Denmark has deployed additional troops to Greenland in a visible show of resolve after US President Donald Trump refused to rule out using military force to seize control of the vast Arctic territory. The move underscores growing alarm in Copenhagen and across Europe that Washington’s rhetoric is crossing from diplomatic provocation into direct security risk.
Late on Monday, the chief of the Royal Danish Army, Lieutenant General Peter Boysen, arrived in Kangerlussuaq in western Greenland alongside a “substantial contribution” of Danish troops, according to public broadcaster DR. TV2 reported that 58 soldiers landed in the territory, reinforcing roughly 60 Danish personnel already present for multinational military drills under Operation Arctic Endurance.
While Denmark’s Ministry of Defence declined immediate comment, the symbolism of the deployment was unmistakable: Greenland is no longer treated solely as a strategic asset—it is now a potential flashpoint.
Why Greenland Matters: Geography, Minerals, and Military Reach
Greenland, the world’s largest island, occupies a critical position between North America and Europe. Roughly 80 percent of its surface is covered by ice, but climate change is rapidly altering its strategic value. Arctic sea ice has declined by more than 40 percent since 1979, opening new shipping routes and increasing access to untapped resources.
According to the US Geological Survey, Greenland holds significant deposits of rare earth elements, uranium, zinc, iron ore, and potentially billions of barrels of oil equivalent, resources central to the global energy transition and high-tech manufacturing. Rare earths alone are critical to fighter jets, missiles, electric vehicles, and semiconductors—sectors where the US is attempting to reduce dependence on China.
Militarily, Greenland hosts the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), a cornerstone of US missile early-warning systems and space surveillance. Any change in Greenland’s sovereignty would fundamentally reshape Arctic and transatlantic security architecture.
Trump’s Remarks: Strategic Signaling or Alliance Sabotage?
Tensions surged after Trump declined to rule out using force to take Greenland, responding “no comment” when asked directly whether military action was on the table. The remarks followed reports that Trump told Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre in a private message that he no longer felt bound to “think purely of peace” after being denied the Nobel Peace Prize.
This rhetoric has triggered shock across Europe. While Trump has previously floated the idea of buying Greenland during his first term, his renewed insistence—now backed by economic and military threats—marks a qualitative escalation.
Denmark has reiterated that Greenland is not for sale, although Copenhagen has expressed openness to expanded US military cooperation on the island. Officials have also warned that any attempt to seize Greenland by force would effectively end NATO as it currently exists.
NATO’s Article 5 Dilemma
Greenland’s status places NATO in an unprecedented bind. Denmark and the United States are both alliance members, bound by Article 5, which treats an attack on one member as an attack on all.
If the US were to coerce or attack Danish territory, NATO would face a scenario it was never designed to handle: internal aggression by its leading power. Analysts warn this could trigger the most severe legitimacy crisis in NATO’s 75-year history.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte met Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen and Greenland’s foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, to discuss enhanced Arctic security, including the possibility of a joint NATO mission in Greenland. Rutte emphasized the Arctic’s growing role in “collective security,” noting that Russia has reopened or modernized more than 50 Arctic military sites over the past decade, while China now labels itself a “near-Arctic state.”
Denmark’s Arctic Capabilities: Limited but Symbolic
Denmark’s military footprint in Greenland remains modest. The Danish Armed Forces operate:
- Around 150 permanent personnel across Greenland and the Faroe Islands
- A small number of patrol vessels
- Surveillance aircraft and satellite monitoring
- The elite Sirius Dog Sled Patrol for Arctic reconnaissance
Denmark announced a $2 billion Arctic defence package in 2023, aimed at drones, radar systems, and enhanced maritime surveillance. Still, Denmark lacks the capacity to independently defend Greenland against a major power—making alliance cohesion essential.
Trade Coercion and the EU’s “Bazooka”
Beyond military pressure, Trump’s threat to impose punitive tariffs on Denmark and seven other European countries until Greenland is “resolved” has opened a second front: economic warfare.
The European Union will convene an emergency meeting to consider countermeasures, including triggering its Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI)—dubbed the “trade bazooka.” The ACI would allow Brussels to restrict US investment, public procurement access, and operations of American technology firms inside the EU’s single market, which accounts for nearly 450 million consumers.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated she had stressed the “need to unequivocally respect the sovereignty” of Denmark and Greenland during meetings with US officials at the Davos summit, warning that transatlantic ties are at stake.
Greenland’s People Reject US Takeover
Public opinion in Greenland strongly contradicts Trump’s claims. A poll commissioned by Berlingske found that 85 percent of Greenlanders oppose joining the United States, with only 6 percent in favor. Greenland’s population of just under 57,000, predominantly Inuit, has pursued gradual independence from Denmark—not annexation by another power.
Greenland’s government has repeatedly emphasized its right to self-determination under international law, a principle Trump’s rhetoric appears to disregard.
Strategic Consequences: Who Benefits From the Crisis?
Ironically, the crisis plays directly into the hands of Washington’s strategic rivals. Russia and China have long sought to weaken NATO cohesion and exploit divisions within the transatlantic alliance. Moscow has steadily militarized the Arctic, while Beijing has invested billions in Arctic infrastructure and research.
A NATO crisis triggered by Washington itself risks undermining deterrence, weakening support for Ukraine, and accelerating the erosion of the post–Cold War security order.
A Turning Point for the Transatlantic Alliance
What began as rhetorical brinkmanship has now evolved into a multidimensional crisis encompassing military posture, alliance law, trade warfare, and sovereignty norms. Denmark’s troop deployment to Greenland is modest in scale, but profound in meaning.
The question now facing Europe is no longer whether Greenland is strategically important—it clearly is—but whether NATO can survive a future in which its strongest member treats allied territory as a negotiable asset rather than a sovereign partner.
If that norm collapses, the consequences will extend far beyond the Arctic ice.
