US President-elect Donald Trump has not ruled out the use of military force to acquire Greenland. Home to just 57,000 people, strategically positioned at the gateway to both the northwest and northeast Arctic passages, Greenland is increasingly important. Melting ice opens commercial shipping routes and exposes critical submarine corridors for Russia and other powers.

Trump’s focus on Greenland underscores the Arctic’s emerging status as a front in great power competition. While the President-elect dismisses the reality of climate change, the Arctic bears its brunt acutely. The rapid melting of sea ice and the Greenlandic ice sheet imperils native communities, disrupts ecosystems, and transforms the region’s geopolitical landscape. Its natural riches—including abundant fish stocks, vast oil and gas reserves, and rare earth minerals—further amplify its global significance. Trump first expressed interest in buying Greenland in 2019, framing it as “a large real estate deal”. Also in 2019, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking in Rovaniemi, Finland, rejected the Arctic as a “zone of peace,” referring to rising geopolitical tensions. This time, the focus has changed. “We need Greenland for national security purposes,” Trump said while citing the necessity of deterring rival powers.

Mikkel Runge Olesen of the Danish Institute for International Studies, emphasised the strategic stakes in the Arctic: “For the U.S., the concern lies with Chinese and Russian interests in the area. The region has become a theatre for geopolitical competition, and keeping other great powers out of Greenland is a priority for Washington.”

A Politico report reveals that Trump’s pursuit of Greenland stems from broader geopolitical considerations, particularly countering Russia’s rising dominance. The same from Mike Waltz, his national security adviser nominee who remarked, “This isn’t just about Greenland. It’s about the Arctic, national security, oil, gas, and critical minerals.”

Andreas Østhagen of Norway’s Fridtjof Nansen Institute warned that rhetoric like Trump’s could normalise military force as a tool in international affairs, with Russia and China as likely beneficiaries. Such ambitions certainly provide excuses for other powers to adopt imperialistic strategies elsewhere (think of Chinese aggression against Taiwan). Far from easing tensions, his approach exacerbates them, inviting some sort of retaliation. Russia, with its extensive Arctic coastline, already wields considerable influence in the region.

Greenland’s geographical distance from Russia is considerable, but its proximity to Svalbard—a Norwegian archipelago pivotal to Moscow’s strategic interests—adds a layer of complexity. Svalbard— home to more polar bears than inhabitants — lies along a sea route that Russia’s Northern Fleet must pass to reach the Atlantic Ocean. Although the relevant 1920 treaty grants sovereignty over the archipelago to Norway and constitutes the cluster of islands a demilitarised zone, it also makes it a visa-free one. It leads to concerns over China’s presence at Svalbard’s Yellow River Station while sparking questions about Norway’s oversight.

Moreover, the archipelago emerges as a critical bargaining chip in the shifting dynamics of Arctic diplomacy. This underscores the extent to which Trump’s apparent disregard for international treaties risks destabilising cooperative frameworks in the region. As a de facto linchpin of Arctic equilibrium, it occupies an indispensable position in preserving balance within the region’s intricate and evolving geopolitical subsystem.

For Trump, the rationale for a dramatic shift in foreign policy is anchored in a mixture of deeply held and at times contradictory beliefs. These include the perception that even America’s closest allies exploit its goodwill, a lingering grievance over the cession of the Panama Canal, and the conviction that China is encroaching on what should remain the U.S.’s sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere. Indeed, the Arctic theatre holds a critical significance, representing the first (contemporary) order arising outside the scope of Western supremacy.

Russia (and China in the backdrop) commands a strong hand, while the critical cards needed to secure a winning strategy for the U.S. lie not within its grasp but with its allies (i.e. Greenland). Durham’s IBRU: Centre for Borders Research starkly illustrates this challenge. From the perspective of a real estate entrepreneur, the map exposes both the core problem and the solution that logic would inevitably suggest. What we are witnessing now is the gradual unfolding of that realisation.

Trump’s inclination for swift, transactional victories conflicts with the patience and foresight required in foreign policy. Under Trump, U.S. diplomacy may exhibit an unpredictable, self-interested style—reminiscent of his Silicon Valley allies’ brash confidence in their technological superiority. A business-like approach is not an asset here. President-elect Trump is first and foremost a businessman.  Such short-sighted decisions, with ramifications spanning generations, risk appearing reckless rather than calculated. While unpredictability can be an asset in diplomacy, his approach often strays into dangerous impetuosity, straining alliances and fostering mistrust. The balance may shift from allies once willing, content, and steadfast to those unwilling, embittered, and compelled. By then, it will be too late—the tide will have turned, its course altered, flowing irreversibly toward a riveted end.