By Jacob Gronholt-Pedersen and Stine Jacobsen
COPENHAGEN, Jan 10 (Reuters) – When U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio meets his Danish and Greenlandic counterparts next week, Denmark will be defending a territory that has drifted steadily away from it and steadily moved toward independence since 1979.
President Donald Trump’s threats to occupy Greenland have sparked a wave of European solidarity with Denmark. But the crisis has revealed an uncomfortable reality – Denmark is gathering support to protect a territory whose population wants independence and the biggest opposition party now wants to bypass Copenhagen and negotiate directly with Washington.
“Denmark risks using up its foreign policy capital to secure Greenland, only to see it go,” said Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen, a political science professor at the University of Copenhagen.
STRATEGIC RELEVANCE
Denmark cannot let Greenland go without losing its geopolitical relevance in the Arctic territory, strategically located between Europe and North America and a critical site for the US’s ballistic missile defense system.
However, it may ultimately have nothing to show for its efforts if Greenlanders opt for independence — or strike their own deal with Washington.
The stakes extend beyond Denmark’s national interests. European allies rallied behind Denmark not just out of solidarity, but because giving up Greenland would set a dangerous precedent that could encourage other powers to pursue territorial claims against smaller nations, upending the post-1945 world order.
Denmark’s foreign ministry declined to comment, but referred to joint remarks by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen on December 22.
“National borders and the sovereignty of states are rooted in international law,” the two leaders said. “These are fundamental principles. You cannot annex another country… Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders.”
This week, Frederiksen said: “If the US chooses to attack another NATO country, everything stops, including NATO and the security that the alliance has provided since World War II.”
“GREENLAND CARD”
For now, the Trump administration says all options are on the table, including buying the territory or taking it by force.
Copenhagen professor Rasmussen said any discussion of whether holding Greenland was worth the cost had been drowned out by outrage over Trump’s threats.
“It’s not part of the political debate in Denmark. I’m afraid I’ve gone into patriotic excess,” he said.
During the Cold War, Greenland’s strategic location gave Denmark huge leverage in Washington and allowed it to maintain lower defense spending than would otherwise be expected from a NATO ally.
It became known as the “Greenland Card,” according to a 2017 report by the University of Copenhagen’s Center for Military Studies.
But Greenland’s aspirations for self-determination have grown since the former colony gained greater autonomy and its own parliament in 1979. A 2009 agreement explicitly recognized Greenlanders’ right to independence if they so desired.
All Greenlandic parties say they want independence, but differ on how and when to achieve it.
Trump’s pressure accelerated a timeline that was already in motion, forcing Copenhagen to expend political capital and financial resources on a relationship with an increasingly uncertain end point.
“How long should we fight for someone who doesn’t really care about us?” Joachim B. Olsen, a political commentator and former Danish parliamentarian, told Reuters.
FINANCIAL BURDEN
Copenhagen is offering an annual block grant of about 4.3 billion Danish kroner ($610 million) to Greenland’s economy, which is close to stagnating with GDP growth of just 0.2 percent in 2025.
The central bank estimates an annual funding shortfall of around DKK 800 million to make current public finances sustainable. Denmark also covers the police, justice system and defense – bringing total annual spending to just under $1 billion.
In addition, Copenhagen announced a 42 billion Danish kroner ($6.54 billion) Arctic defense package last year in response to US criticism that Denmark did not do enough to protect Greenland.
Some reject framing the relationship in transactional terms, pointing to Denmark’s legal and moral obligations under international law and centuries of shared history.
“We are talking about family relations, the long history of relations between Denmark and Greenland,” said Marc Jacobsen, associate professor at the Royal Danish Defense College. “So it’s much more, it’s not just about defense and economics, it’s about feelings, it’s about culture.”
DIFFICULT BALANCING ACT
Prime Minister Frederiksen faces a difficult balancing act, said Serafima Andreeva, a researcher at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Oslo.
For now, Denmark has no choice but to stand firm to maintain its diplomatic credibility, but by doing so it risks its relationship with the United States at a time “when Russia is an increasingly accelerated threat and being on the bad side of the US is not good for anyone in the West.”
Frederiksen also faces an election this year, although Greenland has not been a major issue.
“I don’t understand why we have to hang on to this community with Greenland when they want out of it so much,” Lone Frank, a Danish writer and broadcaster, told Reuters. “To be completely honest, Greenland doesn’t inspire me with any sense of belonging.”
(Reporting by Jacob Gronholt-Pedersen and Stine Jacobsen in Copenhagen; Additional reporting by Soren Sirich Jeppesen and Tom Little; Editing by Alex Richardson)