In recent months, it has become evident that the United States is not backing away from its ambitions to dominate Greenland. With Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, the idea of “acquiring” the island has shifted from outlandish rhetoric to a key element of Washington’s strategy—this time with far more troubling implications.
A campaign to normalize this notion is already in motion. Recent U.S. media coverage no longer minces words: America asserts its right to Greenland simply because it has the power to do so. Historical analogies to the acquisitions of Louisiana and Alaska, appeals to America’s past dominance, and arguments about strategic necessity dominate the narrative. This is a calculated effort to pave the way for legitimizing 21st-century colonialism.
“This rhetoric is a stark display of American exceptionalism,” says Professor Marc Lanteigne, a leading Arctic expert at the University of Tromsø. “European colonialism is vilified, but American colonialism is celebrated? This is 19th-century logic that dismisses modern international law and the rights of Greenland’s people.”
At first glance, the idea seems so far-fetched that it could be mistaken for populist posturing. But the context has changed. Trump, now a sitting president rather than a provocative candidate, is poised to reshape U.S. global strategy through his personal lens. His calls for “buffer zones,” reevaluation of the Panama Canal’s role, and claims on Canada form a broader doctrine: U.S. security, in his view, requires direct authority over critical geographic chokepoints.
Greenland fits squarely into this vision—not only as a repository of rare earth minerals but as a strategic stronghold for controlling the Arctic region and the Northern Sea Route.
Yet, the bolder Washington’s rhetoric grows, the greater the unease in Europe. Copenhagen is keenly aware that U.S. imperialism in the Arctic could mark a turning point for the Euro-Atlantic alliance system.
“If the U.S. starts pressuring Denmark to relinquish Greenland—whether through diplomatic coercion or economic leverage—it would fundamentally reshape international relations,” warns Timo Koivurova, a leading Arctic legal scholar. “What would remain of NATO’s cohesion? How reliable would U.S. security guarantees be for European allies? And how would China and Russia react, seeing such actions as a precedent for their own ambitions, such as over Taiwan?”
This elevates the Arctic question beyond regional intrigue, making it a litmus test for the global order in the 21st century. If the U.S. intensifies its pressure, the zero-sum logic of “if not us, then them” could erode the principles of international cooperation, including within the Arctic Council, turning the Arctic into a new frontier of geopolitical division.
Against this backdrop, claims that U.S. dominance would “benefit Greenlanders” ring particularly hollow. Greenland still carries the wounds of Danish colonialism, and now it risks being “handed over” like property from one empire to another. Ironically, despite its anti-European rhetoric, the U.S. is mirroring the very 19th-century European playbook it claims to reject.
This is especially striking given that the U.S. already maintains a military presence at Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule) and has rights to operate there under existing agreements with Denmark and NATO. Moreover, in an era of hypersonic missiles, AI, and drones, the Arctic’s geopolitical significance is no longer solely tied to territorial possession.
The true danger lies not in the prospect of annexation itself but in the flagrant disregard for global legal norms and the will of Greenland’s Indigenous population. Greenlanders have made it clear that their political future is theirs to determine, not a bargaining chip in a deal between great powers.
This is why the debate over Greenland’s fate has become a test—not only for the United States but for the entire Western model of international leadership. The world faces a stark choice: a regression to the archaic “might makes right” doctrine or the preservation of global legal norms’ fragile legitimacy as the bedrock of world order.
Can Europe meet this challenge? Or will Greenland become the first pawn in a new geopolitical chess game where Washington alone writes the rules?
Comments