Donald Trump has considered acquiring Greenland through purchase, leveraging US military options as a pressure tactic. Photo / Getty Images
Donald Trump has never ruled out a military invasion of Greenland, but he could take over the Danish Arctic island without firing a shot.
The US President, fresh from flexing his muscles after capturing Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, has dismissed European condemnation of his repeated calls to annex mineral-rich Greenland for national security reasons.
A leading Trump official said: “The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal – and, of course, utilising the US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief’s disposal.”
But hours later, Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, suggested the threat of military action was aimed at forcing Denmark to sell Greenland or hand it over.
So how could the US annex Greenland?
Rubio briefed US politicians that the goal was to buy Greenland rather than conquer it and, on the same day, Trump told aides to deliver an updated plan for acquiring the strategic territory.
The Secretary of State said he will meet his Greenlandic and Danish counterparts next week, ending months of failed attempts by Copenhagen to secure talks.
However, buying Greenland is harder than the US President might hope.
Trump, a real estate developer, unsuccessfully tried to buy Greenland in 2019, during his first term. President Harry Truman also offered to buy it for US$100 million ($174m) in gold in 1946, but was turned down.
Historically, the US has been averse to conquering land, but not to acquiring it with cash.
In 1803’s Louisiana Purchase it bought huge amounts of land from France for the equivalent of an estimated US$430m today. The Alaska Purchase in 1867 saw the US pay Russia the modern equivalent of US$160m for what became the 49th state.
It purchased the US Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917 for gold coins worth the equivalent of more than US$600m today.
But buying Greenland won’t be simple. Putting a value on the island is difficult because of its strategic location and unexploited natural resources.
It is also politically complicated. Greenland is an autonomous part of the Kingdom of Denmark, which retains control over its foreign and defence policy and currency.
In 2009, the island assumed self-rule from Denmark under an agreement that gives it the future right to declare independence. Will Greenlanders swap independence for US rule?
Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the island’s Prime Minister, has repeatedly said that Greenland is not for sale.
Danish assent is also needed before Greenland can agree to any deal, which has also been ruled out by Mette Frederiksen, Denmark’s Prime Minister.
“It’s a seller’s market. If Denmark don’t want to sell, then Denmark don’t want to sell,” Dr Dafydd Townley, the chairman of the UK American Politics Group, told the Telegraph.
But Trump may decide the best course of action is to incentivise Greenland to push through and swap its future independence for US rule, Townley, from the University of Portsmouth’s Military Education Team, said.
The President has promised to make 57,000 Greenlanders rich if they join the US.
His son Donald Trump jnr, and JD Vance, the Vice-President, have made separate trips to Greenland to drum up support for it joining the US.
The US planned to replace Denmark’s US$600m incentives to Greenland with US$10,000 per year for each Greenlander, the New York Times reported last year.
Yet the visits did not result in a groundswell of pro-US feeling – instead, they did the opposite for some. Locals and tourists can now buy Trump-style red baseball caps with the motto “Make America Go Away” on them in Greenland.
And Greenlanders voted for Demokraatit, a centre-right party that was historically pro-union with Denmark, in March last year, suggesting that US love-bombing had a reverse effect on the locals.
There are claims that the US is deliberately stirring up divisions to facilitate an American takeover. The Danish Government summoned US diplomats three times last year to protest about spying and covert influence operations in the territory.
Juno Berthelsen, an MP for the pro-independence and opposition Naleraq party, has called for Greenland to hold talks with the US about the future of the island – without Denmark present.
“It is time we begin to prepare for the independence we have fought for for so many years. It is time we act on our own behalf,” he said.
Washington is mulling a bespoke deal giving US troops free access across Greenland in return for duty-free trade.
It is considering offering a Compact of Free Association (Cofa) to the island – a deal exchanging a military presence on the island in exchange for essential services and free trade.
Similar Cofas have been offered to small Pacific nations such as the Marshall Islands and Palau.
