The whole story,
all the conflicts, the unity and the unknown future

The Unity of the Realm is, as we know, a trinity, but we will keep the Faroe Islands out of the next two chapters.

Although there are not significant differences between Greenland’s and the Faroe Islands’ governance, Greenland holds a notable trump card: its size and location.

From a security and geopolitical standpoint, Greenland is situated at the epicenter of major global politics. To the east lies Russia, to the west Canada and the USA, and in the middle is Greenland.

This positioning grants Denmark – which handles all foreign policy matters concerning Greenland – substantial power on the international stage.

»Denmark will disappear from the world map the day Greenland becomes independent«, influencer Qupanuk Olsen said in an interview with Politiken.

She referred to the fact that Greenland constitutes 98 percent of the Kingdom’s area and is located in a geopolitically and security-politically crucial position. Denmark is essentially the size of a country like Belgium, yet we are among the USA’s closest allies. This is not only because we have been particularly pro-American since World War II, but also – and especially – due to Greenland and the power play over the Arctic.

Here, the dependencies within the Unity of the Realm become more complicated, as Denmark is not alone in defending Greenland. The USA is also obligated – and perhaps privileged – to do so.

The USA must assist Denmark in securing Greenland, which is why the US military has »the right to free access and movement between defense areas throughout Greenland«, as stated in the 1951 defense agreement.

Foto: POLFOTO

Foto: Claus Blok Thomsen

The US military presence began with the Thule base, where the Americans already had a weather station from World War II. With the 1951 defense agreement, the USA established a real base the following year – which in 2023 was renamed Pituffik Space Base – but the agreement with Denmark means that the Americans can change and increase their military presence at any time. They only need to »inform and consult« the Danish government and Naalakkersuisut.

Therefore, one might wonder why the USA suddenly wants much, much more to do with Greenland.

Just as tensions between East and West during the Cold War brought American soldiers to Greenland, it is also with reference to »world security« that US President Donald Trump wants more control over Greenland. If one imagines a Russian nuclear attack on the USA, most missiles would take the shortest route – over Greenland.

After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, global fronts have become more sharply defined. Again, it is the West and NATO on one side and Russia supported by China on the other. And Russia controls 53 percent of the Arctic coastline.

Trump is particularly interested in the ability to monitor what is happening beneath the ocean surface and above the clouds in the Arctic. As the 1951 defense agreement emphasizes, there is nothing stopping the Americans from doing so.

Nevertheless, Trump has spent the beginning of his presidency threatening Denmark with tariffs and refusing to rule out the use of military force if Denmark does not comply.

»Greenland is a lovely place. We need it for international security reasons. I am sure Denmark will comply«, Trump said on his first day back in the White House.

»There are Russian ships everywhere, there are Chinese ships – warships – and they (Denmark, ed.) cannot handle it«, he added.

At the same time, the melting ice in the Arctic means that new trade routes north of Greenland could open in the future.

And it is in this light that we should view Trump’s aggressive overtures.

At the bottom of deep mines, Greenlanders may find a blessing from Mother Earth. An enormous wealth that could provide Greenland with economic strength robust enough to sustain an independent country with welfare akin to Denmark’s.

This includes rare earth metals – or minerals – which are increasingly in demand and used in wind turbines, electric cars, and weapons.

Let’s examine the potential in the form of two mountains located quite close to each other – near the town of Narsaq in southern Greenland.

Before we delve into the potential, let’s establish one thing.

Mining in Greenland is extremely costly. Enormous investments amounting to billions are necessary, and as it stands – with plenty of other mines around the world – it is not profitable. Therefore, Greenland is more likely seen as a depot, a storage site where it may become worthwhile to extract raw materials and rare earth metals in the future when other mines run dry.

Foto: Martin Lehmann

Kvanefjeld (Kuannersuit) is believed to contain 1.5 million tons of rare earth metals. At Kringlerne (Killavaat Alanngut), it is estimated that 26 million tons can be extracted. Kvanefjeld is further along in the process towards extraction, but the project has encountered significant problems.

