I'm Danish.
I think my country is failing Greenland.
Trump’s push to make a deal isn’t the problem; it’s Denmark’s lack of vision for the island.
Here’s the current situation and why a U.S.-Greenland deal could change everything: 🧵
I think my country is failing Greenland.
Trump’s push to make a deal isn’t the problem; it’s Denmark’s lack of vision for the island.
Here’s the current situation and why a U.S.-Greenland deal could change everything: 🧵
N.B: The Greenland situation is complex.
If you're just learning about it, I suggest you check out my last post on Greenland for some context.
After that, scroll on.
If you're just learning about it, I suggest you check out my last post on Greenland for some context.
After that, scroll on.
https://x.com/ulriklykke/status/1879549567278203364
Shortly put, Greenland is Denmark's biggest unrealized opportunity:
Greenland is:
• Massive in size and potential
• Strategically located in the Arctic
• Abundant in natural resources
• Severely underdeveloped
Regrettably, Denmark lacks the resources and vision to unlock this potential.
Greenland is:
• Massive in size and potential
• Strategically located in the Arctic
• Abundant in natural resources
• Severely underdeveloped
Regrettably, Denmark lacks the resources and vision to unlock this potential.
Meanwhile, Greenland faces many issues. The right strategic investments could help:
• Reduce poverty and fix housing issues
• Tackle social issues with drug abuse, alcoholism and violence
• Improve infrastructure and boost tourism
• Decrease dependency on Denmark
• Explore its vast natural resources
It’s time to invest in Greenland's potential!
• Reduce poverty and fix housing issues
• Tackle social issues with drug abuse, alcoholism and violence
• Improve infrastructure and boost tourism
• Decrease dependency on Denmark
• Explore its vast natural resources
It’s time to invest in Greenland's potential!
Up until now, the efforts in this regard have been shallow.
Denmark provides Greenland with $600M+ annually in subsidies, but:
• Subsidies focus on maintenance, not growth
• Infrastructure remains underdeveloped
• Meaningful exploration of the islands resources is yet to happen
Denmark, being a small country of 6 million people, cannot lift this alone.
Denmark provides Greenland with $600M+ annually in subsidies, but:
• Subsidies focus on maintenance, not growth
• Infrastructure remains underdeveloped
• Meaningful exploration of the islands resources is yet to happen
Denmark, being a small country of 6 million people, cannot lift this alone.
The European Union has discussed stepping in many times but actions have been limited.
In 2014, the European Union pledged €18M for mining projects, but:
• Funding dried up quickly
• No major projects materialised
• Greenland’s needs ultimately sidelined
Promises don’t advance Greenland. Actions do.
In 2014, the European Union pledged €18M for mining projects, but:
• Funding dried up quickly
• No major projects materialised
• Greenland’s needs ultimately sidelined
Promises don’t advance Greenland. Actions do.
The Chinese has long eyed interest in Greenland.
In 2018, China offered to fully fund Nuuk's airport expansion as a first step towards a deeper relationship.
China also expressed strong interest in mining Greenland’s vast natural resource deposits.
In 2018, China offered to fully fund Nuuk's airport expansion as a first step towards a deeper relationship.
China also expressed strong interest in mining Greenland’s vast natural resource deposits.
However, Chinese presence in the Northern Hemisphere poses significant geopolitical risks.
So ultimately offers from China have been rejected.
Instead, Denmark stepped in and funded $109M (33% of costs) of the Nuuk airport expansion to avoid Chinese involvement.
Potential still left on the table.
So ultimately offers from China have been rejected.
Instead, Denmark stepped in and funded $109M (33% of costs) of the Nuuk airport expansion to avoid Chinese involvement.
Potential still left on the table.
But these efforts are just drops in the bucket of what is needed to unlock Greenland's full potential.
Larger strategic investments will enhance:
• Core infrastructure such as transport, energy, and communication
• Expansion of key industries such as fishing, tourism, and renewables
• Living standards for the Greenlanders via education, healthcare, and jobs
• Advancement of exploration for natural resources
This is what Greenland deserves.
Larger strategic investments will enhance:
• Core infrastructure such as transport, energy, and communication
• Expansion of key industries such as fishing, tourism, and renewables
• Living standards for the Greenlanders via education, healthcare, and jobs
• Advancement of exploration for natural resources
This is what Greenland deserves.
In recent years, the United States has ramped up investments in Greenland to counter foreign influence in the Arctic.
Most noteworthy packages include:
• $12.1M aid in 2020 for resources, energy, and tourism
• $10M in investments in 2021 for mining and trade growth
• Reopening of the U.S. Nuuk consulate in 2020, first since 1953
A clear signal of strategic intent.
Most noteworthy packages include:
• $12.1M aid in 2020 for resources, energy, and tourism
• $10M in investments in 2021 for mining and trade growth
• Reopening of the U.S. Nuuk consulate in 2020, first since 1953
A clear signal of strategic intent.
Nothing else has materialised under the Biden Administration.
It wasn't until Trump won the election in November 2024 that the debate stirred up again.
Unlike in 2019, when Trump first offered to buy Greenland, the geopolitical landscape has now completely shifted.
This time around, Trump is not asking politely.
It wasn't until Trump won the election in November 2024 that the debate stirred up again.
Unlike in 2019, when Trump first offered to buy Greenland, the geopolitical landscape has now completely shifted.
