Troops from several European countries arrived in Greenland to signify N.A.T.O.’s ability to secure the arctic region. The movement of troops comes amid discussions between American, Danish, and Greenland officials over a “fundamental disagreement” about the acquisition of the arctic island by the Trump administration.

“Greenland is very important for the national security, including of Denmark,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “And the problem is there’s not a thing that Denmark can do about it if Russia or China wants to occupy Greenland, but there’s everything we can do. You found that out last week with Venezuela,” he said.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen has tried to convey the importance of both addressing American security concerns and the status of Greenland. Greenland is a self-governing, autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.

“The group, in our view, should focus on how to address the American security concerns, while at the same time respecting the red lines of the Kingdom of Denmark,” he said Wednesday after the meeting.

However, it would seem the representative was unable to persuade Trump, who has a vested interest in the U.S. possessing the island.

“We didn’t manage to change the American position,” Rasmussen told reporters outside the Danish embassy in Washington. “It’s clear that the president has this wish of conquering over Greenland.”

While Greenland is certainly a strategic location for the United States, the U.S. increasing its presence in the country through annexation or invasion would be geopolitical suicide. Increasing U.S. presence through those means would severely damage its relationship with its N.A.T.O. allies. N.A.T.O. was established to both deter the spread of communism and prevent nationalist militarism in Europe. Some U.S. officials, such as Rep. Michael McCaul R-Tx., are even concerned an invasion of Greenland could spell the end of N.A.T.O. Additionally, any taking of Greenland by force would be an illegal violation of the United Nations Charter of 1945.

Moreover, the United States has a preexisting treaty with Denmark that allows for construction of military bases, housing of personnel, and movement across its land, air, and sea for defense purposes. Any concern over Greenland’s defense, natural resources, or future trade routes could be discussed through negotiation and cooperation. Such negotiation should involve either the reassessment of current treaties or the creation of new ones.

Overall, use of force would be extremely counterproductive and a violation of Greenland’s sovereignty. Use of force would also give more license for Russia to continue its invasion of Ukraine and license for China to invade Taiwan.

There are two reasons for why Greenland is important for the United States. The first is its strategic importance against Russia and China. The second reason is economic. The focus on Greenland is likely due to the long-term interest in future resource extraction and shipping routes made easier by Greenland’s ice melt. Greenland is rich in both oil and rare earth minerals, materials that are essential for military technology, communication, and energy. Geoffery D. Dabelko, an expert on climate change and foreign security policy at Ohio University notes the increasing importance that Greenland could play in the far future.

“I think one of the reasons there’s great interest in Greenland is that the expected demand for [these resources in many countries] is increasing and is likely to continue to do so. Many are critical inputs to a wide variety of current technologies and that demand is anticipated to grow,” Dabelko said.

Ideally, the United States would want to ensure those resources are made accessible to itself, its allies, and left inaccessible to countries that are considered adversaries, such as Russia and China. Causing anxiety with its allies over Greenland though through a proposed invasion would not be constructive in aiding that goal. Additionally, it would not be constructive in preventing a global war.

Given the resistance from U.S. Representatives on both sides of the isle, U.S. military intervention in Greenland seems less likely than its intervention in Venezuela. The safer outcome would be some form of de-escalation and negotiation over U.S. security concerns. However, if Trump cannot set his ego aside, Congress could always impeach him post-midterm elections in November. As for Greenland, it has the right to self-determination. If Greenland wants to declare independence from Denmark, it should do so on its own terms.