Europe weighs defensive options as US designs on Greenland spark sovereignty debate

Debates surrounding the future of Greenland are intensifying across Europe as countries grapple with how to respond to potential US plans to annex the island.

Thus far, European nations have maintained a relatively defensive posture, attempting to appease Washington by offering to take over the defense of “Arctic security.” According to reports from German Foreign Policy, Danish experts believe that if US officials were to simply hoist the American flag in Nuuk, it would suffice; in such a scenario, Denmark would likely withdraw rather than risk a military confrontation.

Scenarios detailing how the US might execute an annexation of Greenland have been under discussion for some time. There is a prevailing consensus that it would be militarily impossible for European forces to defend the island against US power.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen, a professor at the Royal Danish Defence College, believes that it would be enough for “US officials at the consulate in Nuuk to raise the American flag and declare Greenland part of the US.”

In this event, he is certain that “Danish authorities would leave the island rather than risk a military conflict with the US.”

Meanwhile, Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen, a professor of defense studies at the University of Copenhagen, suggests that Washington could broker a deal with “carefully selected Greenlanders” who would then frame the annexation as the “will of the people.”

Should Washington succeed in aligning Greenlandic business interests with its own, it could exercise control over the island in a manner similar to its approach in Venezuela—leveraging mining corporations in Greenland much like oil companies were utilized in the South American nation.

In recent weeks, Danish government agencies and experts have also intensified efforts to convince the Trump administration that a de facto, non-military takeover of Greenland has already been achieved.

They regularly emphasize—including to US media—that the 1951 agreement between Denmark and the US, updated in 2004, grants the US armed forces almost total freedom of action in Greenland. This includes the right to establish, maintain, and operate military bases anywhere on the island at their discretion.

According to a report published Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Washington maintained several military bases in Greenland during the Cold War; today, only the Pituffik Space Base remains, equipped with extensive surveillance technology.

Danish military expert Peter Ernstved Rasmussen notes that if the US wishes to increase its military presence again, the answer will always be yes.

Furthermore, it is suggested that US companies would be granted every convenience regarding the extraction of raw materials. Greenland possesses significant deposits, including rare earth elements. However, the Trump administration has so far rejected these overtures.

Within Europe, opinions differ on how best to respond to declarations of annexation.

In early March, an expert from the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) argued that Trump should not be allowed to get away with such maneuvers. Otherwise, they warned, “NATO will become a sort of protection racket where members pay the mafia boss in the White House not to destroy one of their own provinces.”

According to the author, Trump was a “classic bully” who is quick to threaten violence but fears strength himself. The expert argued that “the key to dealing with bullies” is to resist them and “respond with your own pressure.”

While the ECFR expert argued that “bullies” often “negotiate a deal” when they perceive strength and resolve, they admitted that Europeans were “not yet ready” to take such a stand.

As long as this remains the case, they concluded, “the bully will always have the upper hand.”

The expert further warned that after Greenland, Iceland could become the next victim of Trump’s “annexation fantasies.”

Last weekend, the ECFR issued a similar assessment, stating that Europeans face a choice: they can either accommodate US plans or oppose them.

The authors of the ECFR article acknowledge that both options carry significant costs. “Accommodation” might preserve transatlantic harmony in the short term, but it would reward coercion and demonstrate that “pressure works on Europe.”

On the other hand, resistance would be “politically costly and strategically challenging,” requiring “internal unity” that is currently lacking.

However, according to the ECFR, if Europe surrenders, it will only lead to “further violations and divisions within Europe.”

For the ECFR authors, the issue is not whether Europe can avoid friction with the US, but whether it is “ready to defend its own interests against a challenge from its most powerful ally.”

So far, no statement of “resistance” has emerged from Europe. The clearest response to date came in a statement issued on January 6 by the heads of state and government of seven European nations.

The statement noted that NATO has explicitly identified the Arctic region as a priority and that European allies are consequently increasing their efforts there.

However, it emphasized that this must be done “in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the inviolability of borders,” and “collectively with NATO allies, including the US.”

While labeling these “universal principles” and asserting that “we will not stop defending them,” the European states stopped short of detailing specific defense measures or the potential consequences of a US annexation of Greenland.