Why in news?

An American military takeover of Greenland, which increasingly looks possible, would involve multiple contradictions.

It would undermine U.S. commitments to sovereignty and international law, strain NATO unity, alarm Canada and Europe, and hand Russia a propaganda victory in the Arctic.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• NATO at Risk: The Greenland Contradiction
• The Backers Behind the Greenland Push

NATO at Risk: The Greenland Contradiction

• Any American military move into Greenland would strike at the heart of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
• NATO’s credibility rests on Article 5 — collective defence — which assumes external aggression, not one member violating another’s territorial integrity.
• A U.S. action against Denmark, which administers Greenland, would create an unprecedented crisis the alliance was never designed to handle.
• Denmark’s Sacrifice and the Irony of Article 5
  • The contradiction is stark. Denmark was among the first to invoke Article 5 after the 9/11 attacks, standing firmly with the United States.
  • Danish troops fought alongside U.S. forces in Afghanistan, suffering heavy losses.
  • A U.S. incursion into Greenland would nullify this shared history and hollow out NATO’s moral foundation.
• A Gift to Russia and China
  • Such a move would directly benefit Vladimir Putin, who has long sought to fracture NATO unity and divert Western focus from Ukraine.
  • Ironically, an action justified as countering Russian influence in the Arctic would weaken the very alliance designed to contain Moscow.
• The Strategic Argument Falls Apart
  • Strategically, the move makes little sense.
  • The U.S. already has extensive rights in Greenland under a 1951 treaty and once operated 17 bases there, most of which were voluntarily shut down by Washington itself.
  • These facilities could be reactivated without violating sovereignty.
• The Real Arctic Pressure Point
  • While Donald Trump has pointed to rising Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic, U.S. defence assessments show the real pressure point lies near Alaska, not Greenland.
  • Pentagon briefings and the 2024 Arctic Strategy highlight infrastructure degradation and increased China–Russia cooperation in waters off Alaska.
  • In effect, a Greenland misadventure would weaken NATO, empower adversaries, distract from Ukraine, and undermine U.S. credibility — all while addressing the wrong Arctic problem in the wrong place.

The Backers Behind the Greenland Push

• The idea of acquiring Greenland has moved beyond speculation. The White House has not ruled out a military option, while officials have spoken of discussions with European officials about a possible purchase.
• However, Denmark, which administers Greenland, has made it clear the territory is not for sale.
• The issue is now so politically sensitive in Copenhagen and Nuuk that any attempt at a commercial deal could bring down the Danish government.
• Trump’s Domestic Constituencies
  • Support for the Greenland idea appears to come from several figures close to Donald Trump.
  • Tech investor Peter Thiel has floated the idea of a libertarian, post-nation settlement in a place like Greenland.
  • Elon Musk has shown interest in the territory’s rare earth resources.
  • Billionaire Ronald Lauder is reported to have first raised the Greenland idea with Trump.
  • Trump himself is said to view the move through a real-estate lens, consistent with his business instincts.
• Canada’s Security Anxiety
  • The country most alarmed by a potential annexation is Canada.
  • U.S. control of Greenland would effectively hem Canada in, intensifying security concerns.
  • This has triggered a debate within Canada about revisiting its non-nuclear stance, with experts urging the country to confront difficult questions about national defence.
• Nuclear Domino Effect
  • The implications could extend far beyond North America.
  • If NATO were to fracture over Greenland, countries such as Germany and Poland might reconsider nuclear options, as could South Korea and Japan.
  • A Greenland takeover could thus spark a wider nuclear arms race, reshaping global security in unpredictable ways.