Buying Greenland: The Crazy American Ambition That Is Shaking Up NATO

The Anatomy of an Expansionist Bill

Introduced on January 13, 2025, in the House of Representatives by Republican Andrew Ogles of Tennessee, H.R. 361, titled the “Make Greenland Great Again Act,” represents an unprecedented escalation in the U.S. strategy to acquire Greenland. The bill, co-sponsored by eleven other Republican representatives—including influential figures such as Dan Crenshaw of Texas, Mike Lawler of New York, and Lauren Boebert of Colorado—follows a legislative procedure designed to circumvent any substantial opposition. Section 1 formally authorizes the President of the United States, effective at 12:01 p.m. on January 20, 2025, “to seek to enter into negotiations with the Kingdom of Denmark to secure the acquisition of Greenland by the United States.” But it is Section 2 that reveals the true nature of this legislative push. It provides for an expedited approval process that gives Congress only sixty days to review and potentially reject any agreement negotiated with Copenhagen. If no joint resolution of disapproval is adopted within that timeframe, the agreement would automatically enter into force and take on “the full force of law.”

This provision represents a dangerous constitutional innovation. Traditionally, international treaties require Senate approval by a two-thirds majority—a high threshold designed to prevent hasty international commitments. The Ogles bill circumvents this obstacle by classifying the potential agreement on Greenland not as a treaty, but as an “agreement,” thereby subjecting its ratification to an ordinary legislative procedure that is far more favorable to the executive branch. Furthermore, the sixty-day deadline is unusually short for an issue of such importance, significantly limiting Congress’s ability to conduct thorough hearings, consult with experts, and publicly debate the implications of such an acquisition. The relevant congressional committees—namely, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations—would thus be presented with a fait accompli, forced to hastily approve or reject an agreement that could redefine the geopolitics of the Northern Hemisphere for decades to come. This legislative strategy fits perfectly with the Trump administration’s tactic of creating fait accomplis and forcing political and public opinion to adapt to its initiatives rather than seeking prior consensus.

The Parliamentary Architects of U.S. Expansion

Andrew Ogles, the bill’s primary sponsor, is no newcomer to American politics. A former mayor of Maury County, Tennessee, he has built his political reputation on ultra-conservative stances and unconditional support for Donald Trump. His election to the House of Representatives in 2022 was largely supported by the former president, who sees him as a reliable ally in advancing his expansionist agenda. But Ogles is not alone in this endeavor. The bill’s eleven cosponsors represent a strategic cross-section of the Republican Party, including members of key committees on foreign affairs and the armed services, as well as figures known for their hawkish stances on defense. Dan Crenshaw of Texas, a former Navy SEAL and member of the Committee on Armed Services, lends military legitimacy to the bill. Mike Lawler of New York, a representative from a traditionally Democratic state, aims to give the bill the appearance of bipartisan support. As for Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, their signatures guarantee the support of the party’s most radical wing—the one that advocates for an aggressive and uncompromising foreign policy.

The strategy behind this selection of cosponsors is clear: to create a coalition that spans the various factions of the Republican Party to ensure that the bill cannot be easily dismissed as a fringe initiative. By including representatives from geographically diverse states—from Texas to Florida, Alabama to New York—the bill’s authors also seek to demonstrate that interest in Greenland extends beyond purely regional considerations. This effort to mobilize congressional support is accompanied by an intense communications campaign designed to prepare American public opinion. Supportive editorials are beginning to appear in conservative media outlets, presenting the acquisition of Greenland as a necessary step toward “Making America Great Again” amid heightened global competition. The arguments put forward emphasize national security, energy independence, and the need to counter Chinese influence in the Arctic, thereby seeking to transform an expansionist ambition into a justified defensive policy.

I remain stunned by the audacity of this legislative maneuver. This is not merely a bill; it is a veritable institutional declaration of war against the principles of international law and the constitutional balance of power in the United States. Circumventing the Senate’s two-thirds majority requirement for treaties by using a different term (“agreement” instead of “treaty”) is a semantic sleight of hand that reveals a deep contempt for democratic safeguards. And those sixty days allotted to Congress… it’s a veritable democratic farce! How can anyone seriously expect to debate in two months an acquisition that would redraw the map of the North Atlantic, involve billions of dollars in investment, affect relations with all European allies, and have implications for the sovereignty of 57,000 Greenlanders? This is a betrayal of the deliberative process that should be at the heart of any democracy. What sends a chill down my spine is the realization that this rushed approach is deliberate: they know full well that the longer the debate lasts, the more the opposition will organize. They’re counting on the element of surprise and inertia to ram it through.

The Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Territorial Acquisition

From a strictly economic standpoint, the United States’ acquisition of Greenland would represent both a massive investment and the potential for a considerable return on investment. The potential purchase price, although never officially quantified by the Trump administration, would likely follow the pattern of historical offers. In 1946, Washington offered $100 million (the equivalent of more than $1 billion today). Today, experts estimate that the price could range from $10 billion to $50 billion, depending on the concessions granted to Denmark and the guarantees offered to the Greenlandic population. This sum, while substantial, would represent only a tiny fraction of the U.S. federal budget (less than 0.2% of annual spending) and would be largely offset by the territory’s long-term strategic value. Proponents of the acquisition point out that the United States already spends billions each year to maintain its military presence in Greenland and secure its interests in the Arctic. A direct purchase of the territory would allow these defense expenditures to be transformed into productive investments and would legally secure access to the island’s natural resources.

The potential economic returns are manifold. First, access to rare earth reserves would allow the United States to significantly reduce its dependence on China for these critical minerals. In 2023, the United States imported only $190 million worth of rare earths, a figure that could skyrocket with the development of green technologies and the energy transition. Control over Greenland’s resources could not only secure the domestic supply but also give Washington significant economic leverage in its relations with Beijing. Second, the offshore oil and gas reserves, estimated at more than 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent, would represent a considerable source of revenue even when accounting for the high costs of extraction in the Arctic environment. Third, the development of new Arctic shipping routes could generate billions of dollars in revenue from transit, port services, and logistical support. Finally, Greenland’s geographic location would make it an ideal platform for the development of space- and satellite communications-related services, a rapidly expanding market. Proponents of the project estimate that, even with massive investment in the necessary infrastructure, a return on investment could be achieved within one to two decades, after which Greenland would become a net source of revenue for the U.S. Treasury.

The Economic Model for Greenland’s Integration

Greenland’s economic integration into the U.S. economy would likely follow a model similar to that of other territories acquired by the United States, with an initial phase of massive investment followed by a gradual development of economic autonomy. Currently, Greenland’s economy is heavily dependent on Danish subsidies, which amount to 5.6 billion kroner per year (approximately $800 million). The territory’s annual GDP is only $3 billion, and 43% of the population works for the government, compared with just 15% in the United States. Per capita disposable income is the lowest in the Arctic, representing less than one-third of that in Alaska. This extreme economic dependence presents both a challenge and an opportunity for the United States. On the one hand, Washington would have to assume Denmark’s current financial burden, which would represent a significant annual cost. On the other hand, this dependence offers the United States considerable leeway to develop the local economy in line with its own interests.

The U.S. strategy would likely consist of massive investment in basic infrastructure: modern ports capable of accommodating large ships, international airports, transportation and communication networks, and energy facilities. These investments would create jobs in the short term and lay the groundwork for the development of extractive industries and logistics services. The Alaska model—which transformed a sparsely populated and economically dependent territory into a prosperous state through oil production—would likely serve as a benchmark. However, Greenland faces significant challenges: the Arctic climate, the complete lack of a road network connecting cities, and the need to respect environmental concerns and the rights of indigenous peoples limit the speed and scale of possible development. Experts estimate that Greenland could achieve some form of economic autonomy in 25 to 30 years, provided that investment remains steady and global markets for Arctic resources stay robust. In the meantime, economic integration would entail a significant financial cost, but one deemed acceptable in light of the long-term strategic benefits.

There is something deeply cynical about this way of presenting the acquisition of Greenland as a mere matter of economic calculation. We hear talk of returns on investment, markets, and economic development… all of which serve to mask the brutal reality of a territorial takeover. This economic rhetoric is particularly insidious because it claims that this acquisition would be beneficial to the Greenlanders themselves. But let’s look at the facts: the United States already has territories like Puerto Rico and Guam—and how are their populations faring? The wealth generated by these territories benefits the mainland immensely, while local populations remain largely dependent and marginalized. The economic model proposed for Greenland is not a model of genuine development; it is a model of exploitation and dependence. The Greenlanders would become U.S. citizens, but what real power would they have to influence decisions concerning their territory? And what will happen when U.S. economic interests conflict with Greenlandic traditions and values? History gives us the answer: economic interests always prevail.

The Historic Statement by Seven European Leaders

Faced with escalating threats from the United States, Europe has finally responded with unusual firmness. On January 6, 2026, seven major European leaders issued a joint statement that marks a turning point in transatlantic relations. French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and the leaders of Poland, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands solemnly affirmed that “Greenland belongs to its people” and that “it is up to Denmark and Greenland—and them alone—to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland”. This statement, though verbally moderate, represents a significant break from the European tendency to accommodate U.S. demands. For the first time in years, the major European powers are speaking with one voice to defend a fundamental principle of international law: respect for territorial sovereignty.

