Game on the Ice Sheet: Deep Dive into Trump's Second-Term Push for Control of Greenland

In late December 2025, the Trump administration's series of actions to push for control over Greenland became the most controversial focal event in the global diplomatic arena. From the high-profile appointment of a close confidant with no diplomatic experience as a special envoy to the public release of a strong signal that Greenland must be acquired, Trump elevated this absurd idea that began in 2019 into one of the core foreign policy agendas of his second term. **This seemingly unconventional diplomatic game is by no means a spur-of-the-moment political stunt; rather, it is a precise strategic move by the United States based on Greenland's unique strategic location, abundant resource reserves, combined with the current geopolitical landscape and domestic development needs.** To understand the essence of this game, one must start with the fundamental attributes of Greenland, trace its historical context and power ownership, and then delve into the logic of the U.S. strategy, its action pathways, and the underlying motivations behind the timing.

I. Greenland: The "Strategic Pivot" and "Resource Treasure Trove" of the Arctic Circle

To understand America's obsession with Greenland, one must first clarify its irreplaceable core value—it is both a key pivot in Arctic geopolitical games and the resource core of global technology and energy competition, all of which are built upon its unique geographical location and natural endowments. To understand America's obsession with Greenland, one must first clarify its irreplaceable core value—it is both a key pivot in Arctic geopolitical games and the resource core of global technology and energy competition, all of which are built upon its unique geographical location and natural endowments.

Strategic Location: The "Strategic Chokepoint" of the Arctic Route and the "Natural Center" of the Northern Hemisphere

From a geographical perspective, Greenland is the world's largest island, located in the northeastern part of North America, between the Arctic Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean. Most of its territory lies within the Arctic Circle, making it a crucial strategic passage connecting North America, Europe, and the Arctic region. As stated in *The Influence of Sea Power upon History*, "Whoever controls Greenland controls the sea, and whoever controls the sea rules the world." This once ice-covered land is now becoming the focal point of geopolitical competition in the Arctic. With the intensification of global warming, the Arctic region is warming at a rate four times the global average, leading to accelerated melting of Arctic ice. The previously perennially frozen Arctic shipping routes are gradually becoming navigable. According to satellite data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Greenland has been losing an average of 200 billion tons of glaciers annually since 2003. This melting ice not only contributes to a global sea-level rise of approximately 14 millimeters but also creates new maritime areas and shipping value—**once the Arctic routes are fully opened, they will significantly shorten the maritime transportation distance between Europe and Asia, as well as North America, improving transportation efficiency by over 30% and potentially becoming the new core of the global shipping system.** Greenland is strategically positioned at the key junctions of the Northwest Passage (western waters) and the Central Passage (eastern waters) in the Arctic. Controlling Greenland is equivalent to gaining control over this emerging strategic route, and its value as a trade hub and supply point will be fully realized.

What is even more noteworthy is that Greenland is also one of the closest landmasses to the North Pole. Its northernmost point, Cape Morris Jesup, is located at 83°37'39"N, less than 800 kilometers from the North Pole. From a geopolitical perspective, the Northern Hemisphere contains 67.35% of the world's land area, 90% of the global population, and the vast majority of major powers, including the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. As the natural center of land in the Northern Hemisphere, Greenland's strategic reach can cover Asia, Europe, and North America. This unique location makes it a natural outpost for military defense and surveillance: the United States has long established the Thule/Pituffik base on the island. This base is a crucial component of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), undertaking key missions such as missile warning, space surveillance, and satellite tracking, serving as the Arctic barrier for the U.S. northern defense system. It is important to note that Greenland is also a critical link in NATO's anti-submarine warfare system, specifically in the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap. During World War II, the U.S. military relied on this location to combat German submarines, and during the Cold War, it was further developed into a forward base against the Soviet Union—the Thule Air Base, constructed in 1953, lies precisely at the midpoint of the direct flight path from Washington to Moscow, making it a core node for monitoring Soviet missile launches. In his public statements, Trump has repeatedly emphasized that Russian and Chinese vessels are ubiquitous in the Arctic region, reflecting concerns about the potential loss of Greenland's strategic position, highlighting Greenland's central significance in containing the Arctic expansion of China and Russia.

