Trump and the Alleged "Necessity" of the United States Annexing Greenland: Preliminary Reflections

Key Chapter Title List

1. False Information and Erroneous Premises in Trump's Statements
2. Denmark and Greenland's Defense Commitments and Actual Investments
3. Extensive U.S. Military Access and Strategic Capabilities Already in Place in Greenland
4. Arctic Geopolitical Reality: No Threat to Sovereignty and the Root Causes of Conflict
5. The "Might Makes Right" Philosophy of Trump and His Advisors and the Disregard for Indigenous Rights
6. The Existential Threat of U.S. Unilateral Action to NATO Collective Security
7. Joint Statement and Reaffirmation of Principles by Major European Allies
8. The Direct Geostrategic Warning for Canada from the Incident

Document Introduction

This study aims to provide a preliminary critical analysis of recent statements by President Donald Trump and his administration regarding the U.S. "must" acquire Greenland. The core argument of the report is that the key premises put forward by the Trump administration to justify its claim—including the false security threat of Greenland's waters being filled with Chinese and Russian vessels, the accusation of insufficient Danish defense investment in Greenland, and the unfounded assertion that existing U.S. arrangements limit its North American defense capabilities—are all severely inconsistent with verifiable facts and the current security architecture. These narratives constitute a policy drive based on misinformation, with motivations potentially extending far beyond the publicly declared national security concerns.

The document first systematically refutes the core fallacies in Trump's statements. The author points out that the claim of "Greenland being overrun by Chinese and Russian vessels" is entirely fabricated. On the contrary, Denmark, as a reliable NATO member, announced a significant increase in defense spending in October 2025 and invested in purchasing more U.S.-made F-35 fighter jets to enhance security in the Arctic and North Atlantic regions, including Greenland. More importantly, under the 1951 Greenland Defense Treaty, the United States already enjoys extensive military access and strategic capabilities in Greenland, with the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) serving as a critical node in the U.S. ballistic missile defense system. Leaders of both Denmark and the Greenland Self-Government have clearly stated that existing agreements provide "ample opportunity" for the U.S. to enhance its presence, but no such request has been made by the American side.

The report further examines this incident within the broader context of Arctic security. The author has long held the view that Arctic state sovereignty is not under threat, that Russia has the greatest interests in the region and adheres to international maritime law, and that China has not claimed sovereignty. The current crisis does not stem from traditional territorial disputes but from an unexpected direction: the United States itself. Trump and his inner circle view Greenland as a piece of tradable real estate, completely disregarding the will of the Greenlandic people as rights holders. Greenland's Foreign Minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, explicitly emphasized their right to self-determination, stating that Greenland belongs neither to Denmark nor to the United States. However, the U.S. government's appointment of a special envoy to advance the "acquisition," its Secretary of State's remark about "buying, not invading," and the emphasis on "enduring commercial relationships" all reveal that this matter may be intertwined with economic interests and non-national security motives.

This analysis ultimately warns that a forced U.S. annexation of Greenland would be a strategic and normative disaster. Such an act would be tantamount to the end of NATO, depriving not only Europe of its core collective security interests but also harming the United States itself. The joint statement by major European allies such as the United Kingdom, France, and Germany with Denmark, reaffirming the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity based on the UN Charter and emphasizing that Arctic security must be achieved collectively, constitutes a severe rebuttal to U.S. actions. For Canada, this is by no means a distant farce. If the United States were to turn Greenland into "red, white, and blue land" through coercion, Canada would become the sole country situated between Alaska and the new U.S. North Atlantic territory, fundamentally reversing its geostrategic environment. The report cautions with historical lessons that a complacent belief that "it won't happen here" can lead to catastrophic consequences. This study provides defense and international relations professionals with a fact-based, in-depth case study, analyzing how great power unilateralism erodes alliance systems, challenges international norms, and poses a severe test to the stability of the Arctic, a key strategic region.