Showdown in the Greenland conflict? Danes and Greenlanders face off in Washington - the key points
"We need Greenland for national security": with statements like these, US President Donald Trump has been causing alarm among allies for days. Now there is a crisis meeting.
14.01.2026, 06:17
14.01.2026, 07:05
SDA
No time? blue News summarizes for you
- Military threats, purchase offers and political escalation: ahead of talks with the US government, there is growing concern in Greenland about losing control of its own future.
- A crisis meeting is now taking place in Washington today.
- In the crisis over the future of the island, which could break up NATO, US Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio will meet with the two heads of foreign affairs from Denmark and Greenland for the first time in Washington on Wednesday.
- Below you will find an overview of questions and answers on the situation.
US President Donald Trump wants to bring Greenland, which belongs to Denmark, under the control of the United States - possibly against the will of the Danes and Greenlanders. Will it come to a showdown at a meeting in Washington today? The presence of a US politician in particular does not bode well for the Danes and Greenlanders. Questions and answers on the situation at a glance:
What will the meeting be about?
The Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and the Greenlandic minister responsible for foreign policy, Vivian Motzfeldt, want to make it clear to the Americans that the USA has no claim to Greenland and that the world's largest island is not for sale. They will probably also argue that Trump's strategic interests can be satisfied in other ways than by annexing Greenland to the USA.
Who are Rasmussen and Motzfeldt talking to?
Originally, the talks were only planned with Foreign Minister Marco Rubio. However, it was announced at short notice that US Vice President JD Vance would also be attending. This is not necessarily a good sign for the guests. In contrast to Rubio, Vance is considered a hardliner and much less diplomatic. He was also instrumental in causing a scandal with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyi in the White House a year ago. Vance had accused Zelensky of ingratitude and disrespect in front of the cameras.
Why does Trump want to control Greenland?
In public statements, Trump justifies his interest with the strategic importance of the world's largest island, which lies between the USA, Russia and Europe and extends far into the Arctic Circle. Greenland, which is largely autonomous but belongs to Denmark and has a population of only around 57,000, is of interest due to its wealth of raw materials and as a base for military control of the Arctic.
In addition, climate change could open up new shipping routes, at least in summer. Trump also refers to the increasing presence of Russian and Chinese ships in the region and claims that Denmark is not in a position to adequately protect Greenland.
Is that true about the Russian and Chinese presence?
Yes, China in particular worries Western military leaders. The commander-in-chief of NATO forces in Europe, Alexus G. Grynkewich, recently commented on possible threats from China, saying that the country is becoming increasingly aggressive, especially in the far north. The Chinese were sending research vessels to the region, which were then presumably carrying out military explorations under a scientific guise. During the most recent ice-free season, ships stayed off the north coast of Alaska for an exceptionally long time. There are also joint patrols with the Russians.
Why doesn't Nato take care of Greenland's security?
This is one of the ideas to defuse the current discussion. Several alliance states have recently spoken out in favor of a stronger alliance presence in the region - including Germany. One of the ideas being discussed is the launch of a new surveillance mission called "Arctic Sentry". It is intended to dispel the Americans' argument that security in the strategically important region cannot be adequately guaranteed.
Does the initiative have any chance of success?
That is unclear. The reason is that NATO missions can only be launched if all allies agree. This also raises the question of whether the USA's interest in Greenland is perhaps less about security and more about raw materials. In this case, a new NATO mission is unlikely to end the Greenland debate. This scenario is supported by the fact that the Danes have no fundamental objections to a US military presence on the island.
The USA already operates the Pituffik Space Base on the island on the basis of agreements with Denmark. Among other things, this base supports missile warning systems as well as missile defense and space surveillance missions.
How is the US military threat seen?
The fact that the Trump administration has not yet ruled out military force to gain control of Greenland is causing great concern in Europe. However, it is likely that the Americans are only using this as a threat to be able to buy the island.
US government spokeswoman Leavitt recently emphasized once again that the USA wanted to buy Greenland because otherwise China or Russia might acquire the island or take it over in a hostile manner. It would be "not only in the best interest of the United States, but possibly also in the best interest of Greenland to become part of the United States", she said.
What does the conflict mean for Nato?
The Greenland debate is highly explosive for Nato. On the one hand, the alliance must fear for its credibility if a leading member suddenly threatens to incorporate territories of another NATO state by force - especially in view of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine and China's claims to Taiwan. On the other hand, it would be a super-GAU for Nato if the USA were to leave the alliance in a dispute over such an issue, because Nato's deterrence is based primarily on its nuclear arsenal and the strength of its conventional armed forces.
And if the USA were to take Greenland by force?
What would happen then is completely unclear. The only certainty is that Denmark would not be able to declare a NATO alliance because the USA would also have to agree to this. In principle, a military confrontation is very unlikely, because no one would presumably mess with the most powerful military power in the world.
Denmark would probably also not be able to request the activation of the mutual assistance clause contained in the EU treaties. According to senior EU officials, this would only be possible if Greenland itself were a member of the EU. However, the Greenlanders voted to leave the then European Community (EC) in 1982.
Would NATO be history in this case?
The Danish head of government, Mette Frederiksen, recently warned that a Greenland annexation by the USA would mean the end of Nato. However, it is questionable whether all alliance states really see it that way. The reason is that US nuclear weapons are still a strong security guarantee and deterrent that no one can currently replace. The Baltic states in particular could come under greater threat from Russia without the NATO umbrella. In any case, NATO's credibility would be severely damaged.
