Trump: “We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not, because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland — and we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor. I would like to make a deal the easy way.” What is your most up-to-date and in-depth assessment?
Strategia-100, Chief Strategist:
Here’s a current, grounded assessment of Donald Trump’s Greenland comments — especially the line you quoted about doing “something … whether they like it or not,” and the claims about Russia and China:
1) What Trump is actually saying (January 2026)
- Trump reiterated that he wants the United States to acquire Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, arguing it’s essential to block Russian or Chinese influence.
- He said the U.S. will act “whether they like it or not,” and framed it as needing to secure Greenland strategically — with options ranging from diplomacy to unspecified “hard” measures.
- Trump and some aides have floated buying Greenland or offering incentives to Greenlanders to consider leaving Denmark, though no formal offer has been tabled yet.
- Trump has previously signaled that military force “is an option” if diplomacy fails, without clarifying what that would mean in practice.
2) International reaction: strong rejection
- Greenland’s leaders have responded with an unequivocal rejection, stating Greenlanders do not want to become U.S. territory and insist their future must be decided by themselves under international law.
- Denmark, which retains sovereignty over Greenland, also opposes U.S. claims and warns that efforts to seize or coerce the transfer of Greenland could seriously damage NATO relations.
- A broad group of European governments has publicly affirmed that decisions about Greenland belong to Denmark and Greenland alone.
3) The “Russia/China takeover” claim: context and reality
Why the Arctic matters geopolitically
- Greenland’s location — between North America and Europe — and its proximity to Arctic sea routes and early-warning defense systems makes it strategically important.
- China has sought a footprint in the Arctic through investments and self-declared “Near-Arctic State” status, while Russia maintains a significant icebreaker fleet and military infrastructure in the far north.
But the threat is not imminent occupation
- There is no credible evidence that Russia or China is poised to militarily seize Greenland. Their Arctic activities are mainly strategic deployments, economic interests, and research — not invasion.
- Greenland already hosts a U.S. military base (Pituffik Space Base) under longstanding agreements with Denmark — showing strong Western military integration without annexation.
So while Russia and China do have interests and increased activity in the Arctic, the notion that either is on the brink of occupying Greenland without Danish acquiescence is an overstatement, not supported by mainstream security assessments.
4) Real drivers — beyond what Trump says publicly
Experts point to several motivations often beyond the public argument about “neighbors”:
Strategic and military:
Greenland lies along key Arctic routes and hosts early-warning systems important for U.S. and NATO defense.
Natural resources:
The island has significant mineral potential, including rare earth elements needed for tech and defense industries. China currently dominates much of this market globally.
Great-power competition:
The Arctic is increasingly viewed as a theater of geopolitical competition among major powers.
Notably, most analysts say that U.S. security goals can be accomplished through alliances and existing military agreements without territorial annexation — something even proponents of Arctic defense acknowledge.
5) Legal & practical constraints
- Greenland is governed under the Greenland Self-Government Act, giving it domestic autonomy and the right to decide key aspects of its international relations. Any transfer of sovereignty would require Greenlandic consent.
- Denmark retains constitutional authority, and both Denmark and Greenland have explicitly stated Greenland is not for sale.
6) Bottom line — assessment in context
🔎 What’s real:
- Trump is publicly pushing for U.S. control of Greenland, framing it as national security and geopolitical necessity.
- The claim that Russia or China will occupy Greenland without the U.S. acting is not supported by credible evidence of imminent military intent.
⚠️ What’s unlikely:
- Greenland becoming U.S. territory any time soon — either through purchase or force — without Greenlandic consent and Danish agreement.
- Russia or China actually invading Greenland — that’s diplomatic rhetoric, not a real military scenario on current information.
💡 Underlying drivers:
- Strategic Arctic positioning, defense infrastructure, competition over resources, and great-power rivalry.
Strategia-100, Chief Strategist
Three Corporate