When Trump Threatens to Buy Greenland by Force: America Relives Its Old Demons

An Exceptional Geographic Location

To understand America’s obsession with Greenland, you have to look at a map. Not just any map. A map focused on the Arctic. Then everything becomes clear. Greenland lies halfway between Washington and Moscow, on the shortest polar route between the two capitals. It controls the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom) passage, a maritime chokepoint essential to the defense of the U.S. East Coast. During the Cold War, this passage was crucial for preventing Soviet nuclear submarines from sailing within striking distance of New York and Washington. Today, with the growing influence of Russia and China in the Arctic, this control is once again becoming a strategic priority. Greenland also means airspace. The United States considers this airspace vital to its air defense and that of Canada. In 2022, a study by the RAND Corporation suggested integrating Greenland into NORAD to mitigate the shortcomings of Denmark’s air defenses.

But geography is not just about location; it’s also about size. With an area of 2.166 million square kilometers, Greenland is the world’s largest island. Acquiring it would make the United States the second-largest country in the world by land area, behind Russia, surpassing both Canada and China. It would be the largest territorial acquisition in American history, slightly larger than the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. This geographic expansion is not just a matter of prestige. It would give the United States near-total control over the Arctic, a region that is becoming increasingly accessible due to global warming. Experts predict that 5% of global maritime traffic could use Arctic shipping routes by 2050. The Northwest Passage, which is 6,900 kilometers long, saves four days of travel time compared to the Panama Canal. The first commercial ship traversed this passage in 2013. Ten did so in 2024. By the end of the century, the passage could be open four months a year.

Coveted Natural Resources

Greenland isn’t just ice. It’s also a treasure trove of natural resources. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates offshore crude oil reserves at 17.5 billion barrels and natural gas reserves at 4.19 billion cubic meters. The island possesses the largest deposits of rare earth elements outside of China—metals that are essential for the manufacture of modern technologies, from smartphones to missiles. Two-thirds of the planet’s freshwater outside of Antarctica is frozen in Greenland. Its rock flour has an unusually strong ability to regenerate soil and directly capture atmospheric carbon. On paper, Greenland is a gold mine—literally. But the reality is more complex. As of 2025, the island has only one operating mine, located 80 kilometers from Kangerlussuaq. The majority of potential mining sites are north of the Arctic Circle, in areas that are extremely difficult to access.

All of Greenland’s mining projects are entirely new ventures. Investors must build roads, ports, and power plants from scratch. The island has no road network connecting its 17 towns. Flying from Nuuk to Qaqortoq, 450 kilometers away, requires two flights over two days and costs more than flying to Copenhagen. The Inuit have no history of mining, so workers from outside the region are needed. In 2021, the Inuit Ataqatigiit party won the election on an environmental platform opposing the development of the neodymium deposit near Narsaq and calling for an end to hydrocarbon and uranium exploration. Javier Blas of Bloomberg wrote in 2025 that “the hype surrounding Greenland and its raw materials has a 50-year history,” noting that the island has never produced oil and that the attempt to mine iron ore ended in bankruptcy. If prices rise, rare earth elements can be obtained more easily from U.S. deposits than from Greenland. Greenland’s economic reality is far removed from the fantasy of an Arctic El Dorado.

These figures make my head spin. Billions of barrels of oil, rare earth elements, fresh water… On paper, Greenland is an investor’s paradise. But the reality is ice, cold, and isolation. It is a hostile territory where every project costs a fortune. And yet, this illusion of wealth is enough to justify threats of invasion. As if natural resources gave the right to conquer. As if we had gone back to the 19th century.

From World War II to the Present

The history of the U.S. military presence in Greenland began in 1940 with the German invasion of Denmark. Citing the Monroe Doctrine, the United States landed in Greenland to prevent Germany from using it. Officially, the Coast Guard was demobilized and reconstituted as a force of “volunteers” to create a legal fiction that would avoid accusations of invasion. In 1941, the Danish ambassador to the United States, Henrik Kauffmann, signed an agreement authorizing the official entry of U.S. forces into Greenland. He acted without his government’s consent; the government considered the agreement null and void and recalled him. But Kauffmann remained in the United States, and after the war, the Danish government reinstated him as ambassador. At the end of the war, Denmark expected U.S. forces to leave Greenland. To its surprise, the United States indicated that it had no intention of leaving. According to historian Jeroen van Dongen, “Denmark was clearly unable to force the United States to leave Greenland” and had no means of denying the United States access to the territory.

