Greenland in the Spotlight: Endgame Scenarios

Trump Annexation Attempt on Greenland

Concerns mount that former President Donald Trump has pursued ways to bring Greenland under U.S. control—ranging from influence campaigns to encouraging Greenlandic independence, to offering special political arrangements (like a Compact of Free Association), and even to the possibility of military seizure. Analysts warn these moves echo expansionist tactics used by Russia, would face strong Greenlandic and Danish opposition, and could gravely damage U.S. alliances and international law if taken further. Key points:

• S. efforts: Trump-era officials have promoted Greenlandic independence and appointed a special envoy; covert influence operations and public statements aim to sway opinion toward closer ties with the U.S.
• Possible paths: If Greenland becomes independent, the U.S. could pursue incorporation, a Compact of Free Association, or other bilateral deals to secure military access and resources—though polls show most Greenlanders oppose U.S. annexation.
• Military risk: Analysts say a U.S. seizure would be feasible militarily but illegal and would destroy trust in NATO and relations with Europe; Greenland has minimal defenses and Denmark limited forces locally.
• European response: Denmark and EU allies would resist; some diplomats worry geopolitical trade-offs (e.g., concessions on Ukraine) could be used to obtain European acquiescence, but a hostile takeover is still considered unlikely.

Failed Prior Talks in US: Another Chance in Davos

The January 14 trilateral talks in Washington between the United States, Denmark and Greenland—attended by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Danish PM Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Greenlandic foreign minister Vivian Motzfeldt—were constructive but did not resolve core disagreements about U.S. pressure on Greenland. The Trump administration continues to press for greater U.S. influence or control over Greenland, citing strategic competition with Russia and China; Denmark insists Greenland’s territorial integrity and self-determination are a red line. Parties will continue negotiations in a working group while Denmark and its allies step up military and diplomatic measures to defend the Kingdom’s sovereignty and reassure Europe. Key points:

• Talks and tone: Consultations described as positive yet failed to bridge fundamental differences; negotiations will continue in a dedicated working group.
• U.S. posture: Trump administration (and allies in his team) is actively pursuing stronger U.S. ties and influence in Greenland—ranging from investment and independence-support strategies to rhetoric about buying or “acquiring” the island—driven by Arctic competition with Russia and China.
• Danish response: Denmark strengthened Arctic defense cooperation, increased military deployments and exercises (preparing for Arctic Endurance 2026), tightened foreign investment controls in Greenland and boosted diplomatic outreach to U.S. circles and European allies to protect the Kingdom’s sovereignty.
• Greenland’s position: Nuuk favors pragmatic closer ties with the U.S. for investment and economic diversification but resists overtures implying loss of autonomy; public protests oppose “sale” or militarization, and Greenland’s government supports unity with Denmark while pursuing longer-term independence.
• Likely scenarios: Peaceful pathways include deeper U.S.–Greenland economic and political ties or a gradual push toward Greenlandic independence with U.S. support; forcible U.S. takeover or formal purchase are politically and legally unlikely and would provoke major domestic and international backlash.

Is There Logic in Trump’s Policy on Greenland

Why does Donald Trump remains obsessed with Greenland and what Denmark might concede by 2026? It argues three main motives behind Trump’s interest—economic (mineral resources), strategic (Arctic security vis-à-vis Russia and China), and ideological (a Monroe‑Doctrine style desire for dominance in the U.S. near‑abroad)—but concludes that outright U.S. seizure is unlikely. More realistic outcomes include intensified U.S. pressure for favorable resource deals, greater American military presence, and diplomatic coercion. Possible Danish responses range from symbolic concessions and enhanced defense cooperation to accelerating Greenlandic independence, which could remove Denmark from the core dispute but would be politically costly for Copenhagen. Key Trump motivations:

• Economic motive: Greenland has valuable mineral resources; Trump’s interest may be driven by securing U.S. company access, though the U.S. does not need sovereignty to obtain resources and Greenlandic consent/legal rules matter.
• Strategic motive: While the Arctic is geopolitically important, Russia’s main military assets are elsewhere (Kola Peninsula); China is interested economically but not territorially. Greenland is strategically relevant but not the primary locus of Russian naval power.
• Ideological motive: Trump’s invocation of a Monroe‑Doctrine–style stance signals a desire for dominance in neighbouring regions, which would worry allies and revive 19th‑century great‑power thinking.
• Limits on U.S. action: Military seizure of Greenland is highly unlikely—would fracture NATO, require Congressional approval, and face strong international resistance.
• Likely outcomes: U.S. pressure for investment, defense agreements, increased U.S. military presence, and political interference rather than outright takeover. Denmark might offer concessions or boost joint defense measures.
• Greenlandic independence: Accelerating Greenland’s move toward full independence (possible by 2026) could defuse the dispute but would be a major loss for Denmark and politically fraught for Copenhagen.The Danes are correct on the legal side regarding Greenland. However, we are now entering a different world where great powers like the US and China plus to a lessor extent Russia, will ignore the old ‘rules based order’ and we enter a world of power politics.This was even spelled out by Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada, in Davos. As stated in prior posts, we believe one of two outcomes regarding Greenland. One scenario sees the USA buying Greenland, Trump’s preferred outcome. The other scenario we think is for Denmark and Greenland to grant the USA additional powers such as a veto on China and adversaries in investing and mining in Greenland. We think the USA will eventually buy Greenland. 
• BREAKING NEWS:  it looks like the later will go through with restrictions or an outright ban on Chinese and Russian economic (and of course military) influence on Greenland.  Thus, the second scenario is the one that looks most likely now.In short, the USA has wide rights in terms of military activities in Greenland. Thus, it already has military soveignity over the area. Denmark simply cannot cover the security needs of Greenland. There are further complications if the US buys it in Denmark and Greenland parliments plus also in the US congress. This is why scenario two granting the USA more rights could still be the outcome.  See above breaking news, this is what actually looks to be the outcome. Finally, this crisis affected the stock markets.