Greenland and Trump's plans: 4 scenarios for US control over the island

Greenland has suddenly found itself at the center of big politics: after Donald Trump's statements about his readiness to establish control over the island, analysts are sorting out what exactly Washington might have in mind. The Times outlines four basic scenarios - from a crude military invasion to a soft "creeping" control - and each of them forces NATO, Denmark and the EU to view the situation not as exotic, but as a real challenge to security in the Arctic.¹

Why Trump returned to the idea of ​​Greenland

The idea of ​​"getting" Greenland is not new: back in 2019, Trump tried to convince Denmark to sell the island, and Copenhagen responded with one word - "absurd."⁴ After returning to the White House in 2025, amid intensifying global competition in the Arctic, the topic of Greenland reappeared in the White House rhetoric, but now the word "annexation" is increasingly heard alongside the word "deal."^{2 4}

Reuters notes that Trump justifies his interest in Greenland "not only on the grounds of national but also international security," citing the island's critical role in the early warning system for missile launches and control of North Atlantic routes.⁴ The BBC adds that European allies openly fear that any attempt to forcefully change the status of Greenland could undermine the foundation of NATO, which is based on respect for the territorial integrity of allies.⁵

Scenario 1. Direct military invasion and occupation

The first, most brutal scenario analyzed by The Times is a direct US military invasion of Greenland with a de facto occupation of the island.¹ There are formal possibilities for this: the American base Pituffik (formerly Thule) is already operating in Greenland, and the US can quickly strengthen the presence of the fleet, aviation, and marines, blocking key ports and airfields in the North Atlantic.³

However, holding the captured territory would be much more difficult than entering it. Greenland is an autonomous part of the Kingdom of Denmark with its own government and strong sentiments for greater independence, so an attempt to forcibly change the status would almost certainly provoke large-scale protests, sabotage, and turn the island into a long-term “gray zone” similar to protracted conflicts in other regions of the world.^{1 3}

Military scenario as a blow to NATO

The Danish Prime Minister and a number of European leaders have already warned: the forcible annexation of part of the territory of a NATO ally would become a "red line" beyond which the alliance in its current form may not survive.⁵ The point is that the US finds itself in the role of a state that undermines the treaty that it itself once designed, showing its readiness to rewrite borders by force even within the bloc.

CSIS analysts emphasize that a direct invasion and occupation of Greenland would create a dangerous precedent that Moscow or Beijing could refer to, justifying their own aggressive steps against their neighbors.⁷ In military terms, this would mean a new buildup of forces in the North Atlantic and the Arctic, where gradual militarization is already underway — from the construction of bases to the deployment of new missile systems.^{3 7}

Scenario 2. “Deal under pressure”: buying an island and financial “carrots”

The second scenario is formally peaceful: an attempt to buy Greenland from Denmark, supplementing the financial offer with a broad investment package for the island.^{1 2} In this model, Washington offers Copenhagen large compensation and security guarantees, and Greenland subsidies, new infrastructure, modernization of ports and airports, support for the extractive industry, and job creation.²

Trump has previously spoken of a "good deal" as the preferred way to resolve the issue and stressed that he prefers agreements to war if it gives the US the desired result.² However, the Danish government has repeatedly stated that "Greenland is not for sale," and the very idea of ​​buying the territory of a NATO member state is perceived as an anachronism of the colonial era, unacceptable for modern Europe.^{4 5}

Referendum for Greenlanders: Democracy or Blackmail

Time and other publications point out that Washington has repeatedly discussed the option of a referendum directly in Greenland: the population could be offered a choice between maintaining its current status, full independence, or joining the United States under a special treaty.^{2 8} The combination of financial promises, infrastructure projects, and political pressure on local elites could create a situation where some politicians in Nuuk will find such "independence under the American umbrella" attractive.

At the same time, such a scenario will inevitably cause skepticism and protests in Denmark, the EU, and Greenland itself, where they well remember how Russia covered up the annexation of Ukrainian territories with pseudo-referendums.^{5 6} This is a particularly sensitive topic for Ukraine: any attempt to legalize border changes through "expression of will" under pressure weakens Kyiv's position in disputes over the illegality of Russian "votes" in Crimea and the occupied Donbas.

Scenario 3. “Free Association” with the USA

The third scenario, which The Times calls the most legally “neat,” is a free association agreement between Greenland and the United States.¹ The essence of this model is as follows: Washington assumes the island's defense, security, and foreign policy, while Greenland retains internal self-government, a parliament, and a government — according to a logic similar to the US agreements with a number of Pacific states.^{3 8}

Wikistrat points out: a free association agreement could be presented to Greenlandic society as a step towards greater freedom from Copenhagen, combined with security guarantees, financial support, and access to American development programs.⁸ Critics, however, emphasize that this is actually a matter of replacing one center of gravity with another - sovereignty in key issues of defense and foreign policy will be severely limited, and the room for maneuver will be smaller than in current relations with Denmark.^{3 7}

How associate status will change the balance in NATO

In the case of such a format, Greenland will remain in the Western security orbit, but the balance within NATO will change: Denmark's role as a formal sovereign will be weakened, and the US will actually gain direct control over a key Arctic stronghold.^{3 7} For other European allies, this is a signal that the United States is ready to reformat the security architecture not through multilateral mechanisms, but through bilateral agreements in which Washington sets the rules.

