“The situation is critical…” These are the four words a senior European diplomat said in an interview about Donald Trump’s stance on Greenland. Others used similar language… “unprecedented,” “extraordinary,” “urgent,” “serious.” A bizarre situation is unfolding for the United States’ (U.S.) European allies.
But above all, for the people of Greenland, this appears to be a truly existential issue. Far too often in this whole debate, it seems to be forgotten that Greenland is a nation, a people, a culture.
Furthermore, we will explain what all this means and what comes next.
Trump is not bluffing
First, despite Trump’s “Art of the Deal” tactics, the position of the Danish government, underlined after a meeting of their foreign ministers with Trump’s team last week, is that the U.S. president is serious.
He wants ownership of Greenland. The challenge is to find a compromise, a middle ground, if one even exists.
No compatibility
That is the second point: there appears to be no compatibility at all between President Trump’s position and that of the European Union (EU)/Denmark/Greenland.
The Danish government has tried to remind the U.S., most recently at a high-level meeting last week, that it is flexible and open to dialogue and common ground. The only red line the Danes have is any discussion of ceding territory and sovereignty.
The U.S. can station as many troops as they want in Greenland; it can rename the base “Fort Trump” if it wishes; it can talk about access to critical minerals. All of that is possible. Everything except the handover of Greenland and its population to the U.S.
And yet, the U.S. position aligns with Trump’s public rhetoric. It boils down to: “We appreciate all your offers and your cooperation, but the president now believes that the only way to secure Greenland from Chinese and Russian threats is for it to become U.S. territory.”
That makes any dialogue difficult, and it is hard to see where any compromise could be found.
There may be pressure on Denmark to “strike a deal,” but it is hard to see what the middle ground is and what any agreement would look like.
Namely, here in Washington, I have the sense that there are differing views within the U.S. administration about the wisdom of Trump’s stance on Greenland. But, as we know, the president pulls the strings, and no one challenges him.
Will Europe give in?
The third point is whether Europeans will once again give in to Trump.
Time and again, they have knelt before the U.S. president, bowing to his demands and terrified of what his tariff threats might do.
But this time, I have the sense that they are tired of his games. They may stand firm because ceding European territory to the U.S. under pressure or otherwise is surely unimaginable. Still, if he continues with tariffs, they will cause damage.
The strategic importance of Greenland
It is worth emphasizing that there are undeniable strategic reasons why Greenland is close to the U.S. The Arctic is opening up, and as the ice melts, the “high north” is increasingly becoming a new frontier where world powers will compete for control.
European countries and Greenland recognize this. But the European argument is that it is possible for the U.S. to be much closer to Greenland without Greenland becoming a part of the U.S. It has been two decades since the U.S. last sought any significant military expansion of their forces in Greenland.
Trump’s view is that the only way to deter hypothetical future attempts by Russia or China to seize Greenland is to turn it into U.S. territory.
He says that Danish sovereignty would not deter them. It is indicative that he ignores the fact that Greenland is protected by NATO’s Article 5 commitment, that an attack on one member is an attack on all.
Awkward for the United Kingdom (UK)
One final thought. Trump’s threats of a hostile takeover of Greenland are awkward for the UK.
While other European governments have regarded Trump as an unreliable ally, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has consistently suggested that the UK has control over President Trump; that it knows how to deal with him, hence the “superior” trade deal it secured.
All of that now looks somewhat uncomfortable as the U.S. president once again doubles down on pressure for his hostile takeover of Greenland.
