Greenland, Trump, and the Washington Summit

Greenland, Trump, and the Washington Summit Why provocation is part of the deal and what Germany must do wisely now

Recent developments surrounding Greenland reinforce our theories, making it worthwhile to take a closer look at the whole picture. The Greenland summit in Washington on January 14, 2026, flanked by open provocations from the White House, marks a new level of escalation: rhetorically loud, politically calculated, strategically unsurprising.

Donald Trump is acting exactly as one would expect from a dealmaker: applying pressure before the talks, maximizing his negotiating position before the summit, and simultaneously testing red lines. Anyone who misinterprets these signals as impulsive saber rattling fails to understand the logic behind them. Trump is raising the stakes, not because he necessarily wants to escalate, but because he wants to increase his negotiating leeway.

The double provocation - deliberately staged The White House photo montage, which demonstratively shows Greenland behind the window of the Oval Office, is no coincidence and no communication error. It is a symbolic claim of ownership, addressed to three target groups at once: Denmark, Europe, and his own electorate. The same applies to the announcement by a Republican congressman that he would introduce a bill to annex Greenland, knowing full well that it has little chance of passing politically. These maneuvers serve a purpose: they shift the discourse. Suddenly, a "purchase," a special agreement, or a massive expansion of the U.S. presence seems moderate compared to open annexation. This is classic deal-making tactics. A summit with explosive potential The fact that Danish Foreign Minister Lars L?kke Rasmussen and Greenland's Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt are now meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance is therefore not a sign of European weakness, but rather an expression of a serious attempt to defuse the situation before it gets out of hand. At the same time, Trump's statement that the US will "get Greenland one way or another" shows how deliberately he is playing with the worst-case scenario.

The Danish prime minister's warning that an attack on Greenland would effectively mean the end of NATO is no exaggeration. Such a move would call into question the entire post-war order, which is precisely why it remains extremely unlikely. However, the fact that Trump is keeping this option open rhetorically increases the pressure on all parties involved to allow some form of deal.

Greenland's clear stance - and Europe's dilemma It is noteworthy that Greenland's head of government, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, explicitly calls on NATO to defend Greenland as part of the Kingdom of Denmark. This is a clear signal: self-determination yes, but no external control by Washington. Greenland's rejection of a takeover is real, deeply rooted and politically stable.

At the same time, the crisis reveals a core European problem: strategic dependence. Europe insists on international law, but has little military and infrastructural substance of its own in the Far North. Chancellor Friedrich Merz's call for compromise and his expression of understanding for American security concerns is therefore not a capitulation, but realism.

_The assessment of Ingo Wendelken (WerteUnion Bremen):_ _From a liberal and value-oriented perspective, the line remains clear:_ _- Purchase, annexation, or economic coercion are to be clearly rejected._ _- Greenland's self-determination and Denmark's sovereignty are non-negotiable._

However, pragmatically speaking, the following also applies: The security interests of the United States in the Arctic are real. Russia and China have long been active there. Anyone who believes that this dynamic can be ignored is inviting other powers to create facts on the ground. What Germany should do now The current escalation shows that waiting is no longer an option. Remain politically clear and rhetorically calm.
Germany should continue to emphasize international law and alliance solidarity in no uncertain terms, without anti-American escalation. Become part of the solution. Not a spectator, but a co-creator: through European investment in Arctic infrastructure, research, security, and raw material partnerships. Contain US dominance, don't fight it. The American presence will remain. The question is whether it will be bilateral or multilateral, NATO-bound and transparent. The current provocations from Washington are not a harbinger of military adventure, but part of a calculated negotiating game. Trump is testing how far he can go and who is prepared to take responsibility. For Germany, the wise response lies neither in alarmism nor in submission, but in self-confident co-creation.

