Arshad Mahmood Awan
Donald Trump’s renewed push to take control of Greenland, with the White House confirming that “all options are on the table” including the use of force, represents one of the most destabilising ideas ever floated by a sitting US president toward a treaty ally. Even if military action remains unlikely, the very discussion of it carries serious geopolitical, legal, and strategic repercussions that extend far beyond the Arctic. At stake are the credibility of NATO, the integrity of international law, and the future of great power competition in the polar regions.
At the core of the issue is NATO itself. An attack by one NATO member on another would be unprecedented. NATO is built on collective defence and shared trust. If the United States were even perceived as willing to coerce Denmark militarily, the alliance’s foundational promise would be hollowed out. Smaller member states would begin to question whether NATO protects them or merely serves the interests of its strongest power. That erosion of trust would not be theoretical. It would immediately weaken NATO’s deterrence posture against Russia, whose strategy often relies on exploiting divisions within Western alliances. Even talk of force against Greenland hands Moscow a propaganda victory and an opportunity to argue that NATO’s rules only apply selectively.
From a military standpoint, analysts agree that the United States could seize Greenland quickly. The island’s population is tiny, its military capacity minimal, and the US already maintains a strategic base at Pituffik. A rapid airborne and naval operation could overwhelm Danish forces with little resistance. But this apparent ease is deceptive. Military success would come at an enormous political cost. An invasion, however bloodless, would be illegal under international law and would mark the US as an aggressor state against an ally. That stigma would not fade quickly. It would shape diplomatic relations for decades, undermining Washington’s claim to be a rules-based leader of the international order.
Inside the United States, such a move would also trigger a constitutional and political crisis. Any attempt to use force would likely face pushback from Congress under the War Powers Act. There is little appetite among lawmakers for destroying NATO or risking a transatlantic rupture over an island whose security threat to the US has never been credibly demonstrated. Even within Trump’s own political base, enthusiasm for foreign military adventures is limited. “America First” rhetoric has usually meant less foreign entanglement, not wars with allies.
The option of buying Greenland, often presented as more benign, is hardly straightforward. Greenland is not a commodity, and both Denmark and Greenland’s own government have said it is not for sale. Even if Copenhagen were open to negotiations, international law would require the consent and participation of Greenlanders themselves. Any treaty would need approval from the US Congress and a two-thirds majority in the Senate, a high bar in today’s polarised political environment. The European Union would also have a say, adding another layer of complexity. The political optics of spending vast sums of taxpayer money on an Arctic territory would also be difficult for Trump to manage domestically.
Beyond process, the purchase idea carries deeper consequences. Treating territory as something that can be bought risks reviving a 19th-century view of geopolitics that modern international norms were designed to bury. Smaller states would see this as confirmation that sovereignty is conditional when confronted by a superpower with enough money or force. That perception would weaken international stability and encourage other powerful states to pursue territorial ambitions under the guise of security or economic necessity.
Trump’s justification centres on national security and the claim that Greenland is crawling with Russian and Chinese activity. While the Arctic is indeed becoming more strategically important, there is no public evidence to support the notion that Greenland poses an imminent threat to the United States. Denmark is a NATO ally, and Greenland already hosts US military assets. If Washington’s concern is increased Russian or Chinese presence, the logical response would be deeper cooperation with Denmark and Greenland, not coercion. Escalatory rhetoric risks turning a manageable security issue into a self-inflicted crisis.
The idea of influencing Greenland internally, by courting pro-independence voices or offering economic incentives, raises its own set of repercussions. While many Greenlanders favour independence from Denmark, polls consistently show little interest in becoming part of the United States. Heavy-handed US involvement, surveillance of political movements, or attempts to engineer outcomes would likely backfire. It could harden local opposition, damage America’s image among Arctic communities, and reinforce perceptions of neo-colonial behaviour. For a country that claims to champion self-determination, such tactics would be deeply contradictory.
There are also broader strategic consequences. The Arctic is emerging as a critical arena for climate, trade routes, and resource competition. Stability there depends on cooperation among Arctic states, many of whom already view rising militarisation with concern. If the US adopts a coercive posture toward Greenland, it could accelerate an Arctic arms race, push neutral or allied actors toward hedging strategies, and complicate efforts to manage climate-related challenges collectively.
Finally, the global signal matters. If the United States normalises the idea that force or pressure can be used to acquire territory from allies, it weakens its moral authority to oppose similar actions elsewhere. Arguments against territorial aggression by rivals would ring hollow. International law relies not only on rules, but on powerful states choosing to follow them. Undermining that principle would make the world less predictable and more dangerous.
In the end, the Greenland gambit is less about feasibility than consequence. The United States has many tools to protect its Arctic interests without tearing at the fabric of its alliances. Cooperation, investment, and diplomacy would strengthen both security and legitimacy. Coercion, by contrast, would achieve the opposite. Even if Greenland were somehow brought under US control, the cost to NATO unity, international law, and American credibility would far outweigh any strategic gain.
