Four ways this saga could go

In recent weeks, US President-elect Donald Trump has shown a renewed interest in controlling Greenland, a largely autonomous region of Denmark in the Arctic and the world's largest island.

He first indicated his intention to buy Greenland in 2019, during his first term as president, but this week he went further, refusing to rule out economic or military power to control it.

Danish and European officials responded negatively, saying Greenland was not for sale and its territorial integrity must be preserved.

How, then, could this unusual situation develop, in light of a dispute between two NATO allies over a vast area that is 80% covered by ice but contains significant untapped mineral wealth?

How might independence aspirations among Greenlanders' 56,000 people, who have been under Danish control for 300 years, affect the final outcome?

Here we look at four possible scenarios for Greenland's future.

There is some speculation that Trump's move is merely a threat, a move to get Denmark to bolster Greenland's security in the face of the threat posed by both Russia and China seeking influence in the region.

last month, Denmark has announced a new military package worth $1.5bn (£1.2bn). For the North Pole. It had been prepared before Trump's statements, but the Danish Defense Minister described the announcement a few hours later as an “irony.”

“What is important about what Trump said is that Denmark must fulfill its obligations in the Arctic or it must allow the United States to do so,” says Elisabet Svane, chief political correspondent for Politiken.

Mark Jacobsen, an assistant professor at the Royal Danish Defense College, believes this is a case of Trump “putting himself before he takes office” as Greenland uses the occasion to gain more international authority, as an important step towards independence.

So, even if Trump loses more interest in Greenland now, which Professor Jacobsen believes is the most likely scenario, he has certainly highlighted the issue.

But Greenland's independence has been on the agenda for many years, and some say the debate could go in the opposite direction.

“I noticed in the last few days that the Greenland Prime Minister has become calmer in his statements – that is, yes, we want independence but in the long term,” Svan says.

There is a general consensus in Greenland that independence will eventually happen, and also that if Greenland votes for it, Denmark will accept and ratify it.

However, Greenland is also unlikely to vote for independence unless its people get guarantees that they can keep the subsidies they currently receive from Denmark to pay for things like health care and the social welfare system.

“Greenland’s prime minister may be angry now, but if he does call for a referendum, he will need some kind of compelling narrative about how to save Greenland’s economy and welfare system,” said Ulrike Gadd, a senior researcher at the University of Greenland. The Danish Institute for International Studies told the BBC.

One possible next step is free association – something similar to what the United States currently does with Pacific nations such as the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau.

Denmark has previously opposed this status for both Greenland and the Faroe Islands, but according to Dr. Judd, current Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen is not categorically opposed to it.

“Danish understanding of the historical experience in Greenland is much better than it was 20 years ago,” he says, with Denmark accepting colonial responsibility.

He adds that recent discussions “may convince (Frederiksen) to say: It is better to keep Denmark in the Arctic, and maintain some kind of connection with Greenland, even if it is more flexible.”

But even if Greenland can get rid of Denmark, it has become clear in recent years that it cannot get rid of the United States. The Americans never left the island after taking control of the island in World War II, and consider it vital to their security.

An agreement in 1951 confirmed Denmark's primary sovereignty over the island, but in reality it gave the United States everything it wanted.

Dr. Gad said Greenland officials had been in contact with the last two US administrations about Washington's role.

“They now know that the United States will never leave,” he said.

There has been speculation that Trump's economic rhetoric is potentially the biggest threat to Denmark – with the US dramatically increasing tariffs on Danish goods, or even the EU, forcing Denmark to make concessions of sorts on Greenland.

Professor Jacobsen says Danish governments have been preparing for this, and not just because of the Arctic region.

Trump has been threatening to impose 10% global tariffs on all US imports, which could, among other things, significantly disrupt European growth, and some Danish and other European companies are now considering establishing manufacturing bases in the United States.

Possible options for raising tariffs include triggering the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), Benjamin Cote, of international law firm Pillsbury, told the MarketWatch website.

One of the main Danish industries likely to be affected by this is pharmaceuticals. The United States receives products such as hearing aids and most of its insulin from Denmark, as well as the diabetes drug Ozempic, made by the Danish company Novo Nordisk.

Analysts say that the rise in prices that may result from these measures will not be well received by the American public.

The “nuclear option” seems far-fetched, but with Trump failing to rule out military action, it must be considered.

Basically, it would not be difficult for the United States to control the region, given that it already has bases and a large number of forces in Greenland.

“The United States already has effective control,” says Professor Jacobsen, adding that Trump's comments seemed ill-considered and he did not understand the point.

However, any use of military force by Washington would create an international incident.

“If they invade Greenland, they are invading NATO,” Svan says. “And here it stops. Article 5 must be triggered. If a NATO country invades NATO, there will be no NATO.”

Dr. Gad says that Trump sounds like Chinese President Xi Jinping talking about Taiwan or Russian President Vladimir Putin talking about Ukraine.

“He says it is legitimate for us to take this piece of land,” he says. He added, “If we take his words seriously, this is a bad omen for the entire Western alliance.”