The golden-topped eye is fixed on the Arctic; the time bomb in Greenland remains unexploded.
2026-02-03 15:58:03
The geopolitical tensions surrounding Greenland have recently eased somewhat. Although the United States has repeatedly crossed the sovereignty "red lines" drawn by Greenland and Denmark during negotiations, the first meeting of the high-level working group of the United States, Denmark, and Greenland has given Greenland a glimmer of hope for a negotiated solution in this multi-party struggle.
The trilateral talks held in Washington focused on the Trump administration’s Arctic security concerns.
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen revealed that the talks were "highly constructive in atmosphere and tone," and that the three parties successfully returned to the path of the Washington consensus reached two weeks prior, which was the most significant positive sign of the meeting.
However, Rasmussen also frankly stated that the core issues have not been fully resolved, and reaching a final agreement that is acceptable to all parties still requires overcoming multiple rounds of negotiation.
Greenland and Denmark had already drawn an inviolable "red line" before the negotiations – to resolutely safeguard the complete sovereignty of this mineral-rich island.
Both the Greenlandic government and the Danish government have repeatedly stated that there is no room for negotiation on the sovereignty issue. This position has become the core premise of all subsequent negotiations, preventing the game from deviating from the direction of "sovereignty trade".
The United States' interest in Greenland is not merely due to its land area or rare earth resources, but rather its irreplaceable latitudinal location advantage.
As the core support of the U.S. revolutionary layered missile defense system, the "Golden Dome System," Greenland is one of the few geographical assets that can build a modern survival defense line for the U.S. mainland.
From a global geopolitical perspective, if intercontinental ballistic missiles launched by Eurasian countries are aimed directly at the continental United States, the shortest path would be through here, which is the "great circle route" across the Arctic, and Greenland is located in the core coverage area of this route.
If the United States can obtain unrestricted access to this area, it can upgrade the Pitufik Space Base from a missile early warning node into a combat-ready anti-missile interception site, enabling long-range interception during the vacuum phase of missile flight. This would establish a second line of defense for the U.S. mainland, keeping secondary risks such as missile debris and nuclear radiation away from civilian areas in North America.
Besides its tactical value in missile defense and interception, Greenland is also a core hub of the "Golden Top System" space operations segment.
The fact that polar-orbiting satellites inevitably pass over the North Pole allows Greenland ground stations to communicate with satellites at a frequency far exceeding that of the continental United States. Its dry and cold atmospheric environment is also a natural advantage for laser satellite links and high-frequency V-band radio communications, with anti-interference capabilities far superior to traditional signals, making it a key link in the U.S. space defense network.
(A list of important geographical locations in Greenland)
In this geopolitical game, the United States’ attitude has undergone a key shift from extreme hardline to limited softening.
For weeks, Trump has repeatedly threatened to "use military force to take control of Greenland if necessary," and the US military action in Venezuela has caused concern among European leaders and put the NATO alliance on edge.
It wasn't until last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that Trump relented, stating he would not use force to acquire Greenland, and simultaneously withdrew his threat to impose tariffs on countries that send troops to Greenland during periods of tension, giving NATO a temporary respite.
However, the US softened its stance not without reservation. Trump claimed that NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had submitted a framework agreement he supported, but this was jointly denied by Denmark and Greenland, both of which stated that Rutte had not been authorized to negotiate.
Even though the talks sent positive signals, the pressure from the US on Greenland has not completely dissipated.
Previously, Greenland's Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt broke down in tears after meeting with US officials, demonstrating the intense nature of the power struggle.
Although she conveyed a "hope" signal after the talks, Greenland's situation remains complicated: Trump continues to issue veiled threats by "remembering whether Denmark handed over Greenland," while also exerting pressure on all parties by weakening the role of European troops in US-led wars and frequently threatening tariffs.
Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederic Nilsson admitted that Greenland is under severe pressure and its people are in a state of panic. “As a loyal partner of the alliance, Greenland finds it hard to accept that some of its allies are openly talking about seizing land and even not ruling out the use of force.”
