In January 2026, the geopolitical architecture of the High North faces its most severe stress test since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The United States, under the second administration of President Donald Trump, has formally transitioned its policy regarding Greenland from transactional diplomacy to a coercive strategic imperative. This report, compiled by a multi-disciplinary team of foreign affairs, military, and intelligence analysts, details the escalation of Washington’s demand to acquire the autonomous territory of Greenland—an integral part of the Kingdom of Denmark—citing “absolute national security necessity.”

The crisis is driven by a convergence of three critical vectors: the requirement to extend the “Golden Dome” missile defense architecture against Russian hypersonics; the urgent need to secure non-Chinese supply chains for Rare Earth Elements (REEs) essential to the US defense industrial base; and the strategic objective of denying the Arctic to adversarial encroachment by the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation.

The response from the Kingdom of Denmark has been a resolute rejection of territorial transfer, supported by an unprecedented mobilization of European NATO allies. Operation Arctic Endurance has seen the deployment of French, German, and British forces to Greenland in a display of solidarity, effectively checking immediate US unilateralism. However, the Trump administration has escalated the conflict through hybrid warfare tactics, including explicit threats of crippling tariffs on Danish flagship industries and direct political interference in Greenland’s independence movement via offers of a “Compact of Free Association” (COFA).

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of these dynamics, evaluating the military, economic, and diplomatic levers being pulled by all actors. It concludes with a predictive assessment of three scenarios, ranging from a negotiated leasehold expansion to a rupture of the North Atlantic Alliance, analyzing the probability and strategic success metrics for each.

1. Introduction: The Strategic Pivot to the High North

The Arctic has long been characterized by the mantra “High North, Low Tension,” a zone of exceptionalism where great power cooperation persisted despite friction elsewhere. By January 2026, this paradigm has definitively collapsed. The region has transformed into a primary theater of strategic competition, with Greenland at its geographic and strategic epicenter. The United States’ intensified pursuit of Greenland in 2026 is not merely a resurgence of the 2019 “real estate” proposition but represents a fundamental shift in American grand strategy, codified in the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine.¹

1.1 The Evolution of US Arctic Policy

The trajectory of US engagement with Greenland has shifted from passive utilization to active assertion. For decades, the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement provided the United States with sufficient access to maintain its strategic deterrent at Thule Air Base (renamed Pituffik Space Base). However, the rapid environmental transformation of the Arctic, which is opening new sea lines of communication (SLOCs), combined with the aggressive militarization of the region by Russia and the economic encroachment of China, has altered the calculus in Washington.

The 2025 National Security Strategy explicitly identifies the Western Hemisphere—now defined to include the Arctic approaches—as a zone of exclusive US influence. This doctrinal shift frames any foreign presence in Greenland, whether Chinese mining investment or Russian dual-use research, as an unacceptable security threat.¹ The administration views the status quo—reliance on the Danish Commonwealth to secure the island—as a failure of burden-sharing and a strategic vulnerability.

1.2 The 2026 Crisis Trigger

The current crisis was precipitated by a specific confluence of events in late 2025. Following the US military intervention to remove the Maduro regime in Venezuela, the Trump administration signaled a readiness to apply similar maximalist pressure to other hemispheric security concerns.² Intelligence reports confirming Chinese state-owned enterprises’ attempts to acquire critical infrastructure in Greenland, coupled with the expansion of Russian submarine operations in the North Atlantic, triggered a policy review that concluded Danish sovereignty was an insufficient barrier to adversarial penetration.

In January 2026, the White House categorized the acquisition of Greenland as an “absolute national security necessity.” This was not a request for negotiation but a demand for transfer. President Trump publicly stated the US would “take” Greenland “one way or another,” framing the issue as binary: either the US acquires the territory, or it falls to Russia or China.³ This ultimatum necessitated an immediate diplomatic and military response from Copenhagen and Nuuk, setting the stage for the current standoff.

