Taking Greenland

Greenland

Greenland is a now and forever free land of Inuit people emerging as a new economic presence in the Arctic with dreams of an independent future and an alliance with the rest of the world. It is a country of superlatives, the world’s biggest island, the largest fjord system, the greatest ice sheet in the Northern Hemisphere, the largest national park on Earth…all these and many more extraordinary aspects. If a map of Greenland were spread over one of the United States, the country would stretch from Brownsville, Texas on the Mexican border to the Lake of the Woods in Minnesota on the Canadian frontier.

The island is three times the size of Texas, and five times the size of California. The Great Bear State’s population is near 40,000,000 and Greenland with a huge advantage in size has only 57,000 citizens, the lowest concentration of any country in the world. But the earliest people who migrated there across the Arctic from what today we call Asia arrived at least 4,500 years ago. These early peoples were inventive, independent and incredibly resilient and have remained on the land for these Millenia.

Today, the Inuit and a smaller number of people primarily of Danish heritage have very rapidly consolidated their population and their cultural heritage into many towns and the capital city of Nuuk in an extraordinary fashion. The capital is a modern small city of some 20,000 people that appears and operates like any modern city in the western world. The streets, apartment blocks, grocery stores, automobiles and the brand-new international airport are all impressive and represent the determination of these quiet and very cordial people.

And the massive and complex land mass that is Greenland proper is becoming a very significant factor in international climate and commerce. The island is covered in ice, a bit more than 80% of the land, and it is warming three times faster than the rest of the globe, causing a significant runoff into the Atlantic Ocean. The effect of this is just now being recognized, and measured. Too, as the North Polar Ice Cap melts more every year, Greenland is emerging as a transit point for what is becoming a new international shipping route, through the Northwest Passage.

In addition to Greenland’s other outstanding features, there have been very significant mineral resources discovered along the ice-free edges of the island. But they will be difficult to exploit because of high costs, lack of infrastructure, severe winter climactic conditions and a lack of local refining capacity. At the moment there are only 2 operating mines in the entire country.

So, what could be so ominous about the immediate future of this emerging nation of such an admirable culture and promising economy? A very determined country that has targeted Greenland for acquisition.

The Taking

On March 4, 2025, the President of the United States addressed The United States Congress, and the Nation, and among his remarks he said the following:

“But we need it [Greenland] really for international, for world security, and I think we’re going to get it. One way or the other, we’re going to get it,” he said.

Then in December 2025, as he was appointing a new Special Envoy to Greenland he said:

“We need Greenland for national security, not for minerals”

The new Special Envoy, a Mr. Landry the sitting governor of Louisiana, after being appointed to this new position responded in a social media post:

“It’s an honor to serve you [President Trump] in this volunteer position to make Greenland a part of the U.S.”

Greenland is still an administrative part of Denmark, and while Greenland moves toward complete independence, with Denmark’s blessing, it is still legally a part of the Kingdom of Denmark. This is acknowledged by the United Nations, the European Union and international law. The responses to these US declarations from the Prime Minister of Denmark, Mette Frederiksen in Copenhagen, and the Prime Minister of Greenland, Jens-Frederik Nielsen in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, were a unified and emphatic rejection of the takeover, usurpation, or invasion of Greenland.

During this first year of the new administration in Washington, one incident of subterfuge by the US by three operatives in Nuuk to attempt to cause conflict between Denmark and Greenland was uncovered and the US was reprimanded for it. Later in the year, the US government at the direction of the administration purchased 15% each of two mining companies in Greenland. This appears to be an extraordinary attempt to begin to affect the will of the US government on the country’s mining industry. These are only two activities that have come to light so far.

But what might come next is what is so ominous. If Denmark and ultimately Greenland do not agree to let the US “take ownership” of the massive island, what might happen in the name of military action, something that has not been ruled out by the administration, and is almost incomprehensible.

Denmark was one of the founding members of the North American Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949 as was the United States. Denmark has maintained that membership and has been an active participant in many NATO operations during the past 77 years. Also, Denmark is a charter member of the European Union (EU) and takes an active role in this mutually supportive supranational economic union of countries in Europe, and this includes Greenland as part of the Kingdom of Denmark.

