Tag: greenland

NATO, More Militarism No Defense Against US Expansionists

If you believe Donald Trump might invade you should be calling for Canada to withdraw from NATO. The alliance won’t defend Canada, has enabled US interference and gobbles up resources.

During a recent meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, US President Donald Trump questioned the border and Canadian sovereignty. He said, “if you look at a map, they drew an artificial line right through it, between Canada and the U.S. … somebody did it a long time ago, many many decades ago, and (it) makes no sense.” Trump also repeatedly said Canada should be a US state, noting “to be honest with you, Canada only works as a state.”

Sitting next to the US president, Rutte stayed silent. A bit later Trump suggested Rutte might assist him in taking part of NATO member Denmark, noting “I’m sitting with a man who could be very instrumental. You know Mark, we need that for international security.” Rutte replied, “when it comes to Greenland yes or not joining the U.S. I would leave that outside for me this discussion because I don’t want to drag NATO in that.”

Rutte doesn’t seem to want to commit even rhetorically to defending alliance members’ sovereignty. Even if Rutte had interrupted Trump and told the US president his comments were inappropriate the idea that NATO would defend Canada from a US invasion is ridiculous. Latvia and Estonia will not send troops to repel a US invasion. Nor will France or the UK.

Will Canada send troops to defend Greenland if Trump takes it from NATO member Denmark? Does anyone think that would that be a good idea?

Article 5 of the NATO Charter is not clear on what collective defence entails. It says an attack against one member “shall be considered an attack against them all.” But it doesn’t stipulate what the response should be, noting only that each member state must take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.” Article 5 has only ever been invoked after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US.

Keep reading

Greenland status quo ‘not an option,’ Danish minister says after Vance visit

Denmark is open to discussions with the U.S. on how to “fix” the status quo in Greenland, the country’s foreign minister said, after Vice President JD Vance accused Copenhagen of failing to adequately protect the Arctic island during a controversial visit on Friday.

In a post to X addressed to Denmark’s “dear American friends” late Friday, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said his nation agrees that the “status quo” in the Arctic “is not an option.”

“So let’s talk about how we can fix it — together,” Rasmussen wrote.

In a video statement, Rasmussen acknowledged the “many accusations and many allegations” about Greenland. “Of course, we are open to criticism, but let me be completely honest — we do not appreciate the tone in which it’s being delivered.”

“This is not how you speak to your close allies,” Rasmussen continued, “and I still consider Denmark and the United States to be close allies.”

Danish and Greenlandic leaders have pushed back on Trump’s desire to gain control of Greenland. They have simultaneously criticized his perceived overreach while seeking to ease tensions by proposing deeper military and economic cooperation on the Arctic landmass.

“We respect that the United States needs a greater military presence in Greenland, as Vice President Vance mentioned this evening. We — Denmark and Greenland — are very much open to discussing this with you,” Rasmussen said in his statement.

The existing bilateral defense agreement — signed in 1951 — “offers ample opportunity for the United States to have a much stronger military presence in Greenland,” Rasmussen said. “If that is what you wish, then let us discuss it.”

Keep reading

Payback: J.D. Vance calmly gives Denmark a real reason to be paranoid since they’re asking for it

Former U.S. diplomat Stephen Helgesen, who now lives in Denmark, has an interesting post today describing public sentiment in Denmark, which is almost universally, and quite hatefully, opposed to President Trump. He writes that it’s little different in Greenland, having access to their presses from his perch in Denmark as well.

For Americans, it’s become obvious enough from second lady Usha Vance’s planned visit to Greenland, which was greeted with an amazing amount of rage and paranoia from the Danes, some of the Greenlanders, and anti-American eurotrash all over the rest of Europe.

Helgesen writes:

… the Danish and Greenlandic press were quick to point out that they saw the arrival of two Hercules air transport planes show up at their civilian airport a few days ago as a bridge too far. To mix metaphors, America had crossed the Rubicon. The optics were, admittedly, bad for America. It looked like an invasion, albeit a benign one with armored vehicles and a few dozen security personnel. The Danes ended up sending a hundred or so Danish police from mainland Denmark seemingly as a countermeasure.

All this, to view an annual dogsled race on a remote iceblock island with a population of 59,000.

Now, one could argue that the incidental security sent might have seemed overdone to the Danes and Greenlanders, given that the locals are not used to this kind of attention, and might not even need major security.

Yet it was an overreaction, all the same. The security was likely standard operating procedure for the U.S. in this age of multiple assassination attempts on President Trump and the Secret Service can’t be too careful.

So instead of just dismissing it as Americans in action and going about their business, the Danes and their coevals decided to go bonkers, reading the big entourage from a major public figure from a major nation as an invasion force.

They howled. They organized protests. And they treated Mrs. Vance, who only wanted to make friends with them in a public diplomacy mission, as well as learn about their culture, as a menace to their existence.