Resource Endowment: The "Untapped Treasure Trove" of Globally Scarce Strategic Resources

From the perspective of resource endowment, Greenland is an underexplored treasure trove of resources, with 80% of its area covered by an ice sheet averaging 1,500 meters in thickness. Beneath this ice layer lie globally scarce strategic resources. Over 70 types of minerals have been discovered on the island, and 25 out of the 34 minerals listed on the European Union's Critical Raw Materials list have been identified here. Among these, the reserves of rare earth elements are particularly noteworthy—the northeastern part of Greenland holds up to 38.5 million tons of rare earth oxides. The Tanbreez rare earth mine alone has proven reserves of 28.2 million tons, while the total rare earth oxide reserves in other regions worldwide amount to approximately 120 million tons, highlighting its undeniable strategic value. Rare earth elements are core raw materials for manufacturing high-tech products such as chips, new energy vehicles, and advanced weaponry. China has long dominated over 80% of the global rare earth processing capacity, and the United States relies on imports for over 90% of its rare earth supply. For the United States, which seeks to reduce its dependence on China's supply chain, Greenland's rare earth resources are undoubtedly a key to breaking the deadlock.

Beyond rare earths, Greenland's energy and mineral reserves are equally astonishing: its coastline is rich in petroleum resources, with estimated reserves potentially as high as 52 billion barrels, including approximately 17.5 billion barrels of untapped oil and natural gas reserves of about 4.15 trillion cubic meters; 260,000 tons of uranium deposits have been discovered in the south, and the Kvanefjeld deposit contains both rare earth and uranium resources, with total resources estimated at about 1 billion tons; there is also a world-class zinc deposit with ore-bearing strata extending over 2,500 kilometers, as well as the Mt Nalunaq gold mine, which began production in 2024. As Arctic ice melts, the difficulty of extracting these previously hard-to-reach resources has significantly decreased, making them a new focal point in global energy competition. Furthermore, the waters around Greenland are rich in fishery resources, with substantial reserves of fish such as cod and salmon. Controlling the island could also meet domestic U.S. demand for fishery products and develop the fishing processing and export industry. Simultaneously, Greenland holds an important position in the global meteorological monitoring network. Establishing observation stations there allows for precise collection of Arctic meteorological data, providing services for aviation, navigation, agriculture, and other sectors, thereby ensuring the stable operation of the U.S. economy and society. Beyond rare earths, Greenland's energy and mineral reserves are equally astonishing: its coastline is rich in petroleum resources, with estimated reserves potentially as high as 52 billion barrels, including approximately 17.5 billion barrels of untapped oil and natural gas reserves of about 4.15 trillion cubic meters; 260,000 tons of uranium deposits have been discovered in the south, and the Kvanefjeld deposit contains both rare earth and uranium resources, with total resources estimated at about 1 billion tons; there is also a world-class zinc deposit with ore-bearing strata extending over 2,500 kilometers, as well as the Mt Nalunaq gold mine, which began production in 2024. As Arctic ice melts, the difficulty of extracting these previously hard-to-reach resources has significantly decreased, making them a new focal point in global energy competition. Furthermore, the waters around Greenland are rich in fishery resources, with substantial reserves of fish such as cod and salmon. Controlling the island could also meet domestic U.S. demand for fishery products and develop the fishing processing and export industry. Simultaneously, Greenland holds an important position in the global meteorological monitoring network. Establishing observation stations there allows for precise collection of Arctic meteorological data, providing services for aviation, navigation, agriculture, and other sectors, thereby ensuring the stable operation of the U.S. economy and society.

It is noteworthy that Greenland has a population of only about 57,000. Its vast territory and sparse population make it difficult to establish an independent industrial system and defense capabilities, leaving its economic development highly reliant on external support. This situation also creates opportunities for infiltration and influence by external forces. This combination of high strategic value and weak self-defense is one of the core reasons why the United States has identified it as a key target.

II. The Historical Context and Power Attribution of Greenland: From Colonial Dependence to High Autonomy

The United States' push to control Greenland must also be understood within its unique historical context and power dynamics—Greenland is not a fully independent sovereign state but an autonomous territory of Denmark, possessing extensive self-governance without complete independence. This semi-independent power structure serves as a key entry point for the United States to attempt a breakthrough.

