US President Donald Trump’s insistence on acquiring Greenland represents an unprecedented escalation and has sparked a wide wave of political and diplomatic controversy – not only within the United States, but also across Europe, Russia, and China. The issue goes far beyond being a mere real estate transaction; rather, it constitutes a clear expression of profound strategic transformations in the international system.
Greenland, the world’s largest island, is not merely an isolated mass of ice in the Arctic. It represents a strategic and economic treasure of immense importance. It lies at the heart of the escalating geopolitical competition in the Arctic region, which in recent years has become a theater for power struggles among major powers, particularly as melting ice opens new maritime routes and reveals vast reserves of rare minerals, oil, and gas.
The motives behind Trump’s interest in Greenland are driven primarily by geopolitical considerations. Control over the island provides enormous capacity to monitor the North Atlantic and vital maritime routes, while strengthening the US military presence in the face of Russia, which has expanded its military activity in the Arctic, and China, which is seeking to establish a foothold in the region.
From Washington’s perspective, Greenland’s geopolitical and military significance stems from several factors. The island is located at the heart of the Arctic region between North America and Europe. It represents a key hub for early warning systems and missile defence against Russia and China, and it hosts the US Thule Air Base, one of Washington’s most critical strategic military installations. Control over Greenland therefore means dominance over military and aerial navigation routes in the Arctic.
Moreover, as climate change accelerates ice melt, the Arctic has become a competitive arena among the United States, Russia, and China. Greenland offers the United States a forward position in this struggle, especially in light of expanding Russian and Chinese influence in the far north.
Greenland also possesses enormous natural wealth, including rare earth minerals essential for advanced technological and military industries, potential oil and gas reserves beneath the ice, and uranium and future energy minerals. These resources could significantly reduce US dependence on China, which currently dominates a large share of the global rare earth market.
In addition, melting ice is opening new, shorter maritime trade routes between Asia and Europe. US influence or control over Greenland would grant Washington leverage over future global trade flows and maritime security.
Preventing Chinese penetration is another key factor. China considers itself a “near-Arctic state” and has sought to invest in Greenland. Washington views this as both an economic threat and a direct challenge to US national security. Consequently, the United States aims to distance Greenland from any potential Chinese influence.
Although Greenland enjoys a high degree of self-governance, it remains formally part of the Kingdom of Denmark. The United States believes that Denmark lacks the capacity to adequately protect or strategically invest in the island. This perception helps explain Trump’s 2019 statement about “buying Greenland,” which reflected a long-standing American strategic mindset.
The US pursuit of Greenland represents a long-term strategic calculation linked to national security, energy, resources, and anticipated global conflicts. It reflects the transformation of the Arctic into a zone of international rivalry. Trump viewed Greenland as a long-term investment that could enhance US independence from supply chains dominated by China.
This proposal cannot be separated from Trump’s business-oriented mindset, which treats international politics as an extension of deal-making. He approached the acquisition idea with the logic of a businessman rather than that of a traditional statesman, believing that America’s economic power entitles it to redraw maps when its interests require.
The European response – particularly from Denmark – was firm and unequivocal. Copenhagen emphasised that Greenland “is not for sale” and that any discussion of acquisition constitutes a direct violation of national sovereignty and international law. European Union states also expressed concern over the return of power politics and hegemonic thinking, which contradict the principles underpinning the post–World War II international order.
Europe viewed the American proposal as a manifestation of unilateralism that threatens transatlantic stability, especially given Greenland’s extensive self-rule and the principle that its future should be determined by its people, not negotiated among major powers. Following European rejection, President Trump reportedly threatened to impose tariffs of up to 25 per cent on certain European countries, while European states also threatened retaliatory tariffs on US imports.
Russia monitored the American proposal with deep concern, though it maintained a calm diplomatic tone. Moscow understands that any US expansion in Greenland would constrain its growing influence in the Arctic, where it has heavily invested in military bases and infrastructure. Russia views this move as an attempt to re-militarise the region, potentially prompting it to enhance its defensive capabilities in a new power race reminiscent of the Cold War.
From my perspective, Russia might tacitly accept US control over Greenland behind closed doors in exchange for American acquiescence to Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territories it has seized.
China, for its part, responded with cautious silence, yet did not conceal its discomfort with any American move aimed at excluding it from the Arctic. Beijing considers itself a “near-Arctic state” and seeks to integrate the region into its Belt and Road Initiative through investment and infrastructure projects. From a Chinese viewpoint, US acquisition of Greenland would constrain its economic ambitions and underscore Washington’s efforts to contain China’s rise – not only in Asia, but globally.
Ultimately, Trump’s idea of acquiring Greenland was not merely a passing notion; it reflects deep shifts in the global balance of power, where geography has once again become central to international conflicts. Although the idea was officially rejected by Western states, it remains present in strategic thinking, making Greenland a symbol of an emerging struggle over influence and resources in an increasingly polarised and competitive world.