2. Strategic Rationale: The Anatomy of the Demand

The United States’ pursuit of Greenland is often caricatured in public discourse as a vanity project or a real estate deal. However, a rigorous analysis reveals a triad of hard security requirements driving this policy: resource dominance (Rare Earth Elements), kinetic security (Missile Defense), and geopolitical denial (blocking China and Russia).

2.1 The Resource War: Critical Minerals and REEs

Greenland possesses some of the largest undeveloped deposits of Rare Earth Elements (REEs) and uranium in the world. As the US seeks to decouple its defense supply chains from the People’s Republic of China—which currently dominates global REE processing—Greenland represents the most viable alternative source within the NATO alliance.

The Kvanefjeld and Tanbreez Deposits

The US Department of Energy and the Pentagon view two specific sites in Greenland as critical to national security:

• Kvanefjeld (Kuannersuit): Located in southern Greenland, this site is one of the world’s largest multi-element deposits, containing massive reserves of rare earths, uranium, and zinc. It is notably rich in neodymium and praseodymium, essential for high-strength permanent magnets used in F-35 fighter jets, guidance systems, and electric vehicles.⁶
• Tanbreez: This deposit holds significant quantities of heavy rare earths (dysprosium, terbium) and is reportedly the largest known deposit of eudialyte ore.

The Chinese Factor

The urgency of the US demand is driven by the specific ownership structures of these projects. The Kvanefjeld project is developed by Greenland Minerals Ltd, an Australian company, but its largest shareholder is Shenghe Resources, a Chinese state-linked entity.⁶ Washington views this as a strategic backdoor, allowing Beijing to lock up future supply. US officials have already intervened to block the sale of the Tanbreez mine to Chinese buyers, brokering a deal with US-based Critical Metals Corp instead.⁶ The acquisition of sovereign control over Greenland would allow the US to nullify existing licenses held by Chinese entities via eminent domain or national security statutes, integrating Greenland’s geology directly into the US National Technology and Industrial Base (NTIB).

2.2 The “Golden Dome” and Kinetic Defense

The “Golden Dome” missile defense initiative, authorized by President Trump via executive order in January 2025, requires a fundamental expansion of the US sensor and interceptor architecture in the High North.⁸

Pituffik Space Base (Thule)

Pituffik is the cornerstone of the US early warning network. It hosts the AN/FPS-132 Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR), which provides critical tracking of ballistic missile launches from the Eurasian landmass.⁹ However, the “Golden Dome” architecture likely requires the deployment of new X-band discrimination radars and potentially ground-based interceptors (GBI) to counter hypersonic glide vehicles.

• Operational Limitations: Under the current 1951 agreement, the US must consult with Denmark and the Greenlandic government regarding major changes to the base’s function. This “veto power”—exercised in the past regarding nuclear weapons and missile defense upgrades—is viewed by the Trump administration as an intolerable constraint on US strategic deterrence.¹⁰
• Sovereign Requirement: The administration argues that full sovereignty is necessary to guarantee the unencumbered deployment of next-generation kinetic assets without the political friction of coalition management.

The GIUK Gap

Control of Greenland is also essential for dominating the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) gap, the primary naval chokepoint for Russian submarines entering the Atlantic. Intelligence indicates increased Russian submarine activity and a need for expanded anti-submarine warfare (ASW) infrastructure on Greenland’s eastern coast—an area currently devoid of major US facilities.¹¹ Sovereignty would allow the US to establish new ASW airfields and hydrophone networks along the desolate eastern seaboard, closing the net on the Russian Northern Fleet.

2.3 Great Power Competition: Strategic Denial

The US views the Arctic as a zero-sum game. The concept of “Strategic Denial” posits that if the US does not control the territory, an adversary eventually will.

