“The hunt for Greenland has already begun” Expert opinions on Caliber.Az

U.S. President Donald Trump stated that Denmark, which governs Greenland, is unable to eliminate the Russian threat that, in his view, hangs over the island, and noted that this will be addressed. “NATO has been telling Denmark, for 20 years, that ‘you have to get the Russian threat away from Greenland.’ Unfortunately, Denmark has been unable to do anything about it,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. According to him, due to the growing presence of China and Russia, Greenland is of vital importance to U.S. security.

What specific threats does Greenland face from Russia and China? What actions can the United States take to prevent them? What arguments support Donald Trump’s position? And what rational considerations suggest that Greenland’s accession to the United States could benefit the entire world?

Well-known political commentators have undertaken to address these issues for Caliber.Az, providing their expert insights and analysis.

American political scientist and publicist Samson Katsman emphasised that Trump is far from the first U.S. leader to consider acquiring territory in the Western Hemisphere. The history of such efforts dates back to the late 1860s, when, in March 1867, the United States purchased Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million in gold.

“The deal was initiated by Secretary of State William Seward, and Congress viewed it with considerable scepticism—the country was only beginning to recover from the devastating and bloody Civil War. At the same time, Seward also envisioned purchasing Greenland and Iceland from Denmark, but these proposals failed to gain support.

Later, during World War I in 1917, the United States acquired three Caribbean islands from Denmark—St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix—along with several smaller neighbouring islands. American leaders were concerned about the potential establishment of German submarine bases in the Caribbean and sought to secure freedom of navigation through the Panama Canal, which had opened in 1914,” the analyst noted.

Regarding the current threats to Greenland, Katsman emphasises that the issue is highly politicised, and it is crucial to separate factual assessments from rhetoric.

“Russia is indeed strengthening its military presence in the Arctic, maintaining bases and modernising ships, aircraft, and air defence systems in the northern regions. This expansion enhances its strategic capabilities and has raised concern among Western analysts. Some reports suggest that Russia and China are increasing cooperation in the Arctic, and that Russian forces are using regional operations to gather intelligence. These developments reflect strategic competition over Arctic resources and shipping routes, which are becoming increasingly accessible due to climate change. However, there is no evidence of Russian plans to invade Greenland or establish a military presence in its immediate vicinity. For the United States, Greenland remains a key strategic point for controlling the Arctic. 

Trump is the first U.S. leader to openly assert that the Arctic is a military zone, a strategically vital transport corridor, and a future energy hub. His position has a rational basis: Russia has already militarised parts of the Arctic, and China has declared itself a ‘near-Arctic state,’” Katsman noted.

An expert on international affairs and head of the “South Caucasus” political analysts’ club, Ilgar Velizade, emphasised that if there were any solid political or legal basis for Trump’s actions, the U.S. position could be considered legitimate.

“However, Trump relies more on interests than on legal documents. The only argument put forward by the American side is the claim that Denmark allegedly annexed Greenland illegally after World War II, but no evidence supports this assertion. Moreover, the United States and other countries officially recognise Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland, making the legal aspect of the issue highly questionable.

From a political standpoint, U.S. interests are shaped by changes in the military and political situation in the Arctic and the world. The United States seeks to adapt to shifting geopolitical conditions, while Denmark does not provide Greenland with any real ‘military-political umbrella.’

In the event of an attack (for example, from Russia or China), Danish authorities rely on Article 5 of the NATO Charter on collective defence. In practice, this means Denmark depends not on its own forces, but on external ones—primarily the United States, which maintains bases and infrastructure in the region. It is clear that Greenland would be defended by the United States, as the presence of troops from other NATO countries (such as Germany or France) is largely symbolic and would not be effective in the event of a major war,” the political analyst said.

Thus, he notes, there is a rational consideration: if the island will be defended by the United States anyway, then Greenland should officially belong to them so that the right to its defence is formally secured. “This is particularly relevant in the context of ongoing debates in Europe about the lack of sufficient forces to counter potential threats. However, such actions contradict the statements of Western countries about the need to live by laws rather than by ‘might.’ In a context of eroding international law, states begin to act based on their own interests, ignoring the UN or NATO charters.

Trump’s position reflects long-term U.S. interests: Greenland possesses vast mineral resources and offers significant geostrategic and economic opportunities. ‘The hunt for Greenland’ has already begun, and it will inevitably deepen rifts within NATO. Only time will tell what consequences this will have in the future,” Velizade believes.