How was Donald Trump able to ‘occupy’ Greenland?

Donald Trump wants to take Greenland, and the White House has confirmed that all options, including the use of force, are on the table.

A military operation is just one of a variety of economic and political options being considered, but since it would be an attack by one NATO member on another, such a move would be a nightmare for the NATO alliance and would likely be an existential scenario.

Trump has repeatedly said Greenland is vital to U.S. national security and claimed without evidence that it is “covered all over with Russian and Chinese ships.”

Drawing on the expertise of experts from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Denmark, we consider the various options the President could consider and the possible justifications for each.

Defense analysts say a lightning operation to retake Greenland could be accomplished relatively easily, but the consequences would be enormous.

Although geographically large, Greenland has a population of only about 58,000, about a third of whom are concentrated in the capital, Nuuk, with most of the remainder living on the west coast.

The territory has no military of its own and is defended by Denmark, but its air and naval assets are limited to cover such a large territory.

Most police forces are monitored only by the Sirius Patrol, a Danish special operations force that relies primarily on dog sleds.

However, Denmark significantly increased defense spending in the Arctic and North Atlantic regions, including Greenland, last year.

Its vast size, small population and lack of military forces would make it a target for the United States, which already has more than 100 soldiers permanently stationed at the Pitupik facility on Greenland’s northwestern tip.

The facility could theoretically serve as a logistics base for future operations.

The base has existed since World War II, when American troops were stationed on the island following the Nazi occupation of Denmark to establish military and radio stations.

Hans Tito Hansen, Danish security expert and CEO of Risk Intelligence, explained how a US operation to occupy Greenland could work.

According to Hansen, the Alaska-based 11th Airborne Division, which includes two Arctic brigades capable of parachute or helicopter-borne missions, will be a “key capability” in any invasion, with “support from Air Force and Navy assets.”

His assessment echoed that of Justin Crump, a British Army Reserve officer who heads risk and intelligence company Sibylline.

“The United States has overwhelming naval power and the ability to transport quite large numbers of troops,” he said. “You can easily fly enough troops in one lift to have one for every few people in your population.”

Crump added that while this option would be ruthless, it would also potentially be bloodless and face little resistance.

But several former U.S. officials and defense analysts said a military operation was extremely unlikely given the far-reaching implications for the U.S.-European alliance.

“It clearly violates all international law,” said Mick Mulroy, a former Marine, CIA paramilitary officer and deputy assistant secretary of defense. “Not only are they not a threat to the United States, they are treaty allies.”

Malloy said that if the White House begins to move toward a military option, it will face resistance from lawmakers designed to preempt the War Powers Act, which is designed to limit the president’s ability to wage war without congressional approval.

“I don’t think there will be any support in Congress to destroy the NATO alliance,” he said.

The United States may have deep pockets, but according to Nuuk and Copenhagen, Greenland is not for sale.

The BBC’s U.S. news partner CBS, citing lawmakers and sources familiar with the discussions, reported that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had told members of Congress that the purchase was the administration’s preferred option, striking a different tone from the White House.

But even if Greenland wanted to be sold, such a deal would be very complicated.

All funding would have to come from Congress, and acquiring Greenland through a treaty would require the support of two-thirds of senators. Experts say this will be difficult to secure.

The European Union must also sign up to the deal.

Trump could theoretically try to strike a deal unilaterally without involving Greenland or Congress, but experts believe that is extremely unlikely.

Professor Monica Hakimi, an international law expert at Columbia University, said it was “conceivable a situation” in which Denmark, the United States and Greenland would agree to terms for ceding territory.

“(But) for it to be fully consistent with international law, such a treaty would probably also have to include participation in Greenland’s right to self-determination,” she added.

It is unclear how much it will cost to purchase the island. That could complicate things for Trump, who campaigned on an “America First” platform.

The prospect of billions or even trillions of U.S. tax dollars being spent on ice-covered islands could have a very bad impact on his MAGA base.

But Crump believes military options could be more attractive to Trump if the island purchase fails. This is especially true for an administration that recently benefited from the successful operation to capture Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela.

“He’ll say, ‘I’ll just take it,’” Crump said of President Trump.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who will meet with Danish officials next week to discuss Greenland, said Trump “is not the first American president to look at or look at ways in which we can acquire territory.”

He was referring to President Harry Truman, who in 1946 proposed the idea of ​​paying Denmark $100 million in gold to purchase Greenland.

Opinion polls show that a majority of Greenlanders want independence from Denmark.

But polls also show they don’t want to be part of America.

Nonetheless, the United States could step up its efforts to win the favor of the islanders through short-term financial incentives or the prospect of future economic benefits.

Already, U.S. media reports indicate that U.S. intelligence agencies are increasing surveillance of Greenland’s independence movement and working to identify individuals who may support the administration’s goals.

Imran Bayouni, a geostrategy expert at the Atlantic Council in Washington DC and a former Pentagon policy adviser, told the BBC that an “influence campaign” was much more likely than military action.

He explained that this campaign could help lead Greenland to independence.

“Then Greenland could have the U.S. government as its partner after it declares independence,” he said. “The cost of military action is too high.”

This kind of partnership is not unprecedented.

For example, the United States has signed similar agreements with Pacific countries, including Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands. These countries are all independent states that grant defense rights to the United States.

In return, citizens of these three countries get the opportunity to live and work in the United States.

But that may not satisfy Trump, who already has the authority under existing agreements to send as many troops as he wants to Greenland.

And an agreement of that nature would not provide U.S. ownership of Greenland’s vast mineral reserves buried deep beneath the Arctic ice.

Danish analyst Hansen argued that a campaign to “take” Greenland without military action would not succeed as long as the Greenlandic population was opposed to the idea.

Currently, no political party on the island is campaigning to become part of the United States.

“It is more likely that Greenland will become a member of the European Union (EU) again,” he said.

“And the current U.S. administration has three years left, and the people of Greenland probably have 1,000 years left.”