<\/p>\n

The takeover could be more subtle. The Danish military presence in Greenland is minimal. The Americans have the Pituffik aerospace base and a few hundred soldiers. \u201cThey could do what the Russians have done at the North Pole: plant their flag and say it\u2019s now the United States,\u201d reflects Jonas Parello-Plesner, executive director of the Alliance of Democracies Foundation and a former Danish diplomat with extensive experience in the U.S.<\/p>\n

This would be a method similar to the one used by Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2014 to illegally annex the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea<\/a>. Russia took control by deploying the so-called \u201cgreen men,\u201d soldiers who did not identify themselves as such. It then ratified the annexation with an illegal referendum.<\/p>\n

Constitutionally, an independence referendum would be the prerequisite for Greenland, once fully sovereign and independent from Denmark, to join the United States. But the process would take years, Parello-Plesner explains. \u201cThe only way to do it during Trump\u2019s presidency would be by pushing something illegal,\u201d she says. \u201cLike the Russians, [Trump] would say, \u2018Now it\u2019s ours,\u2019 and some countries would recognize it.\u201d<\/p>\n

Before reaching this point, the U.S. could launch a \u201chybrid war,\u201d according to Struwe, \u201cwith U.S. intelligence services attempting to seduce the Greenlandic independence movement<\/a>.\u201d The presence of U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance and other Trump allies in recent months, or the appointment of a U.S. special envoy, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, points to an increase in civilian activity.<\/p>\n

It is possible that Trump\u2019s harassment of the island will backfire and ultimately bring it closer to Denmark. Following successive agreements in 1979 and 2009, Greenland\u2019s economy is largely dependent on Denmark, but it enjoys a considerable degree of self-government. Today, a majority of Greenlanders favor independence, but a majority also rejects annexation by the United States.<\/p>\n

3. Deterrence (diplomatic)<\/p>\n

What\u2019s unusual, according to the experts in politics and academia consulted for this story, is the fact that what\u2019s under consideration is a U.S. attack on a country and territory where it already has a presence, and which it\u2019s supposed to defend as a NATO ally. On paper, U.S. forces should defend Greenland against an invasion… But what if the invasion is American?<\/p>\n

Militarily, Denmark and its European allies can do little, but Parello-Plesner mentions another option that is already underway: the \u201cdiplomatic deterrence\u201d of the Danes and the European Union. \u201cThe Americans will be isolated within NATO, and although Trump isn\u2019t a big fan of NATO, there\u2019s the entire Pentagon system and Congress, where there is strong support for NATO.\u201d<\/p>\n

Congress members in Washington \u2014 Democrats and some Republicans \u2014 are Denmark\u2019s trump card. It will not be easy, though. Trump, in an interview with The New York Times, said that \u201cwe may have to choose\u201d between NATO and Greenland. If his demands regarding Greenland are not met, the Atlantic Alliance is finished (and possibly support for Ukraine as well).<\/p>\n

4. A purchase<\/p>\n

In 2019, during his first presidential term, and again a year ago upon taking office, Trump declared his desire to purchase Greenland. While this may have seemed extravagant, it wouldn\u2019t be the first time the United States has bought territory from another country. Without these acquisitions, the U.S. would have a different geography and would not be what it is today.<\/p>\n

In 1803, the U.S. purchased Louisiana from Napoleonic France, a territory then larger than the present-day state of Louisiana. It cost the equivalent of $430 million today, according to a calculation by The Wall Street Journal. In 1867, it purchased Alaska from Russia for $158 million.<\/p>\n

The buying and selling of territories has a long tradition, at least until the end of World War II and the establishment of an international order more or less based on law. But there is something very Trumpian about the desire to buy a piece of land as if it were real estate. If he gets his way, it wouldn\u2019t be the first time Copenhagen has entered into a transaction of this kind with Washington.<\/p>\n

In 1917, Denmark sold what were then called the Danish West Indies to the United States for $25 million (equivalent to $633 million today, according to the cited calculation). Today, these are the U.S. Virgin Islands. The State Department website explains the purchase in a way that \u2014 despite the differences in time, geography, and scale \u2014 is reminiscent of Trump\u2019s justification for conquering Greenland: primarily for strategic reasons, in order to ensure tranquility in the Caribbean.<\/p>\n

