In 2019, when Trump first mentioned the purchase of Greenland, and Denmark politely rejected the offer with the now repeated, "Greenland is not for sale", the internet was full of reactions on the verge of mockery or unequivocal mockery of the American president. If nothing else, he managed to make many US citizens aware of the existence of this icy island, which, together with the Faroe Islands, has autonomy within the Kingdom of Denmark. Trump's statements that, "if they won't buy it, then they will take what they want by military force", are no longer the subject of ridicule, but of the growing fear of the citizens of Greenland, as well as Europe and the NATO alliance. It is also important to note that the USA has already tried to buy Greenland. After the purchase of Alaska from Russia for 7,2 million dollars (1867), William H. Seward, Secretary of State in the administration of seventeenth US President Andrew Johnson, was an ardent expansionist and the prototype of today's hawks republican party. Among other things, he believed that the prosperity and security of the USA lies precisely in territorial acquisition, and he was especially obsessed with Greenland. Unlike Russia, which after the Crimean War was in a financial crisis but also in fear that Alaska would be taken over by the British, Denmark had no strategic or economic imperative to sell Greenland, so nothing came of the negotiations that started. In addition - a sentiment whose strength still dominates the discourse in Denmark and Greenland - the sale of part of the Danish kingdom was considered an affront to national pride and sovereignty.
A much more famous purchase attempt occurred very soon after the end of World War II. Here it is important to consider Greenland's position during the war: a year after Nazi Germany occupied Denmark in 1941, the US signed an agreement in April with Henrik Kaufman, a US-based Danish minister who refused to recognize the puppet government in Copenhagen. It gave the USA access to the minerals needed for the production of aluminum - necessary for the production of airplanes - but also the right to establish military bases and facilities in Greenland. This gave the Allies much-needed control over the maritime space between Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom. Specifically: Greenland was crucial for supplying Britain and supporting the Allied war effort in Europe, especially for the fight against German U-boats. The end of World War II was the prelude to the Cold War, and considering that the US had already invested significant resources in building infrastructure in Greenland for access to minerals, especially bases and airstrips, from their point of view ownership would simplify logistics, command and control. Namely, Washington did not want that area to fall under the influence of the Soviet Union.
photo: ap photoSNOW AND ICE: Exercise of the Danish Navy
The offer of 100 million dollars in gold, made by President Truman in 1946, was rejected by Denmark. US National Archives documents reported by the Associated Press in 1991 show that then Danish Foreign Minister Gustav Rasmussen was "shocked" by the idea, but also announced that he would consider the proposal. Other sources state that his final answer was: "Although we owe America a lot, I don't think we owe them the whole island."
Regardless of the financial incentive after Denmark survived the occupation, the sale as an acknowledgment of reduced sovereignty was politically unthinkable, especially given the fear of potential retaliation from the USSR. Then, as now, the idea that people can just be "sold" to another country, regardless of financial benefits, was considered a violation of the human rights of the Inuit, the inhabitants of Greenland.
Denmark, however, well understood the strategic value of Greenland and was ready to cooperate with the US. Instead of a purchase, they opened negotiations that guaranteed America rights and access, while preserving Danish sovereignty. With the Greenland Defense Treaty of 1951, the US retained and expanded its bases, and Greenland continued to be extremely important in controlling the North Atlantic. During the Cold War, bases for early warning and response systems were established there. After the collapse of the USSR, the strategic importance of Greenland decreased, but with the strengthening of Russia under Putin's firm hand, especially with the development of new warfare technologies, it gained importance again.
photo: ap photoTHE AMERICAN PRESIDENT WOULD LIKE TO BUY, BUT THE PRIME MINISTERS OF GREENLAND AND DENMARK WILL NOT SELL: Donald Trump,...
"DENMARK CANNOT DEFEND GREENLAND"
This brief history indicates that Greenland represents a strategic-military for Trump and the US, as he likes to say real estate. However, even with a change of ownership, the ice island would change its purpose very little. And that is to provide a system of early warning and detection of aircraft and submarines, as well as monitoring and response in case of threats to the interests of the US and NATO members.
