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

However, military action is just one of the economic and political options being evaluated by the US government, as it would involve one NATO member attacking another.

A measure of This type of scenario would represent a nightmare for the transatlantic alliance, and probably an existential threat.

The US president has repeatedly claimed that Greenland is vital to US national security, alleging without evidence that it is “teeming with Russian and Chinese ships everywhere.”

With the help of US, British, and Danish experts, we analyzed the various options Trump might be considering and the possible arguments for each.

Military Operation

Defense analysts say a lightning operation to seize Greenland could be carried out with relative ease, although the consequences would be monumental.

Although geographically vast, Greenland's population is only about 58,000, roughly a third of those who live in Nuuk, the capital, with most of the rest living on the west coast.

The territory has no armed forces of its own. Denmark is responsible for its own defense, but has limited air and naval resources to cover such a vast territory. Large areas are patrolled solely by the Sirius Patrol, a Danish special operations unit that travels primarily by dog ??sled. However, Denmark has significantly increased its defense spending in the Arctic and North Atlantic regions, including Greenland, over the past year. Its large size, sparse population, and lack of a military would make it an easy target for the United States. Which already has more than 100 military personnel permanently stationed at Pituffik Base, in the northwestern tip of Greenland.

This base could, in theory, serve as a logistics hub for future operations.

The facility has existed since World War II, when US troops were deployed to the island to establish military bases and radio stations after the Nazis occupied Denmark.

Hans Tino Hansen,a Danish security expert and CEO of Risk Intelligence, explained how a US operation to take Greenland could unfold.

According to Hansen, the Alaska-based 11th Airborne Division, which includes two Arctic brigades capable of parachute or helicopter missions, would be the “core capability” in any invasion, “supported by the air force and navy.”

This assessment was endorsed by Justin Crump, a British Army reserve officer and director of the risk analysis and intelligence firm Sibylline.

“The United States has overwhelming naval power and the ability to transport a considerable number of troops,” he stated. “You could easily transport enough troops in a single flight to have one soldier for every few inhabitants.”

Crump added that this option would be ruthless, but also potentially bloodless, as there is likely to be little resistance.

However, in the United States, several former officials and defense analysts maintain that a military operation is extremely unlikely, given its profound implications for alliances between the United States and Europe.

“That would clearly be against all international law,” declared Mick Mulroy, a former Marine, CIA paramilitary officer, and assistant assistant secretary of defense. “Not only do they not pose a threat to the United States, but they are an ally with whom we have a treaty.”

If the White House were to begin considering a military option, Mulroy maintains that it would likely encounter resistance from parliament, who could invoke the War Powers Act, designed to limit the president's ability to declare war without congressional approval, to prevent it.

“I don't believe there is any support in Congress for destroying the NATO alliance,” he

Buying Greenland

The United States has sufficient financial resources stated, but Greenland is not for sale, both Nuuk and Copenhagen reiterate.

Citing a lawmaker and a source familiar with the discussions, CBS, the BBC's US news partner, reported that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio,He informed members of Congress that the purchase was the government's preferred option. But even if Greenland wanted to be sold, such a transaction would be extremely complicated. Any funding would have to be approved by Congress, and acquiring Greenland through a treaty would require the support of two-thirds of the Senate, something experts say would be difficult to achieve. The European Union would also have to give its approval to the deal. While Trump could, in theory, try to reach an agreement unilaterally without the involvement of Greenland or Congress, experts believe this is extremely unlikely. Professor Monica Hakimi, an expert in international law at Columbia University, argues that "one could imagine a situation" in which Denmark,the United States, and Greenland agree on the terms for the transfer of the territory. "[But] for it to be fully compliant with international law, such a treaty would probably also have to include Greenland's participation for the sake of its "Self-determination," he added. It is not known how much the purchase of the island might cost. This could complicate matters for Trump, who campaigned on the America First platform. The prospect of billions of US taxpayer dollars being spent on an ice-covered island could be very poorly received by his Make America Great Again (MAGA) supporters. However, Justin Crump believes that The failure to purchase the island could make the military option more appealing to Trump, especially since his administration might be emboldened by the recent successful operation to arrest Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. ??paying Denmark US$100 million in gold to buy Greenland.

Support Campaigns

Opinion polls suggest that a majority of Greenlanders want independence from Denmark. However, they also indicate that they do not want to be part of the United States.

Nevertheless, the US could intensify its efforts to win over the islanders through short-term financial incentives or the promise of future economic benefits.

In fact, Some US media outlets have already suggested that US intelligence agencies have intensified surveillance of Greenland's independence movement, attempting to identify figures who would support US government objectives. Imran Bayoumi, a geostrategy expert at the Atlantic Council in Washington, DC, and a former policy advisor to the Department of Defense, told the BBC that an "influence campaign" is far more likely than any military action. He explained that this campaign could help push Greenland toward independence. "Then, after Greenland declares its independence, the US government could become a partner," he stated. “The cost of military action is too high.”

These kinds of partnerships have precedents.

The United States, for example, has entered into a similar agreement with the Pacific nations of Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands—all independent countries that grant the United States access to defense rights.

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

But this might not satisfy Trump, who already has the power to send as many troops as he wants to Greenland under existing agreements.

Moreover,Such an agreement would not grant the United States ownership rights to Greenland's vast mineral reserves, which lie beneath the Arctic ice.

Danish analyst Hansen argued that any campaign to “acquire” Greenland without resorting to military action would be unsuccessful as long as the Greenlandic population opposes the idea.

For now, no political party On the island, he is campaigning to become part of the United States. “It is more likely that Greenland will rejoin the European Union,” he stated. “Furthermore, the current US administration has three years left, while the people of Greenland perhaps have a 1,000-year outlook.”