Recent remarks by the Trump administration about Greenland have sparked a crisis with America’s NATO allies. And, of course, European states have exasperated Trump, and many conservatives, with their demands for indefinite U.S. support of Ukraine in its stalemated conflict with Russia.
It’s time to get creative.
A grand bargain could solve both problems together, with NATO members helping secure American interests in our hemisphere, in exchange for greater American help in theirs.
Trump has good reason to want Greenland, and countering Russia’s expansionism is among them, as Moscow builds its capabilities in the Arctic.
Greenland’s strategic position makes it difficult for the U.S. to countenance its continued administration by a small European state. Copenhagen has also foolishly said that it’s open to Greenlandic independence, which would simply put it up for grabs by China or Russia.
Aside from strategic and resource considerations, Trump’s enthusiasm for the island is likely supported by inchoate considerations of the kind largely ignored by Western strategists in recent decades.
Territorial expansion had long been a part of American greatness, resulting in its present size and far-flung states and territories. But the U.S. has only been giving away its possessions since 1970s, when President Carter diagnosed the country with malaise.
This does not mean Denmark or other European allies should be happy with the U.S. reversing this retreat. The kingdom has been a consistently reliable ally and model NATO member.
Amid the cultural rot of northern Europe, Denmark is a relatively conservative, pro-U.S. government. It speaks well of them that they do not jump to sunder their realm.
Grabbing Greenland will not produce a lasting legacy.
As President Trump seeks to reorient policy to confront China, we need to be able to count on our allies. Moreover, Congress will likely resist passing any governing statutes if they chafe at how U.S. control came about. A Democratic administration would be delighted to have a chance at participating in “decolonization” by giving up the territory.
Under the Constitution, an act of Congress is required to cede territory, but a liberal president would surely determine Greenland was not “belonging to the United States” and thus outside the scope of the Territories clause.
Russia’s immediate proximity and ongoing belligerence further complicates the equation.
European allies within NATO urgently desire heightened American engagement to contain Moscow’s designs in Ukraine; yet appreciable portions of the Republican electoral coalition regard additional commitments as subsidizing European strategic miscalculations without commensurate returns. The current administration, for its part, has manifested increasing exasperation with Russian inflexibility amid stalled diplomatic efforts.
Of course, NATO wants things from America too. Europe fears Russia won’t stop with Ukraine, Denmark’s Baltic location puts it close to the front line, and Russia has already been harassing it with drones, cyberattacks, and naval incidents. But the way to make Ukraine’s war a priority for the U.S. is by ensuring that the U.S. gets tangible benefits for its support.
The United States could ramp up its support for Ukraine through expanded provision of advanced weaponry, enhanced intelligence cooperation, and rejecting diplomatic settlements that reward Putin’s aggression.
In return, NATO, acting in concerted fashion, could pressure Denmark to grant the United States enduring rights in Greenland, framing the arrangement as essential to transatlantic security in the High North.
A variety of solutions could address Danish sensitivities about ceding territory. A renewable long-term lease over the largely uninhabited northern expanses—reminiscent of the British experience in Hong Kong or the American administration of the Panama Canal Zone—could suffice.
Washington is reportedly contemplating a Compact of Free Association with Greenland, similar to those with various Pacific islands. One could have a trilateral compact, with both Denmark and the U.S. as partners in the deal.
This is known in international law as a condominium—and this would be the Biggest Condominium Ever. Given the need for durable congressional support for an acquisition, making it win-win is the art of the deal.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