Even so, Greenland maintains a consultative stance and, while adhering to its sovereignty red lines, is willing to strive to reach a reasonable cooperation agreement based on its own interests.
Greenland’s Minister of Commerce, Mineral Resources and other sectors, Naya Nathanilsen, stated his position more directly: “At this stage, there is absolutely no possibility of giving up sovereignty on the agenda.”
Faced with the United States’ hardline intentions, European unity has become the core force in resisting the unreasonable demands of the United States.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stated that Europe has learned an important lesson in the past few weeks: only by uniting, upholding democratic values without compromise, and standing up together and responding clearly to external threats can it find a way forward.
The coordinated stance of many European countries has also provided important support for Greenland to uphold its sovereignty.
A series of tough actions by the United States have created a clear rift in mutual trust between the US and Europe.
Meanwhile, European allies have also expressed strong concerns about intelligence sharing with the United States, and Trump’s threats against NATO, tariff coercion, and attacks on Denmark have caused widespread panic in Europe.
Regarding the follow-up negotiations between the US, DANGER, and GENERAL, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio pledged to proceed in a "professional and direct manner," striving to avoid the talks becoming a media farce and creating greater flexibility for both sides in the negotiations.
However, Atlantic Council expert Matthew Kronig points out that the core scope of the current negotiations is still not fully clear: whether the United States wants to establish a U.S. military base on sovereign territory in Greenland or is willing to accept other forms of security and resource-sharing agreements remains unclear.
Kronig also mentioned that the United States is likely to push for the talks to be finalized as soon as possible. If the talks are delayed until after 2026, the US midterm elections may bring more uncertainty. After all, if the 1951 United States-Denmark-Greenland Treaty needs to be amended, Trump will have to rely on the Republican-controlled Senate to advance the process.
In addition, a number of key questions remain unanswered: How many of the 17 Cold War-era military bases in Greenland does Trump want to rebuild?
What additional operational capabilities (such as drones) are planned for deployment, and what kind of support can Denmark or NATO provide? Are key minerals included in the talks, and what conditions need to be met to expand joint mining?
On the issue of sovereignty, which is of utmost concern to all parties, two senior members of the Atlantic Council proposed a "shared sovereignty" approach: Greenland and Denmark could reach an agreement with the United States, drawing on the US control model for the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba and the US military base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
Proponents argue that Diego Garcia's military functions highly overlap with the core capabilities needed to secure Greenland, and that this model could provide the United States with the control it requires.
It is worth noting that although Trump criticized the agreement to transfer the Chagos Islands, where Diego Garcia is located, to Mauritius as a "stupid move," the proposers said that the core of this criticism was that Britain "gave up some core control," which does not conflict with Greenland's idea of "shared sovereignty."
However, given Greenland's firm stance on upholding its sovereignty red lines, the difficulty of implementing this proposal is self-evident.
Overall, the ice-breaking tripartite talks between the United States, Denmark, and Greenland have brought a glimmer of hope for resolving the Greenland issue. However, the potential demands of the United States, Greenland's insistence on sovereignty, the rift in mutual trust between the United States and Europe, and many unclear negotiation details all make the future direction of this Arctic geopolitical game full of uncertainties.
This rift in trust has led to a new division in the world order, and Greenland's sovereignty red line is destined to become a core premise that cannot be bypassed in all negotiations. Currently, the crisis in Greenland is still in a state of flux.
Breaking the Ice: The Three Parties Return to the Path of Consensus, and the Constructive Atmosphere is Highlighted
The trilateral talks held in Washington focused on the Trump administration’s Arctic security concerns.
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen revealed that the talks were "highly constructive in atmosphere and tone," and that the three parties successfully returned to the path of the Washington consensus reached two weeks prior, which was the most significant positive sign of the meeting.
