President Trump has repeatedly stated that he would settle for nothing short of ownership of Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. He has argued that U.S. control is necessary to prevent Russia or China from filling what he describes as a strategic vacuum in the Arctic. Danish and Greenlandic leaders have responded with consistent refusals, maintaining that the island is not for sale and that its political future rests with its population. Greenland’s government has emphasized that while security co-operation and investment are welcome, sovereignty is not negotiable.

The Kremlin said it was difficult to dispute expert claims that U.S. President Donald Trump would enter both American and world history if the United States were to take control of Greenland. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov framed the observation as descriptive rather than evaluative, declining to comment on whether such a move would be lawful or beneficial. He also rejected claims that Russia posed a direct threat to Greenland, calling recent allegations “disturbing information,” while refusing to speculate on Moscow’s intentions toward the territory.

Tensions escalated after President Trump suggested he would not rule out the use of force, prompting concern among NATO allies. Denmark coordinated closely with European partners and Greenlandic officials in response. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen rejected any compromise involving sovereignty, describing it as a red line. European states, including Britain, France, and Germany, took part in limited military exercises in Greenland, presented publicly as Arctic training but widely interpreted as a political signal that might have led to President Trump later backing away from military threats. 

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, he stated that he would not use force to acquire Greenland and announced what he described as a “framework of a future deal,” developed with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. President Trump characterized it as granting the United States broad access to the island, particularly for security purposes.

Greenland’s strategic relevance has long shaped outside interest. The island sits astride increasingly navigable Arctic sea lanes and hosts Pituffik Space Base, a key U.S. installation for missile warning and space surveillance. American interest in acquiring Greenland predates President Trump, with proposals surfacing after the purchase of Alaska and again after the Second World War. Each attempt met firm resistance from Copenhagen, including a 1951 defence accord later updated to reflect Greenlandic self-government. 

President Trump has argued that the United States “saved” Greenland during the Second World War and should have retained it afterward, a reading historians say misrepresents the legal and political record. International rulings, treaties acknowledged by Washington, and United Nations resolutions have consistently affirmed Denmark’s authority over the territory. Greenland’s population, numbering roughly 57,000, has shown little support for becoming part of the United States, with local leaders stressing autonomy and cooperative relations without a transfer of political control.

The episode has carried broader implications for alliance politics. European leaders have viewed the rhetoric surrounding Greenland as blurring the line between collective security and coercion. President Trump’s earlier comments, including tariff threats against allies expressing solidarity with Denmark, heightened unease about U.S. intentions. Public opposition within the United States also grew, with lawmakers from both parties questioning the feasibility and legality of the acquisition.

Negotiations now appear focused on expanding security co-operation rather than altering borders. Whether the proposed framework produces a durable arrangement remains uncertain, but the episode has sharpened debates about sovereignty, alliance trust, and the future balance of responsibility in the Arctic.