The Dangerous Fantasy of Greenland Annexation: Why Sovereignty and Democratic Values Must Prevail
Published
- 3 min read
The Facts: Economic Realities and Geopolitical Ambitions
Recent reports from Denmark’s central bank reveal that Greenland’s economy faces significant challenges, with growth slowing to just 0.8% in 2025 and expected to remain stagnant. Søren Bjerregaard, head of securities and balance of payments at Danmarks Nationalbank, detailed how the Arctic territory’s fishing-dependent economy is struggling with declining shrimp stocks, deteriorating public finances, and a critically low treasury liquidity. Compounding these economic difficulties, Greenland’s population of 56,699 is projected to shrink by 20% by 2050 as the territory fails to attract sufficient migrants to offset emigration.
Amid these domestic challenges, former President Donald Trump has reignited his interest in acquiring Greenland, telling NBC News he is “very serious” about annexation and claiming the U.S. needs the territory for national security purposes. This comes shortly after Washington’s military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolas Maduro. Trump has consistently floated the idea of U.S. control over Greenland since early 2025, stating America would assume control “one way or the other.”
The Context: Democratic Rejection and International Backlash
Greenland, while self-governing, remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark and has consistently rejected any notion of American annexation. Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen explicitly stated that “Greenland belongs to its people” and emphasized that the territory cannot be compared to Venezuela, noting “We are a country that is democratic and has been democratic for many, many years.” European leaders have united in rejecting Trump’s threats, with Denmark officially telling the former president to stop threatening to seize Greenland.
The timing of Trump’s renewed interest is particularly concerning given its proximity to military intervention in Venezuela and his comments to The Atlantic suggesting other countries could face similar U.S. action. This pattern of behavior suggests a troubling approach to international relations that prioritizes expansionism over diplomacy and respect for sovereignty.
The Principle of Self-Determination: A Bedrock of Democratic Values
The most fundamental principle at stake in this discussion is the right of self-determination—a cornerstone of democratic governance that the United States itself was founded upon. Greenland’s people have exercised their democratic rights for decades, and their clear rejection of annexation should be the final word on this matter. Any attempt to override the will of 56,699 people for geopolitical or economic gain represents a profound betrayal of the democratic values America claims to champion.
What makes Trump’s proposition particularly alarming is the implicit threat contained in his “one way or the other” language. In a world order built upon respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity, such statements undermine the very foundations of international law. The comparison to Venezuela’s situation—where military intervention resulted in the capture of a sitting president—creates a dangerous precedent that should alarm all nations that value their independence.
The Economic Exploitation Argument: Modern Colonialism in Disguise
Trump’s interest in Greenland primarily centers on its “wealth of untapped mineral resources” and strategic Arctic positioning. This framing reduces a living, breathing democracy to a mere resource extraction opportunity—a modern form of colonialism that has no place in 21st-century international relations. The fact that Greenland is simultaneously facing significant economic challenges makes this predatory interest particularly distasteful.
Rather than offering genuine partnership or development assistance that respects Greenland’s autonomy, the annexation talk represents the kind of resource nationalism that democratic nations should reject. True leadership would involve offering trade partnerships, investment in sustainable development, and support for Greenland’s economic diversification—not threats of takeover that echo the worst excesses of 19th-century imperialism.
The Dangerous Precedent: Sovereignty as Negotiable Commodity
When a major power like the United States openly discusses annexing territory against the will of its inhabitants, it sends shockwaves through the international system. It suggests that sovereignty is negotiable for sufficiently powerful nations and that democratic self-determination can be overridden by geographic convenience or resource wealth. This undermines the entire post-World War II international order that the United States helped build and has benefited from for decades.
The timing following the Venezuela intervention creates a particularly concerning pattern—one where military action against one sovereign nation is quickly followed by expansionist rhetoric toward another. This two-pronged approach to foreign policy risks creating a world where might makes right and smaller nations must constantly look over their shoulder whenever they possess something larger powers might want.
The Human Dimension: Real People, Real Democracy
Behind the geopolitical positioning and economic arguments are real people—56,699 Greenlanders who have built a democratic society in challenging Arctic conditions. They have elected representatives, developed governing institutions, and expressed their clear opposition to annexation. Dismissing their democratic voice because they represent a small population sets a dangerous precedent that ultimately threatens democracies everywhere.
Greenland’s population decline and economic challenges are real issues that deserve attention and support from the international community. However, solutions must come through partnership and respect—not through coercive annexation proposals that treat human beings as commodities in a geopolitical chess game.
The Path Forward: Respect, Partnership, and Principle
The proper response to Greenland’s situation involves respecting their democratic choices while offering genuine partnership to address economic challenges. The United States and other nations can provide investment, trade opportunities, and technical assistance that help Greenland develop its economy on its own terms. This approach respects sovereignty while providing practical support—exactly the kind of leadership democratic nations should exemplify.
Ultimately, this episode serves as a crucial test of whether democratic principles will prevail over expansionist impulses. The united rejection from Greenland, Denmark, and European leaders demonstrates that the international community still values sovereignty and self-determination. The United States should join this consensus rather than threatening it.
In conclusion, the fantasy of Greenland annexation represents everything that’s wrong with a foreign policy based on coercion rather than cooperation, on extraction rather than partnership, and on power rather than principle. As defenders of democracy and freedom, we must unequivocally reject any notion that territorial expansion against the will of the people is acceptable—no matter what resources or strategic advantages might be gained. The path to true security and prosperity lies in strengthening international institutions, respecting sovereignty, and supporting democratic self-determination everywhere.