A significant diplomatic crisis has erupted around Donald Trump's persistent pursuit of Greenland, threatening to fracture the NATO alliance and prompting frantic diplomatic efforts from European leaders. The United States President's renewed interest in acquiring the Arctic island, citing national security and strategic location, has been met with staunch opposition from Denmark and its self-governing territory, Greenland, sparking fears of a potential military confrontation between NATO allies.

The controversy intensified as UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer engaged in intensive diplomacy, holding calls with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, and twice with President Trump. Starmer's objective was to convince Trump that NATO possessed the capabilities to defend the Arctic without a US takeover of Greenland, though he conceded that more could be done by European allies. Discussions consistently focused on Euro-Atlantic security and the shared need to deter an increasingly aggressive Russia in the High North, with all parties agreeing that NATO should enhance its presence in the region.

President Trump's ambition to acquire Greenland stems from what he perceives as a critical national security imperative, stating, "We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark isn't going to be able to do it." His administration has explored multiple avenues for acquisition, including outright purchase and, controversially, military means. Critics suggest Trump's interest is also driven by Greenland's vast mineral and rare-earth energy supplies. Historically, the US has attempted to purchase Greenland for decades, with efforts dating back to the 1860s and 1910s, though none materialized, unlike the acquisition of the Danish West Indies in 1917.

One of the more contentious proposals under discussion by White House officials involves directly bribing Greenland's roughly 56,000 residents, with proposed payments ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per person. Such a scheme could cost the US up to $5.6 billion. However, both Danish and Greenlandic leadership have unequivocally rejected any purchase proposal. Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen publicly stated, "Enough is enough... No more fantasies about annexation," while polls from January 2025 indicated that 85% of Greenlanders do not wish to become part of the US.

European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, have strongly backed Denmark, condemning the "law of the strongest" and expressing deep concern over the potential for military intervention. Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen issued a stark warning that if the US were to militarily attack another NATO country, "then everything stops," implying a scenario where US and Danish troops, currently working together in Greenland, could face off. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, while declining to discuss military intervention options, affirmed the Trump administration's intention to pursue a purchase rather than military force in upcoming crisis talks with Danish counterparts.

The situation has been characterized as a "NATO-made crisis," existential in nature, demanding immediate and tailored responses from Europe. German MEP Sergey Lagodinsky outlined three potential scenarios and Europe's necessary long-term conclusions.

The first, and preferred, path is US-Greenland cooperation. This involves expanding the US military presence within existing defense treaties (like the 1951 Agreement and its 2004 modification) and strengthening NATO cooperation in the Arctic. However, this cooperation requires crucial prerequisites: the US must formally recognize Danish sovereignty and Greenland's right to self-determination. Without this, increased US presence could be perceived as a precursor to a takeover, especially given concerns about Trump's reliability.

The second acceptable scenario, under certain conditions, is Greenlandic independence. This is a legitimate path under the 2009 Self-Government Act, with some American officials eager to facilitate it and establish a close relationship with an independent Greenland. For this to be truly acceptable, two key preconditions must be met: the US administration must cease all threats of military action, as negotiations under coercion are unacceptable under international law, and a strategic anti-disinformation effort must be launched by the EU to combat external pressure and manipulation.

The third, and most devastating, is a confrontational scenario involving a forceful takeover, likely an instantaneous fait accompli through a sharp increase in US troop numbers at Pituffik Space Base. To counter this, Europe must pre-position its own troops in Greenland to raise the threshold for such actions. Furthermore, Europe needs clarity about the devastating consequences for defense cooperation, markets, and global trust in the US. This necessitates Europe's proactive preparation for self-sufficiency, designing alternatives to strategic dependencies that could be leveraged against it.

In response to this evolving crisis, Europe must rethink its security structures, advocating for a fast and strategic decision-making center for defense, such as a strong European Security Council. While keeping the US within NATO is vital, the ultimate goal for Europe must be stronger autonomous capabilities and decision-making to ensure its security independent of external political moods, thereby enabling it to safely navigate future geopolitical challenges in the High North and beyond.