Donald Trumpattempts to take control of Greenland are back in the spotlight, with the White House reportedly looking into how much it would cost for the US to take over the island. Officials are said to be assessing the expenses involved in providing services to Greenland’s 58,000 residents and evaluating the potential economic benefits of its rich natural resources.
One White House insider told The Washington Post: “The point is, ‘We’ll pay you more than Denmark does,’” referring to Denmark’s current annual subsidy of £457 million ($600 million) for the territory. While Mr Trump’s plan to acquire Greenland was initially seen as more of a pipe dream, the administration is now understood to be taking steps to explore it more seriously. Last week, Vice President JD Vance visited a US military base on Greenland, making it clear that the island is a key priority.
Mr Vance criticised Denmark’s handling of the territory and, in doing so, underscored the growing strategic importance of Greenland, particularly with rising international interest from countries like Russia and China.
The US regards the Danish protectorate as vital to its future in the Arctic, especially as the region becomes more accessible due to climate change and the melting of polar ice caps.
Mr Trump has been vocal about his ambitions, and in a recent interview with NBC News, he said: “We’ll get Greenland.” He added: “Yeah, 100 %”.
He also made it clear that while military action is a possibility, he believes there’s a good chance the US could secure the territory “without military force.”
This comment has caused concern, as it suggests a willingness to escalate the situation with a NATO ally if necessary.
This talk of taking Greenland has already sparked a backlash from both Denmark and Greenland. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen described the US actions as “unacceptable pressure,” while Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen called the approach “highly aggressive”.
Despite this, the US is reportedly focused on offering a deal that might better the subsidies Denmark currently provides, raising questions about what this all means for the future of the island.
Commenting at the weekend, Dr Dwayne Ryan Menezes, Founder and Managing Director of Polar Research and Policy Initiative (PRPI), said: “Even if one disagrees with Trump and Vance, one can see that they have provided the Alliance with a much-needed shot in the arm.
“In turn, they would do well to acknowledge that Europe’s underinvestment in its own security infrastructure since 1945 reflected a world order shaped largely by the US that saw advantage in extending its security umbrella to consolidate its leadership and achieve global hegemony.
“Recent pledges across Europe to invest in defence will reduce not just the financial burden on the US but also its relative dominance.”
He added: “The reality is that in an increasingly multi-polar world wherein a more complex assemblage of alliances and partnerships is inevitable, the post-1945 US-reliant security architecture in the West simply won’t be the best guarantor of our collective security.
“There is a need for greater symmetry in strength within the Alliance, which requires a more even spread of capabilities across it. Europe needs to be able to stand alone, not because it cannot trust the US, but because the new world will require a strong Europe in addition to a strong US.”