President Donald Trump delivers remarks at the Donald J. Trump - John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., Tuesday, January 6, 2026, en route the White House. Source: Flickr, Official White House Photo, Daniel Torok
The fate of Greenland has been a hot topic in global politics over the last days. Judging by statements by leading American politicians, it could be forcibly annexed by the United States as part of its consolidation of the Western Hemisphere ahead of a new global reshuffling, the contours of which are already becoming apparent.
Like a wife abandoned by her husband, but still loving him, Europe is frantically trying to find a solution to a problem that is shattering the entire structure of the transatlantic model, carefully crafted on both sides of the Atlantic after World War II. Clearly, it will not succeed – we are talking about a new world order in which the military dwarf – the European NATO countries – is destined not for sitting at the table, but for the table, like a big turkey about to be carved.
A review of major media outlets in key EU countries prepared by The Arctic Century editorial team testifies to their confusion and panic. The western edge of Eurasia is trying to mend the plates and cups broken during a family conflict, restoring them to the table and renewing pleasant and mutually beneficial family relationships. However, it seems this family story has reached its inevitable and irreversible conclusion.
The EU’s attitude toward the problem at the moment is one of denial and anger, with occasional hints of bargaining. Psychological crises don’t last very long; within a matter of weeks, Europe will inevitably come to accept the new reality. Force can only be countered with force, which the “grandmother, no longer fertile and vibrant” (Pope Francis) doesn’t have and is unlikely to have.
Makes No Sense
The Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Noël Barrot echoes the remarks of Emmanuel Macron, who cannot imagine the United States “violating Danish sovereignty” over the Arctic island, despite Donald Trump’s claims.
A potential U.S. military intervention in Greenland would make “no sense,” Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot asserted on Tuesday, January 7, as Donald Trump considers “several options” for acquiring this autonomous Danish territory, including “using the military,” according to the U.S. president’s spokesperson.
“For a NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) member country, attacking another NATO member country would make no sense, and above all, (what about Greece and Turkeys major military conflict over Northern Cyprus in 1974? – Ed.) it would be contrary to the interests of the United States of America,” Jean-Noël Barrot stated on France Inter radio.
He then emphasized that the Americans are “very committed” to the transatlantic alliance—formed in 1949 between Europe and North America after World War II—to which “they contributed to the security of Europe, but from which they also reaped dividends, exceptional benefits.”
The American president has long had designs on the island of 57,000 inhabitants, which he considers to be within the natural sphere of influence of the United States. In his view, this territory, rich in rare metals, is essential to American national security in the face of China and Russia—a position he reiterated last Sunday.
Jean-Noël Barrot, however, urged caution, while taking them seriously, against overinterpreting certain voices being expressed. The French Foreign Minister spoke on the telephone on Monday with his American counterpart, Marco Rubio, who “confirmed” that military intervention “was not the option being considered by the United States.”
The latter “ruled out the possibility of a repeat of what just happened in Venezuela happening in Greenland,” stated Jean-Noël Barrot, referring to the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro by the United States last Saturday.
However, “whatever form the intimidation takes and whatever its origin, we at the Foreign Ministry have begun working to prepare to respond,” added Jean-Noël Barrot.
Macron’s Criticism
On Monday evening, Emmanuel Macron delivered a speech similar to that of his minister, stating on France 2: “For me, there is no scenario in which the United States of America would be placed in a position to violate Danish sovereignty.”
France seems to be walking a tightrope with its American ally. Emmanuel Macron has been sharply criticized by several observers and some members of the political class for not denouncing, in his initial reaction, the illegality of the U.S. operation in Venezuela.
Some, like former Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, have suggested that the French president is being conciliatory towards Washington in order to curry favor with it on the Ukrainian issue. This comes as a meeting of the Coalition of the Will with the United States was held at the Élysée Palace on Tuesday to provide security guarantees to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire.
Source: BFMTV (in French)
“We are watching over the kingdom.”
French President Emmanuel Macron said he could not imagine the United States “violating Danish sovereignty,” while France and several European countries issued a joint statement Tuesday in support of the country led by Mette Frederiksen. A meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also been requested by Greenland and Denmark in order to “clear up some misunderstandings,” according to Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen.
