Next week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is set to meet with officials from Denmark to deliberate on the status of Greenland – a self-governing territory of Denmark which President Donald Trump asserts is critical for national security.

This expansive island is at the center of a geopolitical upheaval with Trump’s involvement and locals appear to be quite anxious.

However, upon arrival by air, it appears remarkably serene. The landscape is dotted with ice and snow-covered peaks that extend endlessly, occasionally broken by shimmering fjords – nestled between the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans.

It’s often described as sitting atop the world; a significant portion lies above the Arctic Circle.

Despite being nine times larger than the UK, Greenland has a mere 57,000 residents, predominantly indigenous Inuit.

On the south-western coastline, you will find the largest concentration of Greenlanders in the capital, Nuuk. We arrived there as the icy twilight began to set over the snow-laden pedestrian paths.

Parents pulled their kids home from school on sleds, and students drifted in and out of brightly illuminated shopping centers. Few individuals were willing to engage with us regarding their concerns related to Trump. Those who did had quite a pessimistic outlook.

One elder thumped his cane emphatically as he declared that the US must never establish its flag in Greenland’s capital.

A woman, who preferred to remain anonymous due to her distrust of everyone currently, expressed that she was “terribly frightened” at the idea of Trump seizing the island after witnessing his military actions in Venezuela.

In the meantime, young pottery artist Pilu Chemnitz remarked: “We are all quite exhausted with the US president. Our lives here have always been calm and peaceful.

“Certainly, Denmark’s colonization inflicted significant trauma on many individuals, but we simply desire to be left in peace.”

In addition to opposing a potential US takeover, which 85% of Greenlanders are against, many also express a desire for independence from Denmark – although numerous individuals also acknowledge the financial support from there that sustains their welfare system. While there are abundant untapped resources, poverty remains a pressing issue within Inuit communities.

Overall, Greenlanders seek a more substantial and assertive voice, not only in their local matters but in international relations as well.

I visited the island’s simply designed parliament, constructed in a Scandinavian style, adorned with wooden panels and painted in the same rich red color as the Greenlandic flags flying outside the entrance.

No need for security checks. Everything felt quite relaxed. Except for the imposing polar bear emblem – a representation of Greenland, etched onto every sliding glass door we passed through.

I met with Pipaluk Lynge-Rasmussen, the co-chair of the foreign affairs committee in parliament. She serves as an MP from the pro-independence Inuit Ataqatigiit party that is part of the ruling coalition here.

“It’s crucial for us to articulate what we seek as a nation,” she explained. “Since gaining home rule in 1979, we have consistently strived towards independence, achieving further autonomy in 2009.”

I inquired if she believed that major global powers – the US, Denmark, Nato, and the EU – were engaging more in dialogue about Greenland rather than addressing the islanders regarding their future.

She responded affirmatively. Interestingly, she holds Denmark more accountable than Trump for dismissing the desires and requirements of Greenlanders.

Even though Greenland and the Faroe Islands are incorporated within the Kingdom of Denmark, she feels they have always been regarded as second-class citizens.

Despite this, Lynge-Rasmussen stressed that Greenlanders should not perceive themselves as victims in the current landscape. On the contrary, she encourages them to leverage the international attention directed towards them to highlight their significance and advocate for their priorities.

What about the upcoming meeting with Rubio, I asked?

“I hope the meeting results in mutual understanding and compromise,” she replied.

“Perhaps we could engage in commerce with [the US] from this location… possibly collaborating on trade, or mining, and increasing American [military] installations in Greenland, maybe?”

According to a bilateral agreement with Denmark established in 1951, the US is allowed to deploy an unlimited number of troops to Greenland.

This situation has led European allies to question why Trump feels compelled to “acquire” the island unilaterally: whether through a purchase – seemingly Washington’s favored choice, or persuading Greenlanders to vote in a plebiscite to join the US, or potentially resorting to force, an option the Trump administration has not entirely dismissed.

