The Next Donald Trump Crisis: An Invasion of Greenland

There would be two winners if the United States Invaded Greenland: China and Russia. Would the United States, under Donald Trump, invade Greenland?

And if the current American administration decided to do so, what would the European response be?

But wait, the United States already has a base there. Would an invasion of a treaty ally even make sense? Here are some answers to these pressing questions and their implications.

Unprecedented Access

An invasion of Greenland is an odd choice.

The United States already enjoys incredible military access to Greenland. Pituffik Space Base, before known as Thule Air Base, in northwestern Greenland, is an American-operated missile defense and space surveillance site.

The site, part of a wider network of radar installations, signals-intelligence equipment, and other facilities, also hosts the U.S. Space Force’s Upgraded Early Warning Radars. Though the American presence on Greenland is smaller than what it was during its Cold War-era heyday, the site is incredibly important.

“It is quite literally the outermost eye of American defense,” a Danish defense analyst told the New York Times. “Pituffik is where the U.S. can detect a launch, calculate the trajectory and activate its missile defense systems. It’s irreplaceable.”

Though the majority of the American bases and military installations that once dotted Greenland have been shuttered following the end of the Cold War and subsequent drawdown of defense budgets, the legal framework surrounding questions of access and jurisdiction persists, amended in 2004 after Greenland autonomy, but essentially the same as the original 1951 agreement.

A rapid upscaling of the American intelligence and defense footprint on Greenland is within the achievable realm of possibility. Bellicose posturing on the international stage does not further that goal or make America safer.

Shattered Allies, Emboldened Adversaries, if Greenland Invaded

Although the scenario in which the United States invades Greenland is hypothetical, and rather unlikely given the deep-rooted strategic and diplomatic ties between the United States and Denmark, if it were to happen, Europe would almost assuredly respond with unified diplomatic condemnation and massive economic sanctions against the United States.

Not only that, but the continent would surely reexamine its relationship with NATO. In what would be a massive blow to the United States, Europe would likely take steps to form its own version of NATO that does not include the United States and could even leave the Alliance entirely.

Just as the election of Euro-skeptic Donald Trump to the White House has accelerated European defense spending and injected a large measure of urgency for the content to gain strategic independence from Washington, an outright invasion would no doubt accelerate that trend. And while a boost to Europe’s organic defensive capabilities and posture would be good for the United States, one in which Europe is united against the United States is not.

Not only would a hypothetical Greenland invasion drive a deep — perhaps insurmountable — wedge into the heart of the transatlantic Alliance, but such an invasion by the United States would be an incredible, once-in-history boon for Communist China and Russia and an incredible blow to American strength and prosperity.

For China and Russia — on a Silver Platter

Hypothetical though this line of thought may be, it has already damaged American national interests in relation to friends and allies. Already, Europe views the United States as an unreliable partner—a low point not seen in the transatlantic relationship in many decades.

However, the rhetoric from the White House — and indeed at the highest levels of the current American administration — is a neatly wrapped gift for China and Russia.

Now lacking the moral high ground and stooping to the level of Russia, which is propagating an awful and bloody war against its neighbor in Ukraine, and China, who would like to see the toppling of Taiwan, the United States lacks.

Furthermore, both Xi and Putin are able to clearly and accurately say that they, like the United States, should be allowed to rip out a piece of their neighboring country as their own.

Postscript

“We respect that the United States needs a greater military presence in Greenland, as Vice President Vance mentioned this evening. We – Denmark and Greenland – are very much open to discussing this with you, with an open mind. We still have the defense agreement [with the United States] from 1951. It offers ample opportunity for the United States to have a much stronger military presence in Greenland if that is what you wish. Then let us discuss it.”

U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Christopher Graham, 3rd Wing crew chief, marshalls an F-22 Raptor on the flight line at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, during an elephant walk, May 5, 2020. The large show-of-force demonstrated the wings’ rapid mobility capabilities and response readiness during COVID-19 and also highlighted the ability to generate combat airpower at a moment’s notice to ensure regional stability throughout the North American Aerospace Defense Command Region and Indo-Pacific. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Westin Warburton)

These were the words of the Danish Foreign Minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, in a video posted to social media following Vice President JD Vance’s recent visit to Greenland.

Rasmussen added, “In 1945, the United States had 17 bases and military installations in Greenland with thousands of soldiers. Today, only one American base is left – the one Vice President Vance visited a few hours ago – and something like 200 soldiers. We can do more, much more, within the framework we have today. Let’s make use of that, and let’s do it together.”

The Danes are ready, willing, and able. It is time to cooperate, not bully, friends and allies.

About the Author: Caleb Larson

Caleb Larson is an American multiformat journalist based in Berlin, Germany. His work covers the intersection of conflict and society, focusing on American foreign policy and European security. He has reported from Germany, Russia, and the United States. Most recently, he covered the war in Ukraine, reporting extensively on the war’s shifting battle lines from Donbas and writing on the war’s civilian and humanitarian toll. Previously, he worked as a Defense Reporter for POLITICO Europe. You can follow his latest work on X.