• Russia: Russia has remilitarized its Arctic frontier, refurbishing over 20 bases and deploying S-400 systems to the Kola Peninsula. The US views Greenland as the necessary “unsinkable aircraft carrier” to project power against the Northern Fleet and secure the North Atlantic sea lanes.¹²
• China: Beijing has declared itself a “Near-Arctic State” and seeks to build a “Polar Silk Road.” The US views Chinese infrastructure investment—such as the bid to build airports in Nuuk and Ilulissat (blocked by US pressure in 2018)—as dual-use preparation for military access. Acquiring Greenland would permanently excise China from the Western Hemisphere’s Arctic flank, denying it the logistics hubs necessary for sustained Arctic operations.¹⁴

3. The Greenlandic Perspective: Between Autonomy and Annexation

Greenland (Kalaallit Nunaat) finds itself in the precarious position of being the object of superpower desire while navigating its own complex path toward independence from Denmark. The internal political dynamic is characterized by a deep seated desire for sovereign statehood, conflicting economic imperatives, and a near-universal rejection of US annexation.

3.1 Public Sentiment: “Hands Off Greenland”

The public reaction in Greenland to the US demand has been visceral and overwhelmingly negative.

• Existential Threat: For the 57,000 residents of Greenland, the US proposal is not a security arrangement but an existential threat to their identity as a distinct Inuit nation. The “transactional” language used by President Trump—referring to the purchase of the island as a “large real estate deal”—evokes painful memories of colonial commodification.³
• Historical Trauma: The forced relocation of the Inughuit people from Uummannaq in 1953 to make way for Thule Air Base remains a defining trauma in Greenlandic history. This legacy fuels deep distrust of US intentions and fears that American sovereignty would lead to displacement and militarization of traditional hunting grounds.¹⁵
• Civil Resistance: Protests have erupted in Nuuk under the banner “Hands Off Greenland.” Civil society leaders and the Joint Association Inuit have issued statements demanding respect for the Danish Realm and Greenland’s right to self-determination, explicitly rejecting the notion that their country can be bought.³ Polls conducted in January 2026 indicate that approximately 85% of residents oppose becoming part of the United States, while only 6% support it.¹⁷

3.2 Political Landscape: The 2025 Election Shift

The parliamentary elections of March 2025 fundamentally altered the political terrain in Nuuk, creating a complex environment for both Washington and Copenhagen to navigate.

• The Rise of the Democrats: The pro-business, center-right Demokraatit (Democrats) party won a surprise victory, securing 10 of the 31 seats in the Inatsisartut (Parliament). They replaced the left-wing Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA) as the leading force.¹⁸
• The Naleraq Factor: The populist pro-independence party Naleraq doubled its representation to 8 seats. Naleraq has historically been the most open to US investment as a counterbalance to Danish influence, viewing American capital as a necessary engine for independence.
• Coalition Dynamics: The governing coalition is now led by Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen of the Democrats. While his party is economically liberal, Nielsen has taken a firm nationalist stance against annexation. He stated unequivocally: “If we have to choose between the US and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark, NATO, and the EU”.²⁰ This statement is a critical blow to US assumptions that the new business-friendly government would be pliable to economic inducements.

3.3 The “Compact of Free Association” (COFA) Gambit

Recognizing the political hurdles, the US State Department has reportedly been developing a “Compact of Free Association” (COFA) model for Greenland, similar to the agreements with Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands.²¹

• The Offer: Under this model, Greenland would declare independence from Denmark. In exchange, the US would assume full responsibility for Greenland’s defense and provide a massive financial aid package—estimated at billions annually—to replace the Danish block grant (approx. $600 million/year). Greenlanders would gain access to US federal services (like the USPS) and potentially visa-free work rights in the US.²²
• Strategic Intent: The COFA model is a “wedge strategy” designed to appeal to hardline independence factions (like Naleraq) by offering a pathway to statehood that Denmark cannot afford to subsidize. By framing the offer as “independence with US protection” rather than “annexation,” Washington hopes to bypass the “Not for Sale” narrative.
• Reception: Despite the theoretical appeal, the reception has been tepid. The aggressive rhetoric accompanying the offer—threats of force and tariffs—has poisoned the well. Even pro-independence politicians view the COFA offer as trading one colonial master for a far more demanding and militaristic one.⁴

4. The Sovereign Shield: Denmark’s Response

The government of Denmark, led by Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, faces a dual crisis: preserving the constitutional integrity of the “Unity of the Realm” (Rigsfællesskabet) while maintaining its critical security alliance with the United States. Copenhagen has navigated this by adhering to strict legalism while simultaneously ramping up military commitments to demonstrate its value as a sovereign protector of the Arctic.