The significance of this statement extends far beyond the case of Greenland. It comes amid growing tensions between Europe and the United States over a range of issues: Trump’s threat to withdraw the U.S. from NATO, tariffs imposed on European products, the undermining of climate agreements, and now this attempt at the forced acquisition of European territory. The statement by the seven leaders appears to mark a tipping point—the moment when Europe realizes it can no longer rely on the protective American leadership to which it had grown accustomed since World War II. The choice of signatories is particularly significant. By including the United Kingdom—which has officially left the European Union but remains a major military and diplomatic power—the leaders are sending the signal that this issue transcends European divisions and concerns Western security as a whole. The presence of Germany and France—the two driving forces of the European Union—lends the text considerable credibility, while Poland, traditionally one of the United States’ closest allies in Europe, gives the declaration a truly pan-European dimension of resistance.

The Existential Threat to NATO

The most vehement reaction came from Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who openly described the possibility of a U.S. attack on Greenland as “the end of NATO.” This statement, made during an interview with TV2 on January 6, 2026, represents the harshest warning ever issued by a European ally against the United States since the alliance’s founding in 1949. “If the United States chooses to launch a military attack against another NATO country, then it’s all over. That includes our NATO and, therefore, the security that has been provided since the end of World War II,” Frederiksen stated with a calmness that barely masked the gravity of her words. This statement carries particular weight coming from Denmark, one of NATO’s founding members and traditionally one of the United States’ most loyal allies in Europe.

Frederiksen’s threat is not empty. Article 5 of the NATO treaty stipulates that an attack against one member of the alliance is considered an attack against all members. If the United States were to launch a military attack on Greenland—a Danish territory and therefore a NATO member—the alliance would face an existential dilemma. The other members would technically be obligated to intervene to defend Denmark against the American aggressor, which would trigger an immediate and irreversible breakdown of the alliance. Even in the absence of direct military action, an American attempt to take control of Greenland through economic and political pressure would put NATO in an untenable position. How could the alliance function if one of its most powerful members were actively seeking to appropriate the territory of another member? Mette Frederiksen’s statement reveals Europeans’ sudden realization that NATO, conceived as a defensive alliance against external threats, has now become a potential instrument of American imperialism.

What strikes me about this European reaction is that it has come so late. For years, Europe turned a blind eye to the increasingly obvious excesses of U.S. foreign policy. It tolerated the threats, the insults, and the unilateral withdrawals from agreements, hoping that these were merely words and that reason would eventually prevail. Now, with the concrete threat against Greenland, Europeans are finally realizing that they are dealing with an administration that no longer plays by the usual democratic rules. The statement by the seven leaders is significant, but is it enough? I fear not. Europeans sorely lack real leverage to exert pressure on the United States. What sanctions can they realistically threaten? A trade break? It would hurt Europe more than it would hurt America. A military response? That’s unthinkable. Europe finds itself in the classic position of the dependent partner who can threaten to walk away but never dares to actually do so. And the Americans know this all too well.

The Greenlandic Government Faces Pressure from the United States

The Greenlandic government, led by Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen, is attempting to navigate this crisis by striking a careful balance between principled firmness and political pragmatism. Immediately following Trump’s remarks, Nielsen responded with a statement that blended firmness and conciliation. “Our country is not for sale, and our future is not decided by social media posts,” he stated, referring to the controversial post by Katie Miller, the wife of the White House chief of staff, who had shared an image of Greenland in the colors of the American flag with the word “SOON.” This statement reflects the Greenlandic authorities’ determination not to give in to panic or overreact, which could precipitate a crisis. “There is no reason to panic or worry. We are not in a situation where we believe a takeover of the country could happen overnight, and that is why we emphasize that we want good cooperation,” Nielsen added during a press conference, attempting to reassure a clearly concerned public.

However, behind this facade of calm, the Greenlandic government is actively working to strengthen its diplomatic position. Urgent contacts have been established with Copenhagen to coordinate a joint response, and parallel diplomatic initiatives have been launched with other regional and international powers. The government has also activated its communication channels with the local population, seeking to maintain national unity in the face of the external threat. This cautious approach reflects the complex reality of Greenland’s situation: although autonomous in its internal affairs, Greenland still relies heavily on Denmark for its defense and international relations. This dependence creates a constant tension between the desire for independence and the need to maintain constructive relations with Copenhagen, particularly in times of crisis. The government’s official position therefore remains firmly committed to the current constitutional framework while actively exploring options to strengthen the island’s future autonomy.

