A” New Great Game” is emerging from Trump’s Greenland strategy, in which the ultimate strategic prize is command of this Arctic large.
This power struggle extends beyond land and ice to include essential raw materials, military supremacy, and shipping lanes in an exceedingly available polar region.
This automatic Danish province, which is not a member of the EU, has evolved from a distant island to the epicenter of contemporary geopolitical power as barriers fall.  ,
Greenland is the world’s largest area, carefully located in the Arctic between America and Europe. Despite its small community of 57, 000, mostly Inuit, it holds huge political prominence due to its undiscovered energy potential, including oil, healthy gas, and essential minerals. Its close proximity to the developing transport routes in the Arctic and its position as a gateway for military operations and Arctic surveillance adds to its proper worth.  ,
In 2019, former US President Donald Trump’s request to buy Greenland drew international interest, framing it as “essentially a huge real property deal”. Trump canceled a state visit to Copenhagen when Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen criticized it as “absurd.”
His , comment, including a post featuring a golden Trump Tower superimposed on a Greenlandic settlement with the message,” I promise not to do this to Greenland”! were broadly mocked.
However, these remarks highlighted deeper US proper emotions. Greenland has become a political prize thanks to its Pituffik Space Base remaining a key component of America’s ballistic missile early-warning program and area surveillance.  ,
Trump’s renewed force highlights growing US concerns about Russian and Chinese Arctic effect. The automatic Greenlandic state ‘s , interest , in assistance with China, particularly in mine jobs, coupled with Russia’s military build-up in the region, has intensified US necessity to strengthen its relationship.
However, the Swedish authorities seemed caught off guard by Trump’s claims, leading Frederiksen to rush for a good framing of the disagreement.  ,
Additionally, he has repeatedly stated his interventionist goals within a month, including the restoration of the Panama Canal and the acquisition of Greenland in the current Trump 2.0 period, under the banner of MAGA. These claims are strengthened by his near-absolute power in this next term.  ,
In a January 7th hit conference—a several days before his inauguration—he did not rule out the use of military or economic force to achieve his goal,  , claiming , it as important:” People don’t even know if Denmark has any lawful right to it. But if they do, they may give it up … We need it for national safety”. On his social media platform, he , insisted:  ,
” the Free World, have safety, security, durability, and PEACE! This is a package that has happen” . ,
For China, a US appearance in Greenland threatens its Polar Silk Road initiative and supremacy in essential raw materials, necessary for advanced technology. Moreover, the Arctic’s warming climate could reduce transit times for Asian trade with Europe, making control over the region increasingly valuable.  ,
Accordingly, three potential scenarios emerge.  ,
First, the US could take a diplomatic approach offering Greenland financial incentives, development packages and autonomy guarantees. The difficulty would be persuading Greenlanders that integrating with Washington would result in long-term advantages while overcoming Denmark’s resistance, which is rooted in history, national pride, and strategic concerns.
This would stifle China’s access to vital minerals and halt its polar expansion, leading to Beijing’s desire to develop stronger ties with other Arctic countries, particularly Russia.  ,
Second, the US might use increased investment and direct aid to counteract political pressure, potentially isolating Greenland from Denmark. Washington might also put political pressure on Copenhagen, implying that Nuuk’s support for NATO and the Arctic Council is essential, and that this would undermine Denmark’s ability to maintain control.
This ostensibly reflects China’s strategy of growing influence, but it also raises the possibility of alienating European allies. It may also lead Beijing to increase economic ties with local authorities and mobilize diplomatic opposition, thereby destabilizing Washington.  ,
The US asserting de facto control over Greenland’s strategic resources or military infrastructure without formal acquisition, bypassing Denmark entirely, and even threatening economic repercussions if Copenhagen rejects an American diktat is the most aggressive scenario.  ,
This is not unusual because the US has historically justified interventionist measures under the pretext of preserving regional stability. While the foundational , Monroe Doctrine , aimed to prevent European interference in the Americas, the Roosevelt Corollary expanded its scope, legitimizing US intervention in the Western Hemisphere to uphold stability or defend its interests.
Due to this history, US pressure on Greenland is seen as a comprehensive strategic plan to safeguard its sphere of influence as well as a territorial ambition.  ,
However, this could trigger an international backlash, particularly from the EU, which would be legally obliged to respond to any sort of hostility or sanctions against Denmark, giving the EU anti-coercion instrument, therefore, unexpected importance.
Yet, based on recent developments in January 2025, the European Commission’s response to such threats—while it constantly criticizes China over matters that don’t directly affect Europe—exposes both weakness and a lack of clear strategy.  ,
Another issue is China. It might interpret US pressure on Greenland in three ways: as a part of a larger geopolitical containment plan, as a claim of dominance that challenges Beijing’s growing global influence, and as a case study for limiting its ambitions in areas like the South China Sea.
Consequently, while adhering to its non-interference principle, China might weigh the strategic implications of US actions, treating them as part of a broader struggle for global primacy.  ,
In response, China could pursue two approaches, having ruled out inaction. First, it might consider taking bold countermeasures, such as strengthening military and economic ties with Russia and bolstering local opposition in Greenland with financial aid and investments. This development is very uncomfortable and precarious for Denmark, a significant US ally.  ,
A more assertive position, even though less probable, warrants consideration. While China might formally designate Greenland as a Danish internal issue in accordance with its non-interference policy, it may struggle to ignore US pressure on the country. If Beijing responded with a better economic offer, it would stoke a serious geopolitical conflict.
Denmark would likely decline an offer to preserve Western alliances, but Greenland’s response might be less nuanced if China promised substantial infrastructure development and respect for their sovereignty.  ,
Any attempt by China to find alternative solutions to Greenland as a direct threat to its national security and Arctic dominance in the US would seem to be. Sanctions and an increase in military presence would be among the best means of stopping it, according to Washington.
China would be at risk for reputation because such a proposal could be viewed as neo-colonialialism, especially if it rejects the indigenous people’s wishes or undermines Danish sovereignty. Furthermore, Beijing would struggle to defend its position on sensitive issues like Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan, where it monitors any movements for independence.  ,
Nevertheless, the temptation is hard to resist: strong Chinese involvement would mark a historic shift reaching beyond Arctic geopolitics, challenging Western dominance and potentially altering the Arctic Council’s power dynamics. Russia might initially be appreciative of this development, but it will become more wary of Beijing’s growing presence.  ,
Regardless of the outcome, these scenarios underscore Greenland’s emergence as a pivotal flashpoint in the broader US-China rivalry. The Arctic is a center for strategic resources, shipping routes, and military positioning, which pushes superpowers against international law and creates a more contentious geopolitical debate.  ,
Trump’s push for Greenland could mark his” Polar Pivot”, a counterpart to Obama’s Pivot to Asia, yet focused on Arctic ambitions. For those who doubted Trump’s foreign policy vision, his attempt to redefine the Roosevelt Corollary—draped in protectionism, isolationism, and nationalism—offers a clear rebuttal.
If successful, it might even earn the title of the” Trump Corollary”. His approach is far from foolish, revealing a deliberate geopolitical plan hidden beneath the surface of his real estate rhetoric.
Republished with the kind permission of China-US Focus, 2025 ( www. chinausfocus.com ). Read the orignal here.