What it’s about
Politico, citing comments from nine EU officials, NATO insiders, defense experts and diplomats, outlines four possible U.S. strategies regarding Greenland. The most contentious of these is the proposal of "security in exchange for security": Washington could reportedly offer Europe tougher guarantees for Ukraine in return for expanding the American military presence on the island.
Four scenarios being discussed in Brussels and Copenhagen
The piece lists options ranging from diplomatic arrangements and influence over Greenland’s independence movement to concluding an agreement modeled on COFA (similar to Micronesia, the Marshalls and Palau) and even a hypothetical use-of-force option. Each carries different risks for the alliance and for the U.S.’s reputation as a partner.
Why Ukraine becomes the “bargaining chip”
Greenland is a strategically important foothold for access to the Arctic, intelligence and logistics. For the U.S., strengthening its presence there is a geostrategic interest. For Europe, and especially for Ukraine, the main question is whether European capitals are willing to pay through concessions in other areas if Washington offers guarantees that directly affect Ukrainian security. Such bargaining turns support for Ukraine into a negotiation item among major players, undermining confidence in collective defense.
Facts and sources
Politico refers to nine interlocutors in the EU and NATO. The Economist also reported on the possibility of concluding a COFA-like agreement with Greenland. LIGA.net cites a Danish lawmaker who warns that concessions on this issue could legitimize aggression in other regions. At the time of the investigation, about 500 U.S. service members were stationed at the Pituffik base; around 10 consular staff work in Nuuk, and seasonal National Guard units deploy roughly 100 people.
"The main distinguishing feature of Trump as a negotiator is a man who imposes his will on those he negotiates with... I see no benefit for the Greenlandic people, other than a very short-lived boost to their self-esteem"
— Thomas Crosby, Associate Professor of Military Operations at the Royal Danish Defence College
Implications for Ukraine and Europe
If the "security in exchange for security" scenario is indeed being considered — it is a challenge to mutual trust within the alliance. For Ukraine, the risk is not only the potential loss of guarantees but being turned into a bargaining chip in a broader geopolitical game. For Europe, it is a choice between strategic interests in the Arctic and solidarity with Kyiv.
What to watch
Key indicators: official comments from the White House and the U.S. Congress, reactions from Copenhagen and Brussels, NATO’s position, and sentiment within Greenland itself (the cited 2025 survey signals growing interest in independence). It is also worth tracking further intelligence and analytical leaks in leading outlets (Politico, The Economist) — they show how the negotiating framework is being formed.
Conclusion
This story is about the balance between geostrategy and trust. If the U.S. is truly considering trading an expanded role in the Arctic for guarantees to Ukraine, it will force Europe to rethink the tools for protecting its interests and the ways it coordinates within NATO. The question is not just what proposal is put on the table, but whether promises will be turned into concrete, legally binding guarantees for Ukraine.