Independence as a Way Out?

The current crisis has reignited the debate over Greenland’s independence, an issue that has been at the center of Greenlandic politics for years. The Greenlandic government declared in February 2024 that independence was its ultimate goal, and this issue became the main focus of the April 2025 general elections. Traditionally, the debate over independence has oscillated between economic considerations (Greenland’s ability to support itself without Danish subsidies) and identity issues (the desire to preserve and promote Inuit culture). But the U.S. threat now adds a crucial geopolitical dimension to this equation. For some Greenlandic officials, independence could offer a strategic way out of the current crisis: a fully independent Greenland would be free to forge its own international alliances and negotiate directly with world powers without going through the Danish filter.

However, this path carries considerable risks. An independent Greenland would automatically lose the NATO security umbrella it currently enjoys as a Danish territory, potentially becoming even more vulnerable to U.S. pressure. Furthermore, economic independence remains a major challenge. A 2014 report authored by thirteen researchers estimated that Greenland would remain dependent on subsidies for at least 25 years to maintain its social welfare system, even with an unrealistic level of mineral resource development. Minik Thorleif Rosing, one of the report’s authors, stated as recently as 2025 that “even if you had an unrealistic rate of mineral resource development, it would be unlikely to replace more than half of Denmark’s annual subsidies in the near future.” The prospect of hasty independence in the face of American threats thus appears to be both a temptation and a peril for Greenlandic leaders, who must carefully weigh the potential benefits of greater sovereignty against the increased risks of economic and military vulnerability.

I feel a deep ambivalence toward the situation of the Greenlanders. On the one hand, I admire their dignity and their determination to assert that their country is not for sale. It is a magnificent statement of principle in a world where everything seems to have a price. But on the other hand, I realize just how precarious their position is. They are caught between a protective power that is considering selling them out and an aggressive power that wants to buy them. And what can a population of 57,000 people do in this situation? The sad reality is that the Greenlanders have virtually no real power in these negotiations. Their fate lies in the hands of major powers that are fighting over their territory as if they didn’t even exist. The debate over independence strikes me as almost cruel in this context: they’re being offered independence, but to go where? Into the arms of which other protector? China? Russia? Is that really a solution? I fear that the Greenlanders will soon discover that formal independence doesn’t mean much when you remain a small country in a world dominated by giants.

The Danish Constitutional Framework and the Right to Self-Determination

Greenland’s constitutional status within the Kingdom of Denmark is highly complex, which complicates any attempt by a foreign power to acquire it. Since 1953, Greenland has no longer been a colony but an integral part of the Danish Kingdom, albeit with a status of territorial autonomy reinforced by the 2009 Act on Self-Government. This law provides a clear mechanism for achieving independence: a positive referendum in Greenland, followed by approval by the Danish Parliament. However, constitutional experts suggest that full independence might require an amendment to the 1953 Danish Constitution, as the fundamental text treats the kingdom as an indivisible unit. This legal complexity means that even if the Greenlandic people voted overwhelmingly for independence, the Danish constitutional process could take years—or even fail entirely.

The central question remains whether the Danish government has the right to sell part of the kingdom’s territory without the explicit consent of its people. According to modern international law—and particularly the principle of self-determination enshrined in the United Nations Charter—colonial populations and non-self-governing territories have the right to determine their own political status. Although Greenland is no longer technically a colony, its history of colonization and its status as an indigenous people strengthen its claim to self-determination. The Danish government has, in fact, stated on several occasions that it would respect the outcome of a Greenlandic referendum on independence. However, the question of whether Copenhagen could legally sell Greenland to a third party without consulting its population remains controversial. Most legal experts agree that such a sale would not only be politically unacceptable but also likely illegal under contemporary international law, as it would violate the fundamental right of Greenlanders to determine their own future.

The Constitutional Validity of the U.S. Bill

The “Make Greenland Great Again Act” also raises important constitutional questions in the United States. The U.S. Constitution grants the President the power to enter into treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate, requiring a two-thirds majority. By seeking to circumvent this requirement by characterizing the potential agreement on Greenland as an “agreement” rather than a “treaty,” the bill’s proponents are venturing onto slippery constitutional ground. The U.S. Supreme Court has historically recognized that Congress possesses broad authority to regulate foreign relations, but it has also insisted that major international commitments—particularly those involving transfers of territorial sovereignty—must follow established constitutional procedures.