Russia, which is already actively militarizing its own part of the Arctic, will perceive such an agreement as a direct challenge, which will push it to even further build up bases, aircraft, and missile systems in the north.^{3 7} This could set off a new spiral of competition in a region where climate change is already opening up new sea routes and making the fight for resources increasingly fierce.

Scenario 4. “Creeping control” without changing the flag

The fourth scenario, which The Times describes as the least visible but strategically effective, is a sharp increase in the US presence without a formal change in Greenland's status.¹ This includes expanding the Pituffik base, deploying additional radars and missile defense systems, more frequent rotation of ships and aircraft, and expanding the role of American advisors in the Greenlandic government and economy.^{3 7}

Stratfor suggests that in such a scenario, Copenhagen formally retains sovereignty, but real decisions in the field of security and development increasingly depend on Washington's position.³ This means a gradual "erosion" of Danish control without any loud declaration of annexation or sale - instead, a situation is actually forming where Greenland becomes an indispensable part of the American Arctic strategy.⁷

Why Greenland is so important: geography, resources and routes

Time, Reuters, and The New York Times highlight three main reasons for American interest in Greenland. The first is geographical: the island lies on the shortest air routes between North America and Europe and plays a key role in early detection systems for missile launches and control of North Atlantic communications.^{2 4 6} The second is resource-related: under the Greenland ice sheet lie large reserves of minerals, in particular rare earth metals, which are needed for "green" energy and high technologies.^{6 7}

The third motive is climate change: the melting of Arctic ice opens up new sea routes, where the interests of the United States, Russia, China, Canada, and Scandinavian countries compete.^{3 7} Control of Greenland means control of an important part of this chessboard, and to a leader who thinks in terms of “deals” and “assets,” the island looks not just territory but a package of strategic opportunities for decades to come.^{2 6}

Reaction of Denmark, Greenland and allies

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has repeatedly emphasized: "Greenland is not for sale," and met the latest hints of the possibility of forceful action by Washington with tough statements about the inadmissibility of such rhetoric in relations between NATO allies.⁵ Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen, for his part, warned that talk of annexation and ultimatums "undermines trust" and could force the island to seek a broader range of partners to balance US influence.^{2 6}

European capitals — from Berlin to Ottawa and the Scandinavian countries — have demonstratively supported Denmark, calling the threats of force “incompatible with the spirit of allied relations” and warning that an attempt to annex or forcibly change the status of Greenland would effectively mean the end of NATO in its current form.⁵ For them, this is a story not only about the Arctic, but also about the principle: if today the status of an ally's territory is allowed to be changed by force, tomorrow such logic can be applied anywhere.

Why it is important for Ukraine to follow the Greenland story

For Ukraine, the discussion around Greenland has at least three dimensions. The first is legal: any legitimization of border changes through forceful pressure or referendums under political and financial blackmail weakens Kyiv's arguments in the fight against Russian annexations.^{5 6} Ukrainian diplomacy will have to emphasize even more clearly the differences between protecting a victim of aggression and taking forceful actions against an ally.

The second is resource-related: increased militarization of the Arctic and the potential redistribution of military budgets could change the structure of Western aid, forcing Washington and its allies to balance support for Ukraine and investment in northern bridgeheads.^{3 7} The third is political: the EU and NATO's response to the Greenland issue will be a test of whether the West is able to consistently uphold the principles of international law when the risk of violation comes not from Moscow or Beijing, but from Washington.

Sources

1. The Times (recital of the main points): four scenarios for establishing US control over Greenland — invasion, purchase, free association, "creeping" control.
2. TIME: An analysis of Washington's possible moves regarding Greenland, including the idea of ​​a referendum and a "good deal."
3. Stratfor: assessment of US pressure tools — from expanding the Pituffik base to strengthening political influence without formal annexation.
4. Reuters: Trump's statements on the strategic necessity of Greenland and the context of discussions in NATO.
5. BBC News: The motives of the US interest in Greenland and the reaction of Denmark and European allies to the threat of annexation.
6. The New York Times: The strategic, economic and political reasons why Washington sees Greenland as a key asset in the Arctic.
7. CSIS / analytical reports on the Arctic: the consequences of various scenarios of increased US control over Greenland for the arms race and the balance of power in the region.
8. Wikistrat: special report on scenarios of Greenland's "push" towards free association with the US and the risks to the island's sovereignty.