A US lawmaker has warned that any attempt by the United States to seize Greenland by force would place Washington in direct conflict with its NATO allies and undermine transatlantic security. The comment revives a contentious debate about Greenland’s strategic value in the Arctic and the political sensitivities surrounding sovereignty and alliance cohesion.
Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, sits astride key Arctic sea lanes and hosts important facilities such as the US-run Thule Air Base. Interest in the island has surged since the late 2010s, when US leaders publicly discussed buying Greenland, and as Moscow and Beijing deepen their Arctic presence through military activity, infrastructure projects and investment.
The lawmaker’s warning taps into three overlapping fault lines: the legal and moral barriers to territorial conquest in the post‑1945 order, the practical implications for NATO solidarity, and the symbolic costs of unilateral action by a leading alliance member. Any forcible seizure would not only violate international law and Danish sovereignty; it would also force NATO members to choose between alliance loyalty and the rule of law.
For Denmark, Greenland is a matter of domestic politics and national identity as much as strategy. Copenhagen has cultivated closer cooperation with partners on Arctic issues, balancing Greenlandic autonomy with the kingdom’s obligations. A coercive move by the United States would complicate those ties and likely produce a diplomatic rupture between two long-standing allies.
From a wider strategic perspective, the episode underlines how the Arctic has become a theatre for competition among great powers. The United States, Russia, China and European actors all have distinct interests—military, economic and environmental—in the region. Preserving a rules-based approach to disputes and managing military deployments through alliance consultations will be essential to preventing escalation.
The cautionary note from a US lawmaker serves as a reminder that great-power competition in the Arctic cannot be separated from alliance politics. Washington’s ability to deter rivals depends in part on maintaining credible partnerships; sacrificing diplomatic capital for unilateral gains on territory would hollow out that credibility and create longer-term strategic costs.