Historical Evolution: The Power Game from Colonial Dependency to High Autonomy

The history of Greenland is closely linked to Denmark's colonial expansion, and the evolution of its sovereignty has been filled with strategic maneuvering. In 982 AD, the Norwegian Viking explorer Erik the Red, exiled from Iceland for murder, discovered ice-free areas and established Scandinavian settlements, naming the land "Greenland" to attract immigrants. In the 13th century, Greenland was incorporated into Norway's colonial territory; in 1814, with the alliance between Norway and Denmark, control of Greenland was transferred to Denmark; in 1953, amendments to the Danish Constitution designated Greenland as a county of Denmark, formally bringing it under Danish sovereignty. This colonial dependency persisted until the late 20th century, when rising demands for autonomy in Greenland grew alongside global movements for national independence. In 1979, Greenland gained internal self-government; in 2009, Denmark and Greenland signed the Autonomy Act, granting Greenland extensive autonomy. While core powers such as foreign affairs, defense, and justice remain under Danish control, authority over the economy, resource development, and local governance is vested in the Greenland Self-Government, which may achieve full independence through a referendum.

It is noteworthy that there has always been a rift in the relationship between Greenland and Denmark: Denmark occupied Greenland for 645 years, yet Danish immigrants and their descendants number only about 5,000, constituting an absolute minority; 90% of the island's population are Inuit, with extremely low public sentiment toward identifying with Denmark. Greenland's economy has long relied on annual subsidies from Denmark (approximately $350 million per year, accounting for over 20% of fiscal revenue), but the inclination toward independence continues to rise. In recent years, as major powers intensify their competition for Arctic resources and shipping routes, Greenland has gradually become aware of its strategic value and has begun actively seeking greater autonomy—in 2025, negotiations between Greenland's autonomous government and Denmark over increased autonomy in resource development failed, further publicizing the conflict, which also provided opportunities for external forces to infiltrate. Additionally, Greenland's Inuit population is also distributed in the Alaska region of the United States, and this ethnic connection has become an important entry point for the United States to attempt to draw Greenland closer while distancing it from Denmark.

Mega History Interaction: A Century-spanning Strategic Ambition and Layout

This highly autonomous yet not fully independent power structure has formed a dual governance model where the Greenlandic autonomous government leads internal affairs, and Denmark oversees foreign affairs and defense. For the United States, this model presents an opportunity to exploit loopholes: the Trump administration's recent appointment of a special envoy to Greenland openly treats Greenland as an entity independent from Denmark, attempting to bypass Denmark and engage directly with the Greenlandic autonomous government. Through economic aid, resource cooperation, and other means, it seeks to infiltrate influence and ultimately achieve control over Greenland. This move directly challenges Denmark's sovereignty red line, becoming the core trigger for the diplomatic crisis between the U.S. and Denmark.

From historical interactions, the United States' interest in Greenland did not begin with Trump but represents a strategic continuity spanning a century. As early as the golden age of U.S. territorial expansion, attention had already turned to this Arctic island: after purchasing Alaska in 1867, there was a plan to acquire Greenland as well, which failed due to Denmark's opposition. In 1917, the United States bought the U.S. Virgin Islands from Denmark for 25 million dollars, further solidifying its idea of acquiring territory through transactions. During World War II, after Germany annexed Denmark, the United States sent troops to occupy Greenland under the pretext of protecting Danish territory, preventing it from falling into German hands. In 1945, after World War II ended, Denmark demanded the return of Greenland. The United States not only refused to return it but also offered to purchase it for 100 million dollars. It was only after Denmark rejected the offer that the United States was forced to return it.

