Greenland in the spotlight, but the answer is NATO, not new borders

Among the more prominent topics during the opening panel of the Arctic Security Conference was the situation with Greenland and Trump, who has repeatedly expressed interest in annexing the territory, even by force. Speakers treated the flare-up as a real political signal, but argued the answer runs through the alliance and agreements that already exist, not new schemes. 

“Whenever the President of the United States speaks, he’s setting, refining, changing U.S. policy, even if it’s a throwaway line, it’s a thing,” said Michael Sfraga, former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Arctic Affairs and Interim Chancellor, University of Alaska Fairbanks

His point set the tone: take the rhetoric seriously, then translate it into practical steps with allies.

“Greenland is part of NATO,” Norway’s foreign minister Espen Barth Eide reminded the room. He was making a very simple case: the United States already operates at Pituffik Space Base under the long-standing U.S.–Denmark–Greenland defense framework, so any increase in presence can be done inside today’s rules.

“There is ample space within existing formulas to have a much bigger presence, without the trouble of changing borders,” Eide said.

By “existing formulas,” he meant the tools already on the shelf: NATO’s regional defense plans, long-standing U.S.–Denmark–Greenland defense arrangements, which even allow for the establishment of more bases, the American presence at Pituffik, status-of-forces and host-nation support rules and the routine cycle of allied patrols, rotations, pre-positioning and exercises.

In practice, a “bigger presence” can be done by scaling rotations of aircraft and ships, upgrading sensors and early-warning systems, adding joint patrols and exercises, and expanding logistics—all within current law and alliance procedures.

“The strategic logic,” he argued, “is deterrence on day one, not drama on day two.”

That means acting before any threat ever reaches Greenland: use radar and satellite cueing to spot activity early; put allied fighters, maritime patrol aircraft and submarines forward in the North Atlantic; tighten undersea and cyber defenses; and keep logistics warm so reinforcement is measured in hours and days, not weeks. The visible, lawful activity is the point—signal capability and unity so there’s nothing to “solve” with border changes.

“It’s a little late to wait till they come to Greenland — you would need to deal with them earlier. And we’re here,” he said.

That “we” is larger and more coherent now that Finland and Sweden are in NATO. With the whole Scandinavian peninsula allied, air and maritime operations can be run as one northern theater, land corridors into northern Norway are simpler and Nordic air forces can plug into U.S. and U.K. assets tied to Greenland without seams. In other words, the legal and operational bridges already exist—Eide’s point is to cross them more often and with more weight, not to build new ones.

“We’re now effectively one operational area, and it means that it would be a higher threshold for anyone to threaten us in different ways,” said former Norwegian foreign minister Ine Eriksen Søreide. She also warned that northern communities are feeling constant pressure short of open conflict and that steady investment with partners rather than headline-driven pivots are what is needed..

“We are being tested as we speak, especially through hybrid means,” Søreide said.

Denmark, for its part, has moved to show it is stepping up at home and with allies. Copenhagen is leading Arctic Light 2025, the largest military exercise in Greenland’s modern history and has just pledged 1.6 billion Danish crowns to infrastructure and health on the island—twin signals aimed at security and daily life.

“We invest in our allies and partners. We work with them to ensure not only our own security, but the security of our friends and allies,” Sfraga said.

Threaded through the panel was a single message for Washington: if Greenland is on the U.S.’ radar, keep it inside NATO’s planning and the U.S.–Danish–Greenland framework that already exists — practical, scalable and designed to keep trouble from arriving in the first place.