Furthermore, the proposal to limit the congressional review period for an agreement on Greenland to sixty days could be challenged as violating the principle of separation of powers. Congress has the constitutional right to review executive branch proposals with due diligence, particularly on matters of such importance. By imposing such a short deadline, the bill could be interpreted as an unconstitutional attempt to restrict legislative prerogatives. Groups defending constitutional freedoms have already begun preparing potential legal challenges, arguing that even if Congress itself votes to limit its own review time, this restriction constitutes an abdication of its constitutional responsibilities. These legal issues, though technically complex, could become crucial if the bill were to pass and an agreement were negotiated with Denmark. Legal challenges could significantly delay—or even completely invalidate—the acquisition process.

It is ironic to see Americans, who present themselves as the great defenders of democracy and the rule of law, blithely violate the most fundamental constitutional principles when it suits them. Bypassing the Senate’s two-thirds majority requirement for treaties is a betrayal of the safeguards that the Founding Fathers put in place precisely to prevent hasty decisions in foreign policy. And sixty days to review the acquisition of a territory the size of Greenland? It is an insult to the intelligence of Congress and the American people. What particularly revolts me is the hypocrisy of claiming to respect international law while preparing a flagrant violation of peoples’ right to self-determination. Americans talk about democracy but treat Greenland as nothing more than a commodity on the real estate market. Legal and constitutional principles are not technical obstacles to be circumvented; they are the very foundation of a civilized society. When we begin to ignore them for reasons of political expediency, we set ourselves on a very slippery slope.

Strong but Controversial Republican Support

American public opinion on the acquisition of Greenland remains deeply divided along partisan lines, once again revealing the political divides that run through the nation. Among Republican voters, support for Trump’s initiative appears relatively strong, though not universal. Polls conducted by conservative organizations indicate that about 62% of Republican voters would approve the acquisition of Greenland if it were presented as necessary for national security and to counter Chinese influence in the Arctic. This support stems from several factors: personal loyalty to Trump, a historical tradition of territorial expansion dating back to the “Manifest Destiny” doctrine, and a growing distrust of international institutions and traditional alliances. Conservative media also play a crucial role in mobilizing this support, presenting the acquisition of Greenland as a necessary step toward “Making America Great Again” and as an act of strong leadership in an increasingly competitive world.

However, even within the Republican Party, dissenting voices are beginning to emerge. Some Republican senators, particularly those serving on the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees, are privately expressing reservations about the wisdom of such an acquisition. They fear that the aggressiveness displayed in this matter could alienate crucial allies at a time when the United States faces multiple security challenges around the world. Members of the military and intelligence establishment have also circulated memos highlighting the risks of a direct confrontation with European countries and questioning Greenland’s actual strategic value relative to the diplomatic and political costs of such an acquisition. These reservations have not yet been expressed publicly, reflecting the party discipline imposed by the Trump administration, but they could become more vocal if the bill begins to make progress in Congress.

Growing Opposition from Democrats and Independents

Opposition to the acquisition of Greenland is significantly stronger among Democratic and independent voters. Polls indicate that nearly 78% of Democratic voters oppose this initiative, viewing it as an example of American imperialism and an unacceptable violation of international law. This opposition is based on several arguments: the potential financial cost of acquiring and integrating the territory, the risks of diplomatic deadlock with European allies, and the moral implications of a policy that echoes 19th-century colonial practices. Progressive media outlets are vigorously denouncing what they call the Trump administration’s “authoritarian drift,” highlighting the troubling parallels with expansionist regimes of the past.

But perhaps the most significant opposition comes from expert communities and think tanks traditionally aligned with the Democratic Party. The Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institution, and other influential research centers have published critical analyses highlighting the strategic risks of the Trump initiative. These experts argue that the forced acquisition of Greenland would significantly weaken the U.S. position in the world, alienating European allies at the very moment when China is expanding its global influence. They also point out that the strategic benefits of Greenland could be achieved through traditional diplomatic means, without the need for a costly and controversial territorial acquisition. This independent expertise, while having little direct influence on the current Trump administration, helps shape the public debate and could prove crucial should political circumstances change.

What despairs me most about this division in American public opinion is seeing how fundamental questions of international law and political morality have become markers of partisan identity. When you look at the numbers, you realize that the majority of Americans oppose this acquisition, but that this opposition is largely confined to the Democratic Party. How did we get here? How has opposing an openly imperialist policy become a “left-wing” position? A few decades ago, Republicans like Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan would have been horrified by such a violation of the principle of national sovereignty. Today, their party has become the champion of this policy. This polarization means that rational debate on these fundamental issues is no longer possible. Everything has become a matter of partisan loyalty and tribal identity. Americans have lost the ability to unite around fundamental principles that should transcend political divisions. And perhaps that is what poses the greatest threat to American democracy itself.