It wouldn’t require much display of military power. Greenland possesses a limited number of trained soldiers and lacks its own military bases.

Trump and US Vice-President JD Vance rationalize their intention to “secure” Greenland by claiming Denmark falls short in safeguarding the island. Copenhagen challenges this assertion.

Moreover, it’s notable that the US already maintains a military base in Greenland – significantly reducing its personnel from approximately 10,000 during peak Cold War times to around 200 today.

Historically, the US has largely overlooked Arctic security until recently.

Trump’s heightened interest in the island seems to be a combination of:

• perceived national security issues
• a voracious appetite for Greenland’s rich natural resources, including rare earth elements and minerals
• and his outspoken ambition to dominate the Americas.

From a geographical standpoint, Greenland is classified as part of North America.

It is approximately 1,000 miles (1,609 km) closer to New York City than it is to Copenhagen.

This reality warrants consideration from Greenlanders, as opposition MP Pele Broberg from the Naleraq Party informed me.

He noted that many individuals felt apprehensive about Trump’s potential actions towards Greenland, attributing their fears largely to misinformation propagated by media sensationalism.

“It’s accurate, we are not up for sale – but we are amenable to conducting business. Or we ought to be.

“Currently, we exist as a colony. We are compelled to source our goods from Denmark, located 4,000 km away, instead of closer from the US.”

Broberg characterized his party as the true independence movement of the island, advocating for freedom that would allow Greenlanders to engage in trade on their own conditions with any nation, whether it be the US, Denmark or others.

At present, however, the US is placing demands rather than fostering trade relationships on equal footing.

So, what specific national security objectives does Trump associate with Greenland?

Simply put: the most direct path for a Russian ballistic missile to strike the continental US passes through Greenland and the North Pole.

Washington already possesses an early warning air base on the island – but Greenland could potentially function as a site for missile interceptors as part of the Trump administration’s proposed “Golden Dome” initiative: a strategy aimed at shielding the US from missile attacks.

The US has also reportedly considered installing radars in the waters linking Greenland, Iceland, and the UK – referred to as the GIUK Gap. This area serves as a passage for Chinese and Russian vessels that Washington intends to monitor.

There is no visible evidence while in Greenland to support Trump’s recent claims about an influx of Chinese and Russian vessels in the vicinity of the island.

Additionally, just last week, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian reprimanded Washington for “using the so-called ‘China threat’ as a justification to pursue its own selfish interests” in the Arctic.

Nonetheless, Russia and China have been enhancing their military capabilities and have intensified their collaboration in other areas of the region – including joint naval patrols and co-developing new maritime routes.

Under duress from western sanctions concerning Ukraine, Moscow is eager to increment its shipments to Asia.

Beijing is seeking shorter, more profitable maritime pathways to Europe.

The northern sea route is increasingly navigable due to melting ice, and Greenland inaugurated its representation office in Beijing in 2023 to forge stronger connections with China.

Regarding Arctic security, NATO allies aim to persuade Washington of their seriousness. UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer reportedly communicated with the US president multiple times last week, emphasizing that Europe intends to enhance its presence even further in the area. He has also been encouraging European leaders to bolster their collaboration with the US there.

Greenland, Denmark, and their NATO allies anticipate that there is a possibility for negotiation with Rubio next week and believe that, at the very least, a military take-over of Greenland by Trump is improbable – albeit not entirely out of the question.

The geographic powers in the Arctic include Denmark, the US, Canada, Russia, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. An Arctic Council, comprising all these nations, has traditionally strived to uphold the principle: high north, low tension.

However, military displays and unilateral moves from Washington regarding Greenland, coupled with a broader race for power among global superpowers, contribute to a genuine sense of danger in the region.

The fragile equilibrium in the Arctic, established since the Cold War’s conclusion, and effectively managed since Russia’s large-scale assault on Ukraine in 2022, could be precariously disrupted.