In the spring of 1948, Denmark abandoned the idea of persuading the Americans to leave. Minister of Trade Jens Otto Krag wrote in his diary that the country’s accession to NATO was partly motivated by the fact that “the de facto partial occupation of Greenland by the United States (which we have no power to prevent)” would lead the Soviet Union to view Denmark as an ally of the United States. In 1951, Denmark and the United States signed the Greenland Defense Agreement. Replacing the 1941 agreement, it allowed the United States to maintain its military bases in Greenland and to establish new bases or “defense zones” if NATO deemed it necessary. The U.S. military could use and move freely between these defense zones. The agreement remained in effect for as long as the NATO Treaty. A Danish scholar later wrote that his country’s sovereignty over the island during the Cold War was fictitious, with the United States holding de facto sovereignty. The BBC reported that the 1951 agreement “effectively gave the United States everything it wanted.”

The Pituffik Space Station: A Crucial Issue

As of 2026, the only U.S. military base in Greenland is the Pituffik Space Station, formerly known as Thule Air Base. Built around 1953 during Operation Blue Jay, this facility employs more than 1,000 Greenlanders and, at its peak during the Cold War, housed nearly 10,000 U.S. personnel. Today, a few hundred Americans are stationed there. But its strategic importance has not diminished. Pituffik is one of only two Arctic facilities the United States has for tracking satellites in polar orbit; the other is in Alaska. According to SpaceNews, “any satellite in polar or sun-synchronous orbit—such as those in critical communications, imaging, and weather monitoring constellations—requires an Arctic ground station for consistent tracking, telemetry, and control throughout each orbit.” ” In July 2024, U.S. General Thomas Carden described the Arctic as “the shortest and least defended threat vector for North America.”

The 2004 Igaliku Agreement stipulates that Pituffik is the only U.S. defense zone in Greenland and that the United States must obtain the consent of Denmark and Greenland for any proposed changes. But this agreement, like all previous ones, relies on U.S. goodwill. If Washington decides to establish new bases, who can stop it? On January 9, 2026, Republican Representative Mike Haridopolos openly supported the U.S. acquisition of Greenland for space security reasons, stating that “this is an essential element in ensuring the security of our nation today and in the future. America cannot afford to cede an inch in space or in the Arctic.” This statement perfectly illustrates the imperial mindset underlying U.S. ambitions: the idea that certain territories and strategic positions rightfully belong to the United States, regardless of the peoples who live there or the treaties that protect them.

This history of the U.S. occupation of Greenland makes my blood run cold. It is a lesson in modern imperialism. You arrive as a “liberator,” you settle in, you refuse to leave, and eventually you turn a temporary occupation into a permanent presence. Denmark never had a say in the matter. It simply had to accept the fait accompli. And now, 80 years later, the United States wants to formalize what is already a reality: its total control over Greenland.

The Military Operation Against Maduro

Trump’s threats regarding Greenland did not come out of nowhere. They are part of a series of actions that reveal a new U.S. foreign policy doctrine: might makes right. A few days before the statements on Greenland, the Trump administration launched a military operation in Venezuela. On January 5, 2026, U.S. special forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and transferred him to the United States. The operation, carried out without the Venezuelan government’s consent, constituted a flagrant violation of international law and the sovereignty of a state. But for Trump, that mattered not a bit. Venezuela is considered a threat to U.S. national security, and this threat justifies any means necessary. The international community condemns the operation, but without any real consequences. Russia and China denounce it as “imperialist aggression,” but take no concrete action. The European Union expresses its “concern,” but continues its trade relations with Washington.

The Venezuelan precedent is crucial for understanding the threats to Greenland. It shows that the Trump administration is prepared to use military force to achieve its objectives, even against sovereign states, even in violation of international law. It also shows that the international community is either unable or unwilling to oppose these actions. This impunity encourages Trump to go even further. If the United States can invade Venezuela without consequences, why couldn’t it take Greenland? The logic is relentless. Secretary of State Marco Rubio states it explicitly: “If the president identifies a threat to U.S. national security, he retains the option to address it through military means.” ” This doctrine of the “perceived threat” is infinitely expandable. Any territory, any resource, any strategic position can be defined as a threat to U.S. national security. And that definition alone is sufficient to justify the use of force.