Kuno Fencker, the leader of Naleraq, said, “I am almost certain now, and rumours are now saying, that the US is coming up with a Compact of Free Association offer, which is much better than the current self-government law”.
This would be fiercely opposed by Denmark, which points out the US already has an important military base on Greenland.
Pituffik Space Base is the US military’s most northerly outpost, and is a vital location for missile defence and space surveillance.
The Danish Government has stressed that it is open to bolstering security co-operation through Nato in the Arctic, but will not surrender Greenland.
Trump styles himself as a master deal-maker, and many of his allies hope negotiations can end the dispute over Greenland.
The defence treaty allowing for the military base does not put explicit limits on the number of American troops that can be deployed to Greenland – but a large increase would probably require Danish consent.
A cleverly presented deal, perhaps tied to US access to rare earth minerals, could allow the President to claim victory.
Insiders suggest a detailed plan is far from finished. Internal polling from March, when he first began his threats of annexation, made for bleak reading for the White House, sources told the Telegraph.
The public is said to have viewed the threats negatively, and the topic was quietly parked.
However, when Trump doubled down on his threat on Air Force One, White House aides were forced to drive his message once again.
“Until Trump brought it up a few days ago, we hadn’t heard anything about it. It was nine to 10 months ago when a bunch of polling came out showing it was unpopular,” a source close to the administration said.
“It’s a classic DJT [Donald J Trump] dynamic. He says something unplanned and then the White House drives his message even if it wasn’t planned.”
Townley expects an agreement based around extensive access to rare earth minerals to pay for additional defence supplied by an enhanced US military presence.
“All of this will make Donald Trump very happy. There could maybe even be a ‘Trump land’ somewhere in Greenland that is run by the Americans, similar to the Ramstein Air Base in Germany,” he said.
“This is Trump trying to coerce the Danish and the Greenlanders into giving them access to significant amounts of minerals, which makes them less reliant on Chinese exports, and gives them an even bigger footing within the Arctic region.”
Trump knows that Europe is hopelessly dependent on the US for its security. What is to stop him pointing out that the US troops stationed in Europe are needed to protect US national security in the Arctic instead?
A US military presence in Europe is, however, crucial to American abilities to project power into the Middle East and launch bombing raids on countries such as Iran.
But with the Ukraine peace negotiations in the balance, the leverage to extract concessions is with Washington but that also carries risk.
One EU diplomat warned: “Ultimately, the US has to decide if they want to keep Europe close or push it away. Taking over Greenland would be the last nail in the coffin.”
David Silbey, a professor of history at Cornell University, who specialises in military history and defence policy, said: “My best analysis would be that the Europeans try to push Denmark towards some kind of deal with the US to essentially hand over control in some way that is not entirely a capitulation.”
Could the US invade sparsely-populated Greenland without a shot being fired?
It is theoretically possible, although Danish troops are under orders to shoot first and ask questions later in the case of an invasion.
Denmark could make any invasion cumbersome with a “denial” operation restricting US movement rather than attacking its troops.
“If you put 5000 men on the ice sheet, it’s not a strength, but a vulnerability,” said Esben Salling Larsen, a researcher at the Danish Defence Academy.
As Europe scrabbles to formulate contingency plans for the worst-case scenario, one idea is to send a symbolic European force to Greenland. This would not be to fight the Americans but to force the US to cross the Rubicon of attacking its Nato allies.
One EU diplomat said: “Maga appears to have forgotten a central source of American power – not merely the capacity to wage war, but the far harder task of building and sustaining alliances. Europe has not.
“It will stand by Denmark and, if necessary, contemplate measures once considered unthinkable, including a European tripwire presence in Greenland.”
Any military takeover of Greenland would throw Nato into an unprecedented crisis.
Frederiksen has already warned that it would be the death of a military alliance that has underpinned Western security since the end of the Second World War.
An invasion would also have to be sold to the American people, Townley said, at a time when most Americans were far more concerned about the cost of living.
Trump’s base also hates so-called foreign “forever wars”, he added – and with mid-terms looming, some Republicans could object because of a fear of losing their seats.
Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.