With the arrival of Trump’s second presidency in the US, Greenland has ever since been one of the boiling pots, along with tariffs, the Ukraine-Russia and Palestinian-Israeli wars, and many minor and not-so-minor economic, geopolitical, and geostrategic aches and pains.
Importance of Greenland
Greenland is the world’s largest island, in the North Atlantic Ocean of the North Pole region, covering around 2.16 million sq km, almost one-third of Australia. Its closest neighbor, Canada, is only 26 km away, while Iceland is the nearest southeastern country, with a distance of about 300 km in between. Geographically, Though, Greenland is part of North America, and that is one of the geostrategic reasons the Trump administration desires to own it, but politically and culturally, it’s considered part of Europe as an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. With 2/3 of its area lying above the Arctic Circle, the sun does not set there from 25 May to 25 Jul, and 21 Jun, being the longest day of the year, is observed as a national holiday. Fishing and the allied industry are the main occupations of its people. It is very rich in minerals and is the most important country geo-strategically, lying amidst the US, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, and Russia, hugging it in the eastern border from north to south. During World War II, the US occupied Greenland for national security reasons after Germany took control of Denmark. In 1949, after many deliberations, the US settled to hand over Greenland once Denmark agreed to join NATO. With the inauguration of his second term, Trump has repeatedly reiterated his intention to capture Greenland and incorporate it into US territory. Not only that, he desires to occupy Gaza similarly, forcing Muslim occupants to migrate to Jordan, Syria, and other Arabian countries.
Mercator asserts that Greenland’s distance from the equator inflates its size and area. The equator exaggerates areas towards the North and South Poles, making them appear larger than landmasses closer to the equator. Greenland appears to be the same size as Africa on the map, yet Africa’s landmass is actually fourteen times larger than the island. Similarly, India is significantly larger than Greenland, with India’s area being approximately 3.287 million sq. km compared to Greenland’s 2.166 million sq. km. India looks smaller in size comparatively on the map due to the Mercator projection in cartography. Due to the massive size of Greenland, with Nuuk as its capital and a tiny population of less than 57,000, it is the least densely populated country in the world, with 0.026 people per square kilometer. A vast ice sheet primarily covers 80% of its surface.
Iceland vs. Greenland
Ironically, though it is called Iceland, it is far greener than its neighbor Greenland due to its milder climate and the benefit of longer hours of daylight during the midnight sun. Unlike Greenland, Iceland is an independent country and part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance. Iceland’s greenery benefits from the long hours of daylight during the midnight sun. Iceland is highly volcanic, known for its flames, beautiful landscape, hot springs, and glaciers, and nicknamed the Land of Fire & Ice, with its only big city, Reykjavik, the largest and most populous capital city, where nearly 65% of its population thrives on plant life and fisheries. Iceland is not a member of the European Union (EU), but it is part of the European Economic Area (EEA) and the Schengen Area, which allows for close integration with the EU’s single market and free movement of people. Being under Denmark, Greenland is not an independent country, and its status is as an Overseas Country and Territory (OCT) associated with the EU, a dependent territory with a special relationship with Denmark, a member state of the EU, and being a part of the Council of Europe and NATO as part of Denmark. Thus, the US has a bigger hold on Iceland vis-à-vis Greenland for its futuristic geostrategic interests, being a protectorate of Denmark, although the majority of Greenland’s population wants to be an independent European country like Iceland. It goes without saying, besides the US, Russia, and China’s interest in both the countries, while the EU desires complete hold on both these island countries, being politically part of Europe.
The US Navy had Naval Air Station Keflavik (NASKEF) stationed in Iceland that was closed on 8 Sept 2006, and its facilities were taken over by the Icelanders until 1 Jan 2011 and handed over to the Icelandic Coast Guard that operated the base until 2017. In 2016, the US forces returned to Keflavik and renovated parts of the base for short-duration expeditionary detachments.
Greenland is a significantly bigger country than Iceland, BUT population-wise, Iceland, with 39,8000 people (3.78 people per sq km), has 7 times the population of Greenland’s 56,600 (with 0.14 people per sq km). But both countries have many similarities, like shared history, Nordic culture, geographical proximity, tourism, sparse population, similar language and culture, fishing-based economies, Christianity, parliamentary systems, NATO membership, and spectacular wildlife. Both countries are thus equally important to rival powers, but mineral-rich Greenland, being bigger and a protectorate of Denmark, appears economically and strategically more viable to take under his control.