The Resurrected Doctrine of Manifest Destiny

What we are witnessing is the resurrection of the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, that 19th-century ideology which asserted that the United States had the right and duty to expand its territory across the entire North American continent. This doctrine justified the annexation of Texas, the war against Mexico, the purchase of Alaska, and westward expansion at the expense of Indigenous peoples. It was based on the idea that Americans, as a superior people, had the right to conquer and civilize “savage” territories. Today, Trump is reviving this doctrine by adapting it to the 21st century. Greenland, the Panama Canal, Canada… all these territories are presented as naturally falling within the American sphere of influence. Acquiring them is not an act of aggression; it is a return to the natural order of things. This worldview is deeply racist and colonialist. It denies peoples’ right to self-determination. It reduces territories to resources to be exploited and populations to obstacles to be overcome.

On January 4, 2026, Trump declared before the U.S. Congress that “one way or another, we’re going to get” Greenland. This phrasing is telling. “One way or another.” That means: by any means necessary. Purchase, economic pressure, diplomatic blackmail, or ultimately, military force. Only the result matters. The means are secondary. This gangster mentality applied to international relations is terrifying. It destroys the international order patiently built since 1945. It takes the world back to the era of empires and colonial conquests. It tells small countries: you have no rights that the big powers are obligated to respect. Your sovereignty exists only as long as it does not interfere with our interests. This worldview is not only immoral; it is dangerous. If the United States can annex Greenland, what is to prevent Russia from annexing Ukraine? What is to prevent China from annexing Taiwan? The answer is: nothing. Absolutely nothing.

First Venezuela, then Greenland. I can see the pattern emerging. A methodical escalation, a gradual normalization of the unacceptable. Each transgression paves the way for the next. Each violation of international law makes the next one easier. And we stand by, either powerless or complicit, as we watch this descent into hell. When will we wake up? When will we say: Enough is enough?

China and Russia on the Lookout

U.S. threats regarding Greenland have not gone unnoticed in Moscow and Beijing. For Russia, the issue is a diplomatic windfall. It provides an opportunity to denounce Western hypocrisy: How can the United States condemn Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 while threatening to annex Greenland? The Kremlin spokesperson states that “the United States is revealing its true face: that of an imperial power that respects no rules.” This rhetoric is effective, especially among countries in the Global South, which see the U.S. attitude as confirmation of their mistrust of the West. Russia, which has significantly increased its military presence in the Arctic in recent years, is closely monitoring developments. If the United States manages to take control of Greenland, the balance of power in the Arctic will be profoundly altered. Moscow will have to adapt its strategy accordingly.

For China, the Greenland issue also offers valuable lessons. Beijing is observing how Washington justifies its territorial ambitions with arguments of national security. This logic could be applied to Taiwan. If the United States can threaten to invade Greenland in the name of its security, why couldn’t China do the same with Taiwan? This precedent is dangerous. It legitimizes the use of force for reasons of national security—a justification that any power can invoke. China, which defines itself as a “near Arctic nation” and has invested heavily in Greenland in recent years, sees its interests directly threatened by U.S. ambitions. Beijing has funded infrastructure projects, geological studies, and research facilities. A U.S. takeover of Greenland would put an end to these investments. But China, being pragmatic, knows it cannot directly confront the United States on this issue. It therefore limits itself to verbal condemnation while preparing its own moves in the Arctic.

Canada Caught in the Crossfire

Canada’s position is particularly delicate. As Greenland’s immediate neighbor and an ally of the United States within NATO and NORAD, Canada has close ties to the island. There are family and cultural ties between Greenland and Nunavut. But Canada is also directly threatened by Trump’s territorial ambitions. The U.S. president has stated on several occasions that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state. These statements, presented as jokes, take on an entirely different dimension in light of the threats against Greenland. If Trump is willing to invade Greenland, what would prevent him from doing the same to Canada? Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney publicly defends Denmark’s territorial integrity, but this defense remains largely symbolic. What could Canada do in the face of a U.S. invasion of Greenland? Break ties with its main ally? Close the border? Impose sanctions? All of these options are unrealistic.

Canada finds itself in an impossible position. On the one hand, it must defend the principles of international law and the sovereignty of states. On the other, it cannot afford to alienate the United States, on which it depends economically and militarily. This contradiction reveals the fragility of Canada’s position. The country has long benefited from its proximity to the United States, but that proximity is now becoming a vulnerability. Greenlandic Member of Parliament Aaja Chemnitz Larsen states that “Canada can play a constructive role in this matter” because of the ties between Greenland and Nunavut. But what role, exactly? Canada has neither the military means nor the diplomatic clout to significantly influence the situation. It can only watch with concern, hoping that the U.S. threats will not materialize—and wondering if it might be next on the list.

