Alexander Azadgan: Geopolitical, Economic, and Strategic Implications of a Potential Trump Take Over of Greenland: A Long-Term Analysis

By Alexander Azadgan

Abstract

In this article, I explore the possibilities of the United States taking control over Greenland, examining the geopolitical, economic, environmental, and strategic implications of such a move. While the idea of the United States acquiring Greenland has surfaced intermittently in modern history, particularly during the Trump administration, it is a complex issue involving international law, environmental concerns, and the strategic importance of the Arctic region. By analyzing these factors, this article provides a comprehensive understanding of the potential consequences for both the U.S. and the global community.

Introduction

In 2019, the notion of the United States purchasing Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, briefly made headlines following President Donald Trump’s public interest in the island. While the idea was met with both skepticism and diplomatic concerns, it highlighted the growing importance of Greenland on the global stage. Greenland sits at the crossroads of the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, and its strategic significance has increased in the 21^st century due to factors like climate change, the opening of Arctic shipping routes, and the discovery of valuable natural resources.

This article will delve into the following key areas:

1. Geopolitical Context: An analysis of Greenland’s political status within Denmark and the potential implications of its shift in sovereignty.
2. Strategic Importance: The military and geopolitical significance of Greenland, particularly in the context of U.S.-Russia relations and Arctic geopolitics.
3. Economic Prospects: Potential economic benefits for the United States from acquiring Greenland, focusing on natural resources, tourism, and the burgeoning Arctic economy.
4. Environmental Concerns: An exploration of the environmental impact of increased human presence and resource extraction in Greenland, including the implications for indigenous populations.
5. International Reactions: How the global community, including Denmark, NATO, and other Arctic states, would respond to such a move.

Geopolitical Context: Greenland’s Political Status

Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, a status it has held since 1979. It is a unique political entity with a high degree of self-government, particularly in domestic affairs, while Denmark handles foreign policy, defense, and monetary issues. Greenland’s government, the Naalakkersuisut, exercises control over internal matters, and its parliament, the Inatsisartut, is responsible for most legislative functions.

While the island has no standing military of its own, its location makes it a critical asset in the context of international relations. The U.S. maintains a military presence in Greenland at Thule Air Base, which is a crucial site for early-warning radar systems and serves as a key strategic location for Arctic and northern Atlantic operations.

The Idea of the United States taking over Greenland is complicated by both legal and diplomatic hurdles. Greenland’s status as part of Denmark’s territory means that any attempt by the U.S. to acquire it would require not only the approval of Denmark but also adherence to international law, particularly regarding territorial sovereignty.

Historical Attempts and Diplomatic Obstacles

The U.S. interest in Greenland is not a new phenomenon. The most famous attempt to purchase the island came in 1946 when President Harry S. Truman offered Denmark \$100 million for Greenland, a deal that was never accepted. However, the proposal reflected the island’s strategic value, particularly during the Cold War. The U.S. military’s interest in Greenland has remained high, as evidenced by the continued presence of Thule Air Base, which serves as a critical node in the U.S. missile defense and early-warning systems.

In 2019, when President Trump again suggested purchasing Greenland, Denmark rejected the idea outright, with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen calling the offer “absurd.” This reaction highlights the diplomatic complexities of any future attempt at annexation. Denmark’s relationship with Greenland is sensitive, and any significant shift in Greenland’s political status could have profound implications for the Kingdom of Denmark’s cohesion and its relations with its other territories, such as the Faroe Islands.

International law also presents significant challenges. The principle of self-determination enshrined in the United Nations Charter would likely make any attempt to forcibly annex Greenland a violation of international norms. Greenlanders themselves have shown little interest in changing their political status, and the prospect of becoming a part of the United States is unlikely to be popular.

Strategic Importance of Greenland

Greenland’s geographical position at the top of the world makes it one of the most strategically significant territories in the modern geopolitical landscape. The U.S. interest in Greenland largely revolves around the following strategic concerns:

1. Arctic Geopolitics: As climate change accelerates, the Arctic is becoming increasingly accessible. The melting of sea ice opens up new shipping routes, which could drastically shorten the distance between Europe and East Asia. Greenland’s location makes it a key player in any future geopolitical struggle over Arctic resources and access to these new routes.
2. Military Significance: The Thule Air Base, located in Greenland, is a critical asset for U.S. military operations. It serves as a launch point for reconnaissance flights over the Arctic and a staging area for operations in the northern hemisphere. Greenland’s strategic location is also valuable for monitoring Russian military activity in the region, as well as providing a defensive buffer for North America.
3. NATO and U.S. Presence: While Greenland is not a NATO member in its own right, Denmark is a NATO ally. The U.S. presence in Greenland under the NATO umbrella further solidifies the region’s importance. Any future conflict between NATO and Russia, or China’s increasing interest in the Arctic, would make Greenland an even more valuable asset.
4. Resource Exploration: Greenland is believed to have vast mineral resources, including rare-earth elements, gold, uranium, and oil. As the Arctic becomes more accessible, these resources are likely to become more valuable. U.S. control over Greenland could offer significant economic benefits through resource extraction.

