High Stake Greenland US Denmark Talks end in Disagreement
Compromise on Greenland is Possible
A high-level White House meeting between the U.S., Denmark and Greenland on Jan. 14, 2026 ended without a major breakthrough but produced an agreement to form a working group to seek a way forward on Greenland’s future. The talks followed U.S. President Donald Trump’s forceful remarks about wanting Greenland under U.S. control, which alarmed NATO partners and prompted Denmark and allies to strengthen military presence and cooperation in Greenland. Key points
- The U.S., Denmark and Greenland agreed to create a high-level working group to explore options and avoid a worst-case confrontation.
- President Trump reiterated that anything short of U.S. control of Greenland would be “unacceptable,” raising concerns in Europe about NATO cohesion and Article 5 commitments.
- Denmark and Greenland signaled openness to U.S. military basing in principle but insisted on “red lines” and Greenlandic self-determination.
- NATO allies (including Germany, France, Sweden and Norway) and Denmark are increasing military activity in Greenland—Operation Arctic Endurance—to reassure security and deter foreign influence.
- Analysts say the likely path is bolstered NATO presence and diplomatic compromise, but a durable solution remains uncertain given divergent U.S. demands and Greenlanders’ strong ties to Denmark and desire for self-determination.
Geopolitical Risk of Greenlandic Independence
Although a final solution was not reached on Greenland. The Danish Foreign MInister Lars Lokke Rasmussen stated the the meeting was constructive and that both sides ‘agreed to dissagree.’ In addition, the Greenlandic Foreign Representative, Motzfeldt said closer US cooperation on national security was wanted but stated that Greenland did not want to be annexed by the US.
Trump has achieved increased awareness of the security deficit around the island, with the issue now being taking up by NATO allies. This is a token gesture at first but plans for rotational deployments among NATO countries is under plan.
Our view is that Trump’s goal is to buy Greenland from Denmark without the use of military force. The threat of force was a negotiating ploy of Trump.
The risk from a US point of view is that with Greenlandic independence, Denmark will no longer be there to nix any potential outreach to the Chinese. This has happened several times with the Chinese looking to ensnare Greenland into mining deals and even joining the BRI by building an airport. US pressure and Danish action to prevent this included funding the airport by Denmark.
The question and the real risk is what would happen if this scenario takes place when Greenland is independent in the future? Denmark would no longer be there to stop it and the US would have no legal ability to stop it.
Thus, Trump and the US are using hardball tactics to probably renegotiate the military deal allowing US more control and say in case such scenarios happen in the future.
We forecast that the US will not buy Greenland, no need too. However, the military doctrine giving US unlimited acess will be rewritten to allow some form of veto power over potenial adversary economic deals such as Chinese infrastructure using the Belt & Road Initiative etc. This is the most likely outcome in our view.
US Domestic Opinion and the Trump Factor
A recent US Senate vote on stopping Trump from further action did not pass. This was because Trump pressured some Reuplican senators to abstain. In general, polling shows low U.S. public support for annexing Greenland and broad opposition to using military force to acquire it.
Other factors include a desire for Trump to go in US history as being the president that bought the most territory, etc. In this scenario, Trump would exert pressure on the Europeans to push Denmark to sell Greenland.
However, the situation is complicated since the Danish parliment and the US senate and House of Representatives would need to vote on it. In addition, Greenlanders have shown that 85% are now opposed to US annexation.
