A little over a month ago, I wrote in a post the following sentence:

I hope things are done in the most rational way, that societal disruption is as small as possible, that bad blood between Europe and the US is minimized (though there are wildcards in the game: Greenland, anyone?), but the US has pushed Europe to be more independent, and it will be.

At the time, weeks before the Caracas raid, nobody was talking about Greenland, and I was thinking of it as something unlikely but with the potential to make headlines again. How quickly things change. By now, it seems to me that, unless something utterly unexpected happens in the US Congress, there will be conflict over Greenland.

Now, I like history in general and have a fascination with the Vikings (I suppose their boats play a role in that), but as I’ve said many times, I believe that when judging current affairs, anything that happened before I was born is old history. It’s ancient history if we’re talking about the time before my mother was born. When she was born, Greenland was a Danish colony, just as Nigeria was. The main differences were that Greenland is twice as large, and Nigeria had 1,500 times the population. Otherwise, both were colonies. In 1953, Greenland became an integral part of Denmark, with Greenlanders becoming full Danish citizens, with access to the welfare state, representation in the Danish parliament, and so on.

I have no idea when a Greenlandic independence movement began, but in 1979, the relationship between Greenland and Denmark changed. After a referendum in Greenland, a Greenlandic parliament and government were established. They became responsible for almost everything except foreign policy, security, and natural resources. In fact, Greenland had joined the European Economic Community—the predecessor of the EU—as part of Denmark, but in the mid-1980s, they voted to leave, apparently over seal fishing or something similar. In 2008, another referendum gave Greenland further responsibilities, including managing their natural resources. From that point on, it was accepted that Greenlanders could vote for full independence from Denmark, with Greenlanders recognized as a people under international law. Meanwhile, Denmark transfers about 500 million USD annually in subsidies to Greenland, Greenlanders are automatically Danish citizens, and about one-third of them live in Denmark.

Now, the US has tried to buy Greenland several times: in 1867, 1910, and 1946. Denmark refused each time, but in 1951, the US essentially got what it wanted by signing a treaty that allowed the US to base as much military as it desired in Greenland. The US recognized Danish sovereignty, with the only limitation being the duty to consult with Denmark (and later Greenland) before building new military installations. This limitation was never truly enforced, as the US was even allowed to secretly deploy nuclear weapons in Greenland. This only became public after a nuclear-armed B-52 crashed in 1968. The US was also granted extensive access to natural resources, though the biggest hurdle is that most are buried under 2 km of ice.

In short, it’s unclear why the US would need to buy Greenland, but the US is talking about it. The most likely explanation is that Trump wants to add a bit of blue to the map. However, it’s unclear from whom the US would actually be buying. Denmark has repeatedly stated that they cannot sell Greenland because it belongs to Greenlanders, not to Denmark. The US seems to have accepted this, which is a shame—I was starting to consider sending the State Department my banking details, offering to sell them Greenland myself. Maybe I should start thinking about selling them the Moon instead. Anyways, since Denmark doesn’t own Greenland and can’t sell it, the US seems to be suggesting buying it directly from Greenlanders, like paying shareholders in a corporate acquisition. Setting aside the morality of this, it’s problematic because buying a company involves making individual deals with owners until a controlling stake is secured. The closest analogy would be paying Greenlanders to vote for independence and then join the US. If I were Greenlandic, I’d take the money—and then vote “No.” Secret ballots exist, after all. But this could work if the US convinced enough Greenlanders that they’d be better off as part of the US than associated with Denmark. Enough money might create that impression. However, if I were Greenlandic, I’d want the money upfront, perhaps even written into US law, guaranteeing payment within a month. I’d worry about what I’d actually receive, but it could work. Now, how much money are we talking about? The US has floated figures between $10,000 and $100,000 per person. But $10,000 is what each Greenlander already receives annually as a subsidy from Denmark. If I were Greenlandic, I’d think the US was trying to buy Greenland on the cheap.

In summary: It’s unclear why the US wants to buy Greenland other than to add blue to the map—I’m surprised the president hasn’t signed an order mandating the US appear golden on maps—and the whole idea of buying it is somewhere between unfeasible and ridiculous. But the US seems fixated on “getting Greenland,” and I fear Trump has boxed himself into a corner. He’s talked so much about it that it’s unclear how he can stop. How will he back away from the 10% tariffs he announced yesterday? The obvious—but dangerous—solution would be for everyone else to offer him a “win” that allows him to declare victory. But what could that be? The Danes and Greenlanders have said they’re happy to accommodate the US in every way (they already do), that their red line is sovereignty. Given that they have offered everything, what else can they offer? As Danish member of the European Parliament recently put it, they’d accommodate the US in any way possible, but they simply don’t understand what the US wants. So, it’s unclear what “win” Trump could claim without making Greenland part of the US.