Or, to put it another way: those who do not help shape the deal will become part of the deal. Thinking freely means defending self-determination. Acting in accordance with values means protecting alliances. And being pragmatic means recognizing that in a world of power politics, it is not the most moral who wins, but those who are prepared. (Ingo Wendelken, 01/13/26) Greenland between deal, pressure, and de facto control A geopolitical situation analysis (as of January 2026) The renewed debate about Greenland is not a political oddity or the personal whim of individual actors, but rather an expression of a fundamental shift in global power axes. The Arctic has risen from a peripheral region to a strategic center: militarily, economically, and geopolitically. Greenland is at the center of attention: sparsely populated, rich in natural resources, strategically located between North America, Europe, and Russia. The question is no longer _whether_, but _how_ the United States will expand its influence.

1. Formal access: purchase and referendum The openly discussed purchase of Greenland seems spectacular, but is highly problematic politically. Both the Greenlandic population and Denmark categorically reject a sale. Even generous financial offers do little to change the perception that a sale reproduces colonial patterns. A referendum on independence is legally possible, but politically risky. Although there is a growing desire to break away from Denmark, this is primarily fueled by questions of identity and autonomy, not by a desire to come under US sovereignty. A second referendum on annexation or partnership with the US would most likely fail or leave the country deeply divided.

2. The clean model: Compact of Free Association The COFA model, as practiced by the US with several Pacific island states, is considered legally elegant. Greenland would remain sovereign, while Washington would take over defense, security, and parts of foreign policy. Financially, this would be attractive for Greenland and plausible in terms of security policy, given Russian and Chinese activities in the Arctic. But here, too, the problem lies in political trust: many Greenlanders fear that economic dependence will mean de facto foreign control in the long term. Without prior complete independence from Denmark, this model is not feasible anyway.

3. The real question of power: economic influence A much more realistic option is to expand economic control. US companies secure concessions for rare earths, uranium, oil, and gas, and invest in ports, airports, and energy infrastructure. This strategy is legally sound under international law, politically quiet, and highly effective. Whoever controls the supply chains, investments, and jobs influences political decisions--without changing flags. This is precisely where the US has the greatest leverage. This option is compatible with almost all other scenarios and has been implemented for years. 4. Military presence without annexation The US presence in Greenland, especially around Thule Air Base, has existed since the Cold War. Under the guise of NATO agreements and security cooperation, the US can expand its military capabilities almost indefinitely without formally infringing on sovereignty. This is convenient for Europe: defense is externalized, political responsibility remains abstract. For Washington, it is ideal: full operational control at minimal diplomatic cost. 5. The threat scenario: military annexation

Openly mentioning a military option has a dramatic effect, but strategically it is more rhetoric than planning. An annexation would trigger a direct conflict with NATO, break up the alliance, and massively damage the international order. This would be counterproductive for a deal-oriented approach, as favored by Donald Trump in particular. The option primarily serves as leverage in negotiations and a signal to other players, especially Russia and China.

6. The most likely path: status quo plus The most likely scenario is a combination of status quo, increased economic penetration, and growing military presence. Formally, Greenland remains part of the Danish kingdom, but in reality, its dependence on the US is growing. This gradual strategy avoids ruptures, minimizes resistance, and creates irreversible facts. It is neither spectacular nor high-profile - but it is maximally efficient in geopolitical terms. 7. Complementary dynamics: debt, governance, gray areas There are also indirect instruments: targeted financial aid, loans, international Arctic governance formats under US leadership, and security policy "necessities" that justify a new presence. These gray area strategies are typical of modern power projection: legal, legitimizable, and difficult to attack. The debate about Greenland is often narrowed down to the question of annexation. That is too short-sighted. Sovereignty and control are decoupled in the 21st century. The US does not need to own Greenland to control it strategically. A scenario of gradual integration is more likely: economically, militarily, and in terms of security policy. Europe, and Denmark in particular, has accepted this so far out of convenience and dependence. Greenland itself faces a historic challenge: between formal self-determination and de facto influence. The decision on this will not be made in a referendum, but in treaties, investments, and quiet security policy arrangements.