4.1 Constitutional and Legal “Red Lines”

Denmark has anchored its defense in the 2009 Act on Greenland Self-Government, which provides a clear legal framework for Greenland’s status.

• The Sovereignty Clause: Section 21 of the Act grants Greenland the right to independence, but the decision must be taken by the people of Greenland via a referendum. Crucially, the Act does not provide a mechanism for Denmark to sell or transfer the territory against the will of the Greenlandic people. This legal reality allows Copenhagen to deflect US pressure by stating, “Greenland is not ours to sell”.²³
• Diplomatic Strategy: Following the disastrous January 14, 2026 summit in Washington—where Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio pressed the demand—Foreign Minister Rasmussen publicly declared a “fundamental disagreement.” However, he agreed to a “high-level working group”.²⁵ This is a calculated diplomatic delay, keeping the US engaged in technical talks to forestall unilateral action while Copenhagen mobilizes international support.

4.2 Military Posture: The “Arctic Capability Package”

Recognizing that the US demand is predicated on the argument that Denmark is a “free rider” unable to secure the island, Copenhagen has drastically accelerated its military investment in the High North.

• Financial Commitment: The “Second Agreement on the Arctic and North Atlantic” (2025) allocated DKK 27.4 billion (approx. $4 billion) for Arctic defense. This is a historic increase, funding the acquisition of long-range surveillance drones, satellite constellations for maritime domain awareness, and additional Arctic patrol vessels.²⁶
• Operational Enhancement: The Joint Arctic Command in Nuuk has been reinforced, and a new basic training program for Greenlandic conscripts has been established, along with a planned “Greenlandic Ranger” unit. These measures are designed to “Greenlandize” the defense of the island, strengthening the bond between Nuuk and Copenhagen.²⁷

4.3 Economic Coercion and Vulnerability

The Trump administration has escalated the dispute beyond diplomatic and military channels into economic warfare. On January 16, 2026, President Trump threatened to impose tariffs on countries that “don’t go along with Greenland,” explicitly targeting NATO allies.²⁸

• The Novo Nordisk Vulnerability: Denmark’s economy is heavily reliant on a few global giants. Novo Nordisk, the manufacturer of Ozempic and Wegovy, has a market capitalization larger than the entire Danish GDP and relies on the US for a massive share of its revenue. A targeted tariff on Danish pharmaceuticals would be economically catastrophic.²⁹
• Maersk and Global Trade: Similarly, A.P. Moller-Maersk, a titan of global shipping, faces threats to its transatlantic operations. The US strategy is clear: inflict economic pain on the Danish welfare state to force a political collapse in Copenhagen, making the “sale” of Greenland a necessary sacrifice for economic survival.

5. The Alliance Strained: European & NATO Response

The European reaction to the 2026 crisis marks a profound shift in transatlantic relations. Unlike the bemused detachment of 2019, European powers in 2026 view the US demand as a direct threat to the territorial integrity of Europe itself. If the US can coerce a NATO ally into ceding territory, the Article 5 guarantee—the bedrock of the alliance—is rendered meaningless.