Strengthening the Existing Strategic Partnership

Faced with European resistance and the legal complexities of a forced acquisition, some experts and diplomats are proposing alternatives that would allow the United States to achieve its strategic objectives in the Arctic without triggering a major international crisis. One of the most serious options would be to radically transform the existing strategic partnership between the United States, Denmark, and Greenland. Rather than seeking to acquire the territory, Washington could propose a comprehensive security agreement that would make Greenland a full-fledged strategic partner in the Arctic. Such an agreement could include massive U.S. investment in Greenlandic infrastructure, joint development of natural resources based on principles of equitable benefit-sharing, and deeper integration of Greenland into the NATO defense system, while formally respecting Danish sovereignty and Greenlandic autonomy.

This approach would offer several advantages. First, it would avoid the constitutional and diplomatic crisis that a forced acquisition would entail. Second, it would be more likely to garner support from local populations and European governments, as it would be based on cooperation rather than coercion. Third, it would set a positive precedent for the management of Arctic regions, based on international collaboration rather than territorial competition. European diplomats have already begun to quietly explore this option, suggesting that an “enhanced strategic partnership” agreement could meet U.S. security needs while preserving the existing legal and political framework. However, this approach would require a significant shift in the rhetoric and strategy of the Trump administration, which has so far favored confrontation over cooperation.

The Model for Multilateral Cooperation in the Arctic

A more ambitious alternative would be to develop a comprehensive multilateral framework for Arctic governance, involving not only the United States, Denmark, and Greenland, but also other Arctic powers such as Canada, Norway, Russia, and even China. Such a framework could take the form of a strengthened regional organization, modeled after the Arctic Council but with real decision-making powers in the areas of security, economic development, and environmental protection. In this context, Greenland could serve as a natural bridge between Europe and North America, facilitating cooperation rather than becoming a source of contention.

This multilateral approach would have the advantage of recognizing the geopolitical reality of the Arctic in the 21st century: a region of growing strategic importance where the interests of multiple powers overlap and require coordination mechanisms. It could also help ease tensions between NATO and Russia in the Arctic, creating opportunities for cooperation where confrontation threatens to dominate. For the United States, this strategy would provide access to Greenland’s resources and strategic advantages without the political and legal costs of a unilateral acquisition. However, this option would require a degree of patient diplomacy and compromise that currently seems foreign to the Trump administration’s approach. Furthermore, it would likely encounter significant resistance from those who view any form of sharing influence in the Arctic as a weakening of the U.S. position.

These alternatives are intellectually appealing but politically unrealistic in the current context. Cooperation? Multilateralism? Compromise? These words have virtually disappeared from the Trump administration’s vocabulary. For this team, diplomacy is merely a sign of weakness, and cooperation a form of capitulation. They prefer direct confrontation, brute force, and ultimatums. What fills me with despair is that we know how these situations should be handled in a rational world. We have decades of experience in multilateral diplomacy, in managing shared resources, and in building international institutions. All these achievements are being swept aside by a primitive approach that reduces international relations to a contest where the strongest imposes its will on the weakest. And the most tragic part of this story is that this approach not only fails to solve problems but creates new, far more dangerous ones. By refusing to cooperate, the United States is pushing Europe and other powers toward alternative solutions that exclude America, ultimately weakening the U.S. position in the long run.

An Existential Crisis for the Atlantic Alliance

The U.S. attempt to acquire Greenland undoubtedly represents the most serious crisis NATO has faced since its creation in 1949, surpassing even the tensions of the Cold War in terms of the fundamental challenge it poses to the alliance. The central issue is that NATO was conceived as a defensive alliance among equal sovereign states sharing common democratic values. The current situation puts this fundamental premise to the test in an unprecedented way: one member of the alliance (the United States) is actively seeking to acquire, by force, a territory belonging to another member (Denmark). This situation creates an insoluble logical contradiction: how can the alliance survive if one of its most powerful members violates the territorial sovereignty of another member?

The implications of this crisis are numerous and profound. First, it erodes the mutual trust that forms the foundation of any military alliance. European countries—and Denmark in particular—will never again be able to view the United States as a reliable ally if Washington persists in its attempt to acquire Greenland. This mistrust will likely extend to other areas of security cooperation, undermining the alliance’s effectiveness in future crises. Second, the crisis sets a dangerous precedent for other disputed territories around the world. If the United States can use its military and economic power to acquire Greenland, what is to prevent other powers from doing the same in other regions? Third, Mette Frederiksen’s warning that this crisis would mean “the end of NATO” is no hyperbole. Even if the alliance survives in name, it will be profoundly transformed, likely becoming an ad hoc coalition rather than a permanent strategic alliance based on shared values.

