Greenland Takeover: US Explored Options From Purchase to Military Intervention
Table of Contents
A series of once-unthinkable scenarios, ranging from a direct purchase to a gradual, hybrid takeover, were reportedly considered by the US government regarding Greenland, according to intelligence assessments and expert analysis.
The possibility of a US intervention in Greenland, initially prompted by former President Donald Trump’s expressed interest in acquiring the island, has been the subject of serious discussion within US military and political circles. The Joint Special Operations Command received orders to explore options – “the soft way or the hard way,” as Trump reportedly put it – for taking control of the Danish territory. While experts currently deem a full-scale takeover unlikely, the range of considered strategies reveals a willingness to contemplate dramatic action.
The Military Option: A Swift, Risky Seizure
One scenario outlined involved a rapid military intervention, akin to Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Experts suggested that occupying key infrastructure – including parliament, police stations, and media outlets – could be accomplished within as little as 30 minutes. This operation, they posited, would be less complex than recent endeavors like the intervention in Venezuela.
However, such a move would trigger a complex geopolitical crisis. Despite Greenland’s limited military presence, a 1952 Danish doctrine mandates resistance in the event of an attack, and the political fallout would be immense, potentially fracturing NATO. “The political costs of an intervention would be enormous,” one analyst noted, adding that resistance to this option even exists within the US military.
The Path of a Deal: Buying Greenland – or its People
Recognizing the risks of military action, the Trump administration reportedly favored a negotiated solution. The idea of purchasing Greenland itself wasn’t new – predecessors had considered it since 1867 – but the administration also explored the more unconventional option of directly incentivizing Greenland’s 57,000 residents to relocate to the United States.
Reports suggest offering one-time payments of up to 100,000 euros to each Greenlander was discussed as a means of effectively “buying” the population and transferring sovereignty. While seemingly outlandish, this proposal underscores the administration’s desire to avoid a potentially destabilizing conflict.
Gradual Influence: A Long-Term Strategy
Even before overt discussions of purchase or intervention, a more subtle strategy appeared to be underway. Intelligence reports from the Danish secret service indicated that US influence operations in Greenland were escalating months ago. These operations focused on identifying individuals sympathetic to US interests, investing in the Greenlandic economy and education system, and driving a wedge between the Greenlanders and Denmark.
The appointment of a special US representative for the island further signaled this intent. During a visit to the US Pituffik Space Base in Greenland in April, Vice President JD Vance publicly asserted that Greenlanders were being mistreated by Denmark and advocated for their “right to self-determination.” This rhetoric aligns with the vision of Trump activist and investor Thomas Dans, who suggested a phased approach mirroring the historical independence of Texas – first independence, then annexation.
The Compact of Free Association Route
Dans proposed that the US could support Greenlandic independence and then establish a “Compact of Free Association” (CFA), similar to agreements the US holds with several Pacific Island nations. These CFAs grant the US significant rights – including military access – in exchange for economic and military support, a lifeline Greenland would likely require following independence. A free trade zone was also speculated as a potential interim step.
The “Hybrid Mix”: Control Without Conquest
Perhaps the most insidious scenario, outlined by Jeremy Shapiro of the European Council on Foreign Relations, involves a “hybrid mix” takeover. This strategy eschews both military force and a referendum, instead focusing on gradually controlling Greenland’s economy, infrastructure, and media landscape. By disrupting Danish supply lines and dividing the Greenlandic elite, the US could create a situation where the island becomes entirely dependent on American support, effectively leading to an illegal takeover.
This remains a theoretical exercise, but it highlights the potential for a subtle, yet impactful, shift in power dynamics. The long-term implications of any US attempt to gain control of Greenland remain uncertain, but the range of options considered underscores the strategic importance of the island and the lengths to which major powers might go to secure their interests in the Arctic.