The Danish Prime Minister indicated that an American attack against one of the Alliance members would mean “the end of everything,” particularly the global security order established at the end of World War II. “This is not just a conflict with the Kingdom of Denmark… but with all of Europe,” she warned on DR television.
Nuuk and Copenhagen, in particular, dispute Donald Trump’s recurring argument that he must act against China’s omnipresence in Greenland. “We do not share this view that Greenland is awash in Chinese investment,” continued Lars Løkke Rasmussen, also accusing the U.S. president of misinterpreting the situation when he expressed doubts about Denmark’s ability to ensure the island’s security.
“We are looking after the kingdom,” insisted Løkke, adding that there was no need to “dramatize” the situation. The Scandinavian country has invested heavily in Arctic security over the past twelve months, allocating some 90 billion kroner (12 billion euros) for this purpose.
The potential purchase price has not been disclosed. Other options discussed by the White House include purchasing the territory from Denmark or entering into a Free Association Agreement with the island, according to a senior U.S. official speaking on condition of anonymity, quoted by Reuters. Such an agreement would curb Trump’s ambition to make the island of 57,000 inhabitants an integral part of the United States. The potential purchase price has not been disclosed.
“Diplomacy is always the president’s first option, whatever the subject, and he loves making deals. So, if a favorable agreement can be reached to acquire Greenland, that would certainly be his first reaction,” said the official, who added that Trump is eager for a deal despite objections from NATO leaders.
Administration officials say the island is crucial to the United States because of its mineral deposits with significant applications in the high-tech and military sectors. These resources remain untapped due to labor shortages, a lack of infrastructure, and other challenges.
Source: Le Figaro (in French)
Europe Launches Greenland Contingency Plan After Trump’s Takeover Threat
Brussels/Washington, D.C. – After the U.S. recently intensified its threats to take over Greenland, some EU countries are now preparing an emergency plan. On Wednesday morning (January 7), French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stated that France is working with its partners on a corresponding concept. The Greenland situation will also be discussed at today’s meeting of the so-called “Weimar Triangle” in Paris, which is primarily focused on the conflict in Ukraine.
The EU, under French leadership, is preparing a contingency plan after U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly threatened to annex Greenland.
Since the White House has explicitly not ruled out military intervention and the U.S. Secretary of State has reportedly spoken of purchasing the Arctic island, the people of Greenland have been in turmoil.
“The last few days have been very, very difficult – and emotionally upsetting,” Greenlandic Pitsi Karolussen told Danish television in Nuuk. Many of her compatriots are worried and concerned about the future. A large majority of Greenlanders do not want to be part of the United States. “I don’t want to be American. I’m Greenlandic with ties to Denmark, and that’s perfectly fine,” explained Erik Kuitse from Nuuk. While the relationship with Copenhagen may be complicated, most Greenlanders firmly reject a U.S. takeover.
Barrot calls military annexation fiction: NATO partners are not attacking each other.
France is aiming for a coordinated European response to recent moves by the U.S.. Foreign Minister Barrot announced on the radio station France Inter that France would not act unilaterally: “We want to take action, but we want to do so together with our European partners.”
In particular, the goal is to formulate a response to the entry bans imposed on several Europeans at the end of December. Among those affected was the management of the German NGO Hateaid. Barrot spoke of “attempts at intimidation” by the U.S., thus signaling a tougher stance towards Washington.
However, Barrot considers speculation about a violent U.S. annexation of Greenland to be unrealistic. He described such an action as “fiction”—NATO member states would not take military action against each other. After a conversation with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, he was convinced that no military operation would take place. Rubio had “ruled out the possibility of a repeat in Greenland of what just happened in Venezuela, ” Barrot said. However, it should be noted, Greenland has no presidency. For that reason alone, a Venezuela-like scenario on this vast ice island is impossible. There’s no one to kidnap – Ed.
Source: Fr.de (in German)
Attack Or Purchase: What Is Trump Planning For Greenland?
In the dispute over Greenland, the U.S. government is sending contradictory messages: The White House is explicitly not ruling out a military operation for annexation, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly favors purchasing the vast Arctic island. Greenland, with its approximately 56,000 inhabitants, is largely autonomous but officially belongs to the Kingdom of Denmark.
