This saga could go one of four ways

In recent weeks, US President-elect Donald Trump has shown renewed interest in taking control of Greenland, Denmark’s largely autonomous Arctic territory and the world’s largest island.

He first announced his intention to buy Greenland in 2019, during his first term as president, but this week he went further, refusing to rule out economic or military force to take control of it.

Danish and European officials have responded in the negative, saying that Greenland is not for sale and that its territorial integrity must be preserved.

So how could this unusual situation happen, with two NATO allies at loggerheads over a vast territory that is 80% ice-covered but rich in untapped mineral wealth?

And how could independence ambitions among the 56,000 inhabitants of Greenland, under Danish control for 300 years, affect the final result?

Here we look at four possible scenarios for Greenland’s future.

There is some speculation that Trump’s move is just a fluke, with Denmark stepping up security in Greenland in the face of the threat of Russia and China seeking influence in the region.

In the last month, Denmark announced a new $1.5 billion (£1.2 billion) military package for the Arctic It had been prepared before Trump’s remarks, but the announcement came just hours after them, described by Denmark’s defense minister as an “irony of fate”.

“What was important when Trump said was that Denmark must fulfill its obligations in the Arctic or leave it to the US,” says Elisabet Svan, Politiken’s chief political correspondent.

Marc Jacobsen, an associate professor at the Royal Danish Defense College, believes that it is a case of Trump “positioning himself before taking office” as Greenland is using it to gain more international authority as an important step towards independence.

So even if Trump were to lose more interest in Greenland, which Professor Jacobsen believes is the most likely scenario, he has certainly put the spotlight on the issue.

But the independence of Greenland has been on the agenda for many years, and some say that the debate could go in the opposite direction.

“I noticed in the last few days that the Prime Minister of Greenland is more relaxed in his comments, which is, yes, we want independence but in the long term,” says Svan.

There is a general consensus in Greenland that independence will eventually happen and also that if Greenland votes for it, Denmark will accept and ratify it.

However, it is unlikely that Greenland would vote for independence if the subsidies that its people currently receive from Denmark are not guaranteed to pay for things like the health and welfare system.

“Greenland’s prime minister may be armed now, but if he calls a referendum, he will need a convincing narrative of how to save Greenland’s economy and welfare system,” Ulrik Gad, senior researcher. The Danish Institute for International Studies told the BBC.

A possible next step is to freely associate – something similar to what the US currently has with the Pacific states of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau.

Denmark previously opposed such status for both Greenland and the Faroe Islands, but according to Dr. Gad, current Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen is not completely against it.

“The Danish understanding of the historical experience of Greenland is much better than it was 20 years ago,” he says, acknowledging Denmark’s colonial responsibility.

The latest discussions “may convince (Frederiksen) to say: it is better to keep Denmark in the Arctic, to maintain some kind of connection with Greenland, even if it is looser”, he added.

But even if Greenland is able to get rid of Denmark, it has become clear in recent years that it cannot get rid of the US. After taking control of the island during the Second World War, the Americans have never left, and they consider it essential for their security.

A 1951 agreement reaffirmed Denmark’s basic sovereignty over the island, but essentially gave the US what it wanted.

Dr. Gad said Greenlandic officials had contacted the last two US administrations about Washington’s role.

“Now they know the US will never leave,” he said.

There has been speculation that Trump’s economic rhetoric could be the biggest threat to Denmark, as the US has dramatically increased tariffs on Danish or even EU goods, forcing Denmark to make some sort of concession to Greenland.

Professor Jacobsen says that the Danish government is preparing for this, and not just for the Arctic territory.

Trump has threatened universal tariffs of 10% on all US imports, which could significantly disrupt European growth, and Danish and other European companies are considering setting up manufacturing bases in the US.

Among the possible options for raising tariffs is invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), Benjamin Cote of international law firm Pillsbury told MarketWatch.

One of the main industries in Denmark that could be affected by this is pharmaceuticals. The US gets products from Denmark, such as headphones and most of its insulin, as well as the diabetes drug Ozempic, made by the Danish company Novo Nordisk.

Analysts say that price increases resulting from these measures would not benefit the US public.

The “nuclear option” seems far-fetched, but since Trump has not ruled out military action, it should be considered.

Basically, it wouldn’t be difficult for the US to take control, as they already have a large number of bases and troops in Greenland.

“The US is already in de facto control,” says Professor Jacobsen, adding that Trump’s remarks seemed ill-informed and misguided.

That said, the use of military force by Washington would create an international crisis.

“If they invade Greenland, they invade NATO,” says Svan. “So it stops there. Article 5 should be triggered. And if a NATO country invades NATO, there is no NATO.”

Dr. Gad says Trump sounds like Chinese President Xi Jinping talking about Taiwan or Russia’s Vladimir Putin talking about Ukraine.

“He is saying that it is legitimate to take this piece of land,” he says. “If we really take it seriously this is a bad omen for the entire Western alliance.”

Additional reporting by George Sandeman