The mine at Kvanefjeld has been the subject of massive controversy in Greenland, and the discussion was pivotal in the 2021 election, which was dubbed the uranium election. Múte B. Egede and the IA party won, among other things, with the promise to reinstate the zero-tolerance law, which prevents the extraction of uranium and other radioactive substances.

Kvanefjeld also contains uranium.

Thus, the Greenlandic government put a spoke in the wheel of the mining project, leaving the Australian mining company Energy Transition Minerals (ETM) as the big loser. They financed the project and have now demanded compensation of 76 billion kroner for lost profits and futile investments. If they succeed, the bill will be passed on to the Danish and Greenlandic government leaders, potentially leading Greenland directly towards state bankruptcy.

For now, Greenland has chosen to uphold the law and engage in the legal battle. After the election on March 11 2025, the new Government in Greenland decided to keep the law in place, unlike in 2013, when the law was temporarily abolished whe the Siumut party gained power.

Already today, mining for raw materials takes place, and here the commercial aspect is also struggling. The Nalunaq gold mine has no significant economic impact, while the mine in Citronfjorden, which contains zinc and graphite, is a more realistic project that could have economic significance.

And what about Denmark – should Greenland share the profits if they strike a gold vein in the future?

Not much. The subsoil belongs to Greenland, as stated in the 2009 Self-Government Act, so if Greenland were to generate massive revenues from rare earth metals in the future, there is a cap on how much would go to Denmark.

This means that with revenues of 1 billion kroner, the block grant would be reduced by 0.5 billion. If revenues increase to the point where the Danish block grant reaches zero, Denmark would, in principle, not receive any more.

The rare minerals make Greenland even more interesting to the world’s major powers.

This is also among the reasons for Trump’s offensive – not only because he smells a good business opportunity but also to keep other nations away. Especially China.

And here, it is important to understand two things.

First and foremost, China has a monopoly on rare earths. 98-99 percent of all rare earths either come directly from China or are at least processed in China.

Secondly, although the earths are called rare and are indeed highly sought after, expensive, and difficult to obtain, they are not rare. There are large deposits of earths in the USA and Europe, but Americans and Europeans have not been willing to live with the extensive environmental costs associated with subsequent processing.

The Chinese were, and now they are miles ahead of the rest of the world in the technology required. They even have patents on much of it.

When Greenlanders and Faroese talk about an independent future, they look to Iceland.

Here lies the example that it is possible to break free from the Kingdom and the close ties to Denmark.

When Christian IX became the first Danish king ever to visit Reykjavik in 1874, Iceland was already moving towards greater self-determination. They achieved this gradually over the decade, until they gained home rule in 1904.

Fourteen years later, Iceland became an independent state in union with Denmark, which still handled foreign affairs among other things. This relationship is reminiscent of the current state between Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands.

And in 1944, when Greenland and the Faroe Islands had yet to achieve home rule, Iceland broke free from the union and the kingdom – a republic was born. This did not happen with Denmark’s goodwill, but the Icelandic independence movement took advantage of the fact that Britain had control over Iceland while Denmark was occupied by Germany.

Since then, Iceland has applied for membership in the EU, with which they have close ties in many areas, and the country is among the founding members of NATO – despite not having its own military, but a coast guard.

At the same time, Greenland looks to Iceland’s large tourism industry.

Foto: Finn Frandsen

With the opening of a new airport in Nuuk back in November 2024 and in Ilulissat in 2026, Greenland is open for business. The unique nature, Inuit culture, and wildlife are to be attractions for future tourism.

But perhaps it is actually the Faroe Islands that are closest to breaking away from the Kingdom.

At least based on two major, unavoidable parameters: economy and security.

While the debate about Greenland’s future and desire for independence has been highly intense, the Faroe Islands have quietly made themselves less and less dependent on the Danish Kingdom.

Foto: Jesper Houborg

They have a self-sustaining economy, plans to reduce the block grant that has long been redundant, and the 18 small Faroese islands attract much less geopolitical interest.