During the Cold War, Greenland's strategic value reached its peak. As the midpoint of the direct flight path between Washington and Moscow, it became the frontline of U.S.-Soviet nuclear confrontation: In 1953, the United States constructed Thule Air Base in northern Greenland; in 1959, the Camp Century project was implemented, establishing an underground camp 240 kilometers east of Thule Base. The concealed Project Iceworm even planned to store 600 nuclear warheads, but it was abandoned in 1967 due to engineering quality issues. The exposure of this secret plan later triggered the Danish Thulegate scandal. On January 21, 1968, a U.S. military bomber carrying four B28 nuclear bombs crashed in Baffin Bay, 12 kilometers from Thule Base, causing warhead rupture and radioactive contamination. Although no nuclear explosion occurred, one hydrogen bomb with serial number 78252 remains missing to this day, becoming a nuclear hazard in Greenland and severely affecting U.S.-Danish relations. After the Cold War, geopolitical tensions in the Arctic eased, and U.S. enthusiasm for Greenland significantly waned, even leading to the sale of some military facilities to the Danish government for a symbolic price of 1 dollar. It was not until the early 21st century, with global warming and the resurgence of the Arctic's strategic value, that the United States once again incorporated Greenland into its strategic vision, investing 40 million dollars in 2017 to upgrade the missile warning radar at Thule Base and restarting its strategic layout for this Arctic island.

III. The U.S. Layout Path: From "Verbal Proposals" to "Systematic Advancement"

The Trump administration's approach to Greenland has evolved from verbal probes in 2019 to systematic advancement by 2025, with its action path becoming increasingly clear—shifting from diplomatic statements and internal discussions to specific personnel appointments and strategic pressure, demonstrating a strong determination to push forward.

Phase One (Year): Verbal Probing, Gauging the Bottom Line

The first phase was the verbal probing in 2019. During his first term, Trump publicly proposed the idea of purchasing Greenland for the first time, a suggestion that caused a global uproar at the time. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen directly dismissed it as absurd and canceled Trump's state visit to Denmark; the Greenlandic autonomous government also clearly stated that Greenland was not for sale. Although this probe ended in failure, it provided the Trump administration with crucial information: clarifying the basic stance of Denmark and Greenland, and gauging the international community's reaction. Subsequently, the U.S. government did not give up but shifted related discussions internally, continuously assessing the feasibility of acquiring/controlling Greenland, laying the groundwork for escalated actions in the second term. The core objective of this phase was to test the bottom line, not to make substantive progress.

Phase Two (Beginning of the Year): Strategic Upgrade, Building the Foundation

The second phase involves a strategic upgrade following the return to the White House in 2025. At the beginning of Trump's second term, the Greenland issue was prioritized as a key diplomatic agenda, with a series of concrete actions implemented to advance the layout: first, establishing a core team by incorporating close allies into the decision-making system to ensure smooth progress of the agenda; second, strengthening private communication with the Greenland autonomous government, attempting to drive a wedge between Denmark and Greenland through economic aid and resource cooperation; third, promoting an upgrade in military deployment by planning to transfer the jurisdiction of the Pituffik Base to the U.S. Northern Command, thereby enhancing military control over Greenland. The core objective of this phase is to lay the groundwork, paving the way for subsequent substantive progress.

The third stage (year, month): public breakthrough, strong pressure

The third phase is the public breakthrough in December 2025. On December 21-22, the Trump administration made a significant move: announcing the appointment of Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as the Special Envoy for Greenland. This appointment is highly symbolic: Landry is a staunch ally of Trump, having fully supported him in the 2024 U.S. election, yet he has no diplomatic experience. The appointment clearly carries dual attributes of political reward and trusted control. More notably, after accepting the appointment, Landry publicly stated that he was honored to serve in a voluntary capacity to make Greenland part of the United States, directly escalating the U.S. objective from cooperation to annexation. Trump later emphasized that Landry understands the essential importance of Greenland to national security and explicitly stated that the United States must possess it. Previously, after returning to the White House in January 2025, Trump repeatedly reinforced his claims over Greenland, even suggesting that the use of military force to seize control was not off the table. He claimed that the Greenland campaign would be the shortest war in the world, as its military strength is only equivalent to that of the New York Police Department.

Faced with the United States' assertive stance, reactions from various parties have been intense: Greenland's Premier Múte Egede explicitly stated that Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders, is not for sale, and will never be for sale. He also revealed that dialogue with Trump has already begun to explore cooperation opportunities, with the mining sector remaining open, demonstrating a balanced consideration between sovereignty and economic interests. Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen not only dismissed the U.S. proposal as absurd but also issued a joint statement with Egede, emphasizing that annexing other countries is unacceptable and that Greenland determines its own future. To assert sovereignty, Denmark even modified its national flag design. European Commission President von der Leyen also voiced support, stating that territorial integrity and sovereignty are fundamental principles of international law, while Nordic countries such as Norway have clearly backed Denmark's position. Notably, the U.S. actions have also triggered a shift in Denmark's domestic security perception. In a report released in 2025, the Danish Defense Intelligence Service listed the United States as a potential security threat for the first time, pointing out that the shift in U.S. strategic focus and pressure on allies are increasing uncertainties in Denmark's national security.