Trump’s Changing Whims & Fancies
As per the Indian Express dated 3 Apr 2025, the Chilean President Gabriel Boric (39), half the age of Trump (78), visiting India, slammed the US President, saying President Donald Trump, ‘represents everything I oppose.’ During his 2nd tenure, World leaders including once his closest friends like Keir Starmer, Modi, Macron, Netanyahu, EU President Ursula, and many others, doubt Trump’s trust, dependability, diligence, performance, integrity, knowledge, wisdom, and diplomacy for lasting international relationships, much to the musings of Putin and Xi Jinping.
Impulsive decisions and a volatile temperament, often leading to unpredictable outcomes, have marked Donald Trump’s second tenure as president. His bombastic rhetoric and self-assured demeanor have drawn widespread criticism, particularly for policies that reduced funding in vital sectors like justice, education, and healthcare. These measures have sparked debates about their long-term effects on public welfare. Furthermore, his tariff strategies have created global economic uncertainty, leaving allies and adversaries alike navigating the repercussions. It seems his first tenure’s dynamics between Modi and Trump have shifted over time with the commencement of his 2nd tenure as president. While their earlier camaraderie, highlighted by slogans like ‘Ab Ki Baar Trump Sarkar’ (and he lost that election to Biden), symbolized a strong bond, recent developments suggest a more pragmatic relationship. Modi’s last US visit focused on trade, defense, and strategic ties, but Trump’s tariff policies and his rhetoric on India’s trade practices may have introduced some friction, as relationships between leaders often evolve based on changing political and economic scenarios and priorities.
Trump’s arrogance and disrespect for rules and regulations as enshrined in the US constitution is poorly reflected in his desire to get re-elected for a third term in 2029, notwithstanding that the US Constitution is famously rigid when it comes to amendments. Changing it requires a supermajority’s two-thirds approval in both the House of Representatives (435) and the Senate (100), followed by ratification from three-fourths of state legislatures. Without widespread bipartisan support, it’s nearly impossible to push through such changes. Trump, lacking the necessary majority in Congress or state legislatures, would face insurmountable hurdles in attempting to amend the Constitution for a third term. It is a safeguard designed to prevent unilateral power grabs while ensuring stability in the democratic process, which is indeed a very intricate system.
Why is Trump Over-Fascinated with Greenland?
Donald Trump’s fascination with Greenland stems from its strategic and economic significance. Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark, is rich in rare earth minerals, which are crucial for advanced industries like technology and defense. Additionally, its location in the Arctic makes it a key player in global shipping routes and military strategy, especially as melting ice opens new pathways. Trump has repeatedly expressed interest in acquiring Greenland, citing national security and resource access as primary reasons. However, not only the EU, Russia, and China, but also Denmark and Greenland have resisted his overtures. Before World War I and World War II, America approached Greenland with more strategic curiosity and cautious intellectual interest than active intervention. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the prevailing spirit of American expansionism, even under the guidance of the Monroe Doctrine, led some US policymakers and influential figures to view any European colonial holding in the Western Hemisphere as potentially subject to American influence. Despite its distance and sparse population, Greenland was viewed as a remote yet intriguing player in the vast chessboard of hemispheric security and influence. There were early musings and debates about acquiring territories that could bolster national defense and economic interests, and Greenland naturally found itself mentioned among these possibilities. Trump now also thinks about the Gaza Strip and numerous islands across the globe.
The US indeed maintained a military base in Greenland known today as Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base until its renaming in 2023) as the US Department of Defense’s northernmost installation. Originally established as a radio and weather station in 1946 under a cooperative arrangement with Denmark, the base was expanded following a 1951 defense agreement during the early Cold War era. Its strategic location, roughly 1,200 kilometers north of the Arctic Circle and less than 1,500 kilometers from Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, positions it as a vital asset for missile warning, missile defense, and space extending far beyond its geographic placement under shared US and NATO frameworks, in a region where the dynamics of international security are intensifying, fueled by climatic conditions.
