Table of Contents
Ani O’Brien
Like good faith disagreements and principled people. Dislike disingenuousness and Foucault. Care especially about women’s rights, justice, and democracy.
Donald Trump’s rhetoric about Greenland has, up until very, very recently, been widely treated as a joke, a provocation, or a revival of crude imperial fantasy. Depending on the news outlet, it is framed as evidence of his ignorance, recklessness, or supposed authoritarian instincts. But, as I have warned many times before, taking Trump literally, rather than strategically, is foolish. No matter what comes out of his mouth or what he types online, it is far more effective to assess his interests, and the interests of the United States, in order to predict what he is up to.
The man has many faults, but he is undoubtedly as “America First” as he claims to be and if we examine the strategic, economic, and defence interests of the US it is quite plain to see what Trump is up to regarding Greenland.
Greenland is the geographic keystone of Arctic power. Trump is not going to “take” it or send in the troops to conquer it by force. He won’t need to. What he is doing is forcing a renegotiation of who controls the Arctic’s security infrastructure and he is doing so in a way that is deliberately destabilising and deeply uncomfortable for Europe. That is terribly unpalatable for many people. We have got accustomed to the pretence of polite diplomacy and the idea of globally centralised power in the hands of entities like the UN.
Trump deliberately chucks the cat among the pigeons to get everyone flapping. He says inflammatory things to trigger panic in those he seeks to negotiate with. He also uses his public support in other countries to pressure their politicians where possible. Just look at what has happened since he immediately started talking about Greenland after demonstrating in Venezuela that he isn’t messing around. Everyone is putting out statements and running around crying like Chicken Little.
Whatever you think of the ethics, what Trump is doing is effective. It is very likely he will get exactly what he wants. And ultimately, it will benefit our security throughout the West if he does. I’ll come back to that.
First let’s look at Greenland: for most of the post-Cold War period, the Arctic has been treated as a strategically interesting block of ice, but not something urgent. However, melting ice has since opened up new northern sea routes and this has changed the playing field. In the meantime, Russia has spent years militarising its Arctic coastline, refurbishing bases, deploying icebreakers, and integrating the region into its military strategies. And China, not wanting to be left out, has declared itself a “near-Arctic state”, invested in polar infrastructure, and begun positioning the Arctic as a future commercial and strategic corridor.
Greenland sits at the centre of it all. It lies between North America and Russia and it is far from a floating block of ice. It is host to early-warning missile systems, anchors undersea cables, and overlooks emerging shipping lanes. And it contains rare earth minerals, uranium, and enormous freshwater reserves.
How different the map looks from another angle, huh?
The United States has understood this for decades. During the second world war, after Nazi Germany occupied Denmark, Greenland became a temporary de facto US protectorate. That is why the US still operates Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, in north-west Greenland. It is one of the most strategically valuable military installations in the world.
What Trump is signalling deliberately, clumsily, loudly, and without diplomatic niceties, is that this limited, indirect arrangement is no longer sufficient in a world of renewed great-power competition.
Strip away the bluster and media theatrics, and the objective is remarkably consistent across sources. Trump wants expanded and direct US military control in Greenland including air force and navy basing, radar dominance, missile early warning capability, and uncontested command over Arctic defence infrastructure.
People imagine colonialism or imperialism in the traditional sense. Some bloke with a musket planting a flagpole in the earth. But this is a different kind of power transaction. It is still about dominance, control, resources, alignment, and posturing. But not explicit “ownership” or annexation fantasies. It is about denying Russia and China strategic access to the Arctic while ensuring the United States controls the physical infrastructure that matters in any future conflict.
This is why there is repeated emphasis on “national security priority”. And it is why talk of military options to seize Greenland, while inflammatory, functions primarily as leverage rather than intent. Trump does not need to use force to get what he wants. He needs to make clear that the United States has the capacity to act unilaterally and that inaction by allies will not constrain American interests.
After Venezuela, that message has landed.
The critical mistake in much of the commentary I have seen is the assumption that the only options for Greenland are full annexation or leaving the country alone. In reality, the United States already possesses a legal framework that would achieve its strategic goals without violating international law: the Compact of Free Association (COFA).
Currently, the US has COFAs with three sovereign states, all in the Pacific. These are the Republic of Palau, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. Across all three agreements, the states remain formally sovereign and govern their own internal affairs. But the US takes responsibility for defence and security as well has having exclusive military access and denial rights. There are also citizenship and financial kickbacks for the states.