From the trajectory of the U.S. approach, it is evident that the strategy bears a distinct Trumpian style: abandoning the circuitousness and restraint of traditional diplomacy, adopting high-profile pressure tactics, relying on trusted allies to take the lead, and leveraging public opinion campaigns in an attempt to break the deadlock through unconventional means. The advantage of this strategy lies in its ability to quickly capture global attention and exert maximum pressure on Denmark and Greenland; however, its drawbacks are equally apparent, as it completely undermines mutual trust between the U.S. and its allies and triggers widespread international backlash.

IV. Why the End of the Year? The Motivations Behind the Timing Window for the US's Advancement of Actions

The Trump administration's decision to concentrate efforts on controlling Greenland by the end of 2025 is not coincidental; rather, it is driven by a convergence of multiple factors creating a specific time window, encompassing both shifts in the global geopolitical landscape and considerations of domestic development needs and political cycles within the United States.

Global Drivers: Geopolitical Competition in the Arctic Intensifies, Seizing Strategic Opportunities

First, the geopolitical competition in the Arctic has entered an intense phase, and the United States needs to seize the initiative. In recent years, with the accelerated melting of Arctic ice, the strategic value of the Arctic region has become increasingly prominent. Countries such as Russia and China have increased their investments in the Arctic, advancing scientific research expeditions, resource development, and shipping cooperation. Russia established its Arctic Strategic Command as early as 2014, and in 2025 announced plans to deploy more advanced weapons and equipment in the Arctic region. Its powerful nuclear submarine fleet could pose a threat to the capitals of European countries and the U.S. mainland from the Arctic. China, through the Polar Silk Road initiative, has strengthened scientific research cooperation and participation in energy projects with Arctic nations like Russia, steadily enhancing its influence in the Arctic region. Previously, it has opened the China-Europe Arctic route reaching the United Kingdom. According to the Arctic Council, over the 10 years up to 2023, the number of vessels in Arctic navigable waters increased by 37%, with the Northeast Passage now having an annual navigable window of 120 days. The United States believes its dominant position in the Arctic is being challenged, and Greenland, as the gateway to the Arctic Ocean, is a key leverage point to contain the Arctic expansion of China and Russia. By the end of 2025, coinciding with a critical juncture in the enhancement of Arctic route navigability, the United States is eager to consolidate its advantage by controlling Greenland to avoid falling behind in this emerging geopolitical competition.

Meanwhile, the competition for resources in the Arctic among major powers has fully unfolded: Canada claims that the new shipping route passes through its territory, asserting control; Russia directly planted its flag on the Arctic seabed, reinforcing its sovereignty declaration; while the United States invests heavily in building icebreakers to ensure Arctic patrol capabilities. As a core node of the Arctic route, the ownership of Greenland directly affects the distribution of interests among countries in the Arctic, which is also one of the core motivations behind the United States' urgency to advance control actions. Meanwhile, the competition for resources in the Arctic among major powers has fully unfolded: Canada claims that the new shipping route passes through its territory, asserting control; Russia directly planted its flag on the Arctic seabed, reinforcing its sovereignty declaration; while the United States invests heavily in building icebreakers to ensure Arctic patrol capabilities. As a core node of the Arctic route, the ownership of Greenland directly affects the distribution of interests among countries in the Arctic, which is also one of the core motivations behind the United States' urgency to advance control actions.

Domestic Motivation: Urgent Need for Supply Chain Autonomy, Tied to Political Cycles

Secondly, the construction of a de-Sinicized supply chain within the United States has entered a critical phase, urgently requiring resource support from Greenland. In recent years, the U.S. has regarded China as its primary competitor and has been vigorously promoting supply chain autonomy and control in high-tech industries, defense sectors, and other fields, with rare earth resources being a core bottleneck. Currently, China controls over 80% of the global rare earth processing capacity, while the U.S. relies on imports for more than 90% of its rare earth needs. In 2025, the U.S. introduced a series of policies such as the "Chips and Science Act" and the "Inflation Reduction Act," providing strong support for the development of domestic semiconductor and new energy industries, significantly increasing the demand for rare earth resources.

