How could Donald Trump “occupy” Greenland?

Donald Trump wants to seize Greenland, and the White House has confirmed that all options are on the table, including the use of force.

While military action is just one of a range of economic and political options being considered, since it would be an attack by one NATO member on another, such a move would create a nightmare for the alliance, and most likely an existential one.

Trump has repeatedly stated that Greenland vital to U.S. national security, Claims without evidence that “Russian and Chinese ships are everywhere”.

Drawing on the expertise of experts in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Denmark, we consider the various options the president might consider, and the possible rationales for each.

Defense analysts say a lightning operation to seize Greenland would be relatively easy, but the consequences would be huge.

Although Greenland has a vast territory, it has a population of only about 58,000 people, about one-third of which is concentrated in the capital Nuuk, and most of the rest live on the west coast.

The territory does not have its own army and Denmark is responsible for its defense, but its air and naval resources are limited and cannot cover such a large territory.

Large areas of it are patrolled only by the Sirius Patrol, a Danish special operations force that relies primarily on dog sleds.

However, Denmark Significantly increase defense spending last year in the Arctic and North Atlantic regions, including Greenland.

Its vast size, sparse population and lack of military power make it a ripe target for attack by the United States. The United States has more than 100 military personnel permanently stationed at the Pitufik facility on the northwestern tip of Greenland.

In theory, the facility could serve as a logistics base for future operations.

The base has existed since World War II, when U.S. troops deployed to the island to establish military and radio stations after the Nazis occupied Denmark during the conflict.

Hans Tito Hansen, a Danish security expert and CEO of Risk Intelligence, outlined how a U.S. operation to seize Greenland might proceed.

Hansen said the Alaska-based 11th Airborne Division – which includes two Arctic brigades capable of parachute or helicopter missions – would be the “primary capability” of any invasion, “supported by Air Force and Navy assets.”

His assessment was echoed by Justin Crump, a British Army Reserve officer and director of risk and intelligence company Sibylline.

“The United States has overwhelming naval power and the ability to mobilize large numbers of troops,” he said. “You could easily transport enough troops to put one out of every few people in a single lift.”

Crump added that the choice would be ruthless but also likely to be bloodless and face little resistance.

In the United States, however, several former officials and defense analysts say military action is highly unlikely given its far-reaching impact on the U.S.-European alliance.

“This is a clear violation of all international laws,” said Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Mick Mulroy, a former Marine and CIA paramilitary officer. “Not only are they not a threat to the United States, but they are treaty allies.”

Mulroy said that if the White House began to turn to military options, he believed it would encounter resistance from lawmakers who could pre-empt them by using the War Powers Act, which was designed to limit the president’s ability to wage war without congressional approval.

“I don’t think Congress will support destroying the NATO alliance,” he said.

The United States has deep pockets, but according to Nuuk and Copenhagen, Greenland is not for sale.

CBS, the BBC’s U.S. news partner, cited a lawmaker and a source familiar with the discussions as saying Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers that buying was the government’s preferred option, a different tone than the White House.

But even if Greenland wanted to sell, such a deal would be complicated.

Any funding would have to be appropriated by Congress, and acquiring Greenland through a treaty would require two-thirds support in the Senate — something experts say is difficult to obtain.

The EU must also sign the agreement.

While Trump could theoretically try to strike a deal unilaterally without involving Greenland or Congress, experts believe that is highly unlikely.

Professor Monica Hakimi, an expert on international law at Columbia University, said “one could imagine a scenario” in which Denmark, the United States and Greenland agree on terms for territorial transfers.

“(But) to be fully consistent with international law, such a treaty would probably also have to involve Greenlanders in their self-determination,” she added.

It’s unclear how much it will cost to buy the island. For Trump, who campaigned on an “America First” platform, this could complicate matters.

The prospect of billions or even trillions of U.S. tax dollars being spent on a snow-covered island could have very serious consequences for his MAGA base.

However, Crump believes that failure to successfully purchase the island could make the military option more attractive to Trump – especially with the administration having recently succeeded in arresting Venezuelan Nicolas Maduro.

“He’d say, ‘OK, we’ll just take it,'” Crump said of the U.S. president.

Dear Secretary Marco Rubio, He will meet with Danish officials next week to discuss Greenlandhas said Trump “is not the first U.S. president to review or look at how we acquired” the territory.

He mentioned President Harry Truman, who in 1946 floated the idea of ​​paying Denmark $100 million in gold to buy Greenland.

Opinion polls show that a majority of Greenlanders want independence from Denmark.

But polls also show they don’t want to be part of the United States.

Still, the United States could step up its efforts to win over the islanders through short-term financial incentives or the prospect of future economic benefits.

U.S. media reports have indicated that U.S. intelligence agencies have stepped up surveillance of the Greenland independence movement in an effort to identify figures who support government goals.

Imran Bayouni, a geostrategy expert at the Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C. and a former policy adviser to the Department of Defense, told the BBC that an “influence campaign” was more likely than any military operation.

He explained that the movement could help push Greenland towards independence.

“Then, after Greenland declares independence, you can have the U.S. government as a partner,” he said. “The cost of military action is too high.”

Such cooperation is not without precedent.

For example, the United States has similar agreements with Pacific nations such as Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands, which are independent states that give the United States defense rights.

In return, citizens of these three countries have the opportunity to live and work in the United States.

But that may not satisfy Trump, who already has the authority under existing agreements to send as many troops as he wants to Greenland.

An arrangement of this nature would not give the United States title to Greenland’s vast mineral resources buried deep beneath Arctic ice.

Danish analyst Hansen believes that as long as Greenlandic people oppose it, any movement that wants to “own” Greenland – unless it takes military action – will not succeed.

Currently, no political parties on the island are seeking to become part of the United States.

“Greenland is more likely to become a member of the EU again,” he said.

“Furthermore, the current U.S. administration has three years left, and the people of Greenland have perhaps 1,000 years on the horizon.”