Recent high-level talks between the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland and US officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, failed to resolve escalating tensions surrounding the ownership of Greenland. The United States has asserted that it must control the territory for national security reasons, with the Trump administration maintaining a bellicose stance, arguing that Greenland must be placed under US control “one way or another,” even suggesting military means.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen described the tone of the meeting as frank and constructive but acknowledged a “fundamental disagreement.” He told reporters in Washington, “We didn't manage to change the American position. It's clear that the president has this wish of conquering over Greenland.” Rasmussen rejected President Trump’s claims that Greenland would be overrun by “Chinese destroyers and submarines” if the US did not control it, citing Danish intelligence that no Chinese ships have been present for about a decade. He also used the meeting to dispel what he called a false narrative regarding Denmark's security commitments to Greenland and the Arctic.

US President Donald Trump has consistently renewed threats to take control of Greenland since returning to office, citing security concerns and potential Russian or Chinese influence. Trump has stated, "I'd love to make a deal with them; it's easier. But one way or the other, we're gonna have Greenland." These threats, which resurfaced following US intervention in Venezuela, have raised alarms among European leaders about the extent of Washington's willingness to seize the island and the potential for a NATO crisis.

Despite the lack of resolution on ownership, a significant positive outcome of the meeting, according to Danish officials, was the agreement by the governments of Greenland, Denmark, and the US to establish a high-level “working group to find a 'common way forward.'” This group will “explore whether there is a possibility to accommodate the concerns of the President, while respecting the redlines of the Kingdom of Denmark.” Danish authorities have repeatedly affirmed that Greenland is not for sale, and polls indicate a vast majority of Greenland’s population opposes joining the US.

In response to the growing instability, Denmark and Sweden announced the deployment of soldiers and military exercises to Greenland, with Paris and Berlin also set to participate in a joint troop mission to enhance Arctic security. Danish Foreign Minister Troels Lund Poulsen stated that the Danish Defense Forces, with allies, would explore increased presence and exercise activity in the Arctic. The Trump administration justifies its claims by arguing that European nations, particularly Denmark, cannot guarantee the security of Greenland or the Arctic against malign actors, implying only the US can.

Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, would ordinarily be protected under NATO’s Article 5 if attacked. This article stipulates that an armed attack against one NATO member is an attack against all, a scenario that experts warn could plunge NATO into crisis if the US, a member, were the aggressor. Additionally, Europe has a lesser-known pact: Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union. European Commissioner for Defence and Space, Andrius Kubilius, confirmed that this article obliges member states to provide aid and assistance to another member state, like Denmark, in the event of armed aggression.

Tim Haesebrouck, an assistant professor of international politics at Ghent University, highlighted that Article 42.7 can be activated by a single country without requiring prior consensus, obliging other member states to provide aid and assistance by all means in their power, which can include economic, political, or military support. The clause was invoked previously by France after the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks. However, Greenland's unique status as an Overseas Country and Territory, having left the European Economic Community in 1985, complicates the full application of most EU laws, including defense provisions. Aurel Sari, a public international law professor at the University of Exeter, noted the lack of an authoritative ruling on whether Article 42.7 fully extends to territories like Greenland and the limited enforceability of defense matters by EU courts in such a high-stakes scenario.

Even if Article 42.7 were applicable, it does not guarantee automatic military defense, though military support remains an option. Haesebrouck expressed uncertainty about Europe's realistic defense capacity to militarily confront Washington, noting the US would likely maintain “escalatory dominance.” Sari emphasized that the clause allows for various forms of aid—political or economic pressure—not just military force, and its implementation ultimately depends on the political will of each member state. Germany’s Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul indicated Germany’s desire to play a larger role in Arctic military security but insisted on operating within the NATO framework, underscoring that any resolution hinges on a strong political commitment.