Greenland's rare earth resources have become a lifeline for the United States to break its supply chain dependence, and China's attempts to cooperate with Greenland have further heightened American anxiety. In 2017, Greenland planned to build a large airport and sought loans and technical support from China due to high costs. China proposed that a Chinese-funded company undertake the construction, but this faced strong opposition from the United States. The U.S. was concerned that China might use loans to control critical infrastructure or even for military purposes. Ultimately, the U.S. pressured Denmark to fund the majority of the project, blocking China's involvement. Additionally, Chinese companies attempted to invest in developing mines in Greenland but faced repeated setbacks due to joint obstruction by the United States and local governments. Under this zero-sum game mindset, the United States is eager to bring Greenland's resources under its control, both to meet domestic industrial upgrading needs and to curb China's resource deployment in the Arctic region.

Once again, the political cycle of Trump's second term is pushing for rapid policy implementation. Trump successfully secured re-election in the 2024 U.S. presidential election and officially took office in January 2025. The first two years of his second term represent a golden period for policy advancement, as domestic political approval remains relatively stable, and Republican influence in Congress is more concentrated, providing a foundation for policy implementation. If this window is missed, domestic political divisions may intensify as the midterm elections approach, significantly increasing the difficulty of advancing policies. Therefore, the Trump administration is eager to push forward the Greenland-related agenda by the end of 2025, aiming to achieve political accomplishments as soon as possible and accumulate capital for subsequent political maneuvering.

Finally, cracks have emerged in the power struggle between Denmark and Greenland, with the United States attempting to exploit the opportunity to infiltrate. In recent years, Greenland's inclination toward independence has continued to rise, and its conflicts with the Danish central government have gradually become more prominent. Greenland hopes to break free from its financial dependence on Denmark and achieve economic autonomy, while Denmark aims to maintain its sovereign control over Greenland. The two sides have numerous disagreements on issues such as resource development and financial subsidies. In 2025, the Greenlandic autonomous government negotiated with the Danish central government to increase its autonomy in resource development, but no agreement was reached, further publicizing the conflict between them. The United States believes this is the optimal moment to drive a wedge between Denmark and Greenland, attempting to secure the support of the Greenlandic autonomous government by offering economic aid and promising benefits from resource development, thereby bypassing the Danish central government to gain control over Greenland.

Additionally, changes in the global energy landscape also present opportunities for the United States. In 2025, the global energy market remains volatile. Europe faces tight energy supply due to its energy transition and geopolitical conflicts, leading to a significant increase in demand for oil and gas resources from the Arctic region. If the United States can control Greenland's oil and gas resources, it will not only meet its own energy needs but also strengthen economic ties with its European allies by exporting energy to Europe, while simultaneously weakening Russia's influence in the European energy market. Additionally, changes in the global energy landscape also present opportunities for the United States. In 2025, the global energy market remains volatile. Europe faces tight energy supply due to its energy transition and geopolitical conflicts, leading to a significant increase in demand for oil and gas resources from the Arctic region. If the United States can control Greenland's oil and gas resources, it will not only meet its own energy needs but also strengthen economic ties with its European allies by exporting energy to Europe, while simultaneously weakening Russia's influence in the European energy market.

V. The Core Contradictions and Potential Risks of the Game: Diplomatic Crises and Challenges to the International Order

The series of actions by the Trump administration have triggered multiple core contradictions, not only deteriorating the relationship between the United States and its allies but also posing challenges to the existing international order, carrying many unpredictable risks. The series of actions by the Trump administration have triggered multiple core contradictions, not only deteriorating the relationship between the United States and its allies but also posing challenges to the existing international order, carrying many unpredictable risks.

