The strategic Arctic island of Greenland has once again become a focal point of transatlantic tension, with the Trump administration reiterating its ambition to gain control of the mineral-rich, self-governing Danish territory. While the White House states that using the US military remains "always an option," analysts consider an armed invasion highly improbable. Instead, a range of other strategies, from diplomatic wooing to leveraging existing treaties, are being actively explored to fulfil the president's territorial ambitions.
The Diplomatic and Economic Pathways
The most discussed option remains an outright purchase, a concept with historical precedent. The US first considered buying Greenland in 1867, made a formal $100 million offer in 1946, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio has reportedly told Congress this goal is still active. However, both the Danish and Greenlandic governments have consistently stated the island is not for sale. Crucially, the era of trading territories is widely seen as over, with the international principle of self-determination making a sale virtually impossible. A January poll indicated that 85% of Greenland's 57,000 inhabitants oppose joining the US.
A more subtle approach involves a concerted "hearts-and-minds" campaign. The US reopened its consulate in the capital, Nuuk, in 2020, appointed a special envoy last month, and promises significant investment. The underlying strategy appears to be encouraging Greenland's growing independence movement. Following a successful independence referendum—which the island has the right to hold under its 2009 self-rule law—the US could then negotiate a partnership with a newly sovereign nation. US Vice-President JD Vance hinted at this during a March visit, expressing hope that independent Greenlanders would "choose to partner with the United States."
Strategic Agreements and the Military Question
Many analysts view a "compact of free association" (Cofa) as the most plausible long-term outcome. Similar to US agreements with Pacific nations like the Marshall Islands, this would grant Greenland independence alongside US protection and trade benefits, while giving the American military largely unrestricted operational access.
Ironically, the US already possesses extensive military rights in Greenland under a 1951 defence agreement with Denmark, updated in 2004 with Greenland's input. This treaty permits the US to "construct, install, maintain and operate" bases and control movements across the territory. Copenhagen has signalled willingness to allow a significant expansion of the current US presence, which is confined to the Pituffik space base in the north.
The Unthinkable Scenario: Invasion and Its Consequences
If all else fails, some US analysts suggest a military takeover would not be technically difficult, given Greenland lacks a territorial army. However, Danish experts counter that Greenland's extreme weather and terrain would make any operation highly challenging. More importantly, the political fallout would be catastrophic. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that an attack on Greenland, which is covered by Denmark's NATO membership, would mean the end of the military alliance. It would shatter post-war security structures, destroy trust, and cut off vital intelligence sharing. Former Danish defence intelligence analyst Jacob Kaarsbo starkly warned that in such a scenario, "US soldiers would come back to the US in bodybags."
While the spectre of invasion makes headlines, the practical paths forward for Washington involve a complex mix of diplomacy, economic incentives, and strategic patience, all set against the firm will of Greenland's people to determine their own future.
