As promised in the election campaign, the US president Donald Trump continues to threaten Denmark with the intention of annex Greenland also with military force. For Trump, in fact, the island would be fundamental for “national and international security”. Greenland, despite being geographically part of the American continent, is controlled by the Kingdom of Denmark for almost 300 yearsalthough since 1979, the local government have been transferred to the legislative, judicial and the management of natural resources. The Danish government, however, still controls finances, foreign policy and the defense of the island, and this is why the US administration threatens Denmark of not having done enough for the Greenlanders in the field of social policies and for their defense against the growing influence of Russia and China in the Arctic.
The government agreement to curb US aggression
During his visit to Greenland on March 28th, the US vice -president JD Vance He said:
Our message to Denmark is very simple: You did not do a good job with the people of Greenland. You have invested less and less for them and to create a security architecture for this incredible and splendid continental mass inhabited by incredible people. This must change.
Vance also aligned Greenland public opinion to get independence from Denmark, despite the fact that the parliamentary elections of 11 March won the Democrats partyliberal centrist with a Very expectation approach to the theme of independence from Copenhagen. The will to curb on a possible definitive secession from Denmark has become even more evident when on 28 March the Democrats, the left -wing environmentalist party in the Inuit community, the Social Democrats of Next and Solidarity (which defends union with Denmark) have announced a government agreement excluding Naleraq, the only party favorable to immediate independence.
To lead this alliance is also the fear towards the expansionist aims of Donald TrumpThat Saturday 29 March he reiterated his belief that there are a good chance of obtaining Greenland For diplomatic ways, without excluding the military solution. This aggression certainly does not pay among the inhabitants of the island: if 80% of them are in favor of a process that leads to independence from Denmark, the85% does not want to know they become part of the USAagainst just 6% in favor.
The military presence uses in Greenland: the situation
The military option threatened by Trump plays a lot unrealisticgiven that Greenland is under Danish sovereignty, namely that of NATO, of which Denmark is part of the institution of the Atlantic alliance in 1949. Furthermore, as Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen pointed out, Since 1951 a mutual defense treatise between Denmark and the United States which allows Washington to have bases and military installations in Greenland. In 1945 Washington had located in Greenland thousands of soldiers distributed in 17 bases, but over the years this figure has decreased up to the current 200 of the PituFFik space baseessential to integrate the US missile defense system. For Rasmussen, the 1951 agreement “offers the United States the possibility of having a more massive military presence in Greenland. If this is their desire, just discuss it ».
In an attempt to disassemble the American “muscle” propaganda, Rasmussen recalled that the Denmark has increased investments for the defense of the Arctic: in January 2025 he announced an investment of almost 2 billion euros to displace three new warships, drones and satellites in the region.
What would happen if Trump invaded Greenland: the role of NATO
Wanting to consider the worst hypothesis, namely that Trump’s statements on Greenland are not a weapon of mass distraction but a precise political will, can the United States really annex Greenland, perhaps after a clash with Denmark? THE’event would put in crisis the foundations on which NATO is basedwith its main financier and founding country that attacks another member of the Atlantic alliance. Not to mention Article 5, which provides for the mutual commitment of the Member States to consider an armed attack against one or more of them as a Direct attack against everyone.
The article refers to the event that the attacker is a state external to the alliance. But what if they are two members of NATO to declare war? The only historical example available is that of Clash between Greece and Türkiye (both part of NATO since 1952) For the island of Cyprus of 1974. During the short conflict that led to the division of the island in two, NATO avoided intervening between the two contenders and expected the mediation of the United Nations. If Greenland attacked her, therefore, it would be like invading Denmark to him.