The Vice President, JD Vance, and his wife, Usha Vance, visited Greenland together on 28 Mar 2023 with a stop at the Pituffik Space Base, an American military installation in Greenland. The visit was scaled back due to diplomatic tensions, as the original itinerary had sparked backlash from Greenlanders and Danes. The occasion marked the first-ever US Vice President visit to Greenland, which sparked significant controversy. Greenland’s leaders have expressed anger and frustration, viewing the visit as a provocation amidst ongoing US rhetoric about acquiring the territory. The timing of the visit has also raised concerns, as Greenland is navigating a contested parliamentary election and discussions about greater autonomy from Denmark. Usha Vance’s trip, which includes attending Greenland’s national dog-sled race and visiting cultural sites, has been framed by the US as a gesture of goodwill. However, Greenland’s outgoing Prime Minister, Múte Bourup Egede has criticized the visit as part of a broader pressure campaign by the Trump administration.
Reactions World Over
The reactions to the U.S. military presence at Pituffik Space Base in Greenland vary widely among nations:
- Denmark has expressed concerns about the tone of US officials, particularly Vice President JD Vance, during his visit to Greenland. Danish leaders have criticized the perceived pressure from the US and emphasized Greenland’s sovereignty.
- The United Kingdom has not made any direct statements about the base recently, but it generally supports NATO operations, which include the US presence in Greenland.
- France has reported on the controversy surrounding the US Vice President and 2nd lady’s visit to Greenland, highlighting local outrage and concerns over sovereignty.·
- Germany has not issued specific statements about the base but is likely monitoring the situation as part of broader NATO interests.
- The European Union has shown support for Denmark and Greenland sovereignty while acknowledging the strategic importance of the Arctic region.
- China is one of the nations showing interest in Arctic resources and passageways, which has raised concerns among US officials.
- Russia views the US presence in Greenland as a strategic challenge and has warned of potential conflicts in the Arctic region.
- India is watching the base’s developments due to its interest in global geopolitics. The visit of Vance to Greenland has significant geopolitical implications, particularly in the context of Arctic politics and global power dynamics:
- Arctic Geopolitics Greenland’s strategic location in the Arctic makes it a focal point for global powers. The US sees Greenland as a critical asset for national security, given its proximity to emerging Arctic shipping routes and its vast reserves of rare earth minerals. The visit underscores the US’s intent to strengthen its influence in the Arctic, countering the growing presence of Russia and China in the region.
- Tensions with Denmark and Greenland – The visit has strained US-Danish relations, as Denmark controls Greenland’s foreign affairs. Greenlandic leaders have criticized the visit as a provocation, especially in light of President Trump’s renewed interest in acquiring Greenland. The visit has heightened concerns about US intentions and Greenland’s sovereignty.
- Russian and Chinese Reactions – Russia has capitalized on the situation by intensifying its military presence in the Arctic, signaling its dominance in the region. China, too, has been increasing its Arctic activities, viewing Greenland as a potential partner for resource extraction and infrastructure projects. People perceive the US visit as a countermeasure against these influences, yet it could potentially escalate tensions with both countries.
- Impact on NATO and EU Relations – The visit has raised questions about the US’s approach to its NATO allies and the EU. Denmark and other European nations have expressed concerns about the US’s unilateral actions, which could undermine collective Arctic strategies. Such an outcome could lead to a reevaluation of Arctic policies within NATO and the EU. The US desire to usurp the Gaza strip reinforces American expansionist policies.
- Greenland’s Autonomy and Local Sentiments – Greenland is navigating a contested political landscape, with ongoing discussions about greater autonomy from Denmark. The visit has fueled local skepticism about the US intentions, with many Greenlanders viewing it as an infringement on their sovereignty. The visit could impact Greenland’s internal politics and its relationship with both Denmark and the US.
The visit highlights the complex interplay of national security, resource competition, and sovereignty in the Arctic. It also reminds us of the region’s growing importance in global geopolitics and the challenges of balancing strategic interests with diplomatic relations.
On the onset, why were the Vice President and 2nd lady Mrs. Vance allowed to visit Greenland? As a matter of diplomatic courtesy, Denmark granted permission for the visit based on established protocols and agreements with the US. Under the 1951 defense agreement, the US is entitled to access its military base in Greenland, provided it notifies Greenland and Denmark in advance. While the visit stirred controversy, Denmark and Greenland likely felt obligated to honor these agreements to maintain friendly diplomatic relations and avoid escalating tensions with the US.
