Kathrine Frich
The dispute over Greenland has exposed deeper anxieties about security in the Arctic.
While the political rhetoric has been loud, one military analyst argues the strategic logic behind Washington’s interest deserves closer attention.
The debate, she says, is driven less by politics than by rapidly changing warfare.
Rising tensions
Relations between the United States and Europe have been strained by Donald Trump’s public criticism of allies over Greenland.
His comments on Truth Social, along with earlier threats of tariffs, drew sharp responses from European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, who said: “We prefer respect to intimidation.”
Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, and Britain’s Keir Starmer have also pushed back, while the EU has warned it could retaliate with large-scale trade measures if tensions escalate.
Amid the backlash, few have examined whether Trump’s security arguments have merit.
A strategic island
Writing in The Telegraph, military analyst and author Rebekah Koffler argues that Greenland’s geography makes it central to US and European defence.
She says advances in hypersonic missile technology have exposed weaknesses in Western early warning systems that only the United States can realistically address.
Around 80 percent of Greenland lies north of the Arctic Circle, close to the most direct route for missile attacks from Eurasia. This, Koffler notes, has made the region strategically vital since the early Cold War.
The United States has operated military facilities on the island since World War II to monitor potential threats from Russia.
Minutes to react
Koffler warns that hypersonic weapons have dramatically reduced reaction times. In a traditional intercontinental ballistic missile scenario, a US president may have five to eight minutes to decide on a response.
With hypersonic missiles, that window could be even shorter. Russia’s use of systems such as Kinzhal and Oreshnik, she argues, has pushed the risk to an “unacceptably high” level.
Detecting and tracking such weapons, she adds, is far more difficult than intercepting conventional missiles.
Space and defence
Trump’s creation of the US Space Force during his first term was widely mocked, but Koffler says it now underpins America’s Arctic strategy.
Space Force operations are run from Pituffik Base in Greenland, which hosts advanced radar systems monitoring airspace and outer space around the clock.
She notes that Russia and China are both expanding their military presence in the Arctic and preparing for space warfare, making Greenland a critical hub for early warning and satellite defence.
Europe’s dilemma
Koffler argues that leaving such sensitive capabilities dependent on another country, even a NATO ally, is a risk Trump is unwilling to take.
She says Denmark’s willingness to cooperate does not resolve concerns over secrecy and control.
“The best course of action for Europe now would be to trust Trump’s geostrategic and geopolitical instincts and make a deal,” she concludes, warning that rejecting Washington’s approach could carry serious consequences.
Sources: The Telegraph, Digi24.