This time around, Trump is not asking politely.
America's big motivation is security and control of the Arctic.
Why?
Because Greenland's location provides control over Arctic routes and resources, crucial for countering Russian and Chinese influence.
This will only become more relevant in the future.
Why?
Because Greenland's location provides control over Arctic routes and resources, crucial for countering Russian and Chinese influence.
This will only become more relevant in the future.
In fact, acquiring Greenland has long been an American dream.
In 1867, the U.S. first explored buying it.
In 1946, Truman offered $100M for it, seeing its strategic value post-WWII.
Greenland has always been attractive to the United States.
In 1867, the U.S. first explored buying it.
In 1946, Truman offered $100M for it, seeing its strategic value post-WWII.
Greenland has always been attractive to the United States.
Trump is pulling every string available to make this happen.
Donald Trump even threatened Denmark, a loyal ally, with tariffs and military pressure.
Trump's approach has met strong opposition from European leaders while Denmark and Greenland have both opposed with silent resistance.
Donald Trump even threatened Denmark, a loyal ally, with tariffs and military pressure.
Trump's approach has met strong opposition from European leaders while Denmark and Greenland have both opposed with silent resistance.
Trump is playing to his strengths: Setting the stage.
He knows that to gain leverage in negotiations, projecting strength while highlighting the other side’s weaknesses is key.
He even sent his son, Donald Trump Jr., to Greenland, framing Greenlanders as victims of the Danish rule.
He knows that to gain leverage in negotiations, projecting strength while highlighting the other side’s weaknesses is key.
He even sent his son, Donald Trump Jr., to Greenland, framing Greenlanders as victims of the Danish rule.
Denmark and Greenland have so far clearly opposed the island becoming American.
Very simplified:
• For Danes, it’s about retaining the Kingdom and national pride.
• For Greenlanders, it’s fear of losing cultural identity and autonomy.
That's why handing over Greenland to the U.S. is probably not going to happen.
Very simplified:
• For Danes, it’s about retaining the Kingdom and national pride.
• For Greenlanders, it’s fear of losing cultural identity and autonomy.
That's why handing over Greenland to the U.S. is probably not going to happen.
However, let's remember how big of an opportunity Trump's interest is.
Regardless of whether you like the style of Donald Trump or not, his interest in Greenland is a net positive.
Denmark and Greenland must take advantage of this situation.
Regardless of whether you like the style of Donald Trump or not, his interest in Greenland is a net positive.
Denmark and Greenland must take advantage of this situation.
To deal with Trump you have to understand Trump.
Right now, both Greenland and especially Denmark are very passive in the conversation.
In order to get something done here, they must realise who they are dealing with here:
Trump is a dealmaker, author of "The Art of the Deal".
Expect his fashion and don't get paralysed by it.
Right now, both Greenland and especially Denmark are very passive in the conversation.
In order to get something done here, they must realise who they are dealing with here:
Trump is a dealmaker, author of "The Art of the Deal".
Expect his fashion and don't get paralysed by it.
Luckily, good dealmakers rarely rely on ultimatums.
For Denmark and Greenland, a deal is possible if Trump feels he’s getting what he wants.
The United States is seeking:
• Strategic control in the Arctic
• Access to Greenland’s resources
• A stronger foothold against China and Russia geopolitically
Trump’s approach is clear: meet his terms, and he’ll close the deal.
For Denmark and Greenland, a deal is possible if Trump feels he’s getting what he wants.
The United States is seeking:
• Strategic control in the Arctic
• Access to Greenland’s resources
• A stronger foothold against China and Russia geopolitically
Trump’s approach is clear: meet his terms, and he’ll close the deal.
Regrettably, Danish PM Mette Frederiksen is no dealmaker at all.
In a conversation with Trump on January 15, she sidelined Denmark in the conversations, stating Greenland’s independence is only up Greenlanders.
While that is true in principle, Frederiksen has potentially sidelined Denmark entirely in this historic negotiation.
In a conversation with Trump on January 15, she sidelined Denmark in the conversations, stating Greenland’s independence is only up Greenlanders.
While that is true in principle, Frederiksen has potentially sidelined Denmark entirely in this historic negotiation.
The sidelining of Denmark poses a significant risk for Danish interests.
Instead of negotiating with a stronger economic partner, Trump is now left to deal directly with Greenland’s 55,000 citizens.
Mette Frederiksen likely aimed to avoid alienating Greenland by not dealing over its head but that strategy could be catastrophic.
Instead of negotiating with a stronger economic partner, Trump is now left to deal directly with Greenland’s 55,000 citizens.
Mette Frederiksen likely aimed to avoid alienating Greenland by not dealing over its head but that strategy could be catastrophic.
Ideally, the Greenland deal will benefit all parties:
• The U.S. gains Arctic influence and resource access
• Greenlanders see improved prosperity through investments in infrastructure, education, and healthcare
• Denmark strengthens ties with the U.S. while easing financial burdens
All three nations profit from resource exploration and strategic cooperation.
• The U.S. gains Arctic influence and resource access
• Greenlanders see improved prosperity through investments in infrastructure, education, and healthcare
• Denmark strengthens ties with the U.S. while easing financial burdens
All three nations profit from resource exploration and strategic cooperation.
If you enjoyed this post then follow @ulriklykke and repost the below to your own audience:
https://x.com/ulriklykke/status/1880629091969495287
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
