Allies' Probing: The Greenland Intelligence Scandal and the Trust Rift in Arctic Geopolitics

In January 2025, an unusual request was sent from the U.S. military to the Danish military command in Greenland—the Arctic Command. Six days later, a second request followed. The content directly sought detailed information on military facilities, ports, and air bases on Greenland. The key point is that these requests bypassed all conventional channels such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defense, attempting to obtain intelligence directly from Danish military colleagues in an almost informal manner. When the Danish newspaper Berlingske disclosed the matter based on a large number of edited defense documents, Copenhagen's reaction was not outrage, but a cold understanding. The Danish side had almost anticipated that such intelligence activities would occur sooner or later after the Trump administration publicly expressed interest in Greenland. This incident is far from an isolated diplomatic faux pas; it is like an ice axe, chipping away at the seemingly solid ice layer between NATO allies, exposing the increasingly complex trust crisis and undercurrents of power in the Arctic strategic game.

Timeline of Events: An Unconventional Intelligence Probe

The two interactions in early 2025 contain intriguing details. According to the disclosed documents, the initial information request occurred on January 16. On January 26, the Danish defense department was notified again that the same unnamed U.S. military personnel had submitted further requests for materials. The content of the requests was described as concerning Greenland's infrastructure, including critical military infrastructure. This phrasing is highly sensitive in diplomatic and military contexts; it likely refers to the locations and capabilities of radar stations, deep-water ports, early warning systems, or submarine surveillance networks.

Analysis indicates that the essence of the requested content exceeds the scope of conventional allied intelligence sharing, more closely resembling reconnaissance data collection targeting specific objectives. Danish media even stated outright that such information could hold significant importance for U.S. plans to invade the island. Despite the sharp wording, it pinpointed the core issue: what the United States is attempting to obtain is critical intelligence sufficient to assess Greenland's military vulnerabilities and potential operational pathways.

What's even more intriguing is the method of operation. The contact clearly occurred outside of conventional channels. Typically, military information exchanges among NATO allies, especially those involving sensitive information within each other's territorial sovereignty, are reported and coordinated through strict diplomatic or high-level defense channels. This time, U.S. personnel directly engaged with the Danish tactical command in Greenland, attempting to establish a shortcut. This in itself sends a signal: the U.S. side may perceive the regular channels as inefficient or at risk of political scrutiny, thus opting for a more direct and suspicion-prone path.

The response from the U.S. Embassy in Copenhagen is a classic example of diplomatic rhetoric. They told Berlingske that it should not surprise anyone that the United States engages in dialogue and maintains contact with partners in Greenland and Denmark, as both sides are working together to ensure the security of the alliance and the Arctic region. This statement frames the incident as normal collaboration among allies, attempting to downplay its unconventional and sensitive nature, while avoiding any mention of the core fact that it bypassed regular channels.

Historical Background and Political Context: Trump's "Greenland Obsession"

To understand why this intelligence probe has raised such high alert in Denmark, it must be placed within a specific political context. Before the incident, a key figure had just visited Greenland: on January 7, 2025, Donald Trump Jr., the son of former U.S. President Donald Trump, visited this vast ice-covered island. Although the purpose of his trip was not detailed, the coincidence in timing is enough to spark connections for any observer.

Donald Trump Jr.'s visit seemed to serve as a subtle prelude to the subsequent intelligence request. More importantly, his father, former President Trump, who was likely planning a return to the White House at the time, had long made his interest in Greenland an open secret. Over the past year, Trump repeatedly claimed publicly that the United States desired to acquire Greenland. He viewed the world's largest island as a strategic asset and even proposed the idea of purchasing it, despite outright rejections from Denmark and Greenland's autonomous government. Such rhetoric, which commodifies sovereign territory, severely undermined the dignity of Denmark as a sovereign nation and a NATO ally.

Trump's remarks are not a spur-of-the-moment whim. Behind them lies a strategic calculation based on realism: as the Arctic ice cap melts, new shipping routes and resource extraction possibilities emerge, causing Greenland's strategic value to soar dramatically. It commands the North Atlantic and Arctic routes between North America and Europe, boasting abundant rare earth minerals and potential oil and gas resources. Controlling or deeply influencing Greenland means securing an absolute advantage in the reshaping geopolitical landscape of the Arctic.

Therefore, from the perspective of Denmark, this intelligence probe in early 2025 is likely not an unauthorized action by lower-level officials, but rather reflects the mindset of certain political and military forces in the United States that continue to view Greenland as a strategic target that can be pursued and planned for. When the highest political levels repeatedly express intentions to acquire it, it becomes logical for intelligence and military departments to take corresponding actions as preliminary groundwork. This is precisely the source of Denmark's anticipatory psychology—they have long been waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Alliance Trust and Sovereignty Game: Subtle Cracks Within the NATO Framework

The core conflict of this incident lies in the fact that it has shaken the most fundamental cornerstone of trust within the NATO alliance. Denmark is one of the United States' oldest NATO allies, and Greenland served as a crucial forward outpost for North American air defense during the Cold War. The Thule Air Base remains a pillar of the U.S. Arctic strategy to this day. The two sides have engaged in decades of deep cooperation in intelligence sharing and base utilization.

