Invasion isn't the Point: The Real US Strategy for Greenland
At the World Economic Forum in Davos yesterday, Donald Trump’s address to the global elite sent a ripple through the polished forums of the Swiss Alps. Few came expecting geopolitical fireworks; many left unsettled. In a speech that explicitly linked American security guarantees to control of the High North, Mr Trump argued that the United States could no longer subsidise the defence of the region without holding the keys to the territory itself. He framed Greenland not as a distant ally but as strategic terrain the United States must secure. He insisted any solution must make both NATO and Washington “very happy'” dismissing the notion that allies could responsibly steward the island’s future without American leadership.
Those remarks elevated what had been a quixotic policy backwater into the realm of serious international crisis. Yet even as markets and capitals scrambled to price the risk, much of the commentary missed a basic point: the United States already occupies the strategic high ground in the Arctic. Under the 1951 defence agreement, Washington enjoys effectively unrestricted access to Greenland’s airspace and waters and operates the island’s most critical military installation, a linchpin of US missile defence and early-warning systems, without paying rent. The American presence is entrenched. An invasion would amount to a hostile takeover of an asset already under operational control.
This is why the fixation on “invasion” is a distraction. The noise from Washington is not about seizing land from Denmark; it is about freezing politics in Nuuk. The real object of American concern is not Copenhagen, long a broadly compliant intermediary, but Greenland’s independence movement. For decades, western capitals treated the prospect of sovereignty with indulgent sympathy, a neat expression of self-determination that could be absorbed into the existing security order. That assumption has now collapsed.
From Washington’s perspective, the danger is not that Greenland remains Danish, but that it ceases to be so. Denmark provides a geopolitical wrapper that matters far more than it appears. Copenhagen absorbs fiscal costs, administers governance and diplomacy, and supplies a legal shield that keeps rival powers at bay. As long as Greenland sits within the Danish kingdom, it is not a free agent. That arrangement has suited the United States perfectly.
Remove that wrapper and the arithmetic changes abruptly. An independent Greenland would be a sovereign state of fewer than 60,000 people occupying some of the most valuable strategic geography on the planet. It would inherit the right to choose its partners and negotiate access, but also a large fiscal gap: Danish transfers cover roughly half of public spending. Independence without replacement revenue would mean immediate economic strain.
The nightmare scenario in Washington is not a hostile Greenland, but a transactional one. A sovereign Nuuk could reasonably ask why the United States pays nothing for facilities underpinning its nuclear deterrent and space surveillance. It might treat the American presence as an asset to be monetised, or invite alternatives from Beijing offering infrastructure or mining investment with obvious dual-use potential. Seen this way, the rhetoric from Davos looks less like imperial impulse and more like pre-emption.
Denmark is left squeezed between American security imperatives and Greenlandic aspirations. The irony is stark: a movement seeking to escape one colonial legacy may have invited a far more powerful overlord. The tragedy is not the threat of war, but the narrowing of choice. The United States does not need to invade to get what it wants; it simply needs to ensure that no one else ever gets the chance to pay the rent.
If you would like to receive The Daily Update to your inbox, please email markets@epicip.com or click the link below.