And why is sovereignty important? The first responsibility of the Danish state is to protect its citizens. Denmark is its citizens. I don’t know how to say “We the people” in Danish, but I’m sure something like that is written somewhere. Denmark cannot simply abandon 50,000 citizens. They may not be many, and they may be expensive to support, but consider the Falklands. In 1982, less than 3,000 people lived there, and they had a sort of second-class British citizenship—for example, they didn’t automatically have the right to move to the UK. Besides, the UK was broke, and keeping the Falklands felt like a waste of money. The UK wanted to get rid of them and had even floated the idea of a Hong Kong-style arrangement, where the islands would become Argentinian after 100 years. Then, for reasons no one understood, Argentina invaded the Falklands. At that point, there was war because the UK couldn’t abandon those few second-class citizens. From a pragmatic standpoint, the war cost the UK dearly in lives and money, but this is what UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher declared in Parliament just after the invasion:

I must tell the House that the Falkland Islands and their dependencies remain British territory. No aggression and no invasion can alter that simple fact. It is the Government’s objective to see that the islands are freed from occupation and returned to British administration at the earliest possible moment.
We cannot allow the democratic rights of the islanders to be denied by the territorial ambitions of Argentina.
The people of the Falkland Islands [...] are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life, and to determine their own allegiance. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty’s Government to do everything we can to uphold that right.

You may think what you will of Thatcher, but it’s impossible to imagine a citizen of those islands not wanting their government to say exactly that. She was simply stating the UK’s obligations towards its citizens.

Mentioning the Falklands War in the context of Greenland might seem far-fetched because, ultimately, the Falklands are famous because the UK sent an army, fought a real war, and reclaimed the islands—incidentally, the islanders are now full UK citizens. This would never happen in Greenland. We agree: it’s impossible to imagine Denmark (and possibly other European countries) sending a fleet across the Atlantic, landing an army, and battling to free Greenland. But what happens now is that we are discussing the possibility of the US playing the role of Argentina. There’s not only the rhetoric of acquiring Greenland “the nice way or the hard way,” but also the fact that the US has boxed itself into a corner, leaving only three options: backtracking (which I consider highly unlikely, given the available human capital), a stalemate (which the US makes harder every time it escalates, like with yesterday’s 10% tariffs), or “the hard way.” “The hard way” seems increasingly likely to me due to US hubris and the rhetoric that “no one would go to war with the US over Greenland.” The correct statement would be, “no one would want the US to go to war with them over Greenland,” because if the US chose “the hard way,” it would be the US going to war. Just as Argentina did.

When Argentina invaded the Falklands in 1982, they had overwhelming superiority. On the islands, in Port Stanley, there were only 57 British soldiers, without heavy equipment. Still, the British fought back. For a few hours. And they lost. No Brits died, and only one Argentinian. It wasn’t Stalingrad, but there was real shooting for a few hours. Although the Brits knew they had no chance, it was their duty to fight—they were being paid for it, after all—and they did. The governor, who had tried to convince the settlers that they’d be better off under Argentina than the UK, told the Argentine commander, “You have landed unlawfully on British territory, and I order you to remove yourself and your troops forthwith.” He and the soldiers were safely repatriated to the UK, but from that point on, there was war between Argentina and the UK. Started by Argentina. Argentina went to war.

Now, the Danish army has stated that they would shoot if the US tried “the hard way.” They point out that since 1952, Danish soldiers have been required to “immediately engage in combat if Danish territory is attacked, without waiting for orders from command.” They might not fight long, but they would shoot. After all, they’d risk court-martial if they didn’t. If the US tried to take Greenland “the hard way,” there would be shooting, and it would be the US going to war with Denmark over Greenland.

