格陵兰因特朗普在2026年初再次宣称美国“需要”并可能以武力获取该岛而被推至地缘政治前沿。该表态紧随美国在委内瑞拉采取强硬行动之后，使原被视为夸张言辞的主张具备现实风险。白宫未排除动武选项，而格陵兰已处于丹麦王国之内，并在既有协议下允许美国驻军，这使安全理由在当地引发质疑。人口约5.6万的岛屿因此被卷入大国博弈，其未来被外部力量重新定义。
格陵兰社会内部对前景高度分化。一部分人认为与丹麦的关系已“有毒”，视美国为潜在替代伙伴，理由包括贸易高度经由丹麦导致物价高企、供应不稳。也有人明确反对任何并入美国的可能，认为美国不会将格陵兰视为平等伙伴，同时同样拒绝继续处于丹麦的殖民式结构。历史创伤仍在发酵：丹麦近期同意就持续数十年的强制节育丑闻赔偿受害者，涉及成千上万名格陵兰女性，凸显权力不对称的长期影响。
在更宏观层面，特朗普的言论迫使丹麦加大投入以巩固对格陵兰的承诺，包括增加北极军事存在与财政支持，但也激发丹麦国内对“失去格陵兰”的强烈情绪。对格陵兰人而言，现实是三重约束：强烈的独立愿望、对美国胁迫的普遍拒绝、以及对丹麦财政与制度支持的深度依赖。家庭联系、迁移与公共机构交织，使分离在操作上极其困难。外部压力暂时拉近了努克与哥本哈根，但并未消除社会内部关于主权与归属的根本撕裂。
Greenland has been thrust to the geopolitical forefront after Donald Trump again declared in early 2026 that the US “needs” the island and might acquire it by force. Coming immediately after US action in Venezuela, the remarks gave new weight to claims once dismissed as bluster. The White House did not rule out military options, even though Greenland already lies within the Kingdom of Denmark and hosts US forces under existing agreements, weakening the stated security rationale. With a population of about 56,000, the island has become entangled in great-power politics beyond its control.
Greenlandic society is deeply divided over its future. Some argue the relationship with Denmark has become “toxic” and see the US as a possible alternative partner, citing trade routed through Denmark that drives up prices and limits supply. Others firmly reject joining the US, doubting Washington would treat Greenland as an equal, while also opposing continued subordination to Denmark. Historical grievances remain acute: Denmark recently agreed to compensate victims of a decades-long contraception scandal affecting thousands of Greenlandic women, underscoring enduring power imbalances.
At a broader level, Trump’s rhetoric has pushed Denmark to reinforce its commitment to Greenland by boosting Arctic funding and military presence, while igniting Danish anxiety about losing the territory. For Greenlanders, the reality is a three-way constraint: a strong desire for independence, widespread rejection of US coercion, and heavy dependence on Danish financial and institutional support. Family ties, migration and shared systems make separation difficult in practice. External pressure has temporarily drawn Nuuk and Copenhagen closer, but it has not resolved the underlying societal rift over sovereignty and belonging.