How Trump's Greenland obsession could shatter Nato

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares for his second inauguration, the world is grappling with the implications of his renewed and escalated interest in acquiring Greenland. While Trump’s fixation on the world’s largest island was dismissed as a fanciful distraction during his first term, his recent rhetoric and actions suggest a more serious intent.

His refusal to rule out military action, threats of tariffs on Denmark, and the dispatch of his son Donald Trump junior to Greenland underline the gravity of the situation.

This bold gambit not only threatens the stability of Nato but also raises questions about sovereignty, geopolitical rivalry, climate security, and the future of the Arctic.

Greenland’s strategic importance lies at the intersection of geography, resources, and climate. Positioned between North America and Europe, it is a key vantage point for monitoring Arctic shipping routes and countering Russian and Chinese influence.

The island’s melting ice caps have unveiled vast reserves of rare earth minerals essential for green technology, alongside untapped oil and gas deposits. These resources are critical not only for economic security but also for the global transition to sustainable energy, making Greenland a focal point in the fight against climate change.

As Arctic Sea lanes become navigable due to climate change, Greenland’s geopolitical value has skyrocketed, while its role in climate security has become increasingly significant.

Greenland’s ice sheets play a key role in regulating global sea levels and climate patterns. The rapid melting of these ice sheets is contributing to rising sea levels and altering ocean currents, which could have devastating effects on global ecosystems and weather systems.

Securing Greenland is not just a matter of economic or military strategy — it is a matter of addressing the climate crisis.

The island’s vast and fragile environment is a critical component of the Earth’s climate system, and any geopolitical contest over Greenland must prioritise its protection and sustainability.

For the United States, Greenland offers military, economic, and environmental advantages. The existing US Space Base at Pituffik provides early warning radar capabilities critical for missile defence.

Expanding US control would enhance surveillance of rival powers’ activities in the Arctic, a region increasingly seen as the new frontier of great power competition.

Moreover, as the Arctic becomes a hotspot for resource extraction and new shipping routes, ensuring that these developments align with global climate goals will be essential.

Despite international norms against territorial acquisition, Trump’s advisers seem to be exploring multiple pathways to bring Greenland under US influence. Direct purchase remains one option, though it faces significant legal and diplomatic hurdles.

Denmark’s leaders have categorically stated that Greenland is not for sale, and international law would view such a transaction with suspicion. Another possibility is a Compact of Free Association, which would grant Greenland economic aid and military protection in exchange for greater US influence.

However, this would depend on Greenland achieving independence from Denmark, a prospect that remains uncertain despite growing pro-independence sentiments. Alternatively, Trump could push for an increased US military presence on the island, asserting greater control without formal sovereignty.

Not ruling out military action

Trump’s refusal to rule out military action has alarmed allies and adversaries alike. Such a move would be unprecedented in modern US history and would undermine the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that underpin the international order.

It would also risk deepening divisions within Nato, as Denmark’s status as a Nato ally complicates any aggressive US moves against Greenland. Actions that challenge Nato’s cohesion could set a dangerous precedent, legitimising territorial ambitions of other powers.

Greenland’s significance extends beyond US interests. Russia and China have been steadily increasing their Arctic presence, with Russia reopening Soviet-era military bases and China investing in Arctic infrastructure under its “Polar Silk Road” initiative. The US efforts to counter these moves have been inconsistent, leaving a vacuum that Trump’s Greenland strategy claims to fill.

However, unilateral actions by the US could destabilise the Arctic’s fragile geopolitical balance. Russia has already expressed alarm at Trump’s rhetoric, warning that such moves could escalate tensions. Meanwhile, China’s interest in Greenland’s rare earth minerals adds another layer of complexity. A US-led push to secure Greenland’s resources would likely provoke Chinese countermeasures.

Trump’s gambit also exposes a critical vulnerability in Europe: its inability to present a unified front against external threats. While Germany and France have vocally opposed US ambitions, political instability within both countries weakens their influence.

Italy’s far-right government, led by Giorgia Meloni, has taken a more conciliatory tone, downplaying Trump’s remarks as rhetorical posturing. This divergence underscores the fractured state of European politics, leaving Denmark and Greenland to bear the brunt of US pressure.

Trump’s aggressive rhetoric threatens to particularly destabilise the Nordic region, raising questions about the cohesion of Nato As new Nato members, Sweden and Finland sought the alliance’s protection to counter foreign aggression and bolster their security in a volatile geopolitical landscape. Yet the US, the most powerful member of Nato, is now creating a direct security challenge for one of their Nordic neighbours.

Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland is not just a Danish concern — it is a Nordic concern. A threat to Denmark’s territorial integrity sets a dangerous precedent, undermining the principle of collective defence that Nato is built upon.

While the Arctic’s strategic value cannot be understated, Trump’s approach risks upending the international order, alienating allies, and fuelling tensions with rival powers. For Greenland, Denmark, and Nato, the path forward requires careful navigation of this volatile landscape.