Why the US acquisition of Greenland should be taken seriously, and may be the perfect stepping stone for US-EU relations

In 2019 US President Donald Trump proposed the idea of the United States purchasing the autonomous region of Greenland from the Kingdom of Denmark. The Danes responded by simply saying that Greenland is not for sale, and many criticized the idea as ridiculous. However there is an argument to be made that a US acquisition of Greenland or perhaps an independent Greenland with strong US ties, may make sense and be beneficial to all involved, the US, Greenland, Denmark and the EU. To explain my position I will first introduce some aspects of the current geopolitical situation in Europe and the Arctic.

Since the end of the Second World War the United States has maintained a large troop presence in Western Europe, in order to deter the expansion of the Soviet Union, and then later Russia. For decades this troop presence in Western Europe has made sense, after the fall of the Soviet Union US troops on the ground helped reassure the country’s commitment to defend Europe, and helped to prompt newly independent former Soviet republics to increase ties with the west, with many joining both NATO and the EU. In the present day this situation is beginning to shift. With the UK leaving the EU the United States is losing influence with what is often considered its closest ally. This act has increased the weight of both the French and the Germans within the EU. France has long sought to maintain military independence from the United States, with no US troops present in the country, and public opinion in Germany is favoring either a full removal or reduction of US troop numbers within Germany. Across the Atlantic the US is facing internal pressure as well which prompted Donald Trump to order the removal of 12,000 US troops from Germany in 2020. On the surface this may seem like a trend towards granting a Russia which has shown its willingness to acquire territory by force free roam over Eastern Europe, however Russia’s strategic position is evolving as well. Russia typically seen as a declining power with a shrinking population and a stagnant economy is being thrown a lifeline through global warming. The warming of the Planets arctic region is opening up a new Northern Sea Route in a region dominated by Russia. The proposed Northern Sea Route reduces the shipping distance between Europe and Asia by about a 3rd of the current distance. Russia sees this as a grand geopolitical strategy and has begun investing heavily in the region.

Now, back to Greenland and Denmark. Greenland has a small population and its economy is poorly developed with much of it based off of fishing. Greenland is heavily dependent on Danish subsidies to help fund its infrastructure and its government, meanwhile Denmark is growing rather unenthusiastic about funding for a region in which support for independence is strong. The roughly 3 billion dollars provided to Greenland by Denmark would be an insignificant amount for the United States to pick up, and could easily be increased, benefitting Greenland.

If the United States were to acquire Greenland or develop some sort of special partnership with an independent Greenland, NATO’s presence in the Arctic would greatly benefit. This would give the United States grounds for operation on both ends of the Northern Sea Route (Alaska). A move such as this one would allow the United States the ability to pressure Russia in the Arctic, as well as China indirectly who is also interested in the region. With the US pressuring the Russian Arctic, and ensuring is continued ability to globally enforce the Freedom of the Seas, the idea of removing US troops from mainland Europe becomes much more achievable. The country would still be able to play an active role in the European theater while also taking a step back and giving Western Europe the space needed to reassert itself militarily on the global stage. These actions would fulfill several desires for all actors. The United States would improve its strategic positioning in the Arctic, reduce the number of military personnel in Europe while maintaining a nearby presence to ensure its allies of its support, and further incentivize the EU to meet its NATO obligations. The EU would be able to act upon its citizen’s desires of removing or reducing the amount of US troops on the continent and would be able to sneak further away from America’s shadow and develop its own path forward for the 21st century. Denmark would be relieved of providing Greenland with its annual subsidies, and Greenlanders would be in position to receive much more funding and investment into the islands infrastructure. Of course above all else the desires of Greenlanders should be considered, but the potential of this strategic partnership is too great to not receive serious consideration.