Keep reading

Greenlandic Grievances With Denmark and Trump’s Annexation Plan

One of my favorite places on Earth, Greenland, has suddenly become the center of worldwide attention as US President Donald Trump reiterated his 2019 proposal that the US should do whatever it takes to acquire Greenland from Denmark.  Trump’s interest stems from Greenland’s strategic location between the US and Russia, its large untapped deposits of oil, uranium, and rare earth minerals, and its control over Arctic trade routes, particularly the Northwest Passage, which is becoming increasingly navigable as Arctic sea ice disappears.

Trump’s 2019  attempt to buy Greenland outright (or even to trade Puerto Rico for it) was widely dismissed as a joke in both Washington and Copenhagen, but Trump clearly hasn’t let go of the idea, leading House Republican Andy Ogles to introduce the “Make Greenland Great Again Act.”

This renewed geopolitical focus on Greenland is deeply personal. As a human geneticist focused on the study of small, isolated populations, I have spent years researching the relationships between genetics, environment and health in Arctic populations. My experiences in the Arctic, as well as my ability to speak Kalaallisut, has given me insight into how Greenlanders themselves view their place in the world – perspectives often missing from outside analyses.

Because of my familiarity with the region, I knew immediately that Trump’s proposal would provoke a strong reaction in Greenland, where political leaders and everyday people alike see independence, not recolonization by the US, as their future. Múte B. Egede, the head of Greenland’s government Cabinet of Ministers, the Naalakkersuisut, was blunt: “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders. We are not and will never be for sale.” But he also acknowledged that Greenland’s economic future must involve more international partners, saying, “We remain open to cooperation and trade with our international partners… Not everything can be through Denmark.”

Keep reading

Is Trump’s Plan To Take Greenland To Control Arctic Shipping Lanes?

Donald Trump’s recent flirtations with acquiring Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal are not new ideas. They all relate to a single strategic objective: controlling shipping lanes between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

The US has long been a champion of “freedom of navigation”, using military force to police the world’s seaways, from the South China Sea to the Straits of Hormuz.  Although the US has never ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), it consistently enforces its principles worldwide.

As Arctic seas ice continues to recede, opening the Northwest Passage (NWP) and the Northern Sea Route(NSR) for longer periods each year, international access to these shipping routes is becoming an ever more pressing issue, as these Arctic routes offer significantly shorter transit between Europe and East Asia than routes through the Panama or Suez canals.

Moreover, the economic and geopolitical implications of Arctic trade are staggering. Shorter and more cost-effective shipping routes will reshape the balance of global trade, and control over these routes will dictate economic flow, energy transportation, and even military positioning, given the critical role of seaborne logistics in global defense strategies. The viability of the Arctic as a major shipping region also brings with it economic opportunities in tourism, fisheries, and natural resource extraction, including oil and rare earth minerals.

Keep reading

Trump’s Greenland Takeover Threat Could Cause Denmark, and Other European Countries, To Reclaim their Sovereignty

“Today was January 7, 2025. The day when Denmark learned that we can no longer trust the United States. I will NEVER forget that day.”

So wrote political commentator, right-wing influencer Jarl Cordua on social media. This statement reflects what Denmark’s mass media are communicating in their editorials, and quoting influencers and experts on the U.S.-Denmark relationship—a new paradigm totally unexpected is taking place.

In Donald Trump’s second news conference since his election, he said that the U.S. needed Greenland—and the Panama Canal—for “economic security,” for “national security” and to “protect the Free World.”

When a journalist asked if could rule out use economic or military force to acquire them, he replied: “No I can’t assure you on either of those two.”

Trump further stated that, if Denmark resists his offer to purchase Greenland, he would impose tariffs on some of Denmark’s exports.

On the same day, Trump Jr. flew in his father’s private plane for a five-hour greeting to Greenlanders, some of whom were wearing red MAGA hats. “Red” does not stand for communism, rather anti-communist-socialist-social democrat Republicans.

Following his son’s visit, Trump Sr. said, “The reception has been great.” He continued, “Greenland and the Free World need safety, security, strength, and peace!” “Make Greenland great again!” he added.

January 7: Immediately upon hearing what Trump said, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen met with her coalition government for hours. When she, and Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen (former PM for the rightest “Liberal” party), spoke to the media, her first words were:

“We have close relations with Greenland, Faroe Islands, EU, NATO, USA. We are prepared for the new president. We don’t think anything concrete will happen until Trump takes office. We don’t believe it will lead to such developments. We are USA’s closest ally, and other things are important too, such as our defense of Greenland. We are also a great contributor to NATO and Ukraine.”

Keep reading

Euro lackeys pandering to Trump will escalate NATO’s conflict with Russia

It’s a bad combination. A bruising U.S. president with territorial expansion on his mercurial mind and European politicians without any backbone – all too eager to pander to the American bully.

Mixed in with that noxious brew, we also have European elites who are so obsessively Russophobic that they would stab each other in the back just to keep the proxy war on Russia at full throttle.

Donald Trump, whose policymaking is more befitting a Mafia real estate business, wants to grab Greenland as well as Canada, the Panama Canal, and anywhere else that takes his fancy. He wants to “clean out” Gaza, no doubt to flog beachfront properties to millionaires.