The Danish government firmly rejects U.S. President Donald Trump’s claim to annex Greenland, which he justifies with national security interests – as well as the military threats. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that NATO would collapse if the U.S. attacked Greenland.
The World’s Largest Island With Strategic Importance
Greenland, the world’s largest island, is about six times the size of Germany. It lies strategically important between the U.S., Russia, and Europe. The majority of Greenlanders also oppose joining the United States.
Trump’s spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt stated regarding the U.S. plans: “The President and his team are discussing a range of options to achieve this important foreign policy objective, and of course, the use of the U.S. military is always an option available to the Commander-in-Chief.”
Trump Reportedly Demanded A New Plan To Purchase Greenland
According to media reports, Foreign Minister Marco Rubio, who is also currently Trump’s National Security Advisor, said in a confidential meeting with U.S. lawmakers that the recent threats were not intended to signal a military invasion. The goal is to buy Greenland, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times reported, citing sources familiar with the matter.
The New York Times further reported, citing officials, that Trump had requested an updated plan to purchase the island. Trump had already floated the idea during his first term.
Denmark And Europeans Resist U.S. Overtures
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said after a crisis meeting in the Danish parliament: “It is worrying that we have an American president who has such an ambition.” He added: “Our job is to make sure it doesn’t come to pass.” However, it remains unclear how Denmark intends to achieve this.
Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Spain, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and the Nordic countries issued joint statements expressing their solidarity with Greenland on Tuesday. This does not appear to deter Trump and his administration. In Denmark, calls are growing louder for mediation by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
Trump Points To Chinese And Russian Ships
In justifying his territorial claims, Trump points, among other things, to the numerous Russian and Chinese ships operating along Greenland’s coast. He claims he is not interested in the island’s mineral resources, as the U.S. has plenty of its own. America needs Greenland for its national security.
Experts, however, point out that the U.S. already has extensive rights to use the island militarily through several agreements with Denmark. In Pituffik, about 1,500 kilometers north of Nuuk, the U.S. military operates a base that supports missile warning systems as well as missile defense and space surveillance missions.
Danish Researcher: If The U.S. Attacks, It’s “Game Over”
Should the U.S. actually attack Greenland, NATO member Denmark would be left standing alone, predicts researcher Peter Viggo Jakobsen of the Danish Defence Academy. “No one will lift a finger militarily for Greenland,” Jakobsen told Danish radio. If the Americans attack, it’s “Game Over.” “And then the Greenlanders will have to accept that there’s a new caretaker.”
Greenland was a Danish colony until 1953, but since 1979 it has gained increasing autonomy and is now largely self-governing. Denmark continues to decide on matters such as foreign and defense policy—and through its ties to Denmark, Greenland is also a member of NATO.
Headwinds Also In The Us Congress
There is also some isolated criticism of the Trump administration in the U.S. Congress regarding this issue. Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen and Republican Senator Thom Tillis, both members of the Foreign Relations Committee, stated that if Denmark and Greenland clarify that the island is not for sale, the U.S. must honor its treaty obligations and respect Denmark’s sovereignty.
The U.S. has long had its eye on Greenland. Trump is not the first U.S. president to have set his sights on Greenland. As early as the 1860s, there was an initial U.S. attempt to purchase it, which ultimately failed. After World War II, the U.S. offered USD 100 million for Greenland, and in the 1970s, according to U.S. media reports, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller again considered buying it.
Source: Stern (in German)
“In Greenland, We Feel Offended And Fearful Of Trump.”
Robert Peroni, 82, a climber and explorer from South Tyrol, has lived for almost half a century in Tasilaq, a small island of three thousand people who have inhabited the east coast of the island since 1894, under the reign of Denmark.
There, the Italian beloved by the Ice People, created the “Red House,” an eco-sustainable tourist residence, and learned that in that culture, language has no future. This feeling is even more acute now that U.S. President Donald Trump has announced his intention to seize the island: “We need Greenland, absolutely, we need it for defense,” the tycoon said.
A statement that the 56,800 inhabitants of the polar land have taken seriously and are living with anxiety.