5.1 Operation Arctic Endurance

In a direct and unprecedented response to US threats, a coalition of European NATO members launched Operation Arctic Endurance in mid-January 2026. This operation is a “tripwire” deployment designed to deter US military unilateralism.³⁰

• Force Composition:

• France: Deployed 15 mountain infantry specialists (Chasseurs Alpins), highly trained in arctic warfare, signaling Paris’s commitment to European strategic autonomy.³⁰
• Germany: Sent a 13-man reconnaissance team (Bundeswehr) to support maritime surveillance, marking a rare deployment of German forces to the Arctic in a crisis context.³⁰
• United Kingdom: A British liaison officer has been embedded, with potential for Royal Marine participation, highlighting the UK’s interest in the GIUK gap.³³
• Nordic Partners: Sweden and Norway have deployed officers to the Joint Arctic Command in Nuuk, reinforcing Nordic solidarity.³⁴
• Strategic Signaling: While the numbers are militarily symbolic, the political signal is unambiguous. By placing European troops on the ground, these nations have raised the stakes. Any US forcible action would now risk a “blue-on-blue” incident with key NATO allies, effectively checkmating the option of a surprise airborne seizure.

5.2 The “Arctic Sentry” Concept

To address legitimate US security concerns without ceding sovereignty, NATO leadership is formulating an “Arctic Sentry” mission proposal.

• Operational Concept: Modeled on the “Baltic Sentry” air policing mission, this would see NATO allies taking responsibility for rotational air and sea surveillance patrols in the North Atlantic and Arctic. European navies and air forces would police the GIUK gap, relieving the burden on US assets.¹¹
• Diplomatic Utility: The proposal aims to prove to Washington that its security requirements—tracking Russian submarines and securing the airspace—can be met through collective alliance mechanisms rather than exclusive US sovereignty. It offers the Trump administration a “win” (increased European burden-sharing) while preserving Danish territorial integrity.

5.3 Bipartisan US Congressional Support

It is crucial to note that the US government is not monolithic. A bipartisan congressional delegation, led by Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), traveled to Copenhagen in January 2026 to reassure Danish allies.

• The Counter-Narrative: Senator Murkowski, representing the US’s own Arctic state, warned that the aggressive rhetoric was “fraying” the alliance and endangering US business interests.³⁶ This delegation provides Copenhagen with a vital political lifeline, suggesting that the US Congress would block funding for any illegal annexation or military adventure.

6. The Intelligence Picture: Adversarial Activity

While the US response is viewed by many as disproportionate, the underlying intelligence assessment regarding adversarial activity in the Arctic validates significant security concerns. The region is no longer a sanctuary from Great Power competition.

6.1 Russian Revanchism

Russia has executed a methodical remilitarization of its Arctic frontier, viewing the region as its primary economic and strategic reserve.

• Military Buildup: The Northern Fleet has received the bulk of Russia’s naval modernization. Intelligence confirms the deployment of new Yasen-M class nuclear submarines, which are quieter and more lethal than their Soviet predecessors. These vessels are increasingly probing the GIUK gap, testing NATO’s ASW capabilities.¹²
• Seabed Warfare: Of particular concern is the activities of the GUGI (Main Directorate of Deep-Sea Research), Russia’s secretive seabed warfare unit. Intelligence reports indicate GUGI vessels loitering near critical undersea data cables connecting Greenland, Iceland, and North America, posing a threat of hybrid sabotage.³⁸
• Hybrid Interference: Russian information operations have been detected attempting to amplify divisions within Greenlandic society, simultaneously fueling anti-Danish sentiment among separatists and anti-American sentiment among the general public to sow chaos.³⁹

6.2 The Chinese “Near-Arctic” Strategy

China’s approach remains primarily economic and scientific, playing a long game to secure access.

• The “Polar Silk Road”: Beijing continues to seek entry points for its “Polar Silk Road” initiative. Despite the blocking of the airport projects, Chinese state-owned enterprises remain the largest shareholders in key mining ventures.
• Scientific-Military Fusion: The Chinese icebreaker Xuelong 2 and other research vessels have been conducting extensive bathymetric surveys in the Arctic Ocean. While ostensibly scientific, this data is critical for submarine operations, mapping thermal layers and seabed topography for the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN).³⁷
• Strategic Patience: Unlike Russia’s overt militarization, China is practicing strategic patience, waiting for a rift between Nuuk and Copenhagen to exploit. The US fears that an independent Greenland, stripped of Danish subsidies, would inevitably turn to Chinese capital to survive, becoming a tributary state in the Arctic.

