Don't use other countries as 'pretext' to chase Greenland interests: China to US

China on Monday seemed to sneer at the United States, telling Washington it shouldn’t hide behind other countries as a “pretext” to chase its Greenland ambitions and insisting Beijing’s own Arctic activities are totally, absolutely, definitely consensual and compliant with international law.

This diplomatic rebuke came during a routine press briefing, where a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson was apparently told to be polite but firm about Arctic turf wars. The backdrop? US President Donald Trump, never one for subtlety, has loudly declared that Greenland — yes, the icy semiautonomous part of NATO ally Denmark — should be “America’s” to prevent Russia or China from establishing a foothold.

Let’s be clear: Greenland is not for sale, and Copenhagen and Greenland's capital Nuuk have said as much repeatedly. Yet Trump has insisted the US must have Greenland — “one way or the other,” as he put it — because otherwise, he claims, rival powers will swoop in.

He’s even joked that Greenland’s defense amounts to “two dog sleds,” an image that immediately went viral not because it’s accurate, but because it perfectly captures this bizarre saga.

Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned bluntly that an American takeover would amount to the end of NATO, a message echoed by European leaders who are trying to keep this awkward moment from spiralling into an actual crisis.

So why really does the US want Greenland?

If you’re wondering whether Trump has simply watched too many Cold War movies, the answer is: sort of, but there are deeper reasons beyond headline-grabbing rhetoric:

1. Greenland isn’t just a chunk of ice — it’s a geopolitical chokepoint between North America, Europe and the Arctic. Control of Greenland means monitoring the Arctic approaches, sea lanes melting open due to climate change, and the shortest air routes between continents.

That’s why the US military already has a major presence at Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), used for missile warning, space surveillance, and strategic defence — with NATO and Danish consent.

2. Climate change is transforming the Arctic from a frozen wasteland into a region of emerging sea corridors and resource opportunities. As ice retreats, shipping routes that once were impassable are becoming navigable, and previously inaccessible mineral wealth is coming into view.

That makes Greenland not just strategically vital, but economically tempting too — especially for rare earth minerals and critical resources that are increasingly central to global high-tech supply chains.

3. Trump’s repeated claim that the US must control Greenland before China or Russia does has become the administration’s main justification. China has styled itself a 'near-Arctic state' and floated a 'Polar Silk Road' as part of its Belt and Road Initiative, while Russia aggressively bolsters its Arctic military and trade presence.

So Greenland has become a symbol of great-power rivalry — even though, paradoxically, the US already enjoys extensive military rights there without owning the territory.

Trump has doubled down in recent days: on Air Force One, he insisted the US needs to “take Greenland” if Denmark won’t negotiate a sale, framing this as a matter of national security.

That rhetoric has sparked a diplomatic firestorm. Greenland’s leaders have said their future belongs to Greenlanders, not the White House. They want cooperation, investment, and respect — not conquest.

Denmark has also blasted the idea as an affront to sovereignty. The Danish PM has warned any attempt to seize or annex Greenland could fracture NATO; a European defence commissioner echoed this, saying a US military takeover would mark “the end of NATO”.

China, predictably, denies it’s lurking around the Arctic with imperial ambitions, piously claiming its activities there are for “peace, stability, and sustainable development” and should be respected — just don’t try to use Greenland as a rationalisation for US power plays.

Beijing omits specifics, but its Arctic strategy includes scientific research, infrastructure partnerships, and a drive to be a geopolitical player up north — all while rejecting any suggestion it’s a direct threat.

Greenlandic and Danish envoys are heading to Washington for talks, and US senators are preparing their own trip to Copenhagen — presumably to clarify that no, America isn’t about to annex its ally’s territory (publicly, at least).

In short, this isn’t just another bizarre Trump headline — it’s a collision of climate change, strategic competition, Cold War-style geopolitics, and a very determined president with a flair for dramatic gambits.

With agency inputs