This widespread powerlessness fills me with despair. Russia and China condemn the actions but do nothing. Europe protests but remains paralyzed. Canada is concerned but can do nothing. And meanwhile, Trump presses ahead, methodically, knowing that no one will stop him. It is the law of the jungle in all its brutality. And we are all complicit through our silence.

The End of International Law?

U.S. threats against Greenland may mark a historic turning point: the end of international law as we know it. Since 1945, the world order has been based on a fundamental principle: the prohibition of the use of force in international relations, except in cases of self-defense or with authorization from the UN Security Council. This principle, enshrined in the United Nations Charter, has been violated on numerous occasions, but it remained the benchmark. States that violated this principle were at least required to justify their actions, claim to be acting in self-defense, or invoke a UN resolution. With Trump, this hypocrisy is disappearing. The United States openly asserts its right to use force to defend its interests, without regard for international law. This brutal candor is, in a way, more dangerous than the previous hypocrisy. It normalizes the use of force. It tells other powers: do as we do. Take what you want. Might makes right.

This shift is not unique to Trump. It is part of a broader trend of challenging the liberal international order. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. China is building artificial islands in the South China Sea. Turkey is intervening militarily in Syria and Libya. Everywhere, major powers are asserting their right to act unilaterally to defend their interests. But the United States, as the dominant power and architect of the postwar order, bears a special responsibility. When Washington violates international law, it sends a signal to all other powers: the rules no longer matter. Only force matters. The consequences of this trend are terrifying. If international law collapses, what protects small states? What prevents wars of conquest? What guarantees global stability? The answer is: nothing. We are returning to a Hobbesian world where war of all against all is the norm.

NATO in an Existential Crisis

The Greenland affair has plunged NATO into an existential crisis. How can a military alliance function when one of its members threatens to invade the territory of another member? Article 5 of the NATO Treaty stipulates that an armed attack against one or more members of the Alliance is considered an attack against all. But what happens if the aggressor is itself a member of the Alliance? This situation, never contemplated by the treaty’s drafters, reveals a gaping flaw in the European security architecture. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen puts it plainly: if the United States were to attack Greenland, “it would spell the end of NATO and the end of the security balance that has existed in Europe since the end of World War II.” This statement is not an exaggeration. It is a lucid assessment of reality. NATO is based on the principle of mutual trust among its members. If that trust disappears, the Alliance no longer has a reason to exist.

But NATO’s crisis goes beyond the Greenland issue. It reveals a structural problem: Europe’s excessive dependence on the United States for its security. For decades, Europeans have underinvested in their defense, relying on the American security umbrella. This strategy worked as long as American and European interests aligned. But what happens when those interests diverge? What happens when the United States itself becomes a threat? Europe finds itself defenseless, unable to protect its own members. This situation is untenable. It forces Europe to fundamentally rethink its security strategy. Some are calling for the creation of a European army independent of NATO. Others propose strengthening national defense capabilities. But all these solutions take time—years, even decades. And Greenland, for its part, is under threat right now. This urgency reveals the cost of decades of European strategic blindness.

The end of NATO? Perhaps. But would that really be a loss? An alliance that cannot protect its members, that becomes paralyzed in the face of internal threats, that serves the interests of a single country at the expense of all the others… what is the point of it? Perhaps this crisis is an opportunity. An opportunity for Europe to take its destiny back into its own hands, to build its own defense, to stop being an American vassal. But will we have the courage?

A Population Held Hostage

Amid this geopolitical storm, one voice is conspicuously absent: that of the Greenlandic people. The island’s 57,000 residents, mostly Inuit, are seeing their future debated by foreign powers without being asked for their opinion. This situation is nothing new. It has been the story of Greenland for centuries. Colonized by Denmark in the 18th century and occupied by the United States during World War II, Greenland has always been a target of desire for the great powers. Its inhabitants have always been treated as bit players in their own history. Today, as Trump threatens to buy or invade their territory, the Greenlanders are reaffirming their right to self-determination. “Nothing about Greenland without Greenland,” declares Vivian Motzfeldt. But this assertion of sovereignty comes up against a brutal reality: in a world where might trumps right, what weight does the will of 57,000 people carry in the face of the ambitions of the world’s leading superpower?

