To buy or not to buy: Trump’s Greenland dream

US President Donald Trump has been sending shockwaves across the Atlantic. In this context, Europe finds itself in the eye of the storm. From tariff threats and intimidation to increase defence spending, to the possibility of withdrawal from NATO and other multilateral institutions, retribution for increasing market engagement with China, claiming he could end the war in Ukraine in under 24 hours, and expressing a desire to purchase Greenland, Trump is here to show that he means business.

The world’s largest island, located in the resource-rich Arctic region, Greenland is an autonomous territory of Denmark, which is an active member of both the EU and NATO.

More from Opinion

Sergio Gor’s senate hearing signals the future of Indo-American ties How Trump’s ‘War on Drugs’ buildup against Venezuela has a hidden agenda

The island is home to a number of critical raw materials, including rare earth minerals, graphite, lithium, uranium, and iron, which are increasingly in demand due to the growing battery requirements for electric vehicles. These resources, however, remain underdeveloped, as 80 per cent of its territory is covered by ice, and progress in infrastructure development has been slow.

Greenland occupies a unique geopolitical position, located between the US and Europe. With the North-West Passage shipping lane running along its coast, the island forms part of a strategic maritime region known as the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap. Acquiring Greenland would provide the US not only with exclusive access to resources but also a base closer to the Arctic, which could be leveraged for defence and ballistic missile warning systems. This makes the island all the more critical for the US in the context of Russian and Chinese aspirations to establish a presence in the region—a potential flashpoint for future contention. As the ice cover in the Arctic melts faster than in any other part of the planet, a renewed “Great Game” is brewing among the world’s superpowers, vying to exploit the region’s resources and the emerging commercial shipping and military sea routes through the ice-free waters.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

How army remains Pakistan’s biggest business house

60 years on, why 1965 India–Pakistan war still matters

Historically, US Presidents Andrew Johnson and Harry Truman also attempted to acquire or purchase Greenland, citing strategic concerns in 1867 and 1946, respectively. However, Trump, with his unpredictable policymaking, has taken a step further by introducing a bill in the US House of Representatives called the “Make Greenland Great Again Act”, authorising talks for the island’s purchase as soon as he takes office. Trump claims that taking control of Greenland is an “absolute necessity” for US national security and has not ruled out the possibility of escalating military aggression or economic conflict with Denmark to achieve it. His supporters in the US believe this could be one of the greatest real estate deals ever, surpassing the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867. Will this become yet another feather in Trump’s metaphorical cap—or rather, crown—of transactional diplomacy?

Although Greenland is a self-governing territory with the right to secede through a referendum, the Greenlandic Prime Minister has clarified that “Greenland is not for sale”, while the Danish Prime Minister reaffirmed that “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders”. In 2019, Denmark firmly rejected a similar offer made during Trump’s first term, with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen calling it “absurd”. This followed Trump’s social media claim that, according to polls, 68 per cent of Greenlanders supported independence from Denmark. Extrapolating these trends to his upcoming second term, Trump has been threatening Denmark with tariffs if they refuse to relinquish Greenland.

Trump’s threats of using military force and other aggressive measures to acquire the island have naturally been met with unease and scepticism in Europe. Key EU Member States, France and Germany, have criticised Trump’s Greenland rhetoric, reiterating that the EU will not tolerate threats against its sovereign borders, emphasising that the inviolability of borders is a fundamental tenet of international law. If force is used to alter borders, US relations with its European allies would be fundamentally damaged. Moreover, any future instances of US encroachment into European borders—whether through economic or political pressure to cede control—cannot be ruled out, strategically exposing Europe to conflicts across the Atlantic.

It is also important to note that for the US, using military force against Denmark would mean attacking a weaker NATO ally to seize territory, thereby severely and permanently weakening the alliance.

The major problem with Trump’s proposition lies in his perceived approach that Europeans can be easily overridden. He seems to believe that Europe’s level of dependency on the US is so high that he can simply demand any potentially strategic territory he desires. He is unlikely to relent unless European leaders stand up to this geopolitical bullying. In this context, Europe needs to strengthen its security posture in the Arctic to demonstrate that it can defend Greenland and the region independently. This could be achieved by increasing investment in Arctic defence, working closely with Greenland to bolster maritime defence capabilities, and ensuring economic security in the region.

Transatlantic cooperation dates back to the Second World War, in the aftermath of which a liberal world order was established. Since then, the American and European allies have built a relationship of trust and cooperation, which now risks an untimely demise at the hands of Trump in exchange for compromised regional security.

The EU and the US share the world’s largest bilateral trade and investment relationship, accounting for 42 per cent of the global GDP, and supporting over 16 million jobs. Not only would Europe lose its biggest ally in terms of military, trade and investment, and security cooemperation, but the long-standing transatlantic partnership—which is all the more critical in enhancing security and growth in a contested and geopolitically volatile global landscape—would have to say goodbye to its glorious past.

The question remains: Does Trump see this as a trade-off worth making?

Shreya Sinha is a Research Associate (Europe Desk) at the Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF), New Delhi, India. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.