A senior US senator warned on January 16 that talk of the United States taking Greenland by force would damage American security interests and hand a strategic gift to Russian President Vladimir Putin, as Denmark, France and other allies stepped up resistance to any such move.

Democratic senator Jeanne Shaheen, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and part of a delegation of US lawmakers visiting Denmark, said even raising the possibility of seizing the Arctic island undermined trust among US allies and risked weakening Nato at a time when unity was critical.

Trump has repeatedly argued that the United States needs Greenland for national security reasons, claiming that Russia and China pose growing threats in the Arctic. 

“Just the suggestion that the US would take Greenland by force does real damage not just to the relationship with Greenland, with Denmark, but to America's own national security. It erodes decades of hard won confidence among allies and it weakens the sense of security that comes with it and that rhetoric plays right into the hands of our greatest adversaries, Russia and China,” Shaheen said in a speech delivered during her visit to Copenhagen, broadcast on YouTube. 

“Vladimir Putin would welcome any move that fractures Nato or diverts attention and resources away from Ukraine … If we're serious about limiting Russia's influence in the Arctic and beyond, the most effective way to do that is by defeating Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. And that's precisely why the current debate over Greenland makes so little sense. 

She added: “Whether it's US bases to defend against Arctic threats or critical mineral deals, your leaders here in Denmark and in Greenland have made clear that they want to partner with us. So I think the threats are not only unnecessary, they are counterproductive. They risk undermining not just our relationship with all of you in Denmark, with the people of Greenland, but the broader Nato alliance in the process.

She added that she had met Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen earlier on Friday and stressed that Washington could pursue its interests on the island through cooperation rather than confrontation.

“If the United States wants to do certain things in Greenland — whether it’s building more military bases or developing critical minerals — all we have to do is partner with you,” Shaheen said.

Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, a Nato ally of the United States. 

Russia has repeatedly said it regards Greenland as part of Denmark under international law, even as it closely watches the dispute unfold. This was reiterated by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov to state news agency Ria Novosti on January 16. 

Peskov added Russia considered Trump’s comments “extraordinary”, and noted that the US president had previously indicated that legal considerations were not a priority.

US, Danish and Greenlandic officials took place at the White House on January 14. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen described those discussions as frank but constructive, though they ended without a breakthrough. The parties agreed to continue discussions through a high-level working group.

“The US position is that it needs to take over Greenland. We continue to believe that long term security can be achieved while respecting the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the right of self-determination of the Greenlandic people. Respecting international law and the UN Charter. This is our red line,” wrote Rasmussen on Facebook after the meeting. 

“This is 2026 - you can trade with people, but you don’t trade people,” he added. 

In Paris, France also warned of consequences if Washington pursued the issue further. Finance Minister Roland Lescure told the Financial Times that taking Greenland would cross a red line and could threaten trade relations between the United States and the European Union.

Lescure said European officials were using all diplomatic channels to persuade Washington of the risks, while trying to keep dialogue open despite disagreements over steel tariffs and technology regulation.