Trump, Greenland and the Reaction in the Nordic Countries

Prof. Glenn Diesen at the Valdai Discussion Club

The following article has been published in the Valdai Discussion Club: https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/trump-greenland-and-the-reaction-in-the-nordic/

The US has had a longstanding interest in acquiring Greenland. After the purchase of Alaska in 1867, US Secretary of State William Seward proposed purchasing Greenland from Denmark. In 1910, the US yet again suggested acquiring Greenland through a land swap with Denmark, in return for offering the Philippine islands of Mindanao and Palawan. The appeal was Greenland’s strategic position in the North Atlantic and its resource potential. During the Second World War, the US took temporary control over Greenland as Denmark was under German occupation, and the 1941 Denmark-US agreement was framed by Washington as a defence of the Western hemisphere and thus in the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine. After returning control of Greenland to Denmark, the US offered to buy Greenland again in 1946 in the context of the Cold War. The Arctic became a key strategic region due to the Soviet adversary, yet the US eventually accepted the base agreement in 1951 instead of pursuing annexation.

Greenland in the Multipolar World

Trump’s brazen efforts to annex Greenland make sense under the multipolar distribution of power that ended the unipolar moment. Under the bipolar era of balancing the Soviet Union and the unipolar era of establishing collective hegemony through NATO expansionism, the US and European interests were closely aligned. In a multipolar distribution of power, the US will pivot away from Europe and their interests will become increasingly divergent.

Multipolarity demands that the US prioritize, and the new National Security Strategy makes it clear that US primacy in the Western Hemisphere is the principal objective, containing China in East Asia comes second, while Europe is a distant third. The Europeans have made themselves excessively reliant on the US during the bipolar and unipolar world order, and thus have incentives to promote a Cold War mentality as balancing Russia could lay the foundation for unity. However, China is the principal adversary of the US, not Russia. A strong US presence in Europe will prevent the pivot to Asia and push Russia toward China to collectively balance the US, as opposed to encouraging improved relations to diversify Russian relations.

The Europeans are not seen as a force amplifier but as a strategic cost and a rival with diminishing strategic value, and the US has thus formed an extractive relationship with Europe. The US probably realises that in time the Europeans will understand that it is necessary to diversify their economic ties in a multipolar world to remain economically prosperous, politically autonomous and geopolitically relevant. As the US and Europe drift apart and NATO will eventually die, it is in the interest of the US to have sovereign control over Greenland with its vast resources as opposed to relying on Denmark’s approval.

The growing strategic relevance on the Greenland and the Arctic is not merely in the mind of Trump. In 2019, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a hawkish and militaristic speech at the Arctic Council, which sought to mobilize allies against the threat of China and Russia to the ambition of US primacy in the Arctic. The 2024 US Arctic Strategy, published under the Biden administration, similarly outlined: “Reduction in sea ice due to climate change means chokepoints such as the Bering Strait between Alaska and Russia and the Barents Sea north of Norway, are becoming more navigable and more economically and militarily significant”.

The Arctic is no longer a frozen desert without strategic significance, as it hosts vast amount of natural resources and a competitive transportation corridor in terms of money and time. The proxy war against Russia over the past 12 years has intensified Eurasian integration, and the Arctic is the roof on top of the supercontinent.

The US Seizing Greenland

A key objective for the Europeans has been to maintain the US military presence on the continent, partly achieved through threat inflation from the East, aligning foreign policy with the US, and accepting greater subordination by reducing ties to other great powers. Denmark’s claims of a threat to Greenland from Russia and China likely aimed to cement US military presence in Europe, although it instead gave Trump the pretext to claim Denmark was not in a position to defend Greenland. The US annexation of Greenland would thus allegedly serve the interests of the entire political West.

The US has threatened to use military power to seize Greenland, while simultaneously offering to buy the territory. The calculation is likely that Denmark and the Europeans would take the money and avoid US military force, as this would destroy NATO and leave Europeans to defend themselves — allowing NATO’s preservation while at least receiving payment. Furthermore, Trump probably realizes that using military force would be resisted by Washington and could have unforeseen consequences. In the deeply polarized US, it is also possible that the Democrats would return occupied Greenland to Denmark to patch up relations with the Europeans. Trump would therefore prefer to avoid military force and instead pursue a sale. If faced with resistance from the Europeans, the US could first support the secession of Greenland from Denmark by organizing a “democratic revolution.” Once Greenland stands alone, it would be more vulnerable to annexation, as a $55-billion budget would allow the US to give $1 million to every single citizen of Greenland to vote in favour of joining the US.

Reaction from the Nordic Countries: Finding a Middle Road

The Nordic countries face the same dilemma as other European states in terms of how to respond to the US pivot away from Europe and Trump’s more aggressive approach. Either appease Trump by accepting greater dependence and subordination in the hope that obedience will be rewarded, or push back and diversify away from the US at the risk of facing punitive reactions. The two options are mutually exclusive, and it is nearly impossible to commit to either. The threat inflation of Russia is hoped to provide a third path as common interests are constructed.

The best approach for the Europeans would be to send troops to Greenland as a tripwire for the US, making any military conquest a more complex effort. Trump seeks to show strength through the threat of overwhelming power, yet he has an aversion to prolonged conflicts that consume resources and focus. Mere threats against Panama earned him concessions on the Panama Canal, and the quick military operation in Venezuela gave him a prize at a small cost. When there is a risk of a prolonged conflict, such as attacks in Yemen or Iran, Trump has in the past ended the wars.

Europeans may have concluded that Trump pursues low-hanging fruit and thus sent troops to Greenland. When Trump threatened tariffs against European states that sent troops and opposed annexation, the Europeans retreated into the narrative that they were sent there to defend against Russia. Giorgia Meloni claimed there had been a communication error, as they were there to defend against Russia per Trump’s request, and Friedrich Merz similarly claimed at Davos that Germany would protect Greenland from the threat posed by Russia.

The Nordic countries similarly want to maintain good relations with the US as their principal security provider, yet they realize that as the US shifts focus away from Europe, regional cooperation among Scandinavian countries becomes increasingly important. Some hope that things will change if they can wait out Trump; some expect a permanent pivot by the US. Some believe the US should be appeased; others believe a firm stance is necessary. A common position is thus difficult to establish, and the default position is to warn about the threat from Russia in the hope of finding common purpose again. Greenland has the potential to revive the Western alliance due to US reliance on this European territory, although Greenland can also destroy the Western alliance if the US seeks sovereign control over it.