“The population,” Peroni explained to us, “is anxious, but our political representatives are even more so. We all feel offended by Trump’s treatment of our territory, which is not for sale. We have always been a peaceful people; we don’t have an army, we have never waged war. We are just hunters and fishermen who now live in fear of what might happen.”
Peroni tells us that in Nuuk, the capital, people have taken to the streets to protest, but there are only a few. In Greenland (which passed from the Norwegian Crown to Denmark in 1814), despite 25% of voters voting for parties calling for independence from Copenhagen in the last elections, people are looking to Denmark with hope because they “don’t accept Trump’s attitude” or becoming another U.S. colony.
One of the country’s main newspapers, “Sermitsiaq,” speaks of a “NATO crisis” and dedicates entire pages to the issue. The Italian climber is very concerned about the island’s eastern coast: “In the western part, tourism has taken off, while where I live there is more poverty, more hardship. The country is divided in two.” Tensions are sky-high: “There won’t be any deaths, there won’t be a war,” Robert emphasizes, “but we are haunted by the loss of freedom, which has always been at the heart of Greenland.”
Source: Il Fatto Quotidiano (in Italian)
Greenland, The Possibility Of A Us Attack And The Paradox Of Article 5: Can Nato Defend Itself From An Ally?
The treaty does not include any sanctions or expulsions for the United States, but the alliance’s credibility would collapse in favor of Moscow.
The Fallout
“If the United States decided to attack another NATO country, everything would stop,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Fredriksen said Monday. The military alliance could continue to exist, but its effectiveness would be called into question; the obvious beneficiary, an already aggressive Moscow.
During his 2024 election campaign, Donald Trump declared that he would not protect NATO’s “delinquent” members—namely, countries that had not met the 2% GDP defense spending target.
The United States was no longer “primarily focused” on Europe’s defense, his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, emphasized in February. This alone, the Guardian recalls, was enough to raise alarm in Europe, but diplomacy ahead of the NATO summit in June seemed to have smoothed over the issue. Relieved by the unctuous comments of Secretary General Mark Rutte—who called the U.S. president “daddy”—NATO allies, excluding Spain, agreed to increase defense spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035.
Critical Issues
Yet, rather than resolving differences of opinion, it seems that the NATO summit simply masked a rift. Marion Messmer, director of the Chatham House think tank, says: “Yes, the summit went well, as Rutte found formulations that flattered Trump. But I’m not sure this is a sustainable strategy.” There have already been several months of transatlantic uncertainty over Ukraine, caused by two failed U.S. attempts to force Kiev, after the Alaska summit and again with the adoption of Russia’s 28-point plan, to give up more territory, as a prelude to the possibility of the Kremlin considering a ceasefire.
The U.S. Tactic
The U.S. National Security Strategy of December attacked Europe, with its extraordinary warning that the continent risked the “erasure of civilization,” in part because, within a few decades, “some NATO members will become predominantly non-European.” On this extreme basis, the strategy asked whether these unnamed countries would view their alliance with the United States “in the same way” as the 12 who founded NATO in 1949.
Strength Versus Diplomacy
As if the diplomatic dance and rumors weren’t clear enough, the resurgence of territorial greed for Greenland following the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has finally brought NATO itself into the spotlight, with the United States explicitly contesting the historic sovereignty of Denmark, another ally.
No one would realistically expect any of the other 31 NATO members to militarily defend Greenland if the United States attempted to seize it, a point emphasized by Stephen Miller, Trump’s advisor. The real world, he added, is “governed by force, which is governed by force, which is governed by power”—not by treaties or mutual support.
Nor would they have any hope of succeeding. The United States, the Guardian notes, has 1.3 million active-duty soldiers, spread across its armed forces; Denmark has 13,100. NATO data shows that the United States was expected to spend USD 845 billion on defense in 2025, while its other 31 allies were expected to spend a combined USD 559 billion. The ease with which the United States captured Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, is a testament to the extent of America’s raw power.
No Expulsions Planned
The composition of the alliance might not change even if the United States conquered Greenland. The NATO treaty does not include a clear provision for expelling a country, although its preamble commits the United States and other allies “to live in peace with all peoples and all governments” and “to safeguard the freedom, common heritage, and civilization of their peoples”—a formulation once intended to be used against a member that went communist during the Cold War.