Today, other echoes of that time resonate. The 1917 treaty stated: \u201cThe United States of America shall not object to the Danish Government extending its political and economic interests over the whole of Greenland.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"Greenlandic citizens celebrate the arrival of a helicopter with passengers and supplies in September in Ittoqqortoormiit.ESTHER HORVATH (The New York Times\/ContactoPhoto)<\/p>\n

Trump is ignoring these commitments, but this isn\u2019t the first time the United States has tried to buy Greenland. The last time was in 1946 when Democratic President Harry Truman made an offer of $100 million. For the U.S., it was about extending the control it had enjoyed over the island during World War II, thanks to an agreement with the Danish ambassador in Washington, made behind the backs of the authorities in Nazi-occupied Denmark.<\/p>\n

Denmark told Truman \u201cno.\u201d Today, Danes and Greenlanders are rejecting the offer again (and in any case, it would be the Greenlanders who should decide, once they are independent). \u201cGreenland is not for sale,\u201d they say.<\/p>\n

5. An association<\/p>\n

One option for bringing Greenland closer, if not fully incorporating it, would be through a Coalition of Free Association (COFA) like the one that links the U.S. to Pacific territories such as the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau. According to this scenario, \u201cthe U.S. would make an offer to Greenland, and Greenland would accept,\u201d speculates Rahbek-Clemmensen. \u201cFormally, Greenland would become independent, but it would enter into very close cooperation with the U.S. and would give it, de facto, control over its own security policy and perhaps also over its mineral wealth, in exchange for economic support.\u201d These Pacific nations maintain their sovereignty, but in exchange for economic aid, they offer full access to the U.S. Armed Forces.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis isn\u2019t impossible,\u201d says Parello-Plesner. \u201cBut it\u2019s not plausible either, since we already have treaties. What could be attempted with Trump, who isn\u2019t exactly a man to worry over details, would be to repackage the current [1951] treaty: to rewrite it and tell him it\u2019s a treaty for him. There\u2019s already a kind of dual sovereignty regarding defense.\u201d<\/p>\n

6. An agreement<\/p>\n

In Copenhagen, experts emphasize that the 1951 agreement with Washington for the defense of Greenland already allows for many of the U.S. demands regarding security to be met. According to the deal, the U.S. has the right to \u201cbuild, install, maintain, and operate facilities and equipment,\u201d as well as \u201cimprove and generally prepare the area for military use.\u201d At the end of the Cold War<\/a>, Washington closed the bases and left only one open, but it could open as many as it wanted and increase its military presence. It could also invest. Nothing prevents it.<\/p>\n

\u201cDenmark and Greenland could offer the U.S. a way out of the crisis, something that wouldn\u2019t lead to political control of Greenland,\u201d Rahbek-Clemmensen points out, \u201cbut that the U.S. could showcase as a victory, and thus we could turn the page. A new defense agreement, for example, or new legislation on Chinese investments, or an increase in military spending.\u201d<\/p>\n

There is a recent precedent of a country Trump wanted to conquer, one he seems to have forgotten about for now: Panama and its canal. \u201cMarco Rubio went to negotiate with them, forced the Chinese company out, brought in American companies, and Trump thought it was a good deal,\u201d says Parello-Plesner. \u201cNow we could renew the treaties we already have, and we could undertake joint projects on mineral resources and rare earth elements<\/a>. Perhaps there\u2019s a more amicable agreement here.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe solution,\u201d Struwe adds, \u201cis to talk to the Americans and promise them there will be no Chinese or Russian presence in Greenland, so that security concerns don\u2019t exist.\u201d The underlying problem, he adds, is that Donald Trump \u201cdoesn\u2019t see [Greenland] as a security issue, but as a way to expand the US.\u201d<\/p>\n

Copenhagen believes that current agreements already address security concerns and tensions with China and Russia in a strategically vital Arctic. It will be more difficult for Denmark and its partners to provide a satisfactory response to Trump\u2019s desire to declare Greenland as part of the United States.<\/p>\n

Sign up for our weekly newsletter<\/a> to get more English-language news coverage from EL PA\u00cdS USA Edition<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Whether \u201cthe easy way or the hard way,\u201d Donald Trump wants to \u201cdo something\u201d about Greenland, an autonomous…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":42168,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[5],"tags":[108,21622,184,57,1887],"class_list":["post-42167","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-greenland","tag-copenhagen","tag-crimea","tag-donald-trump","tag-greenland","tag-vladimir-putin"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@dk\/116245923639169291","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42167","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42167"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42167\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/42168"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/dk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}