Economic Implications

While the primary motivation for the United States taking control over Greenland would likely be strategic, there are also economic incentives worth considering:

1. Natural Resources: Greenland’s natural resources are a major draw. The island is thought to have significant reserves of rare-earth minerals, which are vital for high-tech industries such as electronics and renewable energy. With the global demand for these minerals growing, U.S. control over Greenland’s resources could have long-term economic benefits.
2. Tourism: Greenland’s unique Arctic environment has become an increasingly popular destination for adventurous tourists. As climate change opens up new areas of the Arctic for exploration, the tourism industry in Greenland could experience a boom. If Greenland were under U.S. control, American tourism companies might play a larger role in the industry, potentially increasing economic output.
3. Fisheries: The waters surrounding Greenland are rich in marine life, and fishing is one of the island’s most important industries. U.S. control over Greenland could potentially open up new avenues for American companies to tap into these resources, though this could also lead to disputes with other Arctic nations, particularly Canada and Russia.
4. Infrastructure Development: As the Arctic region opens up, the need for infrastructure development – such as ports, airports, and roads – becomes more pressing. Greenland’s geographic isolation poses a challenge, but U.S. investment in infrastructure could unlock significant economic opportunities, both in Greenland and in the broader Arctic region.

Environmental and Indigenous Concerns

Any move to annex Greenland would need to consider the environmental and social impacts of increased human presence and resource exploitation:

1. Climate Change: Greenland’s ice sheet is one of the largest in the world, and it plays a key role in regulating global sea levels. As climate change accelerates, the melting of this ice sheet could contribute to rising sea levels. U.S. control over Greenland would place additional pressure on the island’s ecosystem, potentially exacerbating the environmental risks.
2. Indigenous Rights: Greenland is home to an indigenous population, the Kalaallit, who have their own unique culture and history. Any change in the political status of Greenland would need to consider the rights and wishes of these communities. Historically, Greenlanders have shown a preference for maintaining their autonomy within the Kingdom of Denmark, and a move to join the United States might not be welcomed by the indigenous population.
3. Sustainability: The extraction of natural resources in Greenland could have significant environmental consequences, particularly in terms of wildlife, habitat destruction, and pollution. The U.S. would need to consider how to balance economic interests with sustainable environmental practices in an increasingly fragile Arctic ecosystem.

International Reactions and Legal Challenges

The idea of the U.S. taking over Greenland would have significant international implications. Denmark, as the sovereign state over Greenland, would likely resist any attempt at annexation. Furthermore, Greenland itself would need to express a desire for such a shift, a move that seems unlikely given the island’s existing political arrangements and the preferences of its population.

NATO would also have to consider the implications of such a shift in geopolitical power. While the U.S. is a member of NATO, the alliance would likely face tensions with other members, particularly Canada and the European Union, who may view the move as an overextension of U.S. power in the Arctic.

Russia, already highly sensitive to NATO’s presence near its borders, would likely view the U.S. acquisition of Greenland as a direct threat to its interests in the Arctic. This could escalate tensions in an already fragile geopolitical environment.

Conclusion

The notion of the United States taking over Greenland raises complex geopolitical, legal, and ethical issues. While Greenland’s strategic importance in the Arctic is undeniable, the process of annexation would involve numerous diplomatic and international challenges. The U.S. would need to navigate not only the wishes of Greenland and Denmark but also the wider implications for Arctic and global geopolitics.

The future of Greenland’s political status may depend more on international cooperation in the Arctic region than individual decisions. A Trump takeover of Greenland would have profound, multifaceted implications in the geopolitical, economic, and strategic arenas. On the one hand, it would significantly enhance the U.S.’s influence in the Arctic and global strategic positioning. On the other hand, it could lead to greater tension with Russia, China, and NATO allies, along with potential legal and environmental issues. Long-term, the acquisition could reshape the balance of power in the Arctic and beyond, with wide-ranging consequences for international relations, the global economy, and the environment.

It would be an event with repercussions well beyond the mere transfer of land, involving complex global dynamics that could shift the course of history in unexpected ways.

Photo: Donald Trump’s son, Donald Jr (second right), visits Greenland in January 2025. AP/Alamy

🔴 DISCLAIMER: I maintain my 1st Amendment right to be able to express my own personal views on different issues, especially controversial ones. I do not, never have, never will promote anyone’s „propaganda“.  I’m an equal opportunity critic and a 100% financially and ideologically independent and patriotic American scholar whose core academic responsibility and moral obligation is to speak the truth and raise awareness. I’m continually guided by John 8:32 which states, „Truth shall set you free.“ As such, the content of all my social media posts, tv interviews, lectures, podcasts, webinars, published articles, etc. (which are all at my personal capacity) are presented SOLELY as my own opinions. Therefore, my points of view should not be misinterpreted, mischaracterized, and/ or misconstrued as a statement of promoting (on behalf of) ANY person(s), ANY political cause, ANY organization, ANY government, and/ or ANY country. Any assertions to the contrary are categorically false and are a misrepresentation of facts and would be considered libelous and slanderous, i.e. a defamation of my personal character and public persona. I’m simply exercising my 1st Amendment right as a proud American citizen, which is freedom of speech and freedom of thought.