Sovereignty is not negotiated in Greenland

Denmark reacts to expansionist impulses and exposes fissures in the global power game

There are moments when history seems to take a step back, as if it insists on testing collective memory. The recent tension involving Greenland and the United States sounds exactly like that. A dangerous déjà-vu, packed with old speeches, now recycled in digital timelines and shameless public statements. At the center of this episode is Donald Trump — or rather, Trumpism — and an idea that refuses to die: that territories can be coveted, pressured and, who knows, incorporated.

On the other side of the board, Denmark decided not to whisper. He spoke loudly, clearly and firmly. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen took the front line and made it clear that sovereignty does not come into negotiation, not even when the interlocutor is a historical ally.

When allies start speaking different languages

At first glance, it may seem exaggerated to treat a social media post as a diplomatic crisis. However, 21st century politics has already shown that symbols matter — a lot. This is how a simple map of Greenland with the United States flag, accompanied by the caption “soon”, became the trigger for a deep discomfort.

The post, made by Katie Miller, wife of an influential Trump adviser, did not come about in a vacuum. On the contrary. It dialogues directly with previous statements by the former president, who stated, bluntly: “We need Greenland”. When words and images meet, the message is no longer ambiguous.

So the alert sounded immediately in the Arctic.

Read also: Trump’s expansionist desire for Greenland

Nuuk responds before silence becomes consent

Greenland’s Prime Minister, Jens Frederik Nielsen, reacted quickly and forcefully. He did not treat the episode as a joke or digital noise. He classified the post as “disrespectful” and “totally unacceptable”. More than that, it demanded that Washington abandon its “annexation fantasies” once and for all.

The speech carries a clear political weight. Greenland, although part of the Kingdom of Denmark, has broad autonomy. Its people are not participants in strategic decisions. It has a voice, history and the right to self-determination. Ignoring this means treating real inhabitants as abstract pieces in a geopolitical game.

Copenhagen toughens its tone and calls the debate by name

If Nuuk turned on the red light, Copenhagen raised the gate. In an interview with the magazine The AtlanticMette Frederiksen was direct, almost didactic, like someone who refuses to normalize the absurd.

“I have to say this very directly to the United States: it makes absolutely no sense to talk about the need for the US to take control of Greenland… Therefore, I strongly urge the US to cease threats against a historic ally.”

There is no hesitation in the statement. Frederiksen recalls that Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and is therefore under the NATO umbrella. By flirting with the idea of ​​control or annexation, the United States is not only affronting an allied country, but also the very military pact that it claims to lead.

The old security excuse reappears in the Arctic

Behind the expansionist discourse, analysts identify a recurring argument: that of the so-called “hemispheric defense”. Trump and those around him, including vice JD Vance, evoke this logic to justify expanded influence. The problem is that this reasoning ignores real political boundaries and legitimate interests of other countries.

In the case of Greenland, the error is doubled. Firstly, because the island is politically European. Second, because Denmark has not neglected its responsibility in the Arctic. Recently, Copenhagen announced investments of more than US$4 billion in regional security. In other words, it is not a strategic void, but an active presence.

Still, the rhetoric insists on painting the territory as an available space.

Cooperation is not synonymous with ownership

The United States already operates militarily in Greenland. This is nothing new. The difference is that this presence has always been through bilateral agreements. Today, less than 200 American soldiers remain in the region, a number far removed from the height of the Cold War, when the Thule base housed more than 10,000 soldiers.

These agreements work. They guarantee cooperation and stability. However, for Trumpism, partnership seems little. The ambition goes beyond strategic use. Seeks control, dominance and final authority.

The Danish ambassador in Washington, Jesper Møller Sørensen, reinforced the obvious that needed to be said: Denmark expects “full respect for territorial integrity”. The kingdom, he recalled, is sovereign and indivisible, formed by Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands.

When geopolitics ignores real people

Ultimately, this crisis isn’t just about military bases, shipping lanes, or rare minerals. It exposes something deeper: the growing contempt for International Law when it hinders the ambitions of powers.

Turning Greenland into a strategic asset disregards its people, its culture and their right to decide their own future. Frederiksen and Nielsen’s firm reaction sends a necessary message to the world: smaller countries do not need to accept the role of extras.

Perhaps the biggest test of this episode is simple and brutal. Knowing whether, in the 21st century, sovereignty is still worth more than the desire of the strongest. The world watches. And the answer matters.