7. Scenario Analysis

Based on the current trajectory of events, open-source intelligence, and the geopolitical variables at play, three scenarios have been identified as the most probable outcomes over the next 12–24 months.

Scenario 1: The Transactional Compromise (Enhanced Presence)

• Description: The “High-Level Working Group” yields a renegotiated Defense Agreement. Denmark and Greenland agree to grant the US significantly expanded basing rights—including new radar sites on the East Coast and expanded operations at Pituffik—in exchange for the US formally dropping its sovereignty demand. The US invests directly in Greenlandic infrastructure (dual-use airports/ports) via a dedicated aid vehicle, bypassing Copenhagen’s block grant but acknowledging Danish sovereignty.
• Probability: High (60%)
• Reasoning: This outcome satisfies the US functional needs (missile defense, REE access) without requiring a legally and politically impossible sovereignty transfer. The presence of European troops and the resistance of the Greenlandic government make annexation too costly. A “lease” model allows Trump to claim a victory (“I secured the island”) while Denmark preserves the Realm.
• Probability of Success (US Goals): High. The US secures its security architecture and mineral supply chains. It fails only in the symbolic goal of “coloring the map,” but achieves its substantive strategic aims.

Scenario 2: The Coercive Rupture (COFA Pivot)

• Description: Frustrated by Danish “red lines” and emboldened by the lack of direct consequences, the Trump administration implements punitive tariffs on Danish goods (Novo Nordisk/Maersk). Simultaneously, it bypasses Copenhagen to sign a direct preliminary “Memorandum of Understanding” for a COFA with a splinter faction of the Greenlandic government (leveraging the Naleraq party). This triggers a constitutional crisis in the Danish Realm, the collapse of the Greenlandic coalition, and a deep rift in NATO.
• Probability: Moderate (30%)
• Reasoning: The administration’s preference for bilateral deals and economic coercion makes this plausible. If the “working group” stalls, Trump may view the “deal” as stalled and resort to “maximum pressure.” However, the current unity between Nuuk and Copenhagen makes finding a willing partner in Greenland difficult.
• Probability of Success (US Goals): Low to Moderate. While it might destabilize Denmark, the legal validity of such a deal would be challenged globally. It would alienate the Greenlandic population further and could lead to the loss of Pituffik if Denmark retaliates by suspending the 1951 defense agreement.

Scenario 3: Unilateral Assertion (The “Hard Way”)

• Description: The US declares a “unilateral defense zone” over Greenland, citing the Monroe Doctrine and imminent threats from China/Russia. US troops actively secure key infrastructure points (airports, mines) without host nation consent, effectively occupying the island.
• Probability: Low (10%)
• Reasoning: The presence of European troops (Operation Arctic Endurance) makes this kinetically dangerous. It would likely shatter NATO and is opposed by the US military establishment due to the logistical nightmare of occupying a hostile Arctic territory. It would turn a loyal ally into an occupied insurgency.
• Probability of Success (US Goals): Very Low. While militarily feasible in the short term, it would result in a permanent diplomatic quarantine of the US by European allies, long-term insurgency potential in Greenland, and the collapse of the US alliance system.

8. Conclusion

The 2026 Greenland crisis represents a defining moment in the history of the Arctic and the NATO alliance. The United States has signaled that it no longer views the High North through the lens of cooperative stewardship but as a contested frontier where sovereignty is secondary to security. While the maximalist demand for annexation is likely to be thwarted by a unified Danish-Greenlandic-European front, the outcome will almost certainly be a significantly militarized Greenland with deeper US integration.