However, the prerequisite for cooperation is mutual respect for sovereignty. The United States bypassed the central government of Denmark and directly requested intelligence concerning core defense matters from the military units of its autonomous territory. This behavior conveys at least two unsettling subtexts: first, the U.S. may believe that on certain specific issues, it can establish a special relationship with the Greenland local authorities that transcends Copenhagen; second, the U.S. harbors doubts about whether the Danish government can or is willing to provide all the information it requires, thus attempting to open a second track.

This approach directly undermines Denmark's authority as the ultimate responsible party for Greenland's foreign affairs and defense. For Copenhagen, this is not merely an intelligence incident but also a test of sovereignty. Greenland enjoys a high degree of autonomy, but the constitution stipulates that foreign affairs, defense, and security matters remain the responsibility of the Danish government. The United States' actions blur this red line.

From the perspective of the NATO mechanism, espionage activities among allies are not unprecedented in themselves. Historically, cases of the United States monitoring European allies such as France and Germany have been repeatedly exposed. However, such activities typically target economic and technological secrets or high-level political trends, and once exposed, they often trigger serious diplomatic disputes. The difference in this incident lies in that its target directly points to military facilities on the sovereign territory of an ally, and its purpose is more likely related to potential strategic operational planning rather than general intelligence gathering. This touches a much more sensitive nerve.

Denmark's response was relatively restrained, opting not to escalate immediately into an open diplomatic protest but instead using media disclosures for controlled leaks. This in itself is a form of diplomatic art: it both expresses concerns and dissatisfaction to the domestic public and the United States, while leaving room for maneuver for both sides, avoiding a complete deterioration of relations in the context of Trump's potential return to power. However, behind this restraint lies a deep sense of powerlessness combined with heightened vigilance.

The profound impact of the Arctic geopolitical landscape.

The Greenland intelligence incident is a microcosm of the intensifying great power competition in the Arctic region. The Arctic is transforming from the periphery of the world into a central stage of geopolitics. Russia is vigorously strengthening its military presence in the Arctic, while China, positioning itself as a near-Arctic state, actively participates in Arctic affairs through scientific research and investment. The United States, on the other hand, is eager to consolidate its leadership and ensure control over key nodes and resources.

In this game, Greenland is the pivotal point. The logic behind the United States' actions reflects that its Arctic strategy is becoming more unilateral and pragmatic, even at the expense of pressuring its allies. Its goal is to firmly secure strategic advantages before the influence of China and Russia deepens in the Arctic. Obtaining detailed military geographic intelligence on Greenland is a prerequisite for any long-term strategic deployment or crisis contingency plan.

However, this approach may backfire. Firstly, it could prompt Denmark and Greenland to become more cautious in security cooperation, even seeking diversified partnerships to balance U.S. influence. Secondly, it sends a warning signal to other Arctic countries, such as Canada and Norway: even the closest allies may see their sovereignty placed in a secondary position when it comes to the core strategic interests of the United States. This could lead to a trust deficit in Arctic security cooperation, making it more difficult to establish multilateral and transparent Arctic security mechanisms.

For the local Greenlandic community, the incident has intensified the sense of being caught between two major powers. On one hand, Greenland desires economic development and greater autonomy, finding American capital and technology appealing; on the other hand, preserving its historical and cultural ties with Denmark and maintaining sovereignty integrity remain fundamental. The direct overtures from the United States may intensify internal debates in Greenland regarding its future direction.

In early 2025, this seemingly low-profile intelligence request was like a stone thrown into an icy lake, its ripples continuing to spread. It reveals a stark reality: in the new era of the Arctic, where climate change is reshaping geography and great-power competition is redrawing boundaries, traditional alliance loyalties and diplomatic protocols are under immense pressure. To address the challenges of the so-called era of great-power competition, the United States is adopting a more aggressive and transactional mode of action, even when dealing with its allies.

Denmark's anticipated mindset is a sober pessimism. It signifies that within the transatlantic alliance, a certain tacit consensus is loosening—allies are not only partners but may also become pawns or obstacles in strategic layouts. Beneath Greenland's ice and snow, what surges is not only untapped resources but also the undercurrents of great-power ambitions and the difficult-to-reconcile trust among allies. This turmoil will not easily subside; it will become a repeatedly cited case in future Arctic and even broader North Atlantic security dialogues, reminding all nations that in the face of absolute strategic interests, nothing can be taken for granted, including the trust of allies.

Reference materials

https://www.rbc.ua/rus/news/ssha-taemno-namagalisya-otrimati-informatsiyu-1768745287.html

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/PdRBJ6/usa-fiskade-efter-militara-hemligheter-pa-gronland