I find it very interesting that both the United States and Denmark are squabbling about Greenland. While Greenland is autonomous, it is a part of Denmark Yet, its citizens would like greater independence. This is difficult given that Denmark subsidizes its Greenland citizens to the tune of approximately US$12,000 per person. No wonder Greenland wants to say a part of Denmark.
The United States wants Greenland for whatever reason Trump might dream up. One reason that might make some sense relates to the contribution that the U.S. has historically made to NATO. From being well over 70% of total NATO defence spending in the early-to-mid 2010s, the U.S. share has gradually declined toward the mid-60% range by the mid-2020s — primarily due to rising European spending. Even so, U.S. defense spending in 2024 constituted as some two-thirds of total NATO countries spending on defense. At the same time, the U.S. contributed nearly one-fifth of NATO small operating budget. Greenland might then be thought of as a reward for 75 years of U.S. military protection of Europe.
Nonetheless, Greenland occupies a strategic position in the Arctic. If one looks at a map centered on the north, it stands between Russia and the North America—between Russia and the United States.
However, if any country should have a claim on Greenland, it should be Canada. Greenland is located next to Canada—Canada and Greenland are closer to each other than many provinces in Canada are to one another. Across the Nares Strait, between Ellesmere Island (Nunavut, Canada) and Northwest Greenland, the two countries (Canada and Denmark) are only about 26 km apart, although the distance between Baffin Island (Canada) and western Greenland ranges from about 300 to 400 km. Compared to Denmark and the U.S., Canada and Greenland would be considered one entity.
Many people in Greenland speak English, although it would be the third language after their native language and Danish. Some four-fifths of Greenlanders speak the native language, which is used in the Island’s government, with many also speaking Danish since they are a part of Denmark. The native language is not familiar to non-Greenlandic Danes, but is common to a language used in Canada.
The most common language spoken in Greenland is Kalaallisut (Greenlandic), which is part of the same Inuit language continuum spoken across Alaska, Canada, and Greenland. All Inuit languages belong to the Eskimo–Aleut family, specifically the Inuit branch. This includes Kalaallisut, Inuktitut, which is spoken in the Canadian territory of Nunavut and the region of Nunavik in Northern Quebec, Inuinnaqtun / Inuvialuktun (spoken in Western Nunavut & the Northwest Territory of Canada), and Iñupiatun (Alaska). These are not separate languages but form a dialect continuum, meaning neighboring dialects are mutually understandable, although differences grow with distance. Yet, Inuit dialects across the Arctic maintain reasonable mutual intelligibility with Greenlandic most closely related to Canadian Inuktitut specifically. They share the same vocabulary, grammar, and structure, although differing by region, yet sufficiently related so that communication is possible.
I would think that Greenlanders might well prefer to be part of Canada than the United States, and perhaps even prefer Canada to Denmark. Not only can they find cultural and language commonality with the Inuit of Canada but, based on Canadian government transfers in spending on indigenous people in 2024, people in Greenland could be the recipients of as much as US$25,000 per person.
Of course, the United States also has eyes on Canada. But swallowing Canada and its 44 million citizens is much different proposition than taking over Greenland—it unlikely to happen. However, Canada needs to come to some kind of agreement with the U.S. regarding trade and defense.
Trade with the U.S. amounts to about 75% to 77% of Canada’s exports. While Mark Carney looks to the China as Canada’s second largest trading partner, it is necessary to realize that current exports to China amount to only 4% of total Canadian exports. Carney has managed to restore China’s imports of Canadian canola (benefiting Saskatchewan farmers but not canola processors), along with Chinese promises to expand imports of other agricultural and fish products. But this comes at the cost of much lower Canadian tariffs (6.1% down from 100%) on electric vehicles, which could harm manufacturing in Ontario. It is likely that China will also want to import more oil and other resource commodities, which would require, among other things, construction of a pipeline from Alberta through British Columbia. Pat experience suggests this is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
When it comes to trade, Canada’s best option is to focus on the United States and negotiate a customs union. This would imply common tariffs for goods entering Canada as for goods entering the U.S., with goods, services, and investments between the two countries flowing freely. Whether free movement of labour between the countries, and people more generally, would also be permitted is something that would need to be negotiated. A customs union does not imply political union as is sometimes mistakenly considered. Greenland would be enveloped within the customs union as a part of Canada.
Finally, there is the issue of defense and security. Despite Canada’s failure to spend more than 1.5% of its GDP on defense and the lapse in perceived Canada-U.S. common defense, Canada and the U.S. have long-standing defense arrangements, particularly with respect to the defense of the North American continent. Canadian and American forces and equipment are arguably the most integrated of any two nations; the economies of the two nations are also highly integrated despite President Trump’s rantings to the contrary. Canada has agreed to increase its defense spending to 5% of GDP. By focusing a significant proportion of such spending on the Arctic, particularly when it comes to the 1.5% to be allocated to infrastructure, it would go some way to alleviating U.S. concerns about enemies in the Arctic.
Given the current global geopolitical situation, and mounting pressure on Denmark to ‘release’ an autonomous region that it could not possibly defend or even exploit economically, it becomes attractive (and maybe even imperative) for Greenland to join Canada.