BELFAST — Amid renewed rhetoric from senior Trump administration officials that Greenland should be part of the US, a trio of Europe-based analysts said they are not convinced the US will opt for military action, at least, to secure the semi-autonomous island that sits within the Kingdom of Denmark, potentially plunging Europe into a disastrous security crisis.
On Tuesday the heads of state from several major European nations issued a joint statement encouraging Washington to respect Greenland’s sovereignty, but that didn’t stop White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt from maintaining that “utilizing the US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief’s disposal” for accomplishing the “important foreign policy goal.”
Still, Rasmus Søndergaard, senior researcher for foreign policy and diplomacy at the Danish Institute for International Studies, told Breaking Defense a “military scenario is an unlikely one.”
“I think the US is now pursuing negotiation and [a] potential purchase,” Søndergaard said.
He also noted that opinion polls have demonstrated “virtually no Americans think that it’s a good idea to take Greenland by force,” and a number of “prominent” Republican lawmakers have rallied against possible military action.
“I foresee no fighting, nothing like we saw in Venezuela,” he added, in reference to the recent US operation involving the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
Although the US is keeping all options on the table, the Trump administration “would perhaps be more likely to pursue any takeover through political and disinformation means — Denmark has revealed that the US already has operatives there,” analyst Tony Lawrence, said, referring to Danish reports of a covert influence campaign in Greenland.
Streamcaster Nexus: Empowering the connected soldier at the tactical edge
On today’s battlefield, mobility isn’t optional - it’s mission-critical.
Lawrence, head of the defence policy and strategy programme at Estonia’s International Centre for Defence and Security, warned however that for Trump, “this may not be quick enough, or sufficiently spectacular.”
On previous occasions when Trump has talked of taking Greenland, it was more of a talking point or an “anecdote” but “all of a sudden, perhaps not [through] a military invasion, but certainly his desire to acquire Greenland one way or another, is becoming more plausible or realistic,” said Harry Nedelcu, senior director of geopolitics at Rasmussen Global, a political consultancy led by former NATO Secretary General and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
However, should the Trump administration defy expectations — as it did in Venezuela — and order a military invasion, two of the analysts said it would be likely to succeed, but not without some cost both to those fighting and to NATO as an organization.
“There’s only one outcome if the US is determined to use military force,” said Søndergaard, but outlined that in line with legal obligations, Danish armed forces would be required to fight back.
He also said that there is a national debate taking place in Denmark at the moment around how the country should respond in the event of a US takeover, with one side supporting the idea of an increased Danish presence in Greenland or even “inviting along European allies” to bolster defenses. Those taking an alternative view, see such moves as “futile” because they will not change the outcome of a US victory, according to Søndergaard.
“The US would not need substantial forces to overrun Greenland,” said Lawrence. “Military movements around the territory would be more about coercion.”
Nedelcu explained that should the US resort to the use of force it would deliver a “fatal blow” to NATO, based on one ally “carrying out an act of aggression against another.”
Earlier this week, Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen made a similar claim, predicting that any US attack on Greenland would bring about the end of the alliance.
In light of latest developments, “NATO enters 2026 facing what could become the worst crisis of its existence,” declared an Atlantic Council analysis on Wednesday.
As for how Copenhagen or Europe at large should tackle the issue of standing up to the US more broadly, the analysts said that focusing on the “political cost” of an attack on Greenland, must be a priority.
“We need to stress just how unacceptable their [US] position is, while at the same time helping them to understand that we, their allies, can do all that is necessary to support their military-strategic goals for the High North and Arctic,” said Lawrence. “Possession of Greenland is simply unnecessary.”
One thing that “Denmark has correctly done is to point out that the continuation of the transatlantic relationship, the way it is now, is at stake if the US were actually to go ahead” and annex Greenland, added Nedelcu. Annexation “would be very counterproductive, very costly for the US, because … what the US are getting now, and what the US could get is basically everything they want without even having to do that.”
It is also worth stressing that the US Pituffik Space Base in Greenland forms a key part of Washington’s early warning and missile defense capability.
In Søndergaard’s opinion there is a balance to be struck between firmness and not provoking Washington.
“That’s why I, among others, worry about, for instance, what would happen if we put other European troops in Greenland? Would that be an excuse for some people around Trump, like [Vice President] JD Vance, [White House Deputy Chief of Staff] Stephen Miller, to then say, ‘Look, the Monroe Doctrine has to come into effect.'”
On Monday Miller told CNN, “Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.” His comments came a matter of days after his wife, Katie Miller, posted an image of Greenland on X with a US flag superimposed over the top and a caption reading “SOON.”