In his speeches, Trump insists that defense against enemies in the north is urgent and necessary, stressing that "Russian and Chinese ships are everywhere", and that "Denmark cannot defend Greenland". Denmark has repeatedly signaled that the US is welcome to increase the number of its troops in Greenland if it so wishes, and that Greenland is open for business if American companies are interested in it. There are still no concrete answers to these offers.
And the public is further confused by the fact that Trump, by his actions, in the past and current mandate, shows great trust in Putin and shows undisguised sympathy for him. Analysts point out that today the USA is much closer to Russia than to its NATO allies. That is why the story about the critical security situation and the necessary defense is eye-popping. This is supported by the constant reduction in the number of American troops in Greenland.
During World War II, the American presence at its peak was 6000 soldiers, and during the Cold War that number increased to about 10.000 people in 17 bases and installations. According to data from the Pitufik Space Base (formerly the Tula Air Force Base), the northernmost and only remaining US military base in Greenland, there are currently about 150 members of the US Air Force and Space Force, and approximately 450 Canadian, Danish and Greenlandic civilians.
photo: ap photo…Jans Frederik Nielsen and Mette Fredriksen
The general public heard about this base in April 2025, when US Vice President JD Vance visited it despite the opposition of the Greenland government. On that occasion, he repeated Trump's intention to take over the island, stressing that America "does not need military force to increase its presence in Greenland if the local population wants to be part of the US", openly criticizing the way Denmark treated the Greenlandic people. The newly elected Prime Minister of Greenland, Jens Frederik Nielsen, said that by doing so, the US showed "disrespect for an ally", and the reactions of the citizens of Nuuk, the capital, were more dramatic. They asked "if this is how Ukrainians felt before Russia attacked".
Colonel Suzanne Myers' reaction to Vance's words cost her command of the base, as she distanced herself from his political comments aimed at (supporting) unity among American, Danish and Greenlandic personnel. The reason for the dismissal was "loss of confidence in her ability to lead", with the Pentagon warning that actions "to undermine the chain of command or to overthrow President Trump's agenda will not be tolerated". This message resonated with soldiers of all ranks.
photo: ap photoAMERICAN IN GREENLAND: US Vice President J. J. Vance at the US military base
STEP BY STEP DOWNLOAD
Analysts point out that Vance's visit was just one of the parallel directions of the public demonstration of US intentions. At the beginning of January, "Politico" published how the takeover of Greenland would look like in several steps. The journalist's emphasis that the strategies used by the USA "look too much like Putin's manual for expansions" is interesting. However, those familiar with US interventions during the last century and at the beginning of this century will notice that the steps cited by "Politico" are nothing new for the US - on the contrary.
The first step. It is a campaign to encourage and strengthen the movement for the independence of Greenland through covert and open "influence operations". They often involve investing in individuals or political parties who will carry out the US idea, manipulating public opinion and, if necessary, outright buying support. Independence would thus throw Denmark out of the game and make it possible to sign an agreement with the Greenlandic authorities. The Danish public service warned of precisely such attempts at US intervention in August 2025, with a report on at least three US citizens connected to Trump who are conducting covert operations of influence in support of the US in Greenland. This was followed by an unpleasant conversation between Danish Foreign Minister Lars Loke Rasmussen and Mark Stroh, Chargé d'Affaires of the US Embassy.
In addition, Greenlanders are not from yesterday and actively follow the events: although in January of last year 58 percent of them declared for independence from Denmark, as many as 86 percent were against joining the USA, while only 6 percent of residents were in favor of that option. On Saturday January 10, the leaders of Greenland's five main political parties issued a statement announcing that the future of the island should be decided by Greenlanders, stressing "we don't want to be Americans, we don't want to be Danes - we want to be Greenlanders". When it comes to Denmark, officials continue to politely offer alternatives and desperately seek the support of Europe and NATO members, while the move of King Frederick the Tenth sends an unequivocal message to the citizens of Greenland and to Trump: on January 1, he presented to the public a new coat of arms of Denmark to which two elements were added - a polar bear, representing Greenland, and a ram, representing the Faroe Islands.