Forecast for Greenland 2026-2035 What will happen - and how should it be assessed (liberal . value-oriented . pragmatic)? Below is a clear ranking of the most realistic options, based on geopolitical logic, previous developments, and power interests - including a clear assessment of whether they should be endorsed or rejected from a liberal German perspective.

? Rank 1 - Status quo PLUS (creeping US dominance) What will happen: Greenland will formally remain part of Denmark, but: * increased US investment * expansion of military presence * security policy dependence * economic interdependence with the United States Probability: ? Very high Reality: This is already happening.

Assessment: ? Conditionally endorse ? Pragmatic, stable, low conflict ? Risk of silent foreign control ? Only acceptable if transparent, embedded in a multilateral framework, and supported by Europe. ? Rank 2 - Economic control by US corporations What happens: US companies secure: * Rare earths
* Uranium * Energy & infrastructure * Political decisions follow economic dependence. Probability: ? Very high Reality: Classic power projection without a flag. Assessment: ? Monitor critically, do not block ? Danger of economic colonization ? Legally sound under international law ? Only justifiable if:

* Competition remains open * European alternatives exist * Greenland has real bargaining power ? Rank 3 - Expanded military presence without annexation What happens: Expansion of bases, radar, missile defense under NATO logic - de facto control of security by the US.

Probability: ? High Assessment: ? Accept with gritted teeth ? Security against Russia/China ? Restriction of real sovereignty ? Only acceptable if: * under NATO framework * with European involvement * without bilateral special deals ? Rank 4 - COFA model (after Greenlandic independence) What happens: Greenland becomes formally sovereign, the US takes over defense & financing. Probability: ? Medium Time horizon: more likely 2030+ Assessment: ? Neutral to cautiously positive

? Formally clean, voluntarily possible ? High risk of dependency ? Only endorse if: * Democratically legitimized * Time-verifiable * With exit clauses ? Rank 5 - Referendum on independence + US option What happens: First referendum conceivable, second on US affiliation very unlikely.

Probability: ? Low-medium Rating: ? Support in principle because of self-determination, but accept the result regardless of the outcome ? Freedom also means accepting a "no" vote. ? Rank 6 - Purchase of Greenland What happens: Political deal attempt, massively rejected by the population and government.

Probability: ? Low Rating: ? Clearly reject * ? Disregard for democratic legitimacy * ? Colonial logic * ? Dangerous precedent ? Rank 7 - Military annexation What happens: Open use of force against NATO partner. Probability: ? Very low (Threat scenario) Rating: ?? Strictly reject * Breakdown of NATO * End of the rules-based order * Security policy disaster for Europe ? Our overall conclusion in one sentence Greenland will not be "taken over," but gradually integrated: economically, militarily, and in terms of security policy. This is only acceptable from a liberal perspective if transparency, self-determination, and European responsibility are maintained. Germany should not ask whether the US is expanding its influence in Greenland, but under what conditions this is happening. Acting liberally means defending self-determination. Acting in a value-oriented manner means protecting alliances and the rule of law. Acting pragmatically means taking responsibility and building up one's own power to shape the future. Those who combine these three levels protect German and European interests; without illusions, but with conviction. _Text, design, and image: Ingo Wendelken (WerteUnion Bremen)_ Image credit/symbolic illustration: Chess pieces on Greenland as a metaphor for geopolitical interests in the Arctic. (AI-generated image)

The aforementioned photo montage from the White House here:

WerteUnion Bremen
Rossower Stra?e 7
17034 Neubrandenburg
Germany

https://werteunionbremen.de/

Ingo Wendelken

ingo.wendelken@werteunion.de

WerteUnion Landesverband Bremen Liberal. Value-oriented. Pragmatic. www.werteunionbremen.de

This release was published on openPR.