I recently wrote a book countenancing the idea that the United States could buy Greenland, and I have received some very interesting responses. Some are perplexed at the utility of an Australian assessment of Greenland geostrategy (I’m from Canberra); others have admonished me personally for ‘willing into reality’ US ownership of Greenland. All I did was offer a buyer’s guide to an alluring piece of real estate – background that anyone laying claim to this land should know.

Lesson 1: America and Denmark have history 

Greenland has tantalised Washington since at least 1867.  These guys have serious history. Territory between Denmark and the US has changed hands previously – Washington nabbed the Virgin Islands from the Danes in 1917 and inked a piece of paper recognising Danish sovereignty over Greenland to seal the deal.

During the second world war, an opportunity arose. When Denmark fell to Nazi Germany, the US finally made headway in her quest to own Greenland. I have taken one for the team, spending countless days poring over the heartfelt letters between Denmark’s King Christian and US President Roosevelt.

These 1941 cables tell a particularly familiar story. Roosevelt underscored the sanctity of Western Hemispheric security for Washington. He reminded a stroppy King Christian that America would not stand idle and let Greenland fall under adversary occupation. Like today, Denmark held few cards. The US moved into Greenland and never really left.

There is zero logic in Denmark enabling Greenlandic independence

Denmark was miffed when it became apparent that Washington had no plans to pack up and leave Greenland when the war ended. Already on the horizon was the next challenge – the Soviet Union – and this served as a major impetus for both Denmark and the US to set aside brewing unease over long-term Greenland futures.

Still without leverage, the Danes hurried to get Washington to sign another piece of paper – this time a ‘Defense Agreement’ pertaining to Greenland. This 1951 Cold War agreement facilitated, at its peak, almost 50 bases or military installations and runways to counter and track the ‘red menace’, and provided something of a free rein for the US military industrial complex over Greenland. Recently released Danish archives even shed light on the complexities of Denmark’s domestic policy to look the other way and ‘not ask questions’ about the storage, pre-positioning and overflight of US nuclear weapons in Greenland. This, of course, was at complete odds with Denmark’s stance on nuclear weapons at the time.

This cowboy era of US military might in Greenland was kneecapped in 2004. Much of today’s coverage and analysis on Greenland misses this point, but it is a critical component of the Greenland issue. In 2004, the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement between the US and Denmark was overhauled. Dubbed the Igaliku Agreement, it is this 2004 document upon which the Trump administration is crafting its Greenland bid.

The Igaliku Agreement essentially handed agency to the Greenlandic people, at least in discussions of U.S. partnership in defence affairs. Those 50 or so US installations and bases were reduced to just one single Defence area – known today at the Pittufik Space Base. The 2004 agreement stipulates US military presence cannot be increased without the consent of Denmark and Greenland.

This renders much of the recent analysis moot: especially the argument that Washington ‘already’ has the option to ‘up’ its presence in Greenland.

Lesson 2: Greenlandic people hold the keys

Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. But even its semi-autonomy has been a struggle to secure. Denmark rushed through changes in 1979 (the Home Rule Act) to shift Greenland from colony to territory status – largely in apprehension of the UN’s crackdown on states still operating colonies. For Greenlanders, unease persists today over the lack of consultation around the Home Rule Act.

Greenlandic ambitions of independence continued to flourish and harden after 1979. This groundswell led to some Danish concessions, most recently in 2009 with the Act on Self-Government replacing the Home Rule Act. New changes gave Greenlanders greater degrees of autonomy through the transfer of some significant legislative and executive powers from Denmark, and Greenlandic was recognised as the official language of the territory. Critically, a pathway to gain independence was agreed to and set down.

Beneath the surface, Greenlandic self-governance was simply another label for an enduring coercive relationship with Denmark. Greenland’s foreign and defence policies and partnerships – as with most of its relationships – remain under the control of Denmark. The annual fiscal stipend along with Danish underwriting of healthcare and education further entrenches Greenlandic reliance on Denmark. Without self-sufficiency in economic terms, Greenland simply cannot survive without its Danish tether.

