Four ways this saga could play out

In recent weeks, US President-elect Donald Trump has shown renewed interest in taking control of Greenland, Denmark's largely autonomous territory in the Arctic and the world's largest island.

He first indicated an intention to buy Greenland in 2019, during his first term as president, but this week went further, refusing to rule out economic or military power to take control of it.

Danish and European officials responded in the negative, saying that Greenland was not for sale and that its territorial integrity should be preserved.

So how could this unusual situation develop where two NATO allies are pitted against a vast territory that is 80% ice-covered but has significant untapped mineral wealth?

And how might aspirations for independence among Greenland's population of 56,000, under Danish control for 300 years, affect the bottom line?

Here we consider four possible scenarios for Greenland's future.

There is some speculation that Trump's move is just bragging rights, a move to get Denmark to beef up security in Greenland in the face of the threat of Russia and China seeking influence in the region.

last month, Denmark announced a new $1.5bn (£1.2bn) military package. for the Arctic. It was prepared before Trump's remarks, but the announcement just hours later was described by Denmark's defense minister as “ironic.”

“The important thing about what Trump said was that Denmark has to fulfill its obligations in the Arctic or it has to let the US do it,” said Elisabeth Svane, chief political correspondent for the Politiken newspaper.

Mark Jacobsen, an associate professor at the Royal Danish Defense College, believes it's a case of Trump “positioning himself before he gets into office,” while Greenland uses the occasion to gain more international clout as an important step toward independence.

So even if Trump now loses even more interest in Greenland, which Professor Jacobsen thinks is the most likely scenario, he has certainly brought attention to the issue.

But Greenlandic independence has been on the agenda for many years, and some say the debate could even go in the opposite direction.

“I have noticed that in the last few days the Prime Minister of Greenland has been more relaxed in his comments – ie. yes, we want independence, but for the long term,” says Svane.

There is a general consensus in Greenland that independence will happen eventually and also that if Greenland votes for it, Denmark will accept and ratify it.

However, Greenland is unlikely to vote for independence unless its people are given guarantees that they can keep the subsidies they currently receive from Denmark to pay for things like healthcare and a welfare system.

“The Prime Minister of Greenland may be armed now, but in the event that he does call a referendum, he will need some kind of compelling narrative on how to save Greenland's economy and welfare system,” Ulrik Gadd, senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, the BBC said.

One possible next step is a loose association – something like the US currently has with the Pacific nations of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.

Denmark has previously opposed this status for both Greenland and the Faroe Islands, but according to Dr Gadd, current Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen is not strongly opposed.

“Danish understanding of Greenland's historical experience is much better than it was 20 years ago,” he says, with Denmark taking on the colonial responsibility.

Recent discussions “may persuade (Frederiksen) to say – better to keep Denmark in the Arctic, to keep some connection with Greenland, even if it's freer,” he added.

But even if Greenland could get rid of Denmark, it has become clear in recent years that it cannot get rid of the US. The Americans never left it after taking control of the island in World War II and considered it vital to their security.

1951 Agreement asserts Denmark's basic sovereignty over the island, but effectively gives the US whatever it wants.

Dr Gadd said Greenlandic officials had been in contact with the last two US administrations about Washington's role.

“Now they know the US is never going away,” he said.

There has been speculation that Trump's economic rhetoric is potentially the biggest threat to Denmark – with a drastic increase in US tariffs on Danish or even European goods, forcing Denmark to make some concessions on Greenland.

Professor Jacobsen says Danish governments have been preparing for this, and not just because of the Arctic territory.

Trump has threatened blanket tariffs of 10% on all US imports, which could, among other things, significantly disrupt European growth, and some Danish and other European companies are now considering setting up manufacturing bases in the US.

Possible options for raising tariffs include invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, Benjamin Cote of international law firm Pillsbury told the MarketWatch website.

One of the main Danish industries potentially affected by this is pharmaceuticals. The US gets products such as hearing aids and most of its insulin from Denmark, as well as the diabetes drug Ozempic, made by Denmark's Novo Nordisk.

Analysts say the price increases that will result from these measures will not find favor with the US public.

The “nuclear option” seems far-fetched, but since Trump has failed to rule out military action, it should be considered.

In essence, it would not be difficult for the US to take control, given that they already have bases and many troops in Greenland.

“The US is now in de facto control,” Professor Jacobsen said, adding that Trump's remarks appeared ill-informed and he didn't understand the point.

However, any use of military force by Washington would create an international incident.

“If they invade Greenland, they invade NATO,” Svane says. “So that stops. Article 5 must be triggered. And if a NATO country invades NATO, then there is no NATO.”

Dr Gadd says Trump sounds like Chinese President Xi Jinping talking about Taiwan or Russia's Vladimir Putin talking about Ukraine.

“He says it's legal for us to take this piece of land,” he says. “If we take it really seriously, it's a bad omen for the entire Western alliance.”

Additional reporting by George Sandeman