U.S. President Donald Trump’s hectic return to office has left America’s European allies scratching their heads. His opinions on NATO, the European Union, and Ukraine are well known—and to a degree predictable.
One issue that Trump, however, seems unexpectedly obsessed with is his bid for the United States to expand its geographical territory by annexing Greenland, a semiautonomous Arctic territory of Denmark.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s hectic return to office has left America’s European allies scratching their heads. His opinions on NATO, the European Union, and Ukraine are well known—and to a degree predictable.
One issue that Trump, however, seems unexpectedly obsessed with is his bid for the United States to expand its geographical territory by annexing Greenland, a semiautonomous Arctic territory of Denmark.
Whether you see Trump’s apparent desire to own Greenland as bluster from a man prone to audacious nonsense or a serious threat to a sovereign ally, officials and experts agree that the Arctic region is both a strategic weakness and an opportunity for the United States.
“You can listen to Trump’s outlandish claims and dismiss them, or you can see it as a chance to understand what Trump wants from Europe and find potential ways to keep him engaged in this part of the world,” said Ed Arnold, a senior research fellow at the London-based Royal United Services Institute.
Trump’s zero-sum approach to foreign relations means that if there’s any opportunity for Europeans to assist what he believes is in the U.S. national interest, it should be grabbed with both hands if they want Trump to remain interested in the trans-Atlantic alliance. The president needs to feel as if he’s getting something.
“If you look at a map of the world that stretches from east to west, it shows America firmly on one side and Russia on the other, with continental Europe and an ocean in the middle,” Arnold added. “If you look at an image of the globe from the top down, Russia looks a lot closer to America, and the Arctic Ocean suddenly looks very important.”
Both the United States and Russia are Arctic nations. Geographically, it would make a lot of sense as the location from which Russia—and other adversaries—might launch operations against the United States. In a worst-case scenario, that might mean a strike against Alaska.
More realistically, with both sides maintaining an interest in the region, it is a prime location for mutual surveillance and also for possible future naval confrontations. This is not entirely new. The Arctic was considered to be of such strategic importance during the Cold War that U.S. outposts served as early warning systems, military bases, and surveillance points to deter the Soviets.
That makes it all the more perplexing that the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency have sought to cut back on Arctic research. Multiple priorities and factions are grappling within the administration—another problem for Europeans trying to determine what to do in response.
On top of these conventional and historic strategic risks, the Arctic is becoming an increasingly important shipping route. The volume of trade along the Northern Sea route increased by 755 percent between 2014 and 2022, while the number of vessels navigating the Arctic increased by 37 percent between 2013 and 2023.
“Ships getting bigger and [carrying] more numerous cargo creates potential for vessels carrying unknown cargo or being used as a cover for additional activity in the region,” said Dwayne Ryan Menezes, the founder of the Polar Research and Policy Initiative, a London-based think tank. “Fishing vessels, too—which aren’t that large—can disappear for miles on end, covering up illegal fishing as well as unauthorized shipments, while purportedly civilian research vessels can be dual-use, used for intelligence gathering and potential sabotage operations, including threats to critical undersea cable infrastructure.”
“After decades of Arctic exceptionalism, the region is now home to competition among the world’s great powers,” said Charly Salonius-Pasternak, the CEO of the Nordic West Office, a Helsinki-based think tank. “China and Russia are both there. Both typically claim that they are solely interested in natural resources. The concern seems to be that if China or Russia gets a toehold in the region, they will be able to claim that they need to protect their economic interest. Russia has already updated some of its outposts to include patrol and ocean rescue supposedly for this reason.”
Yet Trump’s comments have endangered U.S. interests in the region. Prior to his Greenland fixation, virtually no one would have protested an increased U.S. presence in the region, which has long played an important role in U.S. military planning.
The Pituffik Space Base in Greenland’s north is tasked with performing “missile warning, space surveillance, and satellite command and control” for the United States, with 650 people on-site, including 200 “active-duty U.S. Air Force and Space Force personnel.” Trump’s comments, however, have changed the political context in which Greenlanders would be willing to accept more personnel. The United States, once an ally seeking to protect, is now a potentially conquering force. Greenland’s likely next prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, won the recent election standing on a ticket in which his party overtly opposed Trump’s takeover plans.
Europeans need to determine what is at the core of Trump’s Arctic ambitions—and identify where there is room for mutual benefit.
Even if Trump is less interested in Europe’s front line in Ukraine, he might be convinced that the United States has a vulnerability in the Arctic. European allies might well placed to address some of those concerns, should relations turn sour with Russia in the coming months.
“A good start would be to build and expand ports and harbors along the North Sea Route, including de-ported harbors out at sea,” Menezes said. “You could expand shipping infrastructure from Kirkenes in Norway, near the Russian border; Finnafjord in Iceland; and at Scapa Flow in Scotland—already one of the largest natural harbors on Earth. This would massively increase the ability to monitor what is coming in and out of the Arctic region and possibly moving toward America.”
Such large infrastructure projects could appeal to Trump’s MAGA instincts in two ways, if they both protect U.S. national interests and offer U.S. companies opportunities to build or control ports and harbors.
Salonius-Pasternak agrees that offering Trump such incentives could be the way forward: “If we look at his trade and other foreign policies, one way to make Trump back down is to give him a PR victory.”
If U.S. economic benefits were not enough, Europeans could once again give Trump the chance to claim he has “saved NATO.” Salonius-Pasternak adds that allies could replicate the Scandinavian approach to defense: “We have robust national defense capabilities and buy U.S. equipment. We don’t expect America to provide the bulk of forces, but some specific capabilities and nuclear backstop are appreciated as part of being good allies.”
No matter how distasteful Trump’s comments on Greenland may be, that shared risk to national security is undeniably an opportunity for Europeans to make their case—even if it’s an open question whether Trump will listen.
The post Europe Wonders if Trump Can Be Bought Off With Arctic Concessions appeared first on Foreign Policy.