However, the visit was scaled back significantly due to protests and public outrage in both Nuuk and Copenhagen. Greenland’s leaders criticized the visit as disrespectful and provocative, especially given the Trump administration’s rhetoric about acquiring Greenland. Despite these objections, the US delegation limited its activities to the military base, avoiding public engagements.
Many diplomatic and military thinkers feel that the US could pester Iceland for a military base, not realizing the fact that Iceland’s status as an independent country contrasts with Greenland’s position as a self-governing territory under Denmark. This distinction explains why the US might approach these two regions differently. Iceland, being fully sovereign, has its government and international policies, which means any US actions or agreements would require direct negotiation with Iceland itself. Iceland also upholds its autonomy strongly, and its relationship with the US is based on NATO cooperation rather than dependence. Though Iceland is not a member of the EU, it is part of the European Economic Area (EEA) and the Schengen Area, allowing for close economic and travel integration with the EU. Furthermore, its smaller size and comparatively meager resources are overtaken by Greenland’s massive size and richness in minerals in the US strategic thought process.
Greenland, on the other hand, while self-governing, still relies on Denmark for defense and foreign affairs, giving Denmark a say in Greenland’s dealings with other nations. This status as a protectorate adds an additional layer of complexity but also provides the US with a channel to engage through Denmark, leveraging existing defense agreements such as the 1951 Greenland Defense Treaty. Furthermore, Greenland’s pursuit of greater autonomy makes its relationship with Denmark and external powers, like the US, more sensitive and multifaceted.
In essence, Iceland’s independence and Greenland’s protectorate status shape the way the US interacts with them. Greenland’s natural resources and strategic location under its unique political status amplify its importance in the US’s Arctic strategy.
Last Post-Trump Tariffs in the Globe
As I finish my article, Trump slapped India with tariffs while others got varying punches while unveiling a sweeping tariff policy, branding it as ‘Liberation Day.’ The plan introduces a baseline 10% tariff on nearly all imports, with higher rates for specific countries, including a 26% “reciprocal tariff” on Indian goods and 34% on Chinese products. The move aims to counteract what Trump describes as unfair trade practices and to bolster American industries. The immediate implementation of these tariffs coincides with the impending rollout of additional measures, including a 25% tariff on foreign automobiles. The reactions to Trump’s tariffs have been intense and varied:
- EU leaders, including EU President Ursula von der Leyen, have condemned the tariffs as a “major blow to the world economy’ and are preparing countermeasures. They view the move as unjustified and harmful to global trade relations.
- Russia, interestingly, was excluded from the tariff list due to existing sanctions that have already minimized trade between the two countries. However, this exclusion has sparked criticism, with some suggesting it reflects Trump’s favorable stance toward Russia.
- China has strongly opposed the tariffs, labeling them as “unilateral bullying practices” and violations of international trade norms. Beijing has vowed to implement countermeasures to protect its interests.
- India’s reaction to Trump’s tariffs has been a measured one. The Indian government has characterized the 26% reciprocal tariff as a “complex situation” rather than a significant setback. Officials are analyzing the impact of these tariffs, which include a universal 10% baseline tariff starting from 5 April 2025, with an additional 16% from 10 April 2025. India is also in ongoing discussions with the US to finalize a bilateral trade agreement by fall, which could potentially mitigate the effects of these tariffs. The Indian stock market reacted negatively to the announcement, with indices like the Nifty 50 and BSE Sensex experiencing declines. Key sectors such as automobiles and manufacturing are expected to face challenges, while the IT and pharmaceutical industries remain relatively insulated for now.
The global trade landscape is evidently changing, and these reactions underscore the simmering tensions among major economies. It does seem like the dynamics have shifted dramatically. The once-celebrated camaraderie between Modi and Trump, marked by their public displays of friendship, now faces the harsh realities of international trade policies. The tariffs announced by Trump today signal a more transactional approach, leaving little room for the warmth of ‘jhappi-sappis’ moments. The situation serves as a stark reminder that in geopolitics, national interests often take precedence over personal rapport.
To sum up, Mr. Trump, rest assured, tariffs or NO tariffs, Greenland is NOT for sale, Gaza is NOT for sale, India is NOT for sale, & the world is NOT for sale!