The Greenlandic independence movement has been gaining momentum for years. In February 2024, the Greenlandic government declared that independence was its goal. The general elections in April 2025 made this issue the central focus. But independence poses considerable challenges. Greenland is financially dependent on Denmark to the tune of 5.6 billion kroner per year. Its economy, based on fishing and subsidies, cannot currently sustain full independence. A 2014 report estimates that replacing the Danish subsidy would require 24 major projects, each costing 5 billion kroner. Since there are no investors for such projects, Greenland will remain dependent for at least 25 years. This economic dependence significantly limits the political options available to Greenlanders. They may aspire to independence, but can they afford it? And if independence means falling under the control of the United States, is that truly liberation?

Between Denmark and the United States: An Impossible Choice

The Greenlanders face an impossible choice. On one side is Denmark, their historical colonizer, which subsidizes them but keeps them in a relationship of dependence. On the other, the United States, which offers investment and jobs but whose territorial ambitions threaten their sovereignty. Between these two options, which is the right one? Some Greenlanders see the United States as an opportunity for economic development. The Pituffik base employs more than 1,000 Greenlanders. U.S. investment in infrastructure could transform the island’s economy. But at what cost? Becoming a U.S. territory—even with autonomous status—would mean losing any prospect of true independence. It would be trading one colonizer for another, perhaps a more powerful and intrusive one. Other Greenlanders prefer to maintain ties with Denmark, despite its flaws. At least with Copenhagen, there is room for negotiation and the prospect of moving toward greater autonomy.

But the real problem is that this choice may not even be theirs to make. If Trump decides to take Greenland, what can the Greenlanders do? Resist? With what army? Appeal to the international community? Who will come to their defense? The sad reality is that Greenland’s fate will be decided in Washington, Copenhagen, Brussels, Moscow, and Beijing. Everywhere except in Nuuk. The Greenlanders can express their will, assert their rights, and claim their sovereignty. But in a world where might makes right, these assertions carry little weight. This powerlessness is infuriating. It echoes the fate of so many indigenous peoples throughout history—dispossessed of their lands, deprived of their future, reduced to the status of obstacles to be overcome or resources to be exploited. The Inuit of Greenland deserve better. They deserve to decide their own future. But who will guarantee it for them?

When I think of the Greenlanders, I feel a deep, simmering anger. These people who have lived on this island for millennia, who have survived the most extreme conditions, who have preserved their culture despite colonization… and now, their future is being discussed as if they didn’t exist. As if their will didn’t matter. As if their land were a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder. It’s unbearable. And yet, that’s the reality. A reality that makes me want to scream.

From Louisiana to Alaska: A Tradition of Expansion

The idea of purchasing territories is not new in American history. The United States was built largely through territorial acquisition, whether peaceful or violent. In 1803, the purchase of Louisiana from France doubled the country’s land area for $15 million. In 1819, the purchase of Florida from Spain for $5 million expanded the territory southward. In 1848, following the Mexican-American War, the United States acquired California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and parts of Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming for $15 million. In 1867, the purchase of Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million added a vast Arctic territory. In 1917, the purchase of the Virgin Islands from Denmark for $25 million completed this expansion. This tradition of territorial acquisition has shaped American geography. It is based on a simple logic: money can buy sovereignty. Territories are commodities traded between states.

But this logic has its limits. It works when the seller is willing, when they need money, or when they view the territory as a burden. It does not work when the territory holds symbolic, cultural, or identity-related value for the seller. Denmark does not need American money. Greenland is not an economic burden that it is seeking to offload. On the contrary, the island has been part of Denmark’s national identity since the golden age of the 19th century. The Danes view Denmark’s overseas colonies in the North Atlantic, including Greenland, as part of their Viking history. This aspect of national identity makes any sale impossible, regardless of the price offered. Trump does not seem to understand this reality. To him, everything is for sale. You just have to offer the right price. This mercantile view of international relations reveals a profound misunderstanding of human nature. Some things are not for sale. National dignity is one of them.

Past Failures: Why Greenland Has Always Resisted

The history of American attempts to acquire Greenland is a history of repeated failures. In 1867, William Henry Seward considered the purchase but made no formal offer. In 1910, the U.S. ambassador to Denmark discussed a complex exchange involving the Philippines, but the plan fell through. In 1946, an offer of $100 million in gold bullion was politely but firmly declined. In 1955, the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed a new attempt, but it never materialized. In 2019, Trump publicly raised the idea of buying Greenland, sparking outrage in Denmark and the cancellation of a presidential visit. And now, in 2026, there’s a new attempt—this time with an explicit threat of force. Why all these failures? Because Denmark doesn’t want to sell. Because the Greenlanders don’t want to be sold. Because some things can’t be bought, even with all the gold in the world.

