(Jan 14): Top diplomats from Greenland and Denmark are gearing up for the test of a lifetime as they work to persuade the Trump administration to back off on its demands for the Arctic territory that threaten to break up the Nato defence alliance.
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and his counterpart from Nuuk, Vivian Motzfeldt, will face US Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the White House on Wednesday, just hours after the island’s prime minister said that if made to choose, Greenland would opt for Denmark.
Their goal: to work out the real intentions of the Americans and convince them there’s no need to take over Greenland.
President Donald Trump has declined to rule out the use of military force to get the world’s biggest island, saying the US needs it for national defence. Rubio has walked back those comments, arguing the goal is to buy Greenland. The Danes have said it’s not theirs to sell, and Greenlanders that there’s no amount of money that could buy their “national soul”.
What, then, can happen?
The Danes argue that a comprehensive defence agreement dating back to 1951 already allows the US to use the territory as it needs to for defences — rendering any takeover futile.
See also: Greenland says it chooses Denmark and rules out joining US
Given one of Trump’s central claims is that Denmark has failed to adequately safeguard Greenland, Copenhagen could respond by further boosting its military presence and investment on the island while deepening coordination with the US and other Nato allies. Denmark could also offer to grant Washington expanded access.
Greenland and Denmark appear to have taken two options off the table: a purchase and any rapprochement through independence. Greenlanders have ruled out selling their land regardless of how much money would be offered in exchange for ownership, and secession is on the back burner for now.
A move labeled the off-ramp option would be for Greenland to offer Trump a Ukraine-style minerals deal where the US gets access to the island’s rare earths in exchange for security guarantees. Such an agreement would allow Trump to claim victory without annexation and shift the focus from geopolitics to commercial success.
See also: India, China seek to rebuild military trust to keep border calm
If the US decides it has to have Greenland, there are two key ways the events could unfold.
The US could deploy additional troops in Greenland under the existing defence agreement from 1951, which imposes few formal constraints on expanding its military presence in Greenland, provided it notifies Copenhagen and Nuuk.
Once in place, those forces could move beyond routine activities to take control of government functions and key institutions. It is this shift in purpose — rather than troop numbers — that would signal an occupation, allowing control to be established with far less drama than a conventional invasion.
What’s still widely seen as the least likely scenario, the US could take Greenland by force, seizing key infrastructure. Trump has already bombed Nigeria and extracted Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro in a raid on Caracas, showing such options are in the toolkit. While the US would almost certainly prevail militarily, Danish forces would be legally obliged to resist, raising the risk of casualties and imposing heavy political costs.
For Europeans, Vance’s role hosting Wednesday’s meeting alongside Rubio raises concerns. The two are known for their differing approaches to diplomacy: while Rubio at the same time embraces Trump’s aggressive approach and seeks ways to deal in private, Vance displays Trump’s penchant for disruptive and unpredictable dealmaking.
In an open display of his antipathy for Europe at last year’s Munich Security Conference, Vance lambasted the continent and told them they were afraid of their own voters. He’s chided Denmark for “not having done a good job by the people of Greenland” and famously instigated a fiery exchange with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and Trump in the White House last February that almost ruined the relations between the two countries.
To stay ahead of Singapore and the region’s corporate and economic trends, click here for Latest Section
Trump on Tuesday responded bluntly when asked by reporters about Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen’s comments — categorically ruling out joining the US and saying the Arctic territory prefers to be in a union with Denmark.
“That’s their problem. I disagree with them. I don’t know who he is. Don’t know anything about him, but that’s going to be a big problem for him,” Trump said.
With the future of the Kingdom at stake, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen is seeking to cast the US approach as more than a land grab in a bid to rally allies in Nato, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the European Union. Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, she said that while Greenland would bear the most immediate cost, the confrontation reaches far beyond the island, putting the foundations of international order at risk.
“We are standing up not only for ourselves, but for the world order that generations before us have built — our democracy,” she said. “This is not just about Greenland or about the Kingdom. It is about the principle that borders must not be changed by force, that peoples cannot be bought. It is about ensuring that small countries do not have to fear the big ones.”
Uploaded by Tham Yek Lee
