With the outbreak of the war in Iran, another of Donald Trump’s obsessions with controlling the world has been somewhat forgotten: Greenland. The island located in the Arctic Ocean was at the forefront of the debate for many months, with the US president threatening to invade it. Although he doesn’t mention it as much now, we shouldn’t lose sight of it.
As Onda Cero journalists Diana Roríguez and Agustín Alcalá have explained in the podcast Zero Latitude According to Onda Cero, this island has become “in recent months one of the focuses of Donald Trump’s new international board.” All this within the expansionist policy of the American president, who sees the world “as a great avenue to which to add new buildings.”
To understand Trump’s “obsession” with the island, we must go back to 2019, as Alcalá recalled, when Trump spoke for three hours with Greg Burns, who owned a mineral extraction company, and told him that there was a large amount of rare earths “indispensable” for current, military technologies…
Greenland was already key in the Cold War
The island is believed to possess 25 of the 34 most important critical minerals and Trump wants to own it and win the race for control of the Arctic against Russia and China. To clarify doubts about the importance of Greenland, Onda Cero journalists have had the opinion of the principal researcher of the Elcano Royal Institute, Ignacio Molina.
Molina has expressed that Greenland has “always” been attractive to the United States, it is not a Trump invention, but it is “shocking” because after World War II, the American country had forged a relationship with NATO and Denmark, the country that controls the island. Although, as it is closer to America than to Europe, this is what has led the Americans to want to control it.
Furthermore, in the Cold War it was already important, because it was closer to the Soviet Union, which is why it was key for the United States to control the traffic of submarines or warships. The American country had more than 80 bases there until the Cold War ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
The end of NATO as we know it
This being the case, would a possible annexation of the island to the US mean the end of NATO as we know it? The researcher is clear, yes. “Not only would it end political trust, but the organization would probably disappear,” he said forcefully.
The researcher points out that all the events at the beginning of 2026 have not broken NATO, but “the idea of the alliance” has, because it is based on “mutual trust”, which is “cracking” since the events of January 2026. Molina has called for reflection and to think about “to what extent it has been mortally wounded.”
The fundamental pillar of NATO, Article 5—based on the idea of ”one for all and all for one”—is based on the credibility of the United States as the ultimate guarantor of collective security. However, that premise is beginning to crack.
A possible purchase from the United States?
But is a US occupation really viable? The expert recalled that the US has been expanding its territory since the 19th century and many of these expansions have been “by purchases, not by conquests”, in the expert’s words. Therefore, it is not “unthinkable” that the US makes an offer to Denmark.
Although international law contemplates the possibility, it should be “by absolute mutual agreement” and the treaty would be considered void if the sale is “under the threat of force.” Therefore, it could be sold, but it would not be “from the legal point of view or the will of Denmark,” Molina explained. In fact, he believes that it would be “more acceptable” for the Danes to lose her on a battlefield, because it would be less humiliating.
If this were to happen, would a referendum need to be held? Not necessarily, according to the Danish legal framework and the Statute of Autonomy of the island. Molina has detailed that “the people of Greenland, which does not reach 60,000 inhabitants, have the right to self-determination, recognized both by Danish law and by the United Nations.”
However, although there is a desire for independence among the population, they currently do not wish to separate from Denmark under American influence: “It is more of a rhetorical or emotional independence movement; their desire for independence does not translate today into real conditions to do so.” The only referendum planned would be to decide whether to remain or separate from Denmark.