The Reconfiguration of European Security

Faced with this crisis, European countries are confronted with a historic choice: either accept increasing subordination to U.S. interests, or develop genuine strategic autonomy that allows them to defend European sovereignty without depending on a potentially hostile ally. The recent European initiative by seven leaders suggests that Europe might finally choose the second option. This realization could accelerate projects that have existed for years but have always lacked political will: a credible European rapid-deployment force, an integrated European defense industry, and autonomous intelligence and surveillance capabilities.

The Greenland crisis could also transform the dynamics of the European Union itself. Traditionally divided on defense issues, the EU might find in this common external threat a catalyst for deeper integration in foreign and security policy. Countries such as Poland and the Baltic states, which have traditionally been pro-American, might realize that their security ultimately depends on a strong and united Europe capable of resisting pressure from all major powers, including the United States. This realignment would not happen quickly or easily, but the Greenland crisis could mark the beginning of the end of Europe’s era of dependence on the United States for its security. Paradoxically, American aggression could ultimately force Europe to mature and fully assume its strategic responsibilities.

The ultimate irony of this situation is that Trump, by seeking to weaken Europe and strengthen American dominance, could unwittingly trigger the emergence of a strategically autonomous Europe that might ultimately challenge American supremacy. This is the classic paradox of imperialism: the more a power tries to control its allies, the more it pushes them to develop their own autonomy. The Greenland crisis could historically mark the moment when Europe finally realizes that its security cannot depend in the long term on an external power, no matter how friendly it may appear to be. But this transition will be extremely dangerous. In the interim period, while Europe is developing its autonomous capabilities but has not yet made them fully operational, a window of considerable vulnerability will open. And powers such as Russia or China might be tempted to exploit this transition period. Trump is playing with fire—not only for Europe, but for global stability as a whole.

The Scenario of Direct Confrontation

The most concerning scenario, though relatively unlikely, is that of a direct confrontation between the United States and Denmark/NATO over the issue of Greenland. This scenario could unfold if the Trump administration, frustrated by European opposition and legal obstacles, decided to take unilateral action. The initial steps would likely consist of an escalation of economic and diplomatic pressure: sanctions against Denmark, threats to withdraw from NATO, and the deployment of increased U.S. military forces in the region under the pretext of security. If these measures failed to produce the desired results, the next step could be an attempt to destabilize the Greenlandic government—for example, by supporting factions favorable to U.S. integration or by organizing local referendums under strong U.S. influence.

In the most extreme case, a direct military confrontation cannot be ruled out. The United States already maintains a significant military presence in Greenland at the Pituffik base and could theoretically use this position to seize control of the territory before Denmark or NATO could intervene effectively. However, the costs of such an operation would be astronomical—not only in military terms but, above all, in diplomatic terms. An attack on Danish territory would immediately trigger a NATO crisis and could potentially lead to a complete breakdown of transatlantic relations, or even military confrontations between NATO allies themselves. This catastrophic scenario would create a new division of the world, potentially even more dangerous than that of the Cold War, as it would pit democratic powers directly against one another.

The Scenario of Compromise and Enhanced Cooperation

The most optimistic scenario—though increasingly unlikely—would be a return to reason and diplomacy. In this scenario, international pressure, domestic opposition in the United States, and European resistance would force the Trump administration to temper its ambitions. A compromise could be reached involving a comprehensive strategic agreement between the United States, Denmark, and Greenland. This agreement could include massive U.S. investments in Greenlandic infrastructure, enhanced security guarantees, and joint resource development based on principles of environmental sustainability and shared benefits. Greenland could become a model of international cooperation in the Arctic, demonstrating how strategic interests can be reconciled with respect for sovereignty and international law.

However, this scenario would require significant changes in the political landscape in the United States and Europe. In the United States, it would require either an electoral defeat for Trump or a sufficiently significant rift within the Republican Party to force a policy shift. In Europe, current leaders would need to maintain their unity and resolve in the face of U.S. pressure, which could be difficult given Europe’s history of division and its diverse economic interests. Even in this best-case scenario, transatlantic relations would be permanently marked by this crisis, with increased mistrust and profoundly transformed security structures.

The Scenario of Fragmentation and a New Multipolar World

The most likely scenario, unfortunately, is one of a gradual fragmentation of transatlantic relations and an accelerated emergence of a truly multipolar world. In this scenario, the Greenland crisis is resolved neither through direct confrontation nor through a complete compromise, but through a sort of prolonged stalemate that fundamentally transforms international relations. The United States continues its policy of pressure but without going so far as to engage in direct military confrontation. Europe gradually develops its strategic autonomy but remains divided on the manner and pace of this transition. Greenland maintains its current status but under constant pressure from all sides.

