My son and I have always toyed with the idea of living in Greenland. I being drawn to the heat, couldn’t survive 50 degrees below zero. My son on the other hand is drawn towards the cold and has fancied a long stay in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital.
So it is with keen interest that a major topic of conversation at the world level is Trump’s play to annex Greenland.
In the 21st-century great-power competition, few pieces of real estate attract as much geopolitical interest as Greenland — and for good reason. Perched in the High North between North America and Europe, the island commands the gateway to the Arctic and plays a crucial role in monitoring the strategic approaches from Russia and, increasingly, China. U.S. defense planners understand this better than most: Greenland’s location has been integral to North American defense since World War II, and the U.S. military presence there continues to underpin early-warning, missile defence, and space-surveillance operations critical to NATO and U.S. strategic interests.
The island’s geography also anchors the GIUK Gap — a naval choke point defined by Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom that has been pivotal in tracking Russian naval movements since the Cold War. As the Arctic warms and competition over shipping lanes and resources intensifies, that strategic lens becomes ever sharper.
Yet this strategic calculus must never overshadow another fundamental truth: Greenland is not a pawn — it is home to about 56,000 people with their own history, culture and political aspirations. Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark; its people have the legal right to choose their own future, including eventual independence or new partnerships. The Greenlandic government has repeatedly asserted that no negotiations about territorial status or security agreements should proceed without them sitting at the table.
Indeed, when asked whether they want to become part of the United States, a striking 85 % of Greenlanders said no in a recent poll. Only about 6 % expressed support for U.S. annexation, and a clear majority voiced their preference to remain within the Danish realm or pursue their own sovereign path.
That reality should prompt serious reflection in Washington. A strong partnership with Greenland — one that respects its autonomy and aspirations — serves U.S. security far better than coercive or unilateral ambitions. The U.S. already enjoys robust access for military cooperation under existing defense agreements with Denmark; this suffices to maintain strategic capabilities without upending regional relationships or risking a diplomatic rupture with European allies.
The argument that Greenland should choose its alignment is not just a moral one — it is also strategic. Partnerships grounded in mutual consent are more resilient and effective. They build trust, encourage cooperation on shared challenges like Arctic environmental change and resource management, and avoid the backlash that comes with perceived imperialism. If Greenland chooses a closer security relationship with the United States — or even an eventual shift towards European frameworks — that decision would carry far more legitimacy and durability than one imposed by external pressure.
In short, Greenland’s strategic importance to U.S. defense is undeniable. Its location, its role in missile warning systems, and its position in Arctic geopolitics make it a pillar of North American and NATO security. But strategic value does not confer ownership of people or place. A responsible U.S. foreign policy should champion Greenland’s right to self-determination, foster equitable cooperation, and recognize that the strongest alliances are those freely chosen.
It seems President Trump has backed down from his Greenland position that makes the large island a territory of the United States, in favor of a large strategy that would include U.S. military defenses all over the Arctic region. He and the NATO Secretary General, Mark Ruud, seem to be working that out. I hope they succeed.