Core contradiction: intense collision of multiple interests

One of the core contradictions: The crisis of mutual trust between the United States and its ally Denmark. Denmark is a NATO member state and a traditional ally of the United States in Europe. The two countries have long maintained close cooperation in areas such as defense and security. However, the Trump administration's recent push to gain control over Greenland completely disregards Denmark's sovereignty, treats Greenland as an entity independent of Denmark, and directly touches upon Denmark's core interests. The Danish government reacted strongly to this: the Danish Foreign Minister explicitly stated that the U.S. appointment was completely unacceptable and urgently summoned the U.S. Ambassador to Denmark to demand an explanation; the Danish Prime Minister and the Premier of Greenland jointly issued a statement, bluntly stating that you cannot annex other countries... Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland, and we decide our own future. This crisis not only damages bilateral relations between the U.S. and Denmark but may also affect NATO's unity—the core principles of NATO are collective defense and mutual trust among allies. The U.S. disregard for an ally's sovereignty may raise concerns among other NATO member states and weaken the alliance's cohesion.

Core Conflict Two: The Sovereignty and Public Opinion Confrontation Between the United States and Greenland. Although Greenland seeks independence, it absolutely does not wish to become U.S. territory. According to polling data from Greenland, approximately 85% of Greenlanders oppose joining the United States, with the vast majority supporting independence from Denmark while insisting on autonomously deciding their own future. Greenlanders hold varying attitudes toward different countries; about half view China's global rise as a positive development, but some oppose Chinese investment. Behind this complex mindset lies a wariness of interference by major powers. The United States' forceful pressure has not only failed to win public support but has instead fueled nationalist sentiment. Local residents even plan to organize large-scale demonstrations when U.S. Special Envoy for Greenland, James Landry, visits Nuuk.

More importantly, the attitude of Greenland's autonomous government is contradictory: on one hand, it clearly defends sovereignty, emphasizing that Greenland's independence and territorial use are determined by itself; on the other hand, due to economic difficulties, it has to seek external cooperation. Aleqa Hammond once stated that it is necessary to do business with the United States and that the door is open in the mining sector. This contradiction stems from Greenland's economic reality—the local economy relies mainly on the public sector, fisheries, and subsidies from Denmark, with only two active mining sites, making it urgent to attract investment in resource development. The United States attempts to leverage this economic demand to infiltrate its influence, but Greenland's sense of autonomy has significantly increased, and it is unwilling to become a vassal of any major power. This mindset of needing cooperation while remaining wary of control has become a major obstacle to the United States' efforts to advance its agenda.

Core Conflict Three: Geopolitical Interest Clash Between the United States and the European Union. Although the EU is not an Arctic state, issues concerning Arctic security, resources, and shipping are closely linked to its interests. While Greenland is not a member of the EU, it maintains close economic and trade ties with the bloc. The United States' attempts to control Greenland are viewed by the EU as an infringement on European geopolitical interests. Following the outbreak of the crisis, the EU swiftly expressed its stance, stating full solidarity with the people of Denmark and Greenland and clearly affirming that Denmark's territorial integrity is of vital importance to the entire EU. Nordic countries such as Norway also followed the EU's lead, publicly supporting Denmark. The escalation of tensions between the United States and the EU will further deepen divisions across the Atlantic, impacting cooperation in areas such as trade and security.

Potential Risks: Challenges to International Order and Regional Security

Beyond the core conflict, the United States' actions also harbor multiple risks: First, the risk of violating international law. According to the UN Charter, national sovereignty and territorial integrity are inviolable, and annexing the territory of another country is a clear violation of international law. The United States' related actions have already drawn widespread criticism from the international community and are seen as a return to imperialist bullying. If the United States insists on proceeding, it may face sanctions and isolation from the international community. Second, the risk of instability in NATO's northern defense line. Denmark is a crucial component of NATO's northern defense line. Deteriorating relations between the United States and Denmark will directly impact NATO's defensive coordination in the northern region, providing opportunities for Russian expansion. Third, the risk of China and Russia seizing the opportunity to expand their influence. The intensification of conflicts between the United States and its allies will offer China and Russia more opportunities to cooperate with Denmark, Greenland, and the European Union. By strengthening scientific research collaboration and providing economic assistance, China and Russia could further enhance their influence in the Arctic region, which would ultimately undermine the United States' Arctic strategy.