However, Rasmussen also frankly stated that the core issues have not been fully resolved, and reaching a final agreement that is acceptable to all parties still requires overcoming multiple rounds of negotiation.
The red line is clear: Gedan firmly adheres to its sovereignty bottom line, and the mineral-rich islands are not to be ceded.
Greenland and Denmark had already drawn an inviolable "red line" before the negotiations – to resolutely safeguard the complete sovereignty of this mineral-rich island.
Both the Greenlandic government and the Danish government have repeatedly stated that there is no room for negotiation on the sovereignty issue. This position has become the core premise of all subsequent negotiations, preventing the game from deviating from the direction of "sovereignty trade".
Strategic Core: The Arctic Pivot of the U.S. "Golden Dome System"
The United States' interest in Greenland is not merely due to its land area or rare earth resources, but rather its irreplaceable latitudinal location advantage.
As the core support of the U.S. revolutionary layered missile defense system, the "Golden Dome System," Greenland is one of the few geographical assets that can build a modern survival defense line for the U.S. mainland.
From a global geopolitical perspective, if intercontinental ballistic missiles launched by Eurasian countries are aimed directly at the continental United States, the shortest path would be through here, which is the "great circle route" across the Arctic, and Greenland is located in the core coverage area of this route.
If the United States can obtain unrestricted access to this area, it can upgrade the Pitufik Space Base from a missile early warning node into a combat-ready anti-missile interception site, enabling long-range interception during the vacuum phase of missile flight. This would establish a second line of defense for the U.S. mainland, keeping secondary risks such as missile debris and nuclear radiation away from civilian areas in North America.
Besides its tactical value in missile defense and interception, Greenland is also a core hub of the "Golden Top System" space operations segment.
The fact that polar-orbiting satellites inevitably pass over the North Pole allows Greenland ground stations to communicate with satellites at a frequency far exceeding that of the continental United States. Its dry and cold atmospheric environment is also a natural advantage for laser satellite links and high-frequency V-band radio communications, with anti-interference capabilities far superior to traditional signals, making it a key link in the U.S. space defense network.
(A list of important geographical locations in Greenland)
A shift in attitude: The US has moved from hardline pressure to limited softening.
In this geopolitical game, the United States’ attitude has undergone a key shift from extreme hardline to limited softening.
For weeks, Trump has repeatedly threatened to "use military force to take control of Greenland if necessary," and the US military action in Venezuela has caused concern among European leaders and put the NATO alliance on edge.
It wasn't until last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that Trump relented, stating he would not use force to acquire Greenland, and simultaneously withdrew his threat to impose tariffs on countries that send troops to Greenland during periods of tension, giving NATO a temporary respite.
However, the US softened its stance not without reservation. Trump claimed that NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had submitted a framework agreement he supported, but this was jointly denied by Denmark and Greenland, both of which stated that Rutte had not been authorized to negotiate.
Greenland's Dilemma: Pressure Remains, But the Country Remains Confident in Upholding Sovereignty
Even though the talks sent positive signals, the pressure from the US on Greenland has not completely dissipated.
Previously, Greenland's Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt broke down in tears after meeting with US officials, demonstrating the intense nature of the power struggle.
Although she conveyed a "hope" signal after the talks, Greenland's situation remains complicated: Trump continues to issue veiled threats by "remembering whether Denmark handed over Greenland," while also exerting pressure on all parties by weakening the role of European troops in US-led wars and frequently threatening tariffs.
Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederic Nilsson admitted that Greenland is under severe pressure and its people are in a state of panic. “As a loyal partner of the alliance, Greenland finds it hard to accept that some of its allies are openly talking about seizing land and even not ruling out the use of force.”
Even so, Greenland maintains a consultative stance and, while adhering to its sovereignty red lines, is willing to strive to reach a reasonable cooperation agreement based on its own interests.
Greenland’s Minister of Commerce, Mineral Resources and other sectors, Naya Nathanilsen, stated his position more directly: “At this stage, there is absolutely no possibility of giving up sovereignty on the agenda.”
