Any attempt by the U.S. to forcibly take Greenland would lead to “enormous repercussions” for the Western alliance and the international system, stated Iceland’s former President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, as President Donald Trump intensifies his language regarding the U.S. control of the Arctic territory.
Grimsson cautioned on CNBC’s “Access Middle East” that “the aftermath would be of a magnitude we have never witnessed in our lifetime.” Grimsson, who served as Iceland’s president from 1996 to 2016, is currently the Chairman of the Arctic Circle, the largest yearly convening on Arctic topics.
Trump has depicted Greenland — an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark — as vital for U.S. national security, alleging that China and Russia are increasing their sway in the strategically important, resource-rich region surrounding the island.
A gathering at the White House on Wednesday between representatives from Greenland, Denmark, and the U.S. concluded with a “fundamental disagreement” concerning the ownership of the island, according to a Danish official, who noted that discussions would continue between the parties.
Prior to the discussions, Trump had reiterated his views on Greenland, stating on social media that anything less than Greenland becoming part of the United States was “unacceptable.”
Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen expressed on Tuesday that the nation would prefer Denmark over the United States if a decision had to be made.
The European Union Commissioner for Defense and Space Andius Kubilius remarked earlier this week that any American military takeover of Greenland would signify the end of NATO, the military alliance led by the U.S. comprising 32 nations, including Denmark.
A coalition of European nations, spearheaded by Britain and Germany, has reportedly been formulating strategies to enhance their military presence in Greenland to counteract Trump’s aggressive territorial ambitions.
Grimsson pointed out that fears regarding Russia and China’s expanding influence in the Arctic are exaggerated. “Currently, there isn’t a direct, clear, tangible threat from Russia and China in the Arctic,” he stated.
China’s most significant involvement lies in the Russian Arctic region, where it has engaged in mining, energy resource exploration, and potentially military exercises, according to Grimsson. Beyond that — across the Arctic regions of Canada, the U.S., and the Nordic countries — “China is not a significant player,” while Russia “is not present,” he added.
U.S. should ‘start at home,’ not ‘purchase Greenland’
Grimsson further contended that if Trump’s aim is to bolster the U.S. position in the Arctic, Washington should concentrate on building domestic capabilities. The U.S. is “already an Arctic nation,” he remarked, observing that its Arctic territory is larger than Texas.
Grimsson asserted that successive Trump administrations have underfunded important infrastructure such as icebreakers and ports in the U.S. Arctic, placing the U.S. at a disadvantage compared to its adversaries. “If you desire a heightened presence in the Arctic, begin at home,” Grimsson emphasized, highlighting the lack of a significant port in the U.S. Arctic.
It remains ambiguous what strategic or financial benefits Washington would acquire from annexing Greenland, the Arctic leader commented, noting that existing agreements already provide the U.S. considerable flexibility.
The 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement allowed the U.S. to maintain military bases on the island, and Danish leaders have expressed a willingness to collaborate with Washington to enhance the American and NATO presence there.
Greenland’s government has also permitted American companies to engage in mining and various sectors of the economy.
“Currently, there are no obstacles for heightened American security or business activities in Greenland,” he stated. “Since we have not received any comprehensive rationale for this desire, it is quite challenging to grasp what exactly it entails.”
Instead, Grimsson proposed that Trump’s perspective — influenced by his real estate background — might be driving the obsession with territorial acquisition. “He is likely the first major global leader whose entire training and thought process stemmed from the real estate industry,” he said. “Real estate professionals think in terms of locations.”
When asked if Trump could forcibly take Greenland, Grimsson acknowledged that a military action was plausible given the power disparity and Greenland’s low population, but cautioned that the political ramifications would be unprecedented.
“Yes, certainly, it’s feasible,” he replied, but “the question remains … what will be done with it, apart from … raising the American flag and acquiring a location.”