As the world begins the second Quarter of the 21 st Century, Greenland is firmly established with the western alliances of NATO and the EU, and has no alliances with either China or Russia, the other two major world economic and military powers.

There have been no public or other threats made against Denmark or Greenland by any other country related to military or economic actions by competing countries including Russia and China. Only the United States of America has made stated threats to take economic or possible military action against Denmark and Greenland, and the form of those actions is potentially damning.

The most passive but very damaging moves initially might be to increase tariffs even more on goods and services from Denmark, or to block free trade with Denmark as has just happened with “pauses” on Danish commercial contracts for wind generation projects in the US. The first two major energy projects along the Northeastern seaboard involve two Danish companies, Orsted and Vestas, and represent nearly 3 billion dollars in mid construction contracts.

There may be other ways to interfere with Danish companies providing goods to Greenland, as the majority of the products that are consumed in Greenland are manufactured or grown in Denmark. All of these goods must be shipped to Greenland by ocean transport. Economic warfare can of course be as effective as any military action, and that brings up the unthinkable; the action that the administration has said cannot be ruled out.

Blockades: With the United States using this form of force in the Caribbean currently, a similar fatal step in Greenland would be to hinder or simply turn back commercial ships approaching Nuuk, the capital of Greenland or any of a handful of smaller towns along the Greenland Coast. The country has a near total dependence on foreign goods, food stuffs, perishable and non-perishable products used by the 57,000 people living in Greenland, and they are all shipped by sea. Just using intimidation, stopping ships to check papers and documentation on the high seas would be harassment and would then constitute a serious threat to the supply and life line of the country. If that deterrent fails, there is always the option of a blockade.

This sort of action would certainly bring about a serious response from the EU, but how would they react to eliminate it? How does the world respond to the United States when the country determines to carry out any aggressive act? The current military action in the Caribbean and Pacific Coast begs that question.

Boots on the Ground: the final solution. The administration, through a future report with recommendations by the Special Envoy that other measures are not working and military action of some kind must be taken to secure Greenland for the United States could then initiate the military option.

The least invasive would be to land troops and infrastructure along the Eastern coastline of Greenland where there are few if any Greenlandic people and establish bases there. That could be expanded to other sites from the nearly uninhabited East Coast to the more populous West Coast. Eventually, even the large towns of Ilulissat and Sisimiut could be included. Nothing in the name of military resistance would stop the US from entering Nuuk, the capital by sea or air. There is even a brand-new international airport for military logistical support.

If the United States was intent on taking Greenland through any form of military intervention, there would be no way to prevent it, at least not militarily. But, the consequences for just one aggressive act on the high seas, on land, or in the air would be potentially catastrophic for NATO, the EU and realistically, every country in the world with thoughts of aggression toward another.

Consequences

What would the United States have wrought? Without any provocation, even in the most convoluted and delusional way, a member, the US, of the greatest peacetime military alliance in history, NATO, would have attacked another member, Denmark of that alliance. Denmark and Greenland have welcomed cooperation and even limited increased military support through dialogue but the US would have chosen violence instead.

The moment a military plane landed, uninvited at any airport in Greenland, other than Pituffik the US base, or soldiers came ashore in towns or the capital of Nuuk, or ships of any description took aggressive action toward commercial shipping, NATO and the concept of unity would shatter like glass. No one could accurately speculate what the fallout would be for Europe and even Canada, another member state that has been the subject of sporting conjecture by the administration of the US to become the next acquisition of the country on its southern border.

And there is another consequence perhaps even more dire and grave at the same time. If any country whether a superpower like the United States or just a small tranquil land with grievances or a lust for nearby riches wants to invade and take over its neighbor, the precedent of the US invasion of Greenland will be the only rationale it will need. The US will have invaded an ally because it imagined that it had a right to in order to improve its sense of national security, and even those hidden minerals that were the first reason to “Take Greenland” earlier in the year.

The current US administration has tried on two occasions to “Buy” Greenland and has been soundly rebuffed by Denmark and Greenland. In the Spring of 2025, there was a referendum in Greenland that asked whether the citizens of this proud and independent minded land wanted to become part of the US, and the resounding response was ”No!” by over 85%. The US must find a better way to conduct international diplomacy and commerce if it wishes to succeed in the world.