The revival of President Donald Trump’s quest to possess Greenland has raised a key question in recent days.
Why?
The Trump administration has not explained why the U.S. “needs” Greenland, and that absence of explanation is now shaping the crisis as much as the proposal itself.
Maliina Abelsen, Greenland’s former finance minister, is blunt.
“A country is not something you just buy. It’s not a real estate that you just purchase,” she said in an interview.
She called the proposal “a quite crazy idea” and warned it signals a breakdown in the diplomatic norms built after World War II.
For her, the issue is not simply sovereignty, but the erosion of international rules that were designed precisely to prevent powerful states from treating territory as a prize.
What makes the push especially confusing, Abelsen explained, is that the U.S. already has what it says it wants.
“There are agreements between the Danish state and the U.S. and Greenland that the U.S. is able to bring in more military to Greenland,” she said.
If Washington wants greater Arctic presence, she added, “it would just be a matter of knocking on the door.” Ownership is not required.
That is why Abelsen increasingly doubts that security is the real driver.
“I’m trying to figure out why it is so important to put the American flag on Greenland,” she said, noting that military access, logistics and cooperation are already possible.
Her assessment has evolved toward a more unsettling conclusion: “More and more, it appears that it’s just a matter of saying, ‘I feel more safe by owning Greenland.’”
In her view, that impulse has less to do with strategy than symbolism. She said it looks like an attempt to plant a flag and expand the U.S. footprint simply to be able to say it was done. Greenland, she stressed, does not want to become a prop in someone else’s political narrative.
“We don’t really need to be colonized one more time,” she said. “We would like to be our own people.”
Abelsen also highlighted the role of distorted messaging used in the Trump campaign. She pointed to exaggerated claims about Russian and Chinese activity near Greenland, and even basic factual errors about Greenland’s population.
“I was like, ‘Well, you haven’t even read about our country,’” she said after White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller described Greenland as a country of 30,000 people.
Greenland’s population is easily double that number. That sloppiness, she warned, leads to misperceptions and instability.
“The confusion is also a way of creating uncertainty within a community, and uncertainty is often linked with fear.”
That fear, she believes, can be weaponized. Abelsen suggested some U.S. messaging appears aimed at driving a wedge between Greenland and Denmark by implying Copenhagen has failed to protect Greenland.
“It’s a bit like having the assailant assault you and then say to you, ‘I will protect you,’” she said.
Her response to that idea was blunt: “We don’t really need the protection from Denmark or from the U.S. We need to stand together.”
That appeal for unity was punctuated by the reality that the relationship between the U.S., Greenland and NATO appears to be rapidly and drastically changing. For decades, Greenland saw the United States as its protector.
“At the moment, who we really need protection from is actually the U.S.,” she said, calling that realization “so disturbing” given the long history of alliance and cooperation.
Still, Abelsen has not abandoned diplomacy. She expressed hope that an upcoming meeting with U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, could reset the tone.
“I really, really hope that the meeting next week will lead to some kind of shared mission,” she said, one that allows the U.S. to feel secure in the Arctic while preserving Greenland’s right to decide its own future.
At the same time, her message is direct, personal and nonnegotiable.
“I have absolutely no wish to become American, none whatsoever,” Abelsen said. “We need cooperation. We need to stand shoulder by shoulder. But we do not need to buy each other. That’s not a healthy relationship.”
Abelsen said this is not a dispute over Arctic defense, but a crisis of explanation and trust. Power is being asserted without clarity. Claims are being amplified without evidence. And allies are being unsettled rather than consulted. Greenland, Abelsen makes clear, does not need to be taken. It needs to be respected.