The Kingdom of Denmark has successfully leveraged the “European card” and the “red line” of the Self-Government Act to deter immediate unilateralism. However, the economic threats against Danish flagship industries expose a critical vulnerability that Washington will continue to exploit to extract concessions. The path forward will likely involve a pragmatic but painful renegotiation of the defense framework—granting the US the substance of its demands (strategic denial of adversaries, REE access, missile defense sites) without the form of annexation. The Arctic is no longer a zone of low tension; it is the new fulcrum of global security.

---

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly contribute towards our continued reporting, please visit our funding page.

---

Sources Used

1. The U.S. bid for Greenland: A play for military power and Arctic resources, accessed January 17, 2026, https://news.cgtn.com/news/2026-01-15/U-S-bid-for-Greenland-A-play-for-military-power-and-Arctic-resources-1JU6jb7wm3u/p.html
2. Here’s where Trump’s most jaw-dropping promises stand a year into his second term, accessed January 17, 2026, https://apnews.com/article/trump-promises-second-term-greenland-alcatraz-canada-858c0f1d3ec934dc696a70a5b38eace3
3. Here in Greenland we are scared, but certain of one thing: our home is not for sale | Malu Rosing, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/15/greenland-denmark-washington-summit-us
4. Words fail us on U.S. threat to Greenland, accessed January 17, 2026, https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/article/words-fail-us-on-u-s-threat-to-greenland/
5. Denmark says there’s a ‘fundamental disagreement’ with Trump over Greenland, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.wgbh.org/news/2026-01-14/denmark-says-theres-a-fundamental-disagreement-with-trump-over-greenland
6. Greenland, Rare Earths, and Arctic Security, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/greenland-rare-earths-and-arctic-security
7. Greenland’s critical minerals require patient statecraft – Atlantic Council, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/greenlands-critical-minerals-require-patient-statecraft/
8. Greenland for US ‘National Interest’?, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.natstrat.org/articledetail/publications/greenland-for-us-national-interest-242.html
9. Pituffik Space Base – Wikipedia, accessed January 17, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pituffik_Space_Base
10. shownews – Trump’s threats to Greenland: military intervention or strategic cooperation?, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.fw-mag.com/shownews/861/trump-rsquo-s-threats-to-greenland-military-intervention-or-strategic-cooperation
11. NATO Mulls ‘Arctic Sentry’ To Ease US-Denmark Tensions Over Greenland, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-arctic-sentry-greenland-us-denmark-tensions/33649807.html
12. Alaska, not Greenland, should worry the United States in the Arctic …, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/alaska-greenland-should-worry-the-united-states-arctic/
13. NATO’s ‘Arctic seven’ find strength in numbers | The American Legion, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.legion.org/information-center/news/landing-zone/2025/october/natos-arctic-seven-find-strength-in-numbers
14. War in the Arctic? | Proceedings – U.S. Naval Institute, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2026/january/war-arctic
15. The US Air Force Base In Greenland & Its Strategic Role, accessed January 17, 2026, https://simpleflying.com/us-air-force-base-greenland-strategic-role/
16. Protests in Greenland and Denmark as Trump repeats tariffs threat – Europe live, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jan/17/hands-off-greenland-protests-denmark-us-donald-trump-europe-latest-news-updates
17. US-Greenland Talks End Without Resolution; NATO Deploys Troops, accessed January 17, 2026, https://mexicobusiness.news/policyandeconomy/news/us-greenland-talks-end-without-resolution-nato-deploys-troops
18. 2025 Greenlandic general election – Wikipedia, accessed January 17, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Greenlandic_general_election
19. Greenland election: Democrat party wins surprise victory amid spectre of Trump, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/12/greenland-election-opposition-democrat-party-wins-surprise-victory-amid-spectre-of-trump
