In 2019, Donald Trump’s idea of wanting to ‘buy Greenland’ was dismissed as a grotesque provocation. Today, an investigation byDanish public broadcaster DR turns that joke into a serious, secretive and disturbing plan: men close to the former president allegedly orchestrated a step-by-step strategy to destabilise Greenland-Denmark ties, with the aim of bringing it closer to the United States. (link to original investigation)

The three phases of the strategy

According to DR, Danish and Greenlandic government sources report that the action goes as follows:

Seduction phase – In January 2025, Trump would arrive in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, to show a friendly face of America. A gesture designed to blunt public opinion and open spaces for dialogue. Source: DR Inquiry – see [DR, 2025] in the geopolitical analysis section.

Political pressure phase – In March 2025, Republican Senator J.D. Vance visited the Pituffik base in the north of the island, harshly criticising Denmark’s role and suggesting that the United States would better respond to Greenland’s needs. Source: DR Inquiry – see details on [DR, 2025].

Infiltration phase – The most dangerous element: at least three Americans with links to Trump’s environment allegedly tried to recruit local pro-annexation activists, amplifying dissent towards Copenhagen and driving public opinion towards a pro-US choice.

These are not fantasies: Danish sources speak of an operation aimed at ‘penetrating Greenlandic society to weaken relations with Denmark and push them towards the United States’.

A pattern already seen: the ‘hybrid’ strategy of the 21st century

This dynamic is not new. Russia used similar tactics in eastern Ukraine in 2014: promotion of pro-Russia movements, instrumental activism and internal fragmentation. No direct invasion, but a gradual process of attrition. Now, Greenland is under attack in the same ways, but disguised as diplomacy and soft power.

For its part, Denmark – together with NATO – has intensified its presence on the island. Not because a war is feared, but to reaffirm a principle: Greenland is not for sale.

The strategic importance of Greenland (which we Europeans struggle to understand)

Those who view the Arctic merely as a vast expanse of ice might not understand the reasons for such a growing and contested interest; yet, behind that apparent white desert, there is a decisive stake.

The subsurface holds rare resources and mineral deposits that are indispensable to technological chains and defence systems, while the progressive melting of the ice opens up unprecedented trade routes, with colossal consequences for logistics and global trade.

At the same time, the area is a strategic crossroads of surveillance and deterrence, where military posts and radar ensure air and naval control of the North Atlantic. But the Arctic is not only a space of power: it is also the epicentre of planetary climate imbalance, a focal point of both environmental emergencies and adaptation policies.

And it is precisely in this scenario that the great powers – from Russia to the United States to China – seek to project their influence, aware that the future of global balances inevitably also passes through the coordinates of that fragile and disputed Far North.

Geopolitical Trumpism: from America First to stratocratic expansionism

The Greenland affair reflects an evolution of Trumpism: from isolationist rhetoric to informal neo-colonialism. He uses charm, pressure and social manipulation to achieve territorial goals. American trademark? No: it is tactics of autocracies . Which in this case appears to us with the reassuring face of populist democracy.

Europe cannot stand idly by

The EU’s silence in the face of this crisis is deafening. Greenland, although no longer in the EU since 1985, is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and a geopolitical space in northern Europe. Letting the US – or anyone else – influence this region is a serious strategic mistake.

This is not anti-Americanism: it is geopolitical realism. Western populisms are learning (and using) the tools of revisionist powers, inside and outside liberal democracies.

The danger of narrative geopolitics

Imagine a world where alliances, all built on democratic promises and values, can be quietly eroded, not with tanks but with ideas, promises and infiltration. A Greenland that changes flag, not because it was conquered by force, but because it was persuaded to believe so. This is narrative geopolitics: an invisible frontier where language becomes a weapon and perceptions weigh more than treaties.

If we ignore this subtle move today, tomorrow we may find ourselves remembering not the annexation of a territory, but the silent surrender of our beliefs. Greenland is not just a heath of ice: it is a symbol, a challenge, a test. And its future may anticipate our own.