Second step. It consists of offering Greenland a good one dil, that is, the Agreement on Free Association (Compact of Free Association COFA), similar to the one the US already has with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau. It entails the provision of basic services, free trade and military protection in exchange for the use of the islands for military operations. Some political parties advocating the independence of Greenland emphasized that "any agreement would be better than the one they have now with Denmark" and that - if the proposal is made - it will be decided by a referendum. And if that decision is reached, the Greenlanders will include in the consideration the 610 million dollars that the territory receives from Denmark as part of the so-called annual block grant, as well as funds for the functioning of the police, judicial system and defense, which all together amounts to a little less than a billion dollars per year and covers almost half of the territory's budget. In response to the criticism, Copenhagen also announced an Arctic defense package of around $6,54 billion.
And the third step. It is about involving Europe by tying the future of Greenland to security guarantees to Ukraine. Although it would be difficult to swallow, "Politico" predicts that for Europe this may be a better solution than real threats such as the loss of access to Ukraine's resources, Trump's support of the US to Putin and retaliation through sanctions, increased tariffs, withdrawal from peace negotiations, etc... While this text was being written, Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and Great Britain issued a joint statement, in which they reiterate that "Greenland belongs to its people" and that the future is a matter of Denmark and Greenland alone. Such a procedure indicates that they are probably working on plans for de-escalation, but also on preparations for a possible escalation of the conflict.
If these efforts do not bear fruit, the option that is most often mentioned in the public and sows fear among the inhabitants of the island is that Trump can always send - the army. According to Danish security experts, and given the existing US troops and superior force against Greenland's minimal defenses, a military takeover would be complete "in half an hour or less".
WHAT IF?
If we ignore - as Trump and his administration often do - that such an invasion would have no legal basis under international law, it still requires the approval of the US Congress. Reuters reported that the administration is considering paying Greenlanders between $10.000 and $100.000 per person to facilitate a potential transaction. This "greasing" would cost US taxpayers up to $5,7 billion, and possibly more with the additions to the governments of Greenland or Denmark, or both.
Trump has already bypassed Congress when arresting Maduro. He and Rubio explained that the information was withheld even from high-ranking senators "because they can't be trusted because they could leak," which caused a fierce reaction from both Democrats and Republicans. The question is what would be the fate of the proposal for a military invasion of Greenland after such a performance, bearing in mind that the most recent surveys by South Gov before the publication of the assessment of the cost of the intervention indicate that 73 percent of Americans oppose such a move, while that percentage in the January "Fox News" survey was 70 percent.
A military invasion would also have drastic consequences for the already unstable security at the world level. Among other things, NATO would essentially cease to exist. As first of all the founder, but also a key member of NATO, the USA would violate the alliance's basic principles of mutual defense and territorial integrity.
Article 5, one of the basic principles of the NATO alliance, states "that an armed attack on one or more members will be considered an attack on all". In response, each member takes "such measures as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and preserve the security of the North Atlantic area. An act of military invasion would be unnatural fornication which would force the other members into a dead end, because even united, they can hardly oppose the USA. Trump knows it, and probably counts on it. In addition to the burning problem with Ukraine, it is important to add that these countries, as well as other NATO members, relying on the postulates of this alliance, made themselves dependent by purchasing weapons (missiles, torpedoes), military aircraft (planes, drones), vehicles and other equipment, as well as spy technology from the USA. To put it simply, the US can very easily drastically reduce the capacities of these technologies and thereby threaten the security of the countries that possess them. When it comes to those countries, what could happen is a reduction in the willingness of (perhaps already former) members to share intelligence with the US, or a reduction in US access to bases across Europe, which, as Ben Hodges, former commander of US troops in Europe, explains, "would seriously harm America's security."
Although Trump announces that he will "take over Greenland, whether they like it or not", experts are not convinced that such a thing will happen overnight. There are increasingly frequent claims that the actions in Venezuela and the rattling of guns around Greenland - regardless of the consequences - are a distraction from the growing internal problems that Trump faces before the important midterm elections in 2026. Trump, however, has already shown an incredible ability to surprise even the most experienced analysts, so nothing is ruled out. Except, apparently, world peace.
