Donald Trump’s speech to a joint session of Congress on March 4, 2025, included a repetition of his vow to annex Greenland into the U.S., a proposal he first made in 2019. However, there is one major difference between the two events: in 2025, his intention appears firmer and less outlandish—and this time, he is the President again. At least his Russian counterpart, President Vladimir Putin, thinks so, as he openly endorsed the idea in his speech at the Arctic Policy Forum in Murmansk.

But why exactly does President Donald Trump have such a territorial expansionist ambition, a shift in U.S. democratic policy—especially towards Greenland, owned by Denmark, a NATO ally? Let’s understand the reasons and if they really matter.

Putin Endorses It: Why?

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s endorsement is something the world will approach with caution. No, we are not talking about Novichok. We are focusing on the cynical convenience that aligns more with Putin’s policy of pseudo-democracy and actual authoritarian governance—one that disregards soft power and diplomacy and exhibits complete hostility toward the world order, which he believes is dominated by U.S. interests.

If Donald Trump actually proceeds to forcibly buy or invade the arctic nation, it will undoubtedly make Putin happy, and the world will see a pleased China. A precedent will be set for further Russian incursions into Ukraine and, gradually, deeper into Europe. China will be emboldened to invade Taiwan. The U.S. will lose the moral authority to diplomatically or militarily oppose such forceful invasions.

Donald Trump’s Greenland greed has the potential to embolden more authoritarian regimes. Eventually, after Trump’s presidency, the U.S. may recover from a series of reckless decisions spanning 4 years, being a strong democracy—but the world may not. Hence, Donald Trump’s greed must be checked and balanced by politicians and strategists in the U.S., especially now that Putin endorses it.

 

Why Greenland is Important for the U.S.?

One should straightway keep aside JD Vance’s statement that Donald Trump’s ambitions to annex Greenland is in anyway about the advantages or it is about the people of Greenland. Because it is not. So let us analyze how it benefits the U.S.

First, the Arctic ice is melting, and what was once a myth is now becoming a reality—the Northern Sea Route has caught the attention of strategists worldwide. Every country now prioritizes its Arctic policy. The Northern Sea Route (NSR), also known as the Northwest Passage, is a shorter route connecting major ports in East Asia to Europe and the Atlantic Ocean. Russia and China have set their sights on using the NSR to massively reduce their freight costs and expand their presence, especially defense capabilities, in the North Atlantic.

U.S. does not like it. Donald Trump aims to monitor and potentially control the presence of foreign nations and their vessels in the Northern Sea Route (NSR), particularly their activities in Greenland, due to its strategic position between the U.S., Russia, and Europe—especially as China declares itself a “Near-Arctic Nation.” However, the military presence of Russia, China, or Europe in the NSR or Greenland remains largely theoretical at this stage, making an aggressive U.S. response to occupy Greenland unnecessary. This brings us to the real motive—greed—fueled by the lure of minerals and oil.

Greenland is rich with minerals. Be it Oil, Gas or Rare Earth Minerals. The debate over commercial viability to extract them profitably is the crux of matter. Understandably, U.S. does not want Chinese or Russian or even European investments in Greenland. But forcefully capturing a nation, especially an ally, leaving all morals to dustbin, is probably shocking & unprincipled. Donald Trump has these great miscalculations fixed in his mind that capturing or buying Greenland forcefully will end all the insecurities he is suffering from. Be it losing defense edge, trade or a geo-political upper hand in the artic.

Some mining projects in Greenland may seem appealing, all of them do not stand richer to other non-Greenlandic locations where resource extraction is more cost-effective and less challenging. So, the perception of Greenland being a treasure chest right below the feet, seems actually inaccurate to a greater degree. Yes, Greenland has minerals like Lithium, Graphite and other rare earth minerals, but is it economically viable to extract profitably? That is not the case for all the mine sites. Moreover, Greenlandic people are always opposed to large scale mining operations. In 2021, Greenland banned Uranium mining in 2021, which caused a China backed rare earth mining project closed.

The JD Vance Visit:

Recently, U.S. Vice President JD Vance visited Greenland for a day with his wife Ms Usha Vance in the guise of a cultural visit, that surprisingly included U.S. NSA (National Security Adviser Mike Waltz). The cultural visit turned into a visit to U.S. Pituffik Space Base (Also Known as Thule Air Base), wherein the VP Vance met & spoken to U.S. Service members about Arctic security issues.

“As you’ve heard, we have some interest in Greenland from the Trump administration, the president has said clearly he doesn’t think that military force is going to be necessary. Unfortunately, leaders in both America and in Denmark, I think, ignored Greenland for far too long. That’s been bad for Greenland, it’s also been bad for the security of the entire world. We think we can take things in a different direction, so I’m gonna go check it out.

JD Vance, Vice President, U.S.

However, it is not expected that President Trump and Vice President JD Vance will persist in applying many forms of pressure, including inflammatory rhetoric, unofficial diplomatic visits to Greenland, and economic leverage or military strength. The true dividend receiver of this geopolitical optics is Russia, which secures precisely what it wants—fractures within the transatlantic alliance.

Denmark Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen is visiting Greenland next week and has strongly pushed back the idea of annexation of Greenland into the U.S. The greater question is whether Denmark and its partners can obstruct this trajectory and refrain Donald Trump from escalating tensions over Greenland. Here, European leaders must assert themselves boldly and decisively. If Donald Trump only acknowledges strength and grand proclamations, then that is exactly how Europe must respond. European partners including the U.K. must work together to force President Trump to come to a negotiating table and talk to find other ways to foster cooperative principles among allies and at the same time mitigate his own perceived national security risks.