GREENLAND: Why is Trump so Obsessed?

In recent weeks—or rather, ever since Trump rose to power—he has been fixated on Greenland. In his view, this frozen, resource-rich territory is critical to U.S. dominance in the Arctic. And he’s determined to take it—no matter what. The problem? Greenland isn’t his to take. It is an autonomous part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally, and a supposed friend of the U.S. This means Washington is now openly threatening a European nation, one that has stood by America for decades.

In this post, I’ll delve into why Trump is so obsessed with Greenland, what his “under any circumstances” attitude means for NATO, and how this reckless ambition plays into the hands of hostile powers like Russia and China.

 

Even though the island is vast, it only has about 56,000 inhabitants

 

THE RELATIONSHIP WITH DENMARK

Greenland has a long and complicated history with Denmark. The world’s largest island, Greenland was once physically part of North America in prehistoric times. But politically and culturally, it has been tied to Europe for centuries—particularly Denmark.

Denmark likes to portray itself as the “world’s friendliest imperialist” when it comes to Greenland, treating its rule as a benevolent act of guardianship. But history tells a different story. There are dark stains on Denmark’s so-called “good big brother” image—most notably, the stolen generation of Greenland in the 1960s and 1970s, when Greenlandic children were forcibly removed from their families and placed with Danish foster parents, often without consent or even notification. Then there was the forced contraception scandal, where women in Greenland were subjected to contraception procedures—again, without their knowledge or approval.

Financially, Greenland is caught in a bind. It generates revenue from fishing, oil, and other commodities, but two-thirds of its budget still comes from Danish subsidies. Denmark, in turn, collects some revenue from Greenland, though not enough to make the island a financial powerhouse. What Greenland truly offers is potential—a land rich in rare earth minerals, oil, and gas, drawing increasing interest from global corporations eager to exploit its resources.

But here’s the reality—Greenland is mostly uninhabitable. More than 80% of the island is covered in ice, some of it nearly four kilometers thick. Climate change is altering this landscape, melting the ice, opening new shipping lanes, and making once-inaccessible areas ripe for resource extraction.

For the U.S., Greenland has never been just another island—it has always been a strategic asset. Washington recognized its importance long ago, even setting up a military bases there. Right now, it has just one, closing many that were set up in the WWII. The Pituffik base is staffed with a few hundred soldiers. 

As the Arctic becomes the next geopolitical battleground, Greenland’s value has skyrocketed. And everyone—Denmark, the U.S., Russia, and China—is watching closely.

LONGING FOR INDEPENDECE

Greenland has long aspired to independence, but its relationship with Denmark remains strained—cordial at best, uneasy at worst. That doesn’t mean Greenlanders are eager to join the U.S. A recent poll showed only 6% supported the idea, while 85% opposed, the rest of the 9% remained undecided. 

Despite its own parliament, prime minister, and legal system, Greenland’s autonomy has limits. Denmark still controls defense, foreign policy, and provides crucial financial support, making full independence a difficult prospect. Greenlanders understand that breaking away now would be risky—their economy remains fragile, and cutting ties would mean losing the funding and security guarantees Denmark provides. Like it or not, Denmark remains their financial lifeline, as well as their connection to NATO and the European Union.

So the question remains: what can America offer Greenland? Why would Greenlanders trade their long-standing dream of independence for an uncertain future under U.S. control?

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen hasn’t been shaken by American rhetoric. She dismissed Vance's visit as a mere U.S. propaganda tour and has consistently stated that Greenland is not for sale. The fate of this autonomous island rests with its people, not Denmark, and certainly not the U.S. Most experts agree that if the issue of Greenland's independence were to reach the Danish parliament, the likely outcome would be strong support for it.

The icy sea is hard for ships to navigate, but global warming is making it more accessible.

 IS CHINA AND RUSSIA REALLY A THREAT?

