In recent weeks the president-elect of the U.S. Donald Trump has made a series of statements concerning his ambition to acquire the territory of Greenland. Is Trump serious? If so, why? What’s Greenland worth? And could the U.S. really buy it? These aren’t irrelevant queries, but they miss the bigger picture. Trump’s statements aren’t just fodder for speculation—they represent a seismic shift in the way America’s leadership approaches geopolitics, sovereignty, and global markets.
To better understand the potential fallout, it is worth taking a look at Denmark’s reaction. The title of this piece may seem a bit dramatic, and perhaps it is, but it is the exact wording of how Tv2, one of the largest news outlets in Denmark, named their live coverage of the story. Live coverage that started on the 6. of January and is still being updated as of the time of writing.
Trump talked about Greenland before, the first time back in 2019, but he restated his interest in the subject again last Christmas. During the appointment of the next U.S. ambassador to Denmark, he said that control and ownership of Greenland were essential, which garnered some attention from both the media and the government. Still, it was widely perceived to be merely a continuation of the 2019 policy and therefore a relatively harmless eccentricity.
The turning point came with Trump Jr.’s surprise visit to Greenland’s capital, Nuuk—a move that blindsided Danish leadership and left little doubt that the Trump administration wasn’t merely posting memes or joking this time around. Now the visit is noteworthy in itself, but it served more as an appetizer than the main course.
Then came another shock for Denmark: Trump at a news conference in the beginning of January, declined to rule out the use of military or economic coercion to gain control of Greenland. This sort of statement by a Western, let alone an American, leader is absolutely unheard of in the modern era.
Despite the risks and dangers the rhetoric of the new administration brings about, if one were to read or listen to the official communication coming out of Copenhagen, one wouldn’t be under the impression that no political crisis occured. In fact the Danish foreign minister explicitly said there was no crisis on the 8th of January. This seems to be merely a poker face put up by the panicked officials. According to Jacob Kaarsbo, a Danish policy analyst formerly of the Danish Defence Intelligence Agency, the situation is forcing their hands. The Danes have no other options available to them, but these very diplomatic and accommodating responses.
Yet there is no doubt that the situation for Denmark is incredibly dire. Part of the sovereign territory belonging to the Kingdom of Denmark faces a direct military threat. The kingdom is being told to give up parts of its internationally recognised territory, and if it fails to do so in a manner satisfactory to the demanding party, it will face economic penalties and potentially “military force” i.e. war of conquest.
The Kingdom of Denmark is a federation, similar in structure to the United Kingdom, consisting of Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Both Greenland and the Faroe Islands have their own parliaments and govern themselves for the most part. Only some areas, primarily defence and foreign policy, are relegated to Copenhagen and the Danish parliament, where the North Atlantic territories have two seats each, so out of the 179 seats in the Folketing, 175 are Danish, 2 are Greenlandic and 2 are Faroese. It is worth noting that the population of Greenland and the Faroe Islands holds full Danish citizenship, and they are entitled to the same things as the Danes are when it comes to education and healthcare, and as Denmark is a welfare state these services are “free”.
A situation like this is of course not a foreign concept to Denmark, as it was invaded by Nazis during WW2 and the Prussians in the middle of the 19th century. Therefore in the aftermath of WW2 Denmark sought to protect itself from hostile foreign interference, military and non-military alike. In 1949 Denmark was a founding member of NATO, and this membership is the bedrock for all Danish foreign policy. Even after the collapse of the U.S.S.R. in 1991, NATO was at the core of its foreign policy. It is why Denmark joined the US to fight in the Iraq war and Afghanistan. It is worth noting that in Afghanistan Denmark suffered one of if not the highest number of coalition casualties when adjusted for population size. And more recently a Danish frigate was sent to the Red Sea to partake in an American mission there. Additionally, Denmark’s support to Ukraine is more than 2% of GDP, only eclipsed by that of Estonia at 2.2%.
All this is to say that Denmark is one of the US’s most loyal and dedicated partners in Europe. Only the UK could be considered to be a more staunch ally of the US. Imagine that instead of discussing Greenland and Denmark, we were discussing Scotland and the UK. It is unthinkable, insane even. And yet this is pretty much the situation Denmark finds itself in, the only big difference being the Danish lack of nuclear weapons.
Denmark is being threatened with war if it does not comply with the demands issued by the leader of the foreign country. Those threats are not coming from Putin’s Russia, they are coming from the future president of The United States of America. The closest and most important ally Denmark has, the very ally around which Denmark has shaped the last 80 years’ worth of policy. And not without good reason! US has been on the side of self-determination and independence, of freedom and democracy. It has perhaps not always lived up to this ideal, but it has endeavoured to uphold the values and laws of what is commonly referred to as the international rules-based order. Yet today it is the US which is the largest threat to Denmark. Not Russia or its neighbours but the US.
This is what makes it so challenging to discuss in a serious and moderated way. If Denmark can become the target of such hostile actions from the United States, then no country is safe. The materialization of threats against Greenland would amount to a de facto dissolution of the NATO alliance.