What if that happens? The US would have Greenland. There would be no military effort to reclaim it, and depending on what status Greenlanders received from the US, the situation would be irreversible—especially if they became US citizens. In some ways, this doesn’t sound tragic. But, as the Danish prime minister said, everything would change. First, what would other countries do? Reactions wouldn’t be uniform, but many would side with Denmark, and some might break diplomatic relations with the US. It took seven years for the UK and Argentina to restore diplomatic ties. It’s not just that NATO would lose its purpose, but more broadly, countries with defense pacts with the US—about 50 of them—would question the point of allying with a country that attacks its own allies. In Europe, there would be a sense of solidarity with Denmark. Some countries more than others, but most would stand with Denmark. After all, EU treaties include a defense clause, and while no one would storm Greenland’s glaciers, no one would want to be seen as abandoning Denmark—it would destabilize the EU. And everyone, or at least a vast majority of European countries, wants the EU to endure (the US has helped with that, it must be said). While in Greece or Portugal, the Greenland issue might seem incomprehensible and distant, I’m sure Denmark wouldn’t forget it quickly. And Denmark wields significant power in the EU. For years, Greece has blocked anything related to Turkey. When the Republic of Cyprus joined the EU, there was a referendum to reunite with Northern Cyprus, which would have brought a united Cyprus into the EU. Two-thirds of Northern Cypriots voted for reunification, but only a quarter in the Republic of Cyprus did. As a result, Northern Cyprus—despite voting overwhelmingly to reunify—remained outside the EU, the euro, Schengen, and the Common Market. If you want to fly to Northern Cyprus, you must go via Turkey because Cyprus (and Greece) block direct flights. If a country, say Hungary, openly ditched Denmark over Greenland, they’d have to expect Denmark to block anything beneficial to them. I suspect many other European countries would side with Denmark, if only because losing confidence in the US would make them more dependent on EU solidarity. So, due to both distrust of the US and self-interest, I suspect the EU would stand firmly with Denmark if the US pursued “the hard way.” In other words, if the US went to war with Denmark. I also suspect non-EU countries like Norway (definitely) and the UK (probably, but less so) would side with Denmark.

What could the EU and these countries do? Nothing to reclaim Greenland. But a lot else. I don’t think it would be automatic, but I’m sure US bases would gradually close. If the US attacked Greenland, I’d bet Spain would block access to Rota the same day. I don’t think the Spanish army would attack Rota, but I’m sure the base would be sealed off by land in no time. I wouldn’t be surprised if the airspace near Rota were closed, too. After all, Denmark would invoke NATO and EU treaties, and Spain would have to be seen doing something. Sending La Legión to patrol Rota’s exits would be easy and dramatic. I’d also bet Rota would end up closed for good. And the same goes for Aviano, Ramstein, or any other base. These bases are central to the US’s NATO contribution, but already, many Europeans doubt the US would contribute anything. It’s clear Europe is moving rapidly toward self-sufficiency in defense—not because they prefer to exclude the US, but because they can defend themselves without it. In Western Europe, the US is now seen as more of a threat than Russia.

But why would the US care if it lost these bases? When the US bombs the Houthis, Navy ships go to Rota to reload missile launchers—they can’t do it at sea. Without Rota, those ships would have to return to the US. If I were Israel, I’d try to prevent this, but what do I know? Similarly, all US soldiers injured in the Middle East go to medical facilities around Ramstein. Nothing would be permanent, but if the US acted in Greenland, I’m sure many European countries would permanently block their airspace to the US Air Force. Without access to European airspace, Incirlik becomes much harder to reach. I also suspect they’d refuse to refuel US Navy ships, as Norway did after the disastrous meeting between Zelensky and the White House. After half an hour of shooting in Greenland, the shooting would stop, but the US would lose many, if not all, of the advantages it has enjoyed from full access to Europe. What it would get is to paint Greenland blue in maps. Or gold? Maybe Greenland would also get renamed.

I’m not optimistic. The Danes have accepted everything they could, so it’s unclear what more they can do. The US administration has boxed itself into a corner, leaving only two options: lose face or escalate. Given what we’ve seen so far, it’s hard to believe anyone in the US has the will or inclination to force them to back down, and it’s unclear if the administration would listen. I suspect most Americans don’t take it seriously. There’s the hubris of the US administration, but also that of the media and individuals. It’s a different kind of hubris, but the statement that “no one would go to war with the US over Greenland” is hubris nonetheless. I believe if the discourse were more factual—“the US going to war with Denmark over Greenland”—the reaction would be different. This is hubris because, unless things have changed dramatically, Americans see themselves as “the good guys” and it is others who decide to go to war against “the good guys”. Americans also view the US as fundamentally different from other countries, which makes it hard to accept others’ perspectives. I’m sure Americans believe the US should go to war to defend the Aleutian Islands, where fewer than 8,000 people live. It would be best to win, but war would be necessary because it’s American territory and these people are US citizens. It doesn’t come naturally to Americans to think the same way about other countries. All of this means it’s unclear how much real pushback the US administration will face over Greenland—at least before it happens (if it happens).

I’m not optimistic about Greenland. Still, I think Europe would be fine, and the biggest loser would by far be the US. I just hope that if it comes to shooting, they all shoot as poorly as they all did when the Argentinians invaded Port Stanley in 1982.