How the US claims to Greenland will affect Euro-Atlantic security. Analysis

US President Donald Trump has once again announced his intention to "do something" about Greenland, even against the will of its inhabitants. The island is considered as a key point in the US security system and a resource base, but at the same time Greenland is a member of NATO as an autonomous territory of Denmark. How the US claims to the territory of an ally will affect the work of the alliance is in the Izvestia article.

U.S. interests in Greenland

• Greenland's location makes it a key element of the Arctic security architecture: the distance to Russia is about 3.5 thousand km. An American early warning base is currently operating on the island, which plays an important role in the US missile defense and space intelligence system (Izvestia wrote more about this here). Control over this area means influencing the shortest routes of intercontinental missiles and access to Arctic space.

• The island with an area of about 2 million square kilometers is almost 80% covered with ice, the infrastructure is poorly developed, and exploration and launch of deposits can take about 10 years on average with high risks. At the same time, only one out of 100 projects becomes profitable. However, against the background of climate change, international interest in Greenland's resources is growing.

Ice show: The United States is talking about joining Greenland again

The White House's foreign policy is increasingly dependent on the domestic agenda

• Despite the fact that resource development will remain economically difficult and unprofitable in the coming years, it is important for the United States to prevent Russia or China, which are actively expanding their presence in the Arctic, from gaining access to these reserves. In American strategic calculations, Greenland is also considered as a fully controlled stronghold next to Europe.

• Trump's interest in Greenland did not arise today. The topic was discussed during his first term, right down to the rhetoric about a possible military option. Greenland is critically important for Denmark, as it provides the status of an Arctic state, participation in the Arctic Council, and access to the region's resources. Therefore, Copenhagen's key goal is to keep the island within the kingdom, albeit with broad autonomy. At the same time, according to a study conducted by the sociological agency Verian commissioned by the Danish newspaper Berlingske and the Greenlandic newspaper Sermitsiaq, the idea of Greenland joining the United States does not find support among the population. 85% of the surveyed residents of the island opposed this.

• On January 6, 2026, only six European countries — France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Spain and Denmark — issued a joint statement, emphasizing that decisions about the future of Greenland can only be made by Copenhagen and the Greenlanders themselves. At the same time, they avoided direct criticism of the United States in the document. This reflects the caution of European countries, which are afraid of spoiling bilateral relations and prefer not to engage in open confrontation. As a result, Europe risks being sidelined in world politics, having neither a single position nor sufficient levers of influence.

Peace plan: The United States announced a three-step process of change in Venezuela

Washington intends to take control of the oil sector, launch Western companies into the country and organize a transition of power.

Greenland's ransom or the war for it

• The US administration has repeatedly raised the issue of control over Greenland. The United States occupied Greenland in 1940 after the capture of Denmark by Nazi Germany. The United States has signed a deal to build its airfields and weather stations on the island not with Copenhagen, but with the Danish ambassador in Washington. In 1945, Denmark refused to sell the island colony to the United States for $100 million, and later declared it part of its territory.

• The White House stated that the acquisition of the island has become a national security task and different scenarios are being considered: from a financial deal to forceful pressure. Later, representatives of the State Department tried to soften the rhetoric, talking about trade and strategic cooperation. Since Denmark is a NATO ally of the United States, this makes such threats especially shocking.

Formally, both the authorities of Greenland and the Danish leadership reject the very possibility of transferring the island to the United States. Nevertheless, there are more scenarios of American influence on the island than just outright annexation. One possible option could be an association agreement based on the Pacific Territories model, in which the United States takes over defense and financing, while retaining internal self-government for the partner.

Hotly contested: how the United States is building relations with Venezuela after Maduro's arrest

Washington expects to achieve full access of American companies to the oil infrastructure

• The United States can take advantage of the existing tension in relations between Greenland and Denmark, which remain difficult, since the kingdom has not taken into account the interests of the island's indigenous population for a long time. In particular, for the construction of the Tula airbase (now Pituffik Space Base) in 1953, about 130 Inuit were forcibly relocated to an area with a harsher climate: they were compensated only 10 years later. And as part of the birth control campaign, Denmark has been forcibly sterilizing women on the island for decades since the 1960s.

• A military conflict around Greenland is unlikely. The United States already has a military presence there, while the Danish presence is minimal. The main struggle will be on the political and economic plane. The United States will combine pressure and offers of beneficial association, focusing on economics and resource development. The region is rich in oil and gas, and also allows you to control the shortest sea route from the United States to Northern Europe, which explains Washington's interest.

Impact on the Euro-Atlantic security system

• American claims to Greenland have raised concerns in Europe about the future of the North Atlantic Alliance. For example, Denmark recalled that the possible use of force against an ally would undermine the very foundation of NATO, where an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. At the same time, the US operation in Venezuela showed Washington's readiness for harsh unilateral actions. Against this background, the words about Greenland were no longer perceived in the EU as purely hypothetical.

All on defense: Europe wants to arm itself against Russia

Brussels does not have enough raw materials for this important issue.

• The situation calls into question the principles of NATO, including the application of Article 5 in the event of conflict between the Allies. There is no clear answer either in practice or in law. The US actions increase tensions within the alliance and undermine confidence in international law in general. Most likely, the United States will not act by force, but will try to separate Greenland from Denmark by political, economic and diplomatic means and then link it with the United States according to the model of the already existing American associated territories.

• The US interest in Greenland has already given its inhabitants the opportunity to achieve greater independence of the island from Denmark and force the kingdom to take into account the interests of the indigenous population. Denmark has a weak position, because it will not be able to fight the United States, and it may not receive NATO support. The United States is able to negotiate directly with the authorities and the population of Greenland, effectively "buying" it, given its small population and the existing American military presence.

• The risk of a real military conflict is minimal due to the disparity of forces. NATO will not fall apart because of this. The Alliance has already experienced conflicts between its members. In 1974, a dispute broke out between the countries of the alliance, Greece and Turkey, when Turkish troops invaded the territory after a military coup in Cyprus and its declaration as the Greek Republic of Cyprus. This led to the division of the island into Greek and Turkish parts by the "green line", but did not change the structure of NATO.

• The US logic is simple, because Washington believes that the allies are obliged to comply with American demands without leaving NATO. Europe is theoretically capable of creating an autonomous security system, but at the cost of reducing social costs. In general, relations between the United States and Europe remain hierarchical.

When writing the material, Izvestia interviewed:

• Igor Semenovsky, Associate Professor of the Department of International and Public Law at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation;
• political scientist Yuri Svetov.