The model exists and works effectively. It requires no tanks or takeovers. It is based entirely on consent.
This is what Trump and his administration want for Greenland.
Greenland already operates with extensive self-rule. Currently Denmark retains responsibility for defence and foreign policy while subsidising Greenland’s welfare. But this is an arrangement that is increasingly strained financially and politically because Arctic defence is expensive. At the end of the day, Denmark knows it cannot meaningfully secure Greenland on its own.
A COFA arrangement would give Greenland money, autonomy, and strategic relevance. It would give Denmark fiscal and defence relief while allowing it to claim moral consistency on self-determination. And it would give the United States direct control over Arctic defence infrastructure without formal annexation.
Win/win/win?
Kind of. Geopolitics is always complex and Europe is baulking at Trump’s crass tactics and overt aggression. We aren’t supposed to be explicitly self-interested as states any more. So for Trump to stomp around saying “THIS IS WHAT AMERICA WANTS!” feels like such obnoxious behaviour. But for much of history it was quite normal. Everyone recognised that every nation, tribe, clan, had its own interests that they would each pursue them. In trying to ensure peace following the world wars, the UN was established to effectively neuter us all. In some ways it has been effective, but it was never going to work long term when we are animals on a spinning planet who will inevitably need to compete for resources, power, and ideological control.
Even though there are many complementary interests at play, Europe is nervous and unaccustomed to this kind of politics. They all know they will have to agree to a Greenland COFA eventually because, without the US, they are completely screwed. No NATO. No protection from the real bad guys.
So what we have is a performance where everyone is loudly playing their part while knowing that the final act is Trump and Marco Rubio in snow gear smiling with the prime minister of Greenland. Trump is not the least bit concerned about the cries of outrage and admonishments from the likes of Keir Starmer and the European Union.
In any case, Denmark has long maintained that Greenland’s future should be decided by Greenlanders themselves. Trump is using that stance and weaponising it. He is now engaging directly with Greenland and sidelining Copenhagen, knowing that while this is not violating Denmark’s stated principles, it is winding them up.
Europe’s discomfort and indignation stems less from Greenland itself than from the realisation that American power can still be wielded to reshape the world and, in this case, without breaking the rules. Leaders do not think invasion is imminent, but they recognise the significance of the recalibration of Arctic power and, ultimately, Europe lacks the assets, funding, and political will to dominate Arctic security. The United States does not.
For decades, Europe has relied on American defence while criticising American unilateralism. The entire Western world and our “rules-based order” with its largely intangible “international law” has only been able to exist because it has had the might of the United States behind it. People can claim pacifism and criticise the American military, but our security depends on it. Unenforceable “international laws” aren’t what stops Russia, Iran, or China from flattening Europe or invading Australia or whatever, it is the threat of retaliation from the world’s policeman, America.
Now, no one says you have to like any of this. You can hate Trump and keep pretending that what the US does militarily doesn’t affect us, but this is the cold, hard truth. As has always been the case for our human race, whether fighting over a waterhole or conquering continents – violence is the only true currency. We have had decades and decades of sleepy luxury where we have forgotten this truth. We have convinced ourselves that diplomacy alone is enough and we can all let the (corrupt) UN being the adjudicator. It is terribly naive and the time has come where a lot of chickens are coming home to roost. Apologies for the number of bird analogies in this piece.
So, no, Greenland is not being conquered: it is being repositioned. Trump’s language is not a random bluster but a deliberate mix of theatre and leverage designed to force a renegotiation of Arctic security on American terms. The mechanism is not invasion but consent, incentivised, pressured, and framed through the language of self-determination. If Greenland were to enter a COFA agreement, nothing dramatic would happen overnight except in practical terms – Arctic security would be American-controlled. The map would look the same, but the balance of power would not.
The United States is going to pursue an agenda of regime change, not in individual countries necessarily, but a regime change globally. I can guarantee that we won’t like all the strategies and tactics and we won’t like everything Donald Trump says. But, when it is all said and done, I would rather America and the West held the balance of power than corrupt global entities or nihilistic terrorists or authoritarian regimes. A lot could go wrong and I could be wrong about a lot, but I see this as perhaps the shake up we need.
This article was originally published by Thought Crimes.