Despite what JD Vance tried to sell last week during his visit to the Pituffik Space Base in Greenland, this island is no more interesting to Russia or China than any other part of the Arctic. His theatrics may have made headlines, but the reality is far less dramatic. Greenland is strategically important, yes—but not in the way Vance would have people believe. If anything, his visit was more about political posturing than addressing real geopolitical threats. He even had to shorten it to a mere three-hour visit!

Interest in Arctic defense has surged since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. And for good reason. Russia’s nuclear arsenal is heavily concentrated in the Arctic, in Murmansk. The region is also home to vast tapped and untapped resources—oil, gas, rare earth minerals—making it a critical economic battleground. And then there’s control over Arctic sea routes. Whoever dominates these icy waters wields enormous power over global trade.

China, despite having no direct Arctic territory, has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and has been quietly expanding its presence in the region. Beijing has long pushed for Arctic bases and infrastructure projects—moves that are anything but innocent. And, unsurprisingly, they are doing it in close collaboration with Russia. Their goal is clear: to challenge Western influence in the Arctic while securing access to its valuable resources and trade routes.

The Arctic isn’t just about military bases or frozen landscapes. It’s about who controls the future of global power. And the players are making their moves. But moves against allies are not in the U.S.'s best interest, especially now.

WHAT ARE THE GEOPOLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS?

If the United States pursued an aggressive approach toward Greenland—whether through economic warfare, hybrid tactics, or military action—the consequences would be severe and wide-reaching. An economic assault, such as sanctions or trade restrictions, could cripple Greenland’s fragile economy, which relies heavily on Danish financial support. Denmark would likely retaliate with countermeasures, and NATO unity could be significantly damaged. Furthermore, such aggression could push Greenland toward seeking alternative partnerships.

A hybrid warfare approach, involving cyberattacks, disinformation, or political manipulation, would create significant instability. It could lead to political divisions within Greenland, weaken democratic institutions, and cause backlash from Denmark, the EU, and other NATO allies. If the U.S. were caught engaging in such tactics, it could escalate tensions not only with Denmark but also with other Arctic nations. Moreover, Russia and China, both with strategic interests in the region, could exploit the situation to increase their foothold, countering U.S. influence and challenging its geopolitical dominance in the Arctic.

A kinetic military conflict would have even graver consequences, as Denmark would likely invoke NATO’s Article 5, meaning an attack on Greenland would be considered an attack on all NATO members. This could potentially lead to a direct confrontation between the U.S. and its closest allies, as well as global condemnation from the UN and EU. China and Russia might see this as an opportunity to intervene, escalating tensions into a broader geopolitical crisis. Militarily occupying Greenland would be costly, logistically complex, and deeply unpopular, further isolating the U.S. internationally.

Ultimately, any aggressive approach toward Greenland would be a strategic disaster, undermining U.S. credibility and destabilizing the Arctic region.

CONCLUSION

In the end, Greenland’s future remains tied to a delicate balance between its desire for independence and its reliance on Denmark for financial and security support. While aspirations for self-determination are strong, the risks of severing those ties are simply too great. Independence, at least for now, remains a distant dream.

As geopolitical tensions in the Arctic continue to rise, the question of Greenland's role on the world stage becomes more complex. The island’s strategic value is undeniable, but its people must weigh the true costs of any new partnership, particularly one with America. Only time will tell if Greenland can forge a path to independence, or if it will remain tethered to the political and economic realities of its current situation.

References: 

• Politico: Trump doesn’t rule out military intervention in Greenland — again
• Al Jazeera : ‘The US won’t get that’: Greenland rejects Trump’s claim over the territory
• ABC News: Trump has options to acquire Greenland, but few are realistic: Expert
• News Week: Greenland as 51st State: What US Taking Over Arctic Island Could Look Like
• BBC: Greenland's dark history - and does it want Trump?
• The Arctic Institute: Trump has misunderstood the Importance of Greenland