But Trump seems to believe he can succeed where all his predecessors have failed. His strategy is different. He doesn’t just offer money. He threatens. He intimidates. He applies pressure. Can this gangster-style approach work? Perhaps. If the United States is prepared to use force, it can certainly take Greenland. Denmark cannot stop them militarily. But at what cost? An invasion of Greenland would destroy NATO, alienate European allies, legitimize Russian and Chinese aggression, and plunge the world into a new era of territorial conquests. Is this price acceptable to the United States? For Trump, apparently yes. He seems ready to sacrifice the international order on the altar of his territorial ambitions. This willingness to destroy everything to get what he wants is perhaps his greatest strength. But it is also his greatest weakness. For a world without rules is a world where no one is safe—not even the United States.

This repetition of history both fascinates and despairs me. How many times must we say no before the United States understands? How many refusals will it take before they accept that Greenland is not for sale? But perhaps Trump is right about one thing: past refusals have never been final. They’ve merely postponed the inevitable. Because, deep down, what can Denmark do in the face of American determination? Resist forever? Or eventually give in, one way or another?

The Economic Reality of Greenland

Behind the talk of Greenland’s wealth lies a far more complex economic reality. In 2021, Greenland’s annual GDP is $3 billion, or 0.007% of that of the United States. The island’s largest private sector industry is fishing, which accounts for the bulk of its exports. The rest of the economy relies heavily on Danish subsidies, which will total 5.6 billion kroner per year in 2023, up from 3.6 billion in 2009. This financial dependence is not likely to disappear anytime soon. A 2014 report written by 13 researchers states that Greenland will remain dependent on subsidies for at least 25 years to maintain its social welfare system. Replacing the Danish subsidy would require 24 major projects, each costing 5 billion kroner, with one launched every two years. Since there are no investors for such projects, economic self-sufficiency remains a distant dream. In 2017, Denmark was by far Greenland’s largest trading partner, receiving 55% of the island’s exports and supplying 63% of its imports.

Greenland’s employment structure also reveals the economy’s fragility. Forty-three percent of Greenlanders work for the government, compared with 15% in the United States. The island’s per capita disposable income is the lowest in the Arctic, after Russia’s, and amounts to less than one-third of that of the U.S. state of Alaska. The working-age population is projected to decline by 16% by 2040, further exacerbating economic challenges. Danish investors have a limited presence in Greenland, even though one-fifth of Greenlanders live in Denmark. This situation creates a vicious cycle: without investment, there is no economic development; without economic development, there is no financial autonomy; without financial autonomy, there is no real independence. Greenland finds itself trapped in a structural dependency from which it is very difficult to break free. And this dependency makes it vulnerable to external pressures, whether they come from Copenhagen or Washington.

The Mirage of Mineral Resources

Proponents of acquiring Greenland highlight its immense mineral resources. The island has one of the world’s largest neodymium deposits, near Narsaq. This rare-earth metal is essential for manufacturing permanent magnets used in wind turbines, electric vehicles, and electronics. Greenland also has significant reserves of uranium, zinc, lead, iron, and gold. On paper, it’s a gold mine—literally. But the reality is quite different. As of 2025, the island has only one mine in operation, located 80 kilometers from Kangerlussuaq. All other mining projects are in the exploration phase or have been abandoned. The reason is simple: mining in Greenland is extremely costly and complex. Mining sites are located in remote areas with no infrastructure. Roads, ports, power plants, and housing for workers must be built. The Arctic climate makes operations difficult and dangerous. Transportation costs are prohibitive.

Greenland’s recent history is marked by mining failures. An attempt to mine iron ore ended in bankruptcy. Uranium mining projects were blocked by environmental opposition. Development of the neodymium deposit near Narsaq was halted after the 2021 election victory of the Inuit Ataqatigiit party, which opposes mining on environmental grounds. Javier Blas of Bloomberg wrote in 2025 that “the hype surrounding Greenland and raw materials has a 50-year history,” noting that the island has never produced oil despite repeated promises. Minik Thorleif Rosing, a Greenlandic geologist, stated in 2025 that “even if you assumed 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 fantasy of Greenland’s riches clashes with harsh economic reality. These riches exist, but they are inaccessible or unprofitable under current conditions.

