US President Donald Trump’s threatened takeover of the Danish territory of Greenland is not without historical precedent and geopolitical logic. Despite the popularity of Hollywood’s focus on “cowboy and Indian” conflict, American territorial expansion at home was obtained most successfully by means of purchase (Florida, Louisiana, Alaska and Gadsden). Meanwhile, its primary overseas colonies or bases were principally the result of leases (Panama, Guantanamo, Guam, Kwaj and Diego Garcia).
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that in 1917 Denmark also sold the Danish West Indies (now the US Virgin Islands) to the United States. Nor is America the only nation following Trump’s Arctic strategy; for in 2011, China had also attempted to purchase/lease a large chunk of territory in Northeast Iceland.
But this is where the similarities end. In the case of what is now the US Virgin Islands, Denmark was compensated financially for this loss. By contrast, China’s attempted foothold in the Arctic Circle was more subtle than Mr. Trump’s current attempt. Firstly, China did not try to buy the entire country. Secondly, after the offer of purchase was rejected, it attempted to enter into a lease instead. Thirdly, China ran the offer through an interlocutor, namely a shadowy state-owned enterprise (SOE), to make the overture less brazen or politicized. Fourthly, China couched the offer in the form of an economic investment, which was good for an otherwise economically neglected region of the country. And lastly, when all of these attempts failed, the Chinese quietly walked away.
Domestic and international risks of Trump’s assertive approach
For an individual with a background in real estate and a reputed expertise in deal-making, Mr. Trump’s overly assertive actions have currently made him appear like the robber baron Henry Potter in Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life (1946). Crucially, his actions threaten not only his popularity at home but also US geopolitical security. Poll after poll in the US indicates that a huge majority of Americans do not approve of his threats against a long-standing and loyal NATO ally.
At the same time, even though the United States maintains the globe’s foremost armed forces, China is not far behind. According to the CIA, the People’s Liberation Army “is the world’s largest military” with some two million active-duty personnel. Consequently, despite Mr. Trump’s boasts of US military dominance, it surely makes strategic sense, given China’s rising power, for him to maintain his European military alliances. They are not insignificant, with the UK, France and Italy all ranked as top 10 global military powers. If one imagines US-China relations as a poker game with both Trump and Chinese Supreme Leader Xi Jinping likely holding similar flushes, the NATO alliance gives the Americans a Royal Flush.
The question remains, therefore, how Mr. Trump can achieve his ambition now without damaging himself further and the US’ global dominance. Whilst some commentators at Davos 2026 were reassured when he stated that “I won’t use force” to take Greenland, he simultaneously reminded the audience that he had the capacity to take the island easily: “We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be frankly unstoppable.” Such a statement appears not a world away from the not-so-veiled threats that Italian Dictator Benito Mussolini used when he spoke to the Italian parliament on January 3, 1925: “Italy, Gentlemen, wants peace … we will give it with love, if possible, or with force, if necessary.”
A more strategic and diplomatic alternative: referendum and financial incentives
Given his determination post-Davos to seek “immediate negotiations” to obtain Greenland, as well as his real estate background, Mr. Trump might want to try a different approach to the situation instead, beginning with asking Denmark to fast-track a referendum on Greenland independence and then to offer each and every Greenlander an extremely generous financial inducement to vote for annexation to the USA. He could, in other words, make the Greenlanders a proposal that they won’t want to refuse, as opposed to threats of invasion and a Mafia-like intimidation which they “can’t refuse.”
Critics would certainly and rightly accuse Mr. Trump of bribery, but, given his transactional nature, there is a financial soundness in this approach. However, to soften accusations of crassness, Mr. Trump might also want to offer all Greenlanders US citizenship and representation in both Congress and the Senate. In fact, he could use this opportunity to entirely rethink the representation of all unrepresented peoples in US overseas territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam and American Samoa, and offer them all voting rights in Congress and the Senate as well as for the Presidency.
To help win the Danes over, not only could he try to convince them of the economic sense of this proposal, saving them an estimated $1 billion in subsidies, but he should additionally offer Denmark compensation for the loss of Greenland, either by direct cash injections or as a percentage of mining rights for a certain period of time. Regardless of the way in which the vote goes, overnight, Mr. Trump’s reputation would go from accusations of fascism to shrewd negotiator. He could then make history before the midterms, rather than be history after them.
Plan B: pursuing partial acquisition instead of full takeover
Should the vote in Greenland, despite all of the above, still go badly for Mr. Trump, instead of issuing more threats, he could try Plan B and follow the Chinese playbook in Iceland: attempt to buy not the whole country but only a piece of it. Indeed, after his Davos speech, he was reputedly having this very conversation with NATO, looking for territory akin to the British bases in Cyprus today.
Europeans might cry foul at recent events, but the UK followed a similar sale strategy when it excised the Chagos archipelago from Mauritius in the latter half of the 20th century. What is more, it treated the Indigenous population terribly by exiling everyone living there without their consent and with very little compensation. Ironically, these atolls were purchased for use as a military base, namely Diego Garcia, the very same base that Starmer wants to return to Mauritius and that Trump is now calling a strategic error. It seems that the past has a way of haunting the present.
If Mr. Trump insists on his ambition, it is Greenlanders, however, who need to decide what is in their best interests, not NATO and not Denmark, and not under duress. Mr. Trump, in the meantime, also has to decide now what the history books will remember him as: Democratic Don, or an Arturo Ui/Godfather-like Don Don.
[Kaitlyn Diana edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
The post Trump’s Alternative Options for Greenland Post-Davos appeared first on Fair Observer.
from Fair Observer https://ift.tt/EkWx1sc
0 Comments