I just can’t imagine NATO countries not strongly pressuring Denmark to make a deal before any sort of military action was even close to actually happening. And knowing Trump, it might not take US ownership either, it might just come down to just the right deal that scratches Trumps itch for rare earth minerals and ability to protect against the perceived Russia threats. Perhaps something like a FAS status.
The reality is this…Is choosing to challenge and not placate Trump control really worth risking losing $980B per year from the military budget designed to defend Europe from Russia? My guess is no.
What sort of deal woul they be pressuring us to enter? One where USA has basically free reign to do whatever they want in Greenland militarily? Because we already have that deal. One where US companies can enter agreements with Greenland to extract minerals? Because we already have that. One which blocks Russian interests in Greenland? Because we've been in a pseudo war with Russia for a while, with them seizing Danish assets and companies in Russia. So it would be unthinkable to allow them any sort of presence in Greenland. If the US was so concerned about security in Greenland it's sort of weird that they've gone from 20ish bases to just 1 over the past few decades.
As far as losing an ally goes... We already did that. EU is being diplomatic because we hope the USA comes to their senses, and because why wouldn't we? But internally everything is shifting away from US reliance because nobody actually belives USA would show up to protect Estonia if Russia invaded. So what our NATO allies are doing is sending troop to Greenland to make it very expensive for the US to attack it.
The deals that can be made are also sort of limited. Greenland is not ours to give away. The people of Greenland could democratically decide to leave the kingdom and enter some sort of deal with USA, and they might have, if they hadn't been threatened with invasion. Though it would frankly be unlikely considering they'd trade the Danish welfare and healthcare systems and workers rights for whatever the USA has.
We will see. I think the argument of “it’s not ours to give but we will fight to not give it up” is a little odd. NATO troops in Greenland as a “cost deterrent” is odd too. A NATO civil war where its all against the US, immediately your NATO defense budget decreases by two thirds. That is far more costly to Europe and NATO than to the US.
What kind of deal do you imagine? The US already has full access to expand their military presense in Greenland. About the only thing they aren't allowed to do is place nuclear weapons there. Nobody is stopping American Companies from entering resource extraction there either.
> “it’s not ours to give but we will fight to not give it up” is a little odd.
There isn't a law which would allow Denmark to sell or give away Greenland, but of course we will come to the defense of a NATO member if they are attacked, we've done so before.
If Greenland decides to leave our Kingdom and enter a deal then they can do so.
> That is far more costly to Europe and NATO than to the US.
I'm not convinced. The EU doesn't want to play world police, so we need NATO for defense. We've been very reliant on US companies for this, but every European nation has been building up the EU defense industry and have been avoiding making US purchases for a year.
I don't think anyone in the EU ever wanted a bad relationship with USA. We owe USA a lot for it's role in the post WWII world and up until Trump, but it's not like we're destroying the friendship.
No idea, but Greenland fits in this renewal of the Monroe Doctrine, so my guess is something sort of deal where US has more influence there than it does now, perhaps as a protectorate, but falls short of all the “51st state” rhetoric, which is obvious Trump bloviating to press people to the table and to a deal. Just consider all the tariff back and forths and ups and downs.
> There isn't a law which would allow Denmark to sell or give away Greenland, but of course we will come to the defense of a NATO member if they are attacked, we've done so before.
Except…Greenland is not a member of NATO. Which is probably one of the reasons considering its strategic arctic location and interest to Russia/China that Trump is interested in it. It sits squarely in the Monroe Doctrine area of interest. If Russia were to invade, some NaTO countries may decide to stay out and could according to the treaty.
> but every European nation has been building up the EU defense industry and have been avoiding making US purchases for a year
Which is good, but can you honestly say that in 2026 Europe could economically handle a Russian aggression into a NATO state without the US? It’s important to keep NATO together for Europe’s sake until Europe no longer needs the US for its defense. I don’t think you are there yet.
Greenland is a member of NATO because it's part of the Kingdom of Denmark, the same way they are a mebmer of the EU.
> so my guess is something sort of deal where US has more influence there than it does now, perhaps as a protectorate, but falls short of all the “51st state” rhetoric.
I think Greenland will end up either being an unincorporated territory of USA or entering into a compact of free association with the US. Whether or not it'll be the end of NATO depends on how patient Trump is.
It won't be through a deal with Denmark though, but I guess we can call that semantics. I do think my own politicians are sort of hoping they can avoid "losing" Greenland by giving away the remaining restrictions on what the US military can do in Greenland, but I doubt they will succeed with that.
> I don’t think you are there yet.
I agree. In some ways Trump being the way he is, has been healthy for Europe. I'm personally more worried about tech. Most of my applications on my smartphone wouldn't work without either the Apple store or Google Play. It's sort of silly to have a national digital ID that I can't run on GrapheneOS after all, I do have the physical key thing though, but you get the point.
With our public sector dependence on Microsoft and to some degree Amazon, Trump could frankly order a complete shutdown of our entire society by telling Azure and AWS to shut down everything in Denmark.
The reality is this…Is choosing to challenge and not placate Trump control really worth risking losing $980B per year from the military budget designed to defend Europe from Russia? My guess is no.