This disconnect between fantasy and reality strikes me. Trump dreams of an Arctic El Dorado, a land teeming with riches to be exploited. But the reality is a fragile economy, dependent on subsidies, incapable of developing on its own. The resources are there, beneath the ice, but they will likely remain there for decades. Extracting them is too costly, takes too long, and causes too much environmental damage. Greenland is not a treasure trove to be plundered. It is a territory to be protected, a people to be respected, and an ecosystem to be preserved. But this vision does not align with Trump’s extractivist logic.

The Diplomatic Escalation Scenario

The first possible scenario is one of diplomatic escalation. The United States increases pressure on Denmark by every means available: economic threats, trade sanctions, withdrawal of military cooperation, and diplomatic isolation. The goal is to force Copenhagen to negotiate. In this scenario, Denmark initially resists, supported by its European allies. But as the months go by, the pressure becomes unbearable. The Danish economy suffers. U.S. investment dries up. Danish companies lose access to the U.S. market. Eventually, the Danish government agrees to negotiate. The negotiations are long and difficult. Denmark demands guarantees for the people of Greenland, a status of autonomy, and respect for cultural rights. The United States accepts some conditions but rejects others. A compromise eventually emerges: Greenland becomes a territory associated with the United States, modeled after Puerto Rico, with broad autonomy but under U.S. sovereignty. Denmark receives substantial financial compensation and security guarantees.

This scenario is the most “peaceful,” but it remains deeply problematic. It relies on economic coercion, a form of violence that goes unspoken. It ignores the will of the Greenlanders, who have never asked to become American. It sets a dangerous precedent: major powers can force smaller countries to cede their territories through economic pressure. But this scenario at least has the merit of avoiding armed conflict. It preserves, at least formally, the appearance of international legality. An agreement, even one obtained under duress, remains an agreement. It can be presented as a voluntary choice, even though everyone knows that is not the case. This hypocrisy allows for saving face and maintaining the fiction of an international order based on law. But deep down, everyone knows the truth: Greenland will have been taken by force—just economic force rather than military force.

The Scenario of Military Intervention

The second scenario involves military intervention. Faced with Denmark’s persistent refusal to negotiate, the United States decides to act unilaterally. A military operation is launched, modeled after the one carried out in Venezuela. U.S. special forces land in Greenland, take control of strategic points, and proclaim the annexation of the territory. The operation is swift, lasting a few hours at most. Denmark, taken by surprise, is powerless to act. Its few hundred soldiers in Greenland surrender without a fight. The international community unanimously condemns the aggression, but takes no concrete action. The European Union imposes symbolic sanctions. Russia and China denounce American imperialism. But no one intervenes militarily. No one wants to risk a war with the United States. Greenland becomes, de facto, a U.S. territory. The United States installs a provisional government, promises free elections, and begins to invest heavily in infrastructure.

This scenario is the most drastic, but perhaps also the most likely. It follows Trumpian logic: act fast, strike hard, create a fait accompli. Once Greenland is occupied, it will be very difficult to turn back the clock. The United States could always organize a referendum—rigged or not—to legitimize the annexation. It could offer financial compensation to Denmark to ease tensions. It could promise autonomy to the Greenlanders to quell protests. But the result would be the same: Greenland would be American. The consequences of this scenario would be catastrophic for the world order. NATO would fall apart. The European Union would be forced to choose between the United States and its own principles. Russia and China would feel free to do the same in their spheres of influence. We would enter a new era of territorial conquest, where might makes right. But for Trump, these consequences don’t matter. All that matters is the result: getting Greenland.

The Scenario of Greenlandic Independence

The third scenario—the most unlikely but also the most interesting—is that of Greenlandic independence. Faced with American threats and Danish powerlessness, the Greenlanders decide to take their destiny into their own hands. They hold a referendum on independence, which is overwhelmingly approved. Denmark, realizing it can no longer protect Greenland, accepts the result. Greenland becomes an independent state—the world’s smallest country by population but one of the largest by land area. But this independence immediately raises the question: how can the country survive economically? The new nation has neither the resources nor the infrastructure to function autonomously. It must find partners, investors, and allies. The United States offers its assistance, but on unacceptable terms: permanent military bases, control over natural resources, and alignment with U.S. foreign policy. China and Russia make similar offers. The European Union proposes a partnership, but without the necessary financial resources.

