From Bribery to Force? Four Ways the US Could "Control" Greenland

In early 2026, the United States' coveting of Greenland has evolved from political posturing to concrete action plans. This Arctic island, covering an area of 2.16 million square kilometers with a population of only 57,000, has become a focal point of major power competition due to its strategic location and resource value. The United States is attempting to achieve control through four paths: economic bribery, legal infiltration, military deterrence, and direct occupation. Each of these schemes reflects its geopolitical ambitions and the practical operational difficulties it faces.

1. Economic Bribery: The Failure and Backfire of Dollar Diplomacy

The United States' first proposed "purchase island plan" aimed to replicate the Alaska model but was met with dual resistance from Denmark and Greenland. The White House once suggested offering each Greenland resident $100,000 directly from a $5.6 billion fund, attempting to create a "popular base" without involving the Danish government. However, Greenland passed a law in 2024 prohibiting the sale of land resources, and both the European Union and the United Nations explicitly opposed sovereignty transactions. The Danish central bank also cut off the US funding channel. The failure of economic bribery exposed two major contradictions: first, Greenland receives an average of $70 million in subsidies from Denmark annually, but rare earth mining requires an investment of hundreds of billions of dollars, and the short-term financial support from the United States cannot meet its long-term development needs; second, opposition from US taxpayers has grown, with MAGA supporters questioning the rationality of "buying an ice sheet with trillions of military spending."

2. Legal Infiltration: The Manipulation and Risks of an Independence Referendum

The United States then turned to the "Texas model," attempting to achieve indirect control by promoting Greenland's independence. The White House secretly funded pro-US political parties, supported the "Greenland First" movement, and even planned an independence referendum. However, Greenland's political parties united in opposition, and Prime Minister Mute Egede emphasized that "autonomy does not equal selling out the country." Denmark promptly initiated a national referendum process, planning to legally solidify territorial sovereignty in July 2026. More seriously, international law clearly requires that any change in sovereignty must reflect the "right of self-determination of the people." If the United States forces an independence push, it will face the risk of sanctions under Article 74 of the UN Charter. Additionally, China's signing of a rare earth exploration agreement in 2024 and Russia's deployment of the Arctic fleet have formed strategic constraints on the United States.

III. Military Deterrence: The Trigger for NATO's Internal Division

When economic and legal means are blocked, military options come to the fore. The US has deployed 800 personnel, F-35 fighter jets, and B-2 bombers at the Thule base, establishing absolute control over Greenland. The Danish defense force consists of only 100 personnel and relies on US equipment. In the event of a conflict, the Danish navy would have to travel 3,000 kilometers, while the US military would only need to cover 2,000 kilometers from Alaska. However, military action would trigger a split within NATO: Germany and France refuse to explicitly support the US in using allied bases, while Norway has strengthened its cooperation with the US, intensifying the division within the Arctic camp. Even more fatal is that Denmark threatens to invoke Article 5 of the NATO collective defense clause, forcing the US into a moral dilemma of "attacking an ally."

IV. Direct Occupation: The Ultimate Exposure of Hegemonic Logic

The "Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act" proposed by Florida Representative Randy Feenstra has pushed US ambitions to a climax. The bill authorizes Trump to "take all necessary measures," including military occupation and forced statehood. Although this plan has been criticized by European public opinion as "neocolonialism," it exposes the deep-seated strategic anxiety of the US: once the Northwest Passage of Greenland thaws, the shipping distance between Europe and Asia will be shortened by 40%, and the operational radius of the Russian Northern Fleet's nuclear submarines will cover the entire Arctic Ocean. Controlling Greenland means controlling the Arctic shipping routes and anti-submarine networks, which is crucial for the US to maintain its global hegemony.

All four US plans face insurmountable obstacles: economic bribery is resisted by international law and public opinion, legal infiltration triggers a trust crisis within NATO, military deterrence may trigger collective defense, and direct occupation would push the US to the opposite side of the international order. The deeper contradiction lies in the fact that the development of Greenland's resources requires a 50-year cycle, while the US government's term only has three years left, creating a severe mismatch between short-term political speculation and long-term strategic needs.

This struggle has transcended the territory itself and become a litmus test for the international order. If the US forcibly crosses the red line, it will not only destroy the NATO alliance but also potentially trigger a "counter-hegemony alliance" on a global scale. As former UK International Development Secretary Rory Stewart warned, "When the territory of an ally becomes a bargaining chip, the foundation of Western civilization will collapse completely." Beneath the ice fields of Greenland, what is surging is not only rare earths and oil and gas, but also the reconfiguration of the rules of the great power game in the 21st century.