The Arctic has long been viewed as a future arena of geopolitical competition and conflict. Renewed remarks by U.S. President Donald J. Trump about taking control of Greenland – a semi-autonomous, Indigenous governed territory within the Danish Realm – have brought that future abruptly into the present. They underscore the Arctic’s growing strategic importance as a defensive bastion, shipping corridor, and potential source of vast natural resources, while also straining relations between the United States and its closest allies. More fundamentally, they raise unsettling questions about whether a return to unconstrained Great Power politics is eroding long-standing international norms, institutions, and the rule of law.

Recent diplomatic efforts by Danish and Greenlandic leaders, supported by European allies, to reaffirm the territorial integrity of the Danish Realm and address U.S. concerns over Arctic security have so far failed to produce a clear resolution. Given the unpredictability of the Trump Administration and its increasingly hostile tone towards Europe, a swift or stable settlement appears unlikely.

To say that the stakes are high is an understatement. What is at risk is not only the lives and livelihoods of the Greenlandic people, but also the cohesion of the transatlantic alliance and the credibility of a rules-based international order – long underwritten by the United States itself. In this context of profound uncertainty, it is necessary to consider how the dispute over Greenland’s future might unfold.

The Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies has therefore developed four scenarios outlining how the conflict over Greenland could end, and the geopolitical implications of each outcome.