Trump has doubled down on his intention to annex Greenland – by military force if needed. His comments have caused Danish leaders to freak out, fearing that the president may order a military invasion of the Arctic island territory, a centuries-old colonial possession of Copenhagen.

Repeating earlier threats, Trump said last weekend: “I don’t really know what claim Denmark has to it, but it would be a very unfriendly act if they didn’t allow that to happen because it’s for the protection of the free world.” (Not like America’s God-given right to Hawaii, Guam and Puerto Rico, for example.)

Notice how Trump glosses his imperialist real estate interests with the virtue of “protecting the free world.”

The dainty Danes are reportedly in “crisis mode” over Trump’s aggressive takeover. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen went on a whirlwind tour of European capitals on Tuesday to drum up EU solidarity. She held urgent meetings with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Berlin, French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris and NATO chief Mark Rutte in Brussels – all in one day.

It’s hilarious to hear European non-entity politicians talk bravely about “defending Denmark” from American threats to its sovereignty and extraterritorial borders. They will do nothing of the sort.

Keep reading

Trump Applies Heavy Pressure on Denmark for the Ownership of Greenland, Leaving Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Her Government in Full ‘Crisis Mode’

NATO member Denmark spent the last four years single-mindedly worried about the Russian danger, but was surprised by the territorial ambitions by the fest-moving US President Donald J. Trump.

After a telephone call between Trump and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, it has now been reported that the Danish Kingdom is in ‘crisis mode’ after Trump made a direct play for Greenland in a conversation being branded as ‘horrendous’.

The Telegraph reported:

“The US president spoke to Mette Frederiksen, the Danish premier, for 45 minutes last week and made clear he wanted to place Greenland under American control.”

Greenland is an autonomous Arctic territory owned by Denmark since 1814. But now, Trump wants it as a ‘valuable asset’ in the US’s competition against Russia and China.

“Ms. Frederiksen told him in their call last week that despite his ‘big interest’, Greenland was not for sale, the Financial Times reported. Mr. Trump then became ‘aggressive’, according to the newspaper, and threatened to impose tariffs on Denmark unless Greenland was sold to the US.”

Trump refused to rule out using military force to take Greenland, calling it a matter of ‘national security’ to own that Arctic base.

Keep reading

The Art of the Deal Comes to Greenland 

It’s a distinct possibility that the U.S. will gain possession of Greenland.  Donald Trump wants it, and even before he is sworn in as the 47th president, his allies in Congress are acting.  As to the ways and means of acquisition, J.D. Vance sketched them on January 12: “We don’t have to use military force,” he began. Nevertheless, the vice president–elect invoked power politics: “We already have troops in Greenland.  Greenland is really important for America strategically.” 

“My friend Donald Trump Jr. was there a couple days ago,” Vance continued.  “And you know what they told him?  They want to be empowered to . . . develop their resources.”  Vance further stipulated, “We also want to make sure that Greenland is properly cared for from an American security perspective,” adding that the Danish government, which manages macro policy for the dependent Greenland, “has not done a good enough job.” 

Lots to unpack here.  

Keep reading

A New Monroe Doctrine, or a Federalized ‘Five Eyes’? 

If one has to move beyond the relentless stupidity of social media in the past few weeks, it is easy to perceive that the singular line of thought that has most animated the right is one of annexation and conquest. One might cautiously divide the American political landscape into three competing archetypes: the revolutionary and often ideological puritans, the equilibrium-seeking landed gentries, and the fearless frontiersmen. The coordination between the three raised the greatest power in history; conflicts among them have led to catastrophes, and, in one particular instance, a civil war. 

Every man, whether new or old, native-born or immigrant, somehow finds themselves in one of these archetypes, and his conduct reflects their intellectual proximity. Possibly America’s greatest era followed the Civil War, where a combination of ultra-republican nationalism, small-i imperialism, the prudence of the native-born oligarchy, and a restrained policy of balance of power abroad—including the last instance an official American “proclamation of neutrality” was issued—led to massive expansion of American power and prestige, not to mention American frontiers. Donald Trump is the closest to a Gilded Age patrician in our modern age. His calls to “retake” Panama, buy Greenland, and “unite” Canada would be understood viscerally by anyone in the late 19th and early 20th century. Not surprising, that it has received support and rationalization from even some unusual corners of the cognoscenti. 

So what are the stakes? Trump’s Greenland-lust in particular has been called a return to a “new Monroe Doctrine” by various commentators. It is in line with “the scramble for the Arctic, one of the new ‘Great Games’ of the 21st century,” and “suggests the recalibrating of US priorities toward a more manageable ‘continental’ strategy—a new Monroe Doctrine—aimed at reasserting full hegemony over what it deems to be its natural sphere of influence, the Americas and the northern Atlantic.” A move away from the last quarter-century of crusading for democratic peace, the new “focus will be on shoring up the most important American interests at home and close to home, avoiding needless conflicts and adventurism in far-off places with marginal ties to American interests, and most importantly of all, restoring America’s confidence as a great country with a bright future.” 

Keep reading