Credibility In Crisis
However, if one member of the alliance were to turn against another, even in an Arctic territory with a population of less than 60,000, it would undermine the credibility of the 76-year-old military alliance, aimed at ensuring peace and mutual protection in Europe and the North Atlantic.
Even the latest wave of threats, some argue, has caused sufficient damage at a time when the Russian threat has never been more real, despite Moscow’s current heavy involvement in Ukraine. “If any European state harbors the illusion that it can count on U.S. security guarantees, then this is a wake-up call: we will not return to that world,” Messmer declares.
Source: Il Messaggero (in Italian)
The United States Threatens To Seize Greenland By Force
Trump advisor Stephen Miller justifies the annexation of the Arctic island: “We are a superpower”.
The attack on Venezuela and the capture of Nicolás Maduro are just the beginning of the Trump Administration’s plans in the Americas. Greenland is emerging as the next target. In a statement, the White House confirmed that the president and his national security team are discussing various alternatives for acquiring the territory, and that using the Armed Forces to achieve this “is always an option.” These statements came after Trump’s influential domestic policy advisor, Stephen Miller, had defended the annexation of the island, which is under Danish sovereignty, even if it requires the use of force: “We are a superpower. And with President Trump, we will behave like one.”
“President Trump has made it known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority for the United States and is critical to deterring our adversaries in the Arctic region,” the White House stated.
Miller, one of the U.S. president’s most trusted advisors—the architect of his immigration policy—had defiantly endorsed Trump’s wishes, echoing an increasingly threatening rhetoric since Maduro’s capture.
“We live in a world where you can talk all you want about international subtleties and all that, but we live in a world, the real world… that is governed by force, that is governed by power,” the White House deputy chief of staff warned CNN anchor Jake Tapper. “These are the iron laws of the world,” he added.
To defend his annexationist arguments, Miller even invoked the U.S. role in NATO. This is paradoxical, given that Denmark is a member of the Alliance: neither Greenland nor Copenhagen represents a threat to Washington’s national security, which, in fact, maintains a military base on the island, Pituffik.
“The United States is the leading power in NATO. For the United States to secure the Arctic region, protect and defend NATO’s interests, obviously, Greenland should be part of the United States,” the advisor declared in the interview.
The success of the operation in its immediate objective—capturing Maduro without American casualties—appears to have emboldened an administration that, since Saturday, has significantly hardened its rhetoric to unequivocally claim hegemony in the Americas. “This is OUR hemisphere,” the State Department wrote in a social media post accompanied by a black-and-white photo of Trump.
Last week, Trump, who throughout the past year attacked Iran and ordered military action in Nigeria, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen, also warned that he would intervene in Iran if its leaders brutally suppressed the protests in the country.
But it is regarding the Arctic island that he has been most emphatic. “We need Greenland from a national security standpoint,” Trump asserted aboard Air Force One on Sunday, en route to Washington.
It is not clear whether these threats will lead to concrete action to annex the territory, as the Republican had threatened at the beginning of last year. But his statements and those of Miller—the ideologue of this White House—immediately after the intervention in Venezuela compel us to take them seriously. Both the Greenlandic and Danish governments, as well as the major European countries, have firmly reiterated that they will not allow the U.S. to seize this strategic territory.
In a statement on Facebook, Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen demanded: “Stop the pressure. Stop the insinuations. Stop the fantasies about annexation.” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen emphasized: “I will make it clear that if the United States chooses to militarily attack another NATO country, then everything stops, including NATO and, therefore, the security that has been established since the end of World War II,” in an interview with Danish broadcaster TV2, in which she also acknowledged that “one should take the U.S. president seriously when he says he wants Greenland.”
In March of last year, Trump’s Vice President, J.D. Vance, visited the Pituffik space station on a controversial trip, accompanied by his wife, Usha, and White House National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. During that visit, Vance spoke out strongly against the Danish management of security in the territory of 56,000 inhabitants: “They haven’t done a good job,” he declared.
Source: El Pais (in Spanish)