VI. The Future Direction of the Game: Limited Room for Compromise Amid Strong Confrontation

Judging from the current situation, Denmark, Greenland, and the European Union have taken a firm stance, making the United States' annexation goal almost impossible to achieve. However, this power struggle will not end easily. It is highly likely to enter a phase of strong confrontation combined with limited compromise in the future, where both sides may seek a new balance under a framework that weakens sovereignty claims and strengthens cooperative management.

First, the United States' annexation objective is difficult to achieve. From the perspective of international law, annexing the territory of another country violates the general consensus of the international community. If the United States insists on advancing this, it will face significant international pressure. From the perspective of public opinion, 85% of Greenland's population opposes joining the United States, indicating an extremely weak public opinion foundation. From the perspective of allied reactions, Denmark and the European Union have formed a united front, openly resisting the United States' actions, making it difficult for the United States to bypass its allies to achieve its goal. Therefore, it is highly likely that the United States will adjust its rhetoric in the future, shifting from annexation to more moderate expressions such as deep cooperation and strategic management, thereby reducing the radical nature of the objective.

Secondly, Denmark and Greenland will further strengthen their sovereign defense. In response to pressure from the United States, Denmark has announced a significant increase in defense investment in Greenland to demonstrate its sovereignty determination; the Greenlandic autonomous government may accelerate discussions on the independence process to resist external pressure by strengthening its own sovereign status. Additionally, Denmark and Greenland will further enhance cooperation with countries and regions such as the European Union, Russia, and China, dispersing risks through multilateral cooperation and reducing dependence on the United States.

Finally, both parties may seek limited compromises in the areas of resource development and military cooperation. The core demand of the United States is to control Greenland's resources and strategic location, while Greenland's core demand is to achieve economic autonomy and sovereignty. In the future, the two sides may engage in limited cooperation without involving sovereignty concessions: for example, U.S. companies participating in the development of Greenland's rare earth resources through fair competition, strengthening scientific research and environmental cooperation in the Arctic region, and the United States continuing to maintain its presence at Pituffik Base while committing to respect Greenland's sovereignty. Such limited compromises could partially meet the strategic needs of the United States while bringing economic benefits to Greenland, making it the most likely outcome of the current game.

Notably, the ultimate direction of this game will also be influenced by domestic politics in the United States. If the actions of the Trump administration trigger widespread opposition within the United States, or if the Republican Party loses its congressional advantage after the midterm elections, the relevant agenda may be forced to be shelved; conversely, if a consensus is formed domestically in the United States, a tougher strategy may continue to be advanced. Additionally, the attitudes of countries such as China and Russia will also impact the direction of the game. If China and Russia increase their support for Greenland, the United States may further escalate pressure, leading to a more tense situation.

Conclusion: A Game Reshaping the Geopolitical Landscape of the Arctic

The Trump administration's push to control Greenland is, in essence, a geopolitical game centered around the Arctic's strategic location and resources, driven by the United States' reassessment of the global geopolitical landscape and its efforts to maintain its own dominance. While this game may seem absurd, it profoundly reflects the deep-seated contradictions within the current global order: the conflict between traditional alliances and emerging geopolitical interests, the confrontation between unilateral hegemony and multilateral consensus, and the struggle between resource competition and sovereign equality. The Trump administration's push to control Greenland is, in essence, a geopolitical game centered around the Arctic's strategic location and resources, driven by the United States' reassessment of the global geopolitical landscape and its efforts to maintain its own dominance. While this game may seem absurd, it profoundly reflects the deep-seated contradictions within the current global order: the conflict between traditional alliances and emerging geopolitical interests, the confrontation between unilateral hegemony and multilateral consensus, and the struggle between resource competition and sovereign equality.

Regardless of the final outcome, this game will have a profound impact on the geopolitical landscape of the Arctic: on one hand, geopolitical competition in the Arctic region will intensify, and the struggle among nations over Arctic resources and shipping routes will escalate further; on the other hand, Greenland's independence process may accelerate, and the power structure in the Arctic region will become more diversified. For the United States, this game is a major test of its alliance system and global influence; for Denmark, Greenland, and the European Union, it is a defensive battle to safeguard sovereignty and geopolitical interests; for the world, it is a challenge and test to the existing international order.

The game on the ice continues. This seemingly unreasonable diplomatic incident will ultimately become a key event reshaping the geopolitical landscape of the Arctic, and will also add a new footnote to the global geopolitical game.