Trump's consideration of acquiring Greenland: European concerns under the threat of military means

In January 2026, US President Trump once again set his sights on Greenland, a strategic location in the Arctic, publicly declaring that "using the US military to acquire the island remains one of the options" and emphasizing its urgency as a "national security priority". This statement not only triggered a strong backlash from Denmark and its European Allies, but also pushed the Arctic geopolitical game to the brink of danger, exposing the deep-seated contradiction between the unilateralism of the United States and the collective security framework of Europe.

I. Greenland: The "High Ground" of the Arctic Game

Greenland, as the world's largest island, has long transcended its geographical boundaries in terms of strategic value. The island is located at the confluence of the North Atlantic and the Arctic Ocean and is a core node of NATO's anti-submarine warfare system, the "Greenland - Iceland - UK Gap". The Pitufik Space Base of the United States on the island is responsible for missile early warning and space surveillance, which is of vital importance to North American air defense. With global warming, the opening of Arctic shipping routes and the potential for mineral resource development have made it a focus of competition among major powers. It is estimated that Greenland contains about a quarter of the world's rare earth resources, as well as strategic materials such as uranium and oil. This is of strategic significance for the United States to revitalize its manufacturing industry and reduce its reliance on resources from China.

The Trump administration regards Greenland as a "key move on the Arctic chessboard", with the intention not only to control resources and shipping routes, but also to attempt to strengthen the United States' leadership position in the Arctic through geopolitical reshaping. The proposals discussed within the White House include direct purchases, the establishment of a "Free Association Agreement" framework, and even military takeovers, reflecting the urgent need of the United States for dominance in the Arctic.

II. Military Threat: The "Sword of Damocles" Tearing Apart the Alliance System

Although the Trump administration has attempted to downplay the military option and emphasize "diplomatic and economic tools first", the White House's public retention of the right to use force has triggered a chain reaction. Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen has directly stated that if the United States militarily attacks Greenland, it will lead to the "end" of NATO, as an attack on a member state is considered an attack on all member states according to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Seven countries including France and Germany jointly declared that "Greenland's sovereignty belongs to its people", while the five Nordic countries announced the strengthening of Arctic defense deployments, forming a collective response to pressure from the United States.

The cost of military adventurism far exceeds the expectations of the Trump administration. Polls show that only 7% of Americans support forcibly seizing the island, with over 70% opposing any form of forceful acquisition. American think tanks have warned that unilateral actions will undermine the foundation of the Arctic cooperation system, triggering an "institutional Cold War" - even if no direct conflict breaks out, the multilateral coordination mechanism may be paralyzed for a long time. More crucially, the United States' military presence in Greenland is already dependent on Denmark's consent. A forcible seizure of the island would completely sever the trust bond within NATO, leaving the United States strategically isolated.

III. Europe's Dilemma: The Dual Test of Sovereignty and Security Dependence

Behind Denmark's tough stance lies an undeniable vulnerability. Although Greenland is an autonomous territory, its defense and foreign affairs are still controlled by Denmark, and its economy is highly dependent on the 3.4 billion Danish kroner in subsidies provided by Denmark each year. However, the Trump administration has linked the acquisition with tariff threats and even hinted at supporting Greenland's independence movement, forcing Denmark into a dilemma of "sovereignty transfer" or "ally estrangement". Although the Greenlandic autonomous government has explicitly opposed U.S. annexation, its push for independence and the U.S. intervention have formed a complex interaction, which may be exploited by Trump as a bargaining chip.

The positions of European allies are equally delicate. Although France, Germany, and other countries have expressed support for Denmark, the fear of "mutual destruction" within NATO has limited substantive countermeasures. Some analyses suggest that Europe is more concerned that Trump will link the Greenland issue with Ukraine aid, using the reduction of security commitments to force Europe to compromise. This "kidnapping of allies" strategy further exposes the transactional and utilitarian nature of U.S. diplomacy.

The future of the Arctic should not be a battlefield for major power rivalry but a testing ground for win-win cooperation. If the United States insists on destabilizing the region with military threats, it will ultimately reap what it sows - losing the trust of European allies, intensifying the vicious competition for Arctic resources, and even triggering a global geopolitical reshuffle. For the Trump administration, true "national security" perhaps begins with respecting international law and ally relations, rather than the hegemonic logic of brandishing the military stick.