This state of limbo would create the conditions for a major geopolitical reorganization. NATO might survive in name only but would become increasingly marginalized, replaced by regional coalitions and thematic partnerships. New regional powers would emerge in various parts of the world, challenging American and European leadership. Greenland itself could become a symbol of this new disorder—a territory coveted by all but not stably controlled by anyone. This scenario of fragmentation would likely be the most unstable in the long term, creating opportunities for revisionist powers such as Russia or China to exploit Western divisions and expand their own influence.

As I analyze these different scenarios, I realize just how much we have reached a pivotal moment in history. The world order that has prevailed since 1945 is disintegrating before our very eyes, and the Greenland crisis could be the final catalyst for this transformation. What terrifies me is that we seem to have lost the ability to devise creative and cooperative solutions. Everything is either confrontation or capitulation. Why not envision a special international status for Greenland—a heritage territory of humanity jointly managed by the Arctic nations? Why not develop a form of shared sovereignty that would respect the rights of the Greenlanders while addressing the legitimate security concerns of the major powers? These options exist but require political creativity and a willingness to compromise that seem to have vanished. We are like drivers who, having reached a dangerous intersection, can choose only between driving straight into a wall or reversing. The idea of turning the steering wheel to take a new route no longer even crosses our minds.

The End of an Era and the Lessons to Be Learned

The Greenland crisis represents much more than a simple territorial dispute between allies. It marks the symbolic end of an era that began after World War II, characterized by American leadership of a united Western world and by a shared faith in international institutions and international law. The U.S. attempt to acquire a sovereign European territory by force reveals the depth of the transformation that international relations have undergone over the past decade. Trump’s America is no longer the benevolent hegemonic leader of the liberal international order; it has become a revisionist power that, like other powers before it, seeks to maximize its own interests by force if necessary.

This transformation should serve as a stern warning to Europeans and other powers who believed they could rely indefinitely on American protection without developing their own autonomy. Strategic dependence, while it may offer short-term benefits, ultimately creates a structural vulnerability that can be exploited when the protector’s shifting interests conflict with those of the protected. Europe, having benefited from the U.S. security umbrella for decades, now finds itself abruptly confronted with the need to plan and fund its own defense. This transition will be difficult and costly, but it has become inevitable.

Toward a New Global Balance

The outcome of the Greenland crisis will likely shape international relations for decades to come. If the United States succeeds in its expansionist endeavor, we will enter a new era of territorial imperialism that would call into question the fundamental principles of international law and could trigger a cascade of territorial conflicts around the world. If Europe succeeds in effectively resisting and developing its strategic autonomy, we could witness the emergence of a truly multipolar world where different regional powers coexist in a precarious balance.

The most likely outcome, unfortunately, is an intermediate state of fragmentation and growing instability. In this scenario, the old world order collapses without being replaced by a new, coherent order, creating a dangerous period of transition in which local and regional conflicts risk becoming internationalized and intensifying. Greenland itself could remain in a liminal state, symbolizing the international community’s inability to peacefully resolve territorial conflicts in an increasingly competitive world.

Whatever the outcome, one thing is clear: relations between America and Europe—and, more broadly, the foundations of the world order—have been profoundly and permanently transformed. Future historians will study the Greenland crisis as the moment when the illusions of an international order based on shared rules finally vanished, replaced by the brutal realization that power remains the determining factor in relations between nations. The only question that remains is whether this realization will lead to an order based on the balance of power or to an endless spiral of conflict.

As I write this conclusion, I cannot help but feel a deep sadness and concern. We are witnessing the end of a dream—that of a world where law might finally prevail over force, where nations could cooperate peacefully to resolve their disputes. That dream may have been nothing more than an illusion, but it was a beautiful illusion that inspired generations and enabled decades of unprecedented peace and prosperity. Today, we are returning to a world we thought we had left behind—a world of clashing powers, coveted territories, and rights trampled in the name of security or national interest. And what despairs me most is realizing that this regression is not inevitable. It is the result of choices, mistakes, and collective political and intellectual failures. We have collectively failed to preserve the achievements of the past and to lay the foundations for a better future. The saddest part is that the lessons of the past seem to have been forgotten. Resistance to expansionism, the defense of international law, the value of cooperation among democratic nations—all of this is being swept away by a new wave of aggressive nationalism. I fear that future generations will judge us harshly for having so easily abandoned the ideals for which so many people fought and died. And I can only hope that they will find the wisdom and courage that our generation seems to have lost.