So why don’t we talk about an independent Faroe Islands in the same way we talk about an independent Greenland?

»The Faroese are essentially in agreement on the issue of independence across the political spectrum. The Faroese are well-educated and have a booming economy, making them less dependent on Denmark. And Denmark’s control over the Faroe Islands has not left the same traumas as it has in Greenland«, explains Petra Mathilde Jørs, a PhD student researching the Faroe Islands as a non-sovereign microstate at the Danish Institute for International Studies.

»The struggle for independence is there, but it is played out with a different patience. The Faroe Islands are actually much closer to independence from an economic standpoint«, she adds.

There is hardly a greater symbol of the Unity of the Realm than the royal family.

Therefore, it was notable when the former chairman of Naalakasuitsut, Múte B. Egede, canceled a meeting at Amalienborg with King Frederik – it was January 8 2025, amid the inferno of foreign policy chaos created by Donald Trump’s statements. »Calendar gymnastics«, was the explanation from the self-government leader, who nevertheless found room in his schedule for a meeting with the king.

But nonetheless, it was a »symbolic demonstration of power«, according to royal historian Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen.

Foto: Martin Lehmann

»The royal family plays no direct political role, so it’s all on a symbolic level. But it matters, because symbols can shift opinions. It’s soft power. And in the turmoil over Greenland, it’s a reminder that the royal family has an indirect role«, he explains.

But there are also other elements that constitute the glue in the Kingdom: The shared history and the Christian cultural heritage. 95 percent of Greenlanders and 76 percent of Faroese are members of the national church. And although a statue of the priest Hans Egede in Nuuk has repeatedly been vandalized, a majority of the municipality’s residents voted for it to remain standing.

»In a community, there are institutions and narratives that hold it together – despite differences and conflicts. And the royal family is one of the things that create a sense of community. One should not underestimate emotions, and on an emotional and identity level, the royal family has great significance«, Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen emphasizes.

And that has been needed. Over time, a number of issues have strained the relationship between Greenland and Denmark, and although the two government leaders, Mette Frederiksen and Jens Frederik Nielsen, stand shoulder to shoulder both physically and rhetorically, there are also current issues that test the Kingdom of Denmark.

The Spiral Case

In March 2024, 143 Greenlandic women sued the Danish state for violating their human rights. The common factor among the women is that in the 60s and 70s, they were involuntarily fitted with intrauterine devices (IUDs).

In November 2024, the Eastern High Court approved the Institute for Human Rights to join the case in support of the women.

The case began to unfold in 2022 when DR revealed that it had happened as part of an effort by the Danish state to reduce the birth rate in Greenland.

It emerged that from 1966 to 1970, 4,500 IUDs were fitted in a population of 9,000 fertile women.

The 143 women are demanding 43 million Danish kroner in compensation, equivalent to 300,000 each. In december 2025, a decision was made, granting the Greenlandic women remuneration.

Former government leader Múte B. Egede has called it »direct genocide« and said, »the things happening today and what happened in the past affect the relationship we have today. And my patience has run out«.

The FKU Case

In November 2024, a child in Thisted Municipality was forcibly removed from its Greenlandic mother.

A placement case that sparked demonstrations in Greenland and Denmark.

The removal was due to parental competence assessments – better known as FKU – which municipalities use to determine whether children should be forcibly removed.

The method can be used by municipalities in all cases of child placement, but it is criticized for not taking Greenlandic culture and language into account.

For example, parents are tested based on the Danish language, even though it is not their first language, and Greenlandic parents are assessed based on facial expressions that are appropriate for Western cultures but not for Greenlandic culture.

The Danish and Greenlandic governments have agreed to stop using FKU for testing Greenlandic parents.

Cases like these cannot be separated from the Unity of the Realm. They are part of our shared past and present.

After President Donald Trump’s unequivocal statements that Greenland should belong to the United States, the fundamental question arises: is there even a shared future for the Kingdom of Denmark as we know it today, encompassing Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands?