20. Greenland and Denmark unite against US advances before White House talks, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/13/jd-vance-to-host-greenland-talks-at-white-house
21. Tech billionaires behind Greenland bid want to build ‘freedom cities’ | Responsible Statecraft, accessed January 17, 2026, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/trump-greenland-billionaires/
22. US considers special status for Greenland amid Trump push for control – The Guardian, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/09/us-greenland-trump
23. constitutional overview – Greenland Hydropower Potentials, accessed January 17, 2026, https://hydropower.gl/-/media/hydropower/law-and-regulations/public-administration/greenland–constitutional-overview—self-government.pdf
24. Greenland – Statsministeriet, accessed January 17, 2026, https://english.stm.dk/the-prime-ministers-office/the-unity-of-the-realm/greenland/
25. US, Denmark, Greenland to set up working group amid ‘fundamental disagreement’, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.chinadailyasia.com/article/627107
26. The Second Agreement on the Arctic and North Atlantic strengthens the operational effectiveness of the Danish Armed Forces with new acquisitions totalling DKK 27.4 billion – Forsvarsministeriet, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.fmn.dk/en/news/2025/the-second-agreement-on-the-arctic-and-north-atlantic-strengthens-the-operational-effectiveness-of-the-danish-armed-forces-with-new-acquisitions-totalling-dkk-27.4-billion
27. Denmark to Strengthen Arctic Defense by DKK 27,4 Billion – High North News, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/denmark-strengthen-arctic-defense-dkk-274-billion
28. Trump threatens to tariff other nations over Greenland acquistion, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.denvergazette.com/2026/01/16/trump-threatens-to-tariff-other-nations-over-greenland-acquistion/
29. The Arctic Ultimatums: Trump’s Greenland Bid Sparks Global Trade War and NATO Crisis, accessed January 17, 2026, https://markets.financialcontent.com/wral/article/marketminute-2026-1-16-the-arctic-ultimatums-trumps-greenland-bid-sparks-global-trade-war-and-nato-crisis
30. Operation Arctic Endurance – Wikipedia, accessed January 17, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Arctic_Endurance
31. European troops arrive in Greenland as ‘disagreement’ with U.S. remains, accessed January 17, 2026, https://globalnews.ca/news/11614458/european-troops-arrive-in-greenland/
32. European Troops Arrive in Greenland as Talks With US Highlight ‘Disagreement’ Over Island’s Future, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.military.com/daily-news/2026/01/15/european-troops-arrive-greenland-talks-us-highlight-disagreement-over-islands-future.html
33. Europeans send troops to Greenland : r/MapPorn – Reddit, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1qei087/europeans_send_troops_to_greenland/
34. Denmark bolsters Greenland forces ‘in close collaboration with NATO allies’, accessed January 17, 2026, https://breakingdefense.com/2026/01/denmark-bolsters-greenland-forces-in-close-collaboration-with-nato-allies/
35. NATO considers “Arctic Sentry” approach in bid to resolve Greenland tensions, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.europeaninterest.eu/nato-considers-arctic-sentry-approach-in-bid-to-resolve-greenland-tensions/
36. The U.S. Arctic is ‘woefully unprepared’: Murkowski, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.arctictoday.com/the-u-s-arctic-is-woefully-unprepared-murkowski/
37. ARCTIC RESOURCE COMPILATION – China and Russia’s Involvement in the Arctic – Air University, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AFCLC/07.%20Media/Arctic%20Research/China%20and%20Russia’s%20Involvement%20in%20the%20Arctic%20Report_v08a%20-%207%20March%202025_Final.pdf?ver=NHFCeEvkNsmtG-L9o0hjTA%3D%3D×
38. Sino-Russian Cooperation in the Arctic – CEPA, accessed January 17, 2026, https://cepa.org/comprehensive-reports/sino-russian-cooperation-in-the-arctic/
39. American hybrid warfare against Greenland during the second Trump administration – Wikipedia, accessed January 17, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_hybrid_warfare_against_Greenland_during_the_second_Trump_administration
40. Russia and China co-operating more often and more closely in the Arctic, says NORAD commander | CBC News, accessed January 17, 2026, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/russia-china-norad-defence-incursions-9.7040134