Greenland, the largest island in the globe, is no longer remote. It is the ice-covered, cold piece of land amid the rapidly warming global strategic competition, mainly between the United States of America, China, and Russia. As the ice melts, the urgency to control its strategic location and the resources beneath it intensifies. Blind selfishness coupled with strategic shortsightedness on the part of the Kingdom of Denmark and the European Union has been destructively unhelpful. On the contrary, these amateurishly emotional reactions have greatly contributed to the increase in the many risk factors present in any attempt to exclusively control the area of the Northern Arctic.
The currently existing legal status of Greenland is as murky as the Danish government's illusory position at a chaotic intersection of local self-rule, Danish sovereignty, and intensifying global interests in the Northern Arctic. Greenland's population is smaller than the capacity of a medium-sized football stadium, but its strategic geography is outsized. Politically as well as legally, Greenland is self-governing in most domestic matters, while remaining part of the Kingdom of Denmark, with the latter retaining responsibilities for defense and major aspects of foreign affairs under the Self-Government framework established in 2009. In addition, this framework lays out a legal path to independence, based on Greenlandic decision.
As a result, Greenland's domestic and foreign policies are dominated by two intertwined questions: how to broaden economic options and how to manage diplomacy and security. Realistically, Denmark is not in a position to fund economic development alone or to defend Greenland against the mounting threats to the island's independence. Moreover, Denmark has had a grossly abysmal record of treating the island and its population. From total neglect through inhuman discrimination and degradation, the history of Danish overlordship of Greenland will remain a shameful episode in the Kingdom of Denmark's otherwise civilized existence. Finally, President Trump's intention to resolve the Greenland issue unambiguously and, if needed, unilaterally raised the stakes within NATO regarding the unity of this multinational military organization.
The good news regarding a possible transatlantic rift is that the United States of America and all other NATO members agree that there is a global strategic threat to the Northern Arctic. Compared to this reality, the core disagreement concerns the relationship between strategic necessity and sovereignty as an overriding principle among NATO member states. From President Trump's perspective, Greenland is a national security question. Primarily, early warning, space tracking, and North Atlantic access have been embedded in American defense architecture through long-standing agreements and the Pituffik Space Base. More recently, China's overwhelming military aggression in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, coupled with the Baltic Sea and the Northern Arctic, put the White House on high alert regarding future threats to the American mainland from Alaska to the other 48 states.
From the European perspective, Greenland is mainly a sovereignty question within NATO. President Trump's declaration that Greenland will be "one way or the other" an integral part of the United States of America, the European member states of NATO hear in this a direct attack on the premise that the organization is a voluntary collective defense pact among sovereign and equal states, not a hierarchy between the United States of America and the rest. Clearly, the European position is not merely rhetorical. In essence, it indicates that if territorial integrity becomes negotiable within NATO, deterrence against external adversaries, particularly the Russian Federation, will become extremely difficult. More importantly, such a conundrum will increase the relevance of Article 5 globally. Finally, Article 42, Section 7 of the Treaty on European Union, with its own mutual defense clause that complements but remains subordinate to Article 5, cannot be ignored legally.
An additional major problem is that Greenland is both "inside" and "outside" of the European continent. The crux of this situation is that NATO was established to deter external aggression. The issue of territorial disagreements among NATO member states has never been addressed within the alliance. Here, the position of the Greenland government cannot be ignored: "We accept allied defense, but not an ownership conversation." Realistically, however, global strategic considerations must override these legal arguments. Any armed conflict within the alliance would undermine the credibility of unified deterrence.
President Trump's other offer, namely, buying Greenland like it happened with the Danish West Indies on March 31, 1917, for $25 million, primarily for strategic military reasons during World War I, to prevent German control over the three islands, could be problematic because of the 2009 treaty between the Kingdom of Denmark and the self-governing autonomous island with its rights for self-determination. The situation becomes even more complicated when the opinions of the Greenlanders are researched. According to a 2019 poll, almost 70 percent of locals prefer full independence to the current situation. A more recent poll taken in 2025 was even more unambiguous: 84 percent of Greenlanders professed support for full independence.
Thus, President Trump's offer of purchasing Greenland is presently the most realistic way to solve the Greenland "problem." The most compelling reason is that nobody can predict the future, and surely not in the long run. Mainly, the Kingdom of Denmark's legal claim to Greenland has also been tenuous at best. Additionally, its long-standing neglect and mistreatment of the Greenlanders have demonstrated that the Danish people did not care about Greenland's present and future. Finally, the Kingdom of Denmark cannot legitimately maintain control over Greenland because Greenlanders want independence.
In conclusion, the best solution would be Greenland's independence, followed by a referendum on remaining independent or joining the United States of America as the 51st state. Yet, the situation is pressing. Therefore, purchasing Greenland now is the most practical and least controversial decision for all concerned.