European Stance: Unity is Key to Resisting US Demands
Faced with the United States’ hardline intentions, European unity has become the core force in resisting the unreasonable demands of the United States.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stated that Europe has learned an important lesson in the past few weeks: only by uniting, upholding democratic values without compromise, and standing up together and responding clearly to external threats can it find a way forward.
The coordinated stance of many European countries has also provided important support for Greenland to uphold its sovereignty.
Trust Rift: US-EU Trade and Security Cooperation Encounters Obstacles
A series of tough actions by the United States have created a clear rift in mutual trust between the US and Europe.
Delaware Democratic Senator Chris Coons revealed that several European countries have begun to adjust their foreign trade strategies, planning to withdraw foreign direct investment from the United States and reduce their trade dependence on the US.
Meanwhile, European allies have also expressed strong concerns about intelligence sharing with the United States, and Trump’s threats against NATO, tariff coercion, and attacks on Denmark have caused widespread panic in Europe.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, went even further, stating that Trump's words and actions "have fundamentally shaken the foundation of trust that European partners have in the United States."
What happens next is unknown: the scope of negotiations remains to be clarified, and the midterm elections are a variable.
Regarding the follow-up negotiations between the US, DANGER, and GENERAL, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio pledged to proceed in a "professional and direct manner," striving to avoid the talks becoming a media farce and creating greater flexibility for both sides in the negotiations.
However, Atlantic Council expert Matthew Kronig points out that the core scope of the current negotiations is still not fully clear: whether the United States wants to establish a U.S. military base on sovereign territory in Greenland or is willing to accept other forms of security and resource-sharing agreements remains unclear.
Kronig also mentioned that the United States is likely to push for the talks to be finalized as soon as possible. If the talks are delayed until after 2026, the US midterm elections may bring more uncertainty. After all, if the 1951 United States-Denmark-Greenland Treaty needs to be amended, Trump will have to rely on the Republican-controlled Senate to advance the process.
In addition, a number of key questions remain unanswered: How many of the 17 Cold War-era military bases in Greenland does Trump want to rebuild?
What additional operational capabilities (such as drones) are planned for deployment, and what kind of support can Denmark or NATO provide? Are key minerals included in the talks, and what conditions need to be met to expand joint mining?
Sovereignty Solution: The "Shared Sovereignty" proposal has sparked discussion, but its implementation faces significant challenges.
On the issue of sovereignty, which is of utmost concern to all parties, two senior members of the Atlantic Council proposed a "shared sovereignty" approach: Greenland and Denmark could reach an agreement with the United States, drawing on the US control model for the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba and the US military base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
Proponents argue that Diego Garcia's military functions highly overlap with the core capabilities needed to secure Greenland, and that this model could provide the United States with the control it requires.
It is worth noting that although Trump criticized the agreement to transfer the Chagos Islands, where Diego Garcia is located, to Mauritius as a "stupid move," the proposers said that the core of this criticism was that Britain "gave up some core control," which does not conflict with Greenland's idea of "shared sovereignty."
However, given Greenland's firm stance on upholding its sovereignty red lines, the difficulty of implementing this proposal is self-evident.
Summarize:
Overall, the ice-breaking tripartite talks between the United States, Denmark, and Greenland have brought a glimmer of hope for resolving the Greenland issue. However, the potential demands of the United States, Greenland's insistence on sovereignty, the rift in mutual trust between the United States and Europe, and many unclear negotiation details all make the future direction of this Arctic geopolitical game full of uncertainties.
This rift in trust has led to a new division in the world order, and Greenland's sovereignty red line is destined to become a core premise that cannot be bypassed in all negotiations. Currently, the crisis in Greenland is still in a state of flux.
- Risk Warning and Disclaimer
- The market involves risk, and trading may not be suitable for all investors. This article is for reference only and does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account certain users’ specific investment objectives, financial situation, or other needs. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.
