On January 6, six European leaders (France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain) expressed support for Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland while noting that Artic security remains a “key priority” for Europe.
The statement is surprising. For a long time, Europe has sought to avoid provoking President Trump. He has declared that US and NATO security both require that the US acquire full sovereignty over Greenland. European leaders are well aware of their countries’ dependence on the US for their security. But the January 6 statement should be seen in light of the American recent capture of Venezuela’s president Maduro which sent shockwaves through the European chattering classes. Many believe that Trump will take unilateral action in Greenland as a next step.
A rearmament effort is currently underway in Europe, in reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and American prodding to do more for the collective defense. As part of this effort, Denmark allocated in 2025 an additional six billion US dollars to increased defense spending, two billion of which are earmarked for Arctic defense measures such as new vessels for Arctic waters, radar systems, drone capabilities, surveillance aircraft, and the establishment of a new Arctic Command in Nuuk. Implementation will take years. In the meantime, Denmark has six patrol vessels stationed around Greenland and otherwise maintains a very limited military presence.
The question being asked in the Danish public debate and in the Danish government’s deliberations is whether these defense spending measures are too little, too late. There are other aspects to the Greenland debate, including its potential mineral wealth, the legal claims and the views of the Greenlanders themselves
Minerals beneath the Surface
Greenland contains some of the most sought-after raw materials, including rare earth elements, which are indispensable to wind turbines, electric vehicles, mobile phones, missile systems, and advanced electronics. Today, China dominates the processing of these materials, which from an American perspective constitutes a strategic vulnerability. Greenland thus represents a potential opportunity to reduce dependence on China.
In addition, Greenland holds uranium, zinc, lead, copper, gold, and iron ore, as well as potential oil and gas reserves off its coasts. Extraction is technically difficult and economically unfeasible at present. But as the ice retreats, access and exploration become easier, and what was once geologically interesting but practically unattainable suddenly becomes a more economically realistic future scenario.
Competing Legal Claims
The Kingdom of Denmark (Rigsfællesskabet) is the constitutional framework that links Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands within a single state. In that state, Greenland and the Faroe Islands are self-governing in their domestic affairs, with their own parliaments and governments, while Denmark is responsible for common matters such as foreign affairs, defense, citizenship, and monetary policy.
Denmark’s direct sovereignty over Greenland dates back to 1721. Danish claims to Greenland arguably go back even further, to the late fourteenth century, when Denmark was part of the Kalmar Union of the three kingdoms of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden (at that time tiny Norwegian colonies still existed on Greenland though they were later disbanded.)
In addition, Denmark cites the 1917 agreement in which it sold the Danish West Indies (now the US Virgin Islands) to the United States. That agreement was mutually beneficial: Denmark was relieved of an economic burden while the United States secured a strategic advantage in the Caribbean during the First World War. In connection with this transaction, US Secretary of State Robert Lansing signed a declaration recognizing Denmark’s sovereignty over the entirety of Greenland.
The United States cites an agreement it signed with Denmark in 1951, granting the US the right to establish a base in northern Greenland. Thule Air Base, now known as Pituffik Space Base, became fully operational in 1953 and today serves as evidence that Greenland is indispensable to US security interests. The base is a key component of missile warning and space surveillance systems (the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System) and forms part of the broader American space and missile defense architecture directed at Russia and, increasingly, China.
Americans invoke Thule as proof that the United States already protects Greenland and therefore has legitimate security interests in the region. From Copenhagen’s point of view, however, the American presence in Greenland is limited to the terms of the 1951 agreement.
What About the Greenlanders?
Critics of Denmark note that the country has neglected Greenland for many years, creating a vacuum that the Americans are best placed to fill. In 2009, the Danish parliament adopted a new Act on Greenland Self-Government, emphasizing democratic development, coexistence, and respect for the autonomy of Indigenous cultures. In reality, however, Denmark appears to have failed in its declared aim of supporting Greenland’s autonomy under Danish protection.
Greenland’s economy is not sustainable. Infrastructure and administration are deeply dependent on Danish expertise and support. The country covers an area roughly fifty times the size of Denmark, yet has a total population amounting to only one-fifth of the number of soldiers stationed at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Given Greenland’s size, geographical position, and mineral wealth, it requires considerable optimism to maintain the belief that the country has a viable future as an independent and fully sovereign nation.
Many Greenlanders are disappointed with Denmark, and this has fueled growing support for the idea of independence. Under the Self-Government Act of 2009, revenues from Greenland’s subsoil resources belong to the local population. However, since exploitation of these resources is not yet feasible, this remains a vision for the future. The Greenlandic government is free to enter into agreements with other countries, provided these concern Greenland alone and do not involve defense or security policy. In these areas, authority remains with Denmark. As early as 1995, Greenland exercised this right by leaving the EU (then known as the EEC). More recently, Greenland Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egede has also engaged in diplomatic contacts with the United States. Opinion polls show that 85 percent of Greenlanders oppose American annexation, and Jens-Frederik Nielsen of the opposition party Naalakkersuisut has repeatedly emphasized that Greenland is not for sale.
The situation remains profoundly unsettled. The Danish government may take some comfort in the January 6 statement of support from a number of key EU member states. But there is also a rapidly growing awareness among Danes that the relationship to Greenland (and the Faroe Islands) is likely to undergo dramatic change. Negotiations with the Trump administration, now underway, should lead to a resolution as soon as possible to preserve relations among NATO allies.