Even Greenland’s pathway to independence is fuzzy. The Greenlandic people must first hold a referendum. Greenland’s parliament is broadly in agreement that the end-state is independence; parties diverge on the timeline. Ensuring diverse economic futures and partners (as alternatives to Danish fiscal injections) is the principal focus today.

However, it is the steps following a Greenlandic referendum for independence that throws doubt on the notion this process will be an easy one. The Danish parliament must ‘approve’ the results and agree to the Greenlandic ‘exit’. Given the vast resources Greenland holds, and the fact that it accounts for 95 per cent of the territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, one wonders if Copenhagen would truly cut off its healthy leg.

Having to be faced with such a decision is surely Denmark’s worst fear. There is zero strategic logic in enabling Greenlandic independence for Denmark. But the absence of Danish social license today simply makes any attempt to block the wishes of Greenlanders political suicide. This is likely why recent days have seen a ‘theatrical’ response from Denmark over President Trump’s Greenland comments.

From warning of the ‘end of Nato’ to making a flurry of statements on X, Denmark’s leaders are doing their best to make current events about an unruly US and the threat to international order. They’ll do anything to distract from a discussion about Greenlandic independence.

Lesson 3: It’s not personal, its business 

The Trump factor in contemporary Greenlandic discourse is unmissable. Hot on the heels of Trump’s Venezuelan smash and grab, the pivot to Greenland certainly made European heads spin. It didn’t help, of course, that the White House refused to take military action off the table. But this is business as usual for Washington – strategic ambiguity and a policy of consistently making all options available to the president.

The truth, however, is that America has good reason for wanting to own Greenland. The territory It is a North American landmass and buffer zone for North American security. It is also at the heart of the next theatre to host international strategic competition: the Arctic. While Greenland’s resource bounty (critical minerals, hydrocarbons, fisheries) is well known as a feature of its allure, its positionis also increasingly coveted.

Greenland is one end of the Arctic Corridor – a global transport artillery linking Asian markets to European markets across the Arctic Ocean. Use of this route can render existing congested, longer, slower, more expensive international shipping routes redundant. Washington already has presence at one end via Alaska. It is vital the US controls the other end of the Arctic Corridor chokepoint – Greenland – or at the very least ensures a competitor does not do it first.

Europe will pressure Denmark to go quietly into the night

The US holds all the cards. The best-case Greenland scenario sees Washington deepening bilateral engagement with Greenlandic leaders to strike a ‘deal’. That means Greenlandic independence with a US insurance policy. In the worst-case scenario, US military action sees Nuuk secured in 15 minutes, the mask comes off Nato, and a final nail goes in the coffin of our liberal rules-based order.

The reality will likely be somewhere in the messy middle. Europe will pressure Denmark to go quietly into the night; after all, US assurances are required for any peace deal stuck to end the Ukraine-Russia War. Europe is pretty much integrated into the US military industrial complex, and now reliant on US LNG for 60 per cent of its needs. She is truly wedged.

Greenlanders do not necessarily see the need for their future to be decided through consultation with Copenhagen, in fact, a motivated US buyer affords a rather secure off-ramp from Denmark’s grip. This may become more pointed as European leaders continue to awkwardly spout statements that Greenlandic sovereignty is a matter for both Denmark and  Greenland to sort through.

Trump has lit a fire under Greenland’s complex but organic quest for independence. A new era of international order and power is forming, and it appears to be one in which self-interest is more important than allegiance to historical alliances or friendships forged in shared values and facilitated by international law.

In this new era, geopolitics is increasingly going to be a transactional game. But politicians are old worldly – wedded to order. A transactional geopolitical environment will be best navigated by big business… or real estate tycoons. Greenland is likely to be the first sale of our new era.