Greenland Claim: How U.S. Move Could Reshape Arctic Politics

Greenland Claim Latest News

• An American military takeover of Greenland, which increasingly looks possible, would involve multiple contradictions.
• It would undermine U.S. commitments to sovereignty and international law, strain NATO unity, alarm Canada and Europe, and hand Russia a propaganda victory in the Arctic.

NATO at Risk: The Greenland Contradiction

• Any American military move into Greenland would strike at the heart of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). 
• NATO’s credibility rests on Article 5 — collective defence — which assumes external aggression, not one member violating another’s territorial integrity. 
• A U.S. action against Denmark, which administers Greenland, would create an unprecedented crisis the alliance was never designed to handle.

Denmark’s Sacrifice and the Irony of Article 5

• The contradiction is stark. Denmark was among the first to invoke Article 5 after the 9/11 attacks, standing firmly with the United States. 
• Danish troops fought alongside U.S. forces in Afghanistan, suffering heavy losses. 
• A U.S. incursion into Greenland would nullify this shared history and hollow out NATO’s moral foundation.

A Gift to Russia and China

• Such a move would directly benefit Vladimir Putin, who has long sought to fracture NATO unity and divert Western focus from Ukraine. 
• Ironically, an action justified as countering Russian influence in the Arctic would weaken the very alliance designed to contain Moscow.

The Strategic Argument Falls Apart

• Strategically, the move makes little sense. 
• The U.S. already has extensive rights in Greenland under a 1951 treaty and once operated 17 bases there, most of which were voluntarily shut down by Washington itself. 
• These facilities could be reactivated without violating sovereignty.

The Real Arctic Pressure Point

• While Donald Trump has pointed to rising Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic, U.S. defence assessments show the real pressure point lies near Alaska, not Greenland. 
• Pentagon briefings and the 2024 Arctic Strategy highlight infrastructure degradation and increased China–Russia cooperation in waters off Alaska.
• In effect, a Greenland misadventure would weaken NATO, empower adversaries, distract from Ukraine, and undermine U.S. credibility — all while addressing the wrong Arctic problem in the wrong place.

‹ ›

The Backers Behind the Greenland Push

• The idea of acquiring Greenland has moved beyond speculation. The White House has not ruled out a military option, while officials have spoken of discussions with European officials about a possible purchase. 
• However, Denmark, which administers Greenland, has made it clear the territory is not for sale. 
• The issue is now so politically sensitive in Copenhagen and Nuuk that any attempt at a commercial deal could bring down the Danish government.

Trump’s Domestic Constituencies

• Support for the Greenland idea appears to come from several figures close to Donald Trump. 
• Tech investor Peter Thiel has floated the idea of a libertarian, post-nation settlement in a place like Greenland. 
• Elon Musk has shown interest in the territory’s rare earth resources. 
• Billionaire Ronald Lauder is reported to have first raised the Greenland idea with Trump. 
• Trump himself is said to view the move through a real-estate lens, consistent with his business instincts.

Canada’s Security Anxiety

• The country most alarmed by a potential annexation is Canada. 
• U.S. control of Greenland would effectively hem Canada in, intensifying security concerns. 
• This has triggered a debate within Canada about revisiting its non-nuclear stance, with experts urging the country to confront difficult questions about national defence.

Nuclear Domino Effect

• The implications could extend far beyond North America. 
• If NATO were to fracture over Greenland, countries such as Germany and Poland might reconsider nuclear options, as could South Korea and Japan. 
• A Greenland takeover could thus spark a wider nuclear arms race, reshaping global security in unpredictable ways.

Source: IE | BBC