Amid renewed rhetoric from senior Trump administration officials suggesting Greenland should become part of the United States, a trio of Europe-based analysts are unconvinced the US will opt for direct military action to secure the semi-autonomous island within the Kingdom of Denmark. Such a move, they warn, could plunge Europe into a disastrous security crisis with profound implications for the NATO alliance.
Fiery Rhetoric from Washington
Earlier this week, heads of state from several major European nations issued a joint statement encouraging Washington to respect Greenland’s sovereignty. However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt maintained that „utilizing the US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief’s disposal” for accomplishing this „important foreign policy goal.”
The Military Scenario: Unlikely, Yet With Devastating Consequences
Rasmus Søndergaard, a senior researcher for foreign policy and diplomacy at the Danish Institute for International Studies, deems a „military scenario unlikely.” He believes the US is now pursuing „negotiation and a potential purchase.” Opinion polls show „virtually no Americans think that it’s a good idea to take Greenland by force,” and a number of „prominent” Republican lawmakers have rallied against possible military action. „I foresee no fighting, nothing like we saw in Venezuela,” he added, referencing a recent US operation.
However, should the Trump administration defy expectations – as it did in Venezuela – and order a military invasion, analysts suggest it would likely succeed, but not without significant cost both to those fighting and to NATO as an organization. „There’s only one outcome if the US is determined to use military force,” Søndergaard stated, outlining that, in line with legal obligations, Danish armed forces would be required to fight back.
The Path of Diplomacy and Disinformation
Although the US is keeping all options on the table, the Trump administration „would perhaps be more likely to pursue any takeover through political and disinformation means,” suggested analyst Tony Lawrence, head of the defence policy and strategy programme at Estonia’s International Centre for Defence and Security. He referred to Danish reports of a covert influence campaign in Greenland. Lawrence cautioned, however, that for Trump, „this may not be quick enough, or sufficiently spectacular.”
Harry Nedelcu, senior director of geopolitics at Rasmussen Global, a political consultancy led by former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, explained that while Trump’s previous mentions of taking Greenland were more of a „talking point” or an „anecdote,” „all of a sudden, perhaps not [through] a military invasion, but certainly his desire to acquire Greenland one way or another, is becoming more plausible or realistic.”
NATO on the Brink?
Should the US resort to the use of force, it would deliver a „fatal blow” to NATO, based on one ally „carrying out an act of aggression against another,” Nedelcu explained. Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen made a similar claim, predicting that any US attack on Greenland would bring about the end of the alliance. Indeed, an Atlantic Council analysis recently declared that „NATO enters 2026 facing what could become the worst crisis of its existence.”
The Strategic Stake and Political Cost
Analysts emphasize that focusing on the „political cost” of an attack on Greenland must be a priority for Europe. „We need to stress just how unacceptable their [US] position is, while at the same time helping them to understand that we, their allies, can do all that is necessary to support their military-strategic goals for the High North and Arctic,” Lawrence said. „Possession of Greenland is simply unnecessary.”
Nedelcu highlighted that „Denmark has correctly done is to point out that the continuation of the transatlantic relationship, the way it is now, is at stake if the US were actually to go ahead” and annex Greenland. Annexation „would be very counterproductive, very costly for the US, because… what the US are getting now, and what the US could get is basically everything they want without even having to do that.” It is also worth noting that the US Pituffik Space Base in Greenland forms a key part of Washington’s early warning and missile defense capability.
Transatlantic Tensions and the „Monroe Doctrine”
In Søndergaard’s opinion, there is a balance to be struck between firmness and not provoking Washington. „That’s why I, among others, worry about, for instance, what would happen if we put other European troops in Greenland? Would that be an excuse for some people around Trump, like [Vice President] JD Vance, [White House Deputy Chief of Staff] Stephen Miller, to then say, ‘Look, the Monroe Doctrine has to come into effect.'” On Monday, Miller told CNN, „Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.” His comments came just days after his wife, Katie Miller, posted an image of Greenland on X with a US flag superimposed and a caption reading „SOON.”