The new U.S. security strategy is based on a drastic tightening of the old Monroe Doctrine from 1901. Originally, it was a sort of American defense of the two American continents against renewed European colonialism. Today’s version is much sharper and dictates that the U.S., in short, dominates and controls South and North America, and thereby also Greenland, which is part of the North American continent.

With the U.S. attack on and capture of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro and President Trump’s desire to own Greenland, the world has changed. We might be entering the decades of predator nations with President Trump at the top of the food chain, a Trump who will only be limited by his own conscience.

The future of the Kingdom is thrown high into the air, and it is nearly impossible to predict how it will land and what the fallout will look like.

With that in mind, here are a series of possible future scenarios for the Kingdom of Denmark and the Unity of the Realm:

Scenario 1: Takeover

The U.S. takes over Greenland.

The U.S. opts for a full military invasion of Greenland. It would be impossible to stop militarily, regardless of support from the EU, major European countries, or the Nordic countries. It would solely be a question of whether American soldiers would face armed resistance.

An American takeover could also occur through a series of less dramatic steps, all of which share the common trait of taking time and being based on legal agreements. Neither of these factors seems to weigh heavily with Donald Trump.

Scenario 2: Independence

Greenland chooses to declare independence after a time-consuming process involving a local referendum and possibly new elections, with the approval of the Danish Parliament according to the Self-Government Act and the Constitution.

Afterward, several things could happen:

A: Greenland chooses not to negotiate with Denmark about continuing cooperation. Instead, the country decides to sell itself to the U.S. So far, not a single Greenlander or any Greenlandic political party has seen this as a good solution.

B: An independent Greenland becomes completely ’fenced in’ by the U.S., militarily, economically, and politically, with the U.S. taking over selected parts of the obligations that Denmark has today.

C: A formally independent Greenland enters into a so-called free association agreement with the U.S., where the U.S. – in exchange for economic compensation to Greenland – takes over foreign policy, defense of Greenland, and more. This is the model currently in place for several small island states in the Pacific.

Scenario 3: Complicated Negotiations

Supported by the Kingdom’s European allies and thanks to Donald Trump’s lack of focus and perhaps new and more serious problems for the White House, it succeeds in drawing the U.S. into prolonged and complicated negotiations that do not conclude during Donald Trump’s presidency. Despite the extremely difficult current situation, the Unity of the Realm can continue – possibly in a new form with renegotiation of the Self-Government Act for Greenland and the Home Rule Act for the Faroe Islands.

Regardless of how the Kingdom continues, there will be significant focus on security policy in and around Greenland – not least to counter the resurgence of Donald Trump’s ghost in a new American administration.

If the NATO alliance still exists, it will play a central role. So far, NATO – paradoxically at the request of both the U.S. and Denmark – has not considered the ice-covered part of the Arctic and Greenland as an area requiring the alliance’s attention in the form of military strategies and perhaps permanent military presence.

Scenario 4: Dissolved Unity of the Realm

Out of the ash cloud emerges an independent Greenland. Faced with the enormous threats to the country’s future independence, it chooses to continue its NATO membership and establish a free association agreement with Denmark. The Danish block grant continues, and Copenhagen will also partially manage the important and expensive power institutions in the country – especially defense, police, and the judiciary.

If the Faroe Islands follow suit and become an independent country, it could end with a free association agreement between the archipelago and Norway. In that case, the Unity of the Realm is dissolved. If the Faroese stick with Denmark, the Kingdom will be reduced to two countries.

A form of union between the three countries with a shared monarchy and otherwise very loose cooperation is also a possibility. It could resemble the British Commonwealth but would be a gigantic economic challenge for Greenland’s current economy and the Greenlandic model of a welfare society.

Sources

Danish Prime Minister’s Office, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Folketinget (Danish Parliament), Naalakkersuisut, Føroya Landsstýri, Danish Royal House, Legal Information, Denmark’s National Encyclopedia, Petra Mathilde Jørs, Ph.D. student at DIIS, Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen, lecturer and historian at the University of Copenhagen, Torben M. Andersen, professor at Aarhus University.