In this scenario, an independent Greenland becomes a battleground for competition among major powers. Each seeks to draw the new country into its orbit. The Greenlanders find themselves in a position of weakness, forced to choose between different forms of dependence. Formal independence does not guarantee real sovereignty. On the contrary, it can make the country even more vulnerable to external pressures. This scenario highlights the limits of independence in a world dominated by great powers. A small country, even a sovereign one, cannot truly be independent if it depends economically and militarily on others. Greenland’s independence would therefore be largely fictitious—a legal facade concealing a reality of dependence. But perhaps this fiction is better than the alternative: being openly a colonial territory, whether Danish or American. At least independence gives Greenlanders a voice, a seat at the UN, and international recognition. It’s not much, but it’s better than nothing.

These three scenarios send a chill down my spine. In the first, Greenland is sold under duress. In the second, it is taken by force. In the third, it becomes independent but remains a prisoner of the great powers. None of these options is satisfactory. None truly respects the will of the Greenlanders. None preserves the international order. We are faced with a choice between different forms of catastrophe. And I don’t know which one is the least worst.

A Crisis That Goes Beyond Greenland

The Greenland affair is not just another diplomatic crisis. It is a pivotal moment in the history of international relations. A moment when we must choose: do we accept a return to the law of the jungle, or do we defend the international order based on the rule of law? This question goes far beyond the fate of a single Arctic island. It concerns the future of all small countries, all vulnerable peoples, and all those who rely on international law for their protection. If the United States can take Greenland, then no territory is safe. Russia will be able to take Ukraine. China could take Taiwan. Turkey could take Cyprus. India could take Kashmir. Everywhere, the great powers will feel free to act according to their own interests, without regard for the law. We will enter a new era of territorial conquests, wars of aggression, and imperial domination. This prospect is terrifying. But it is real. It is unfolding before our very eyes.

The responsibility for what is about to happen rests with all of us. With European governments, which must choose between their comfort and their principles. With citizens, who must demand that their leaders defend international law. With the media, which must inform rather than entertain. On intellectuals, who must analyze rather than justify. We are at a turning point. We can still prevent the worst from happening. But that requires courage—the courage to say no to the world’s leading power; the courage to pay the price for that resistance; the courage to build a different world, a world where might does not make right. Will we have that courage? I don’t know. But I do know that if we don’t have it, we’ll regret it. Because the world that awaits us—a world without rules, without law, without protection for the weak—is a world where no one will be safe. Not even the powerful. Because in a jungle-like world, everyone eventually becomes prey.

I end this article with a sense of vertigo. We are on the brink of the abyss. One more step, and we’ll fall into a world we thought we’d left behind. A world of conquest, domination, and violence. Trump is pushing us toward that abyss. But we don’t have to jump. We can resist. We can say no. We can build something else. But we have to want it. We have to do it. Now. Before it’s too late. Because tomorrow, it might be too late. Greenland will have fallen. And with it, the hope for a better world.

The Urgency to Act

Time is running out. The White House’s statements are not empty words. They are warnings. Signals of a genuine intention. Marco Rubio is meeting with Danish officials next week. This meeting will be crucial. It will determine whether we are heading toward a diplomatic solution or toward a confrontation. Denmark must stand firm. It must refuse any negotiations on Greenland’s sovereignty. It must demand respect for international law. But it cannot do this alone. It needs the support of its European allies. The European Union must take action. It must send a clear message to Washington: an attack on Greenland will be considered an attack on Europe. It must prepare massive sanctions, economic retaliatory measures, and a diplomatic break if necessary. This firm stance is the only thing Trump understands. The only thing that can stop him.

But beyond the immediate crisis, Europe must learn lessons from this situation. It must invest heavily in its defense. It must build strategic autonomy that allows it to no longer depend on the United States. It must strengthen its ties with Greenland, offering investments, partnerships, and concrete support. It must show the people of Greenland that they have an alternative to American domination. Building a strong and independent Europe will take time—years, perhaps decades. But we must start now. Because the next crisis will come. Perhaps not in Greenland. Perhaps in the Baltic states, in Poland, or in Romania. Anywhere American and European interests diverge. And when that time comes, we must be ready. Ready to defend our values, our allies, and our worldview. Ready to pay the price for our freedom. Because freedom comes at a price. And that price is the courage to resist.