The closed-door White House talks focusing on Greenland's future concluded on Wednesday. This high-risk consultation involving the US, Denmark, and Greenland ultimately failed to achieve a substantial diplomatic breakthrough, only reaching a consensus on continuing dialogue. Market concerns about a swift resolution to the deadlock have subsequently intensified.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen described the dialogue as "frank, pragmatic and constructive" after the meeting, but he also stated bluntly that US President Trump's repeated hardline statements about wanting to control Greenland were "completely unacceptable."

On that day, U.S. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Rasmussen, and Greenland's representative Vivian Motzfeldt met at the White House for a one-hour closed-door consultation. From a geofinancial perspective, the five core logics behind this meeting outline the complex landscape of the Arctic strategic game.

Key progress: A high-level working group was established to explore compromise solutions.

The establishment of a high-level working group is one of the few substantive advances from this meeting. For the market, this consensus reached by the United States, Denmark, and Greenland has successfully averted the worst-case scenario of the geopolitical situation spiraling out of control.

The three parties agreed to establish a high-level working group to explore feasible paths for the future development of this Danish autonomous territory.

Penny Nass, senior vice president of the German Marshall Fund, a Washington think tank, analyzed that Greenland's strategic geopolitical value has long placed it in the core focus of the United States' attention. The U.S. has tried to push forward the acquisition agenda several times, but the Greenlandic people's position is clear - they cherish their deep ties with Denmark, NATO and Europe, and absolutely do not agree with the possibility of their future being controlled by the United States.

Nass added, "The current U.S. government still harbors ambitions to 'control' Greenland, while Greenland is determined to advance its autonomy process. Bridging this fundamental divide requires not only innovative solutions but also a full understanding of each other's core concerns."

Rasmussen revealed that the working group plans to hold meetings in the coming weeks to try to reach a compromise that takes into account the interests of all parties. He also signaled that Denmark and Greenland are open to the US request to set up additional military bases on the island, but have clearly drawn a "red line" that Washington must not cross.

Key variable: Trump's hardline stance undermines NATO's security consensus.

Trump's hardline stance before and after the talks became a key variable influencing the situation.

Just hours before the talks were set to begin, Trump made a strong statement, saying that any outcome of the negotiations would be "unacceptable" if Greenland was not incorporated into the United States. He later reiterated to the media in the Oval Office that "from a national security strategy perspective, Greenland must be under our control."

Guntram Wolf, a senior fellow at the Bruegel Institute, a Brussels-based think tank, bluntly stated that Trump's attempt to control Greenland is seen as "blatant provocation" in Europe and has triggered deep concerns in the market about the stability of the NATO military alliance.

Wolf warned that "if the US president openly declares that he will only defend his own territory, it is essentially tantamount to declaring that he will not provide any guarantees for European security—after all, Europe is not US territory."

This means that the US endorsement of European security promised in NATO's Article 5 Collective Defense Clause will become a complete dead letter.

It is important to know that Article 5 of NATO, the collective defense clause, clearly stipulates that an armed attack on any member state is considered an attack on all allies, and the United States and Denmark, which has a legal responsibility for the defense of Greenland, are both core NATO members.

Strategic maneuvering: hyping up the Russian threat while actually coveting mineral resources.

Factors outside the Western camp, such as Russia, have been used by Trump as a "lever" to advance his Greenland strategy.

President Trump, who has long coveted Greenland's rich mineral resources, has repeatedly asserted in recent weeks that only the United States can counter the "potential threat" posed by Russia to Greenland. On Wednesday, he publicly stated, "The reality is that if Russia were to take over Greenland, Denmark would be powerless to respond, but the United States would be fully capable of controlling the situation." He also emphasized that it is impossible to expect Copenhagen to assume responsibility for defending Greenland.

Marisol Maddax, a senior research fellow at Dartmouth College’s Arctic Institute, offered an objective interpretation of this.

She pointed out that Russia has indeed been continuously expanding the dimensions of cooperation in the Arctic region in recent years, covering areas such as military cooperation, infrastructure construction and scientific research, which are dual-use fields. However, Greenland is not the focus of military cooperation between the two countries. The relevant joint military activities are actually concentrated along the coast of Alaska, and the United States still has obvious shortcomings in its defense investment in the region.

Madax also noted that since Trump first raised the issue of Greenland's security, Denmark has acted swiftly, announcing billions of dollars in investment to strengthen its defense capabilities, a move that can be described as a strategic turning point.

Trump stated, "Through the collaborative efforts of our NATO allies, we have successfully intercepted numerous cases of predatory investments by companies with ties to other countries in Greenland and other parts of the Arctic."

Counterbalancing Actions: NATO Increases Military Deployment and Strengthens Arctic Defense Presence

NATO's increased military presence in Greenland is a key move in the checks and balances among the parties involved before and after the talks.

At the request of the Danish government, several NATO member states have confirmed that they will send military forces to Greenland this week to participate in a joint military exercise codenamed "Operation Arctic Endurance".

In fact, prior to the White House talks, Denmark had already announced plans to significantly strengthen its military presence in Greenland, including measures such as protecting critical infrastructure, deploying fighter squadrons, and conducting routine naval patrols.

Germany, France, Sweden, and Norway have all confirmed their participation in the operation, sending a clear signal of support to the Danish government and the Nuuk local government in Greenland.

In an official statement, Greenland’s representative, Motzfeldt, emphasized: “As a NATO ally, one of the core strategic priorities of the Greenlandic government is to strengthen the defense and security capabilities of Greenland and its surrounding region, and the achievement of this goal is inseparable from deep cooperation with NATO allies.”

Future Outlook: Stalemate Persists, Compromise Solution Awaits

Looking ahead to the future of this geopolitical game, analysts generally believe that the stalemate is unlikely to be broken in the short term.

Rasmus Brun Pedersen, an associate professor at Aarhus University in Denmark, pointed out that the market expects Denmark and its NATO allies to further increase their military deployments in Greenland, a move aimed at demonstrating to the Trump administration that NATO is responding to security concerns in the Arctic region with concrete actions.

Pedersen pointed out, "NATO is bound to significantly expand its military presence in the region, and we hope to use this to send a clear signal to the U.S. that we have developed concrete solutions to address your security concerns."

Pedersen also suggested that this move might be touted by Trump as an achievement – after all, there were no troops stationed in the region before, and he successfully forced a passive NATO ally to strengthen its military presence there.

However, Pedersen also warned that, judging from the current hardline stance of the United States, this strategy is unlikely to be effective. "Where exactly will the compromise reached by all parties come from? This is undoubtedly the core question that the market urgently needs to answer."