Donald Trump has hinted the US may leave NATO if allies don't help him acquire Greenland (Image: Getty)
US PresidentDonald Trump has hinted the United States could pull out of NATO
if European members of the North Atlantic alliance don't agree to America taking control of Greenland. The President was asked on Friday (January 16) if he would
pull out of the mutual aid alliance if other members don't help him
acquire control of the semi-autonomous Danish territory (population: 50,000). It is widely known of course that Trump regards other leaders of NATO member states as weak and ineffectual.
The President commented: "NATO has been dealing with us on
Greenland. We need Greenland for national security very badly. If we
don't have it we have a very big hole in terms of national security,
especially in terms of the Golden Dome."
He has also warned that the US may impose economic sanctions on any nation that supports Denmark. That would inevitably incur a reciprocal action fron the EU
The Greenland question is tearing apart the Nato alliance. Though the vast land area of the world's biggest island (mostly inside the Arctic Circle,) only has a small population and much of its surface is either permafrost or sheet ice, the territory is believed to contain vast reserves of oil and gas and of mineral deposits which will be vital as governments continue to push towards replacing combustible fuels with electric power. The faux - outrage of NATO leaders is all the more surprising as the alliance's General Secretary Mark Rutte has warned members to prepare for war with Russia.
After holding talks with
vice-president JD Vance and secretary of state Marco Rubio on Wednesday,
Danish foreign minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen warned of a
“fundamental disagreement” with the US over Greenland’s status and inaugurated a working group to bridge the gap.
Europe has
responded to Trump' incendiary comments by meeting fire with with hot air.
France has spearheaded the deployment of a token contingent of European
forces to Greenland and warned that a US seizure or the island would imperil trade with the EU.
Polish
prime minister Donald Tusk declared that American military intervention
in Greenland would be “the end of the world as we know it.” There is
also growing chatter about the rollback of European intelligence sharing
with the US and a suspension of US-EU trade negotiations.
While
European leaders have coalesced around the opinion that Trump’s threats
towards Greenland are serious, there is still a potential off-ramp that
can avoid a worst-case scenario. Instead of engaging in fiery rhetoric
that provokes Trump towards escalation, Europe should seek out a grand
bargain solution that acknowledges American concerns and keeps Nato
intact.
America’s primary motivation for acquiring Greenland is to
prevent the island from becoming a haven of Russian and Chinese
influence. While Trump’s assertions that Greenland is flooded with Russian and Chinese vessels are exaggerated, America’s national security concerns are not wholly without foundation. As the ongoing situation in Ukraine has shown, Europe is invapable of defending anything. Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war European leaders have cut back on defence spending and relied on US military strength for protection as the threat posed by eastern powers appeared to diminish. Now China and Russia are resurgent it seems Trump is trying to realign the world order before China does it.
Streamlining America’s return to at least one of its existing but somewhat run down bases on the island could help convince Trump that outright annexation is unnecessary.
In response to Russia and China’s enhanced coordination in the Arctic,
Europe should consider new customised military readiness exercises with
America and increase intelligence sharing about Moscow and Beijing’s
intentions. Musings about security partnership decoupling should be
replaced with calls for increased collaboration.
However the issue is clearly not about bases. The 1951
agreement pretty well allows the US carte blanche over that. So it must
be something else. Is it mineral rights? Is it simply ego? If we take his comments at face value, Trump is prepared to destroy NATO to get Greenland. But observing as somebody familiar with negotiating techniques in business it seems to me the President is merely setting out his position for negotiating a deal. Instead of carrying on like a bunch of maiden aunts who have accidentally logged on to Porn Hub, Leaders of EU Nations, UK, Norway and Canada should get together with Denmark and instead of simply saying 'No' and blethering about 'international law' put together a proposal acceptable to NATO. Denmark and as far as possible the Greenlanders but with a little common ground that can form the basis for negotiation..
Instead of such businesslike approach, they feign outrage and intheir responses to Trump insult and provoke him. He’s now threatening anyone who
supports Denmark with increased tariffs. Denmark cannot defend Greenland, it is a socially and tevhnologically advanced nation but has a population of around 6 million and an area of about 25,000 square miles. The native (Inuit) population of Greenland want ull independence and should they gain it, seem to think the major powers would let them continue their traditional way of life while sitting of £$€trillions worth of natural resources. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are politically naive rather than stupid.
Trump is neither naive or stupid ... hate him as much as you like, but accept the truth of this ... and while his approach may be blantanly ained as advancing American economic interests, Europe's leaders, who are both naive and stupid as well as being to arrogant to be aware of their naivete and stupidity, NATO without the USA cannot hold the line against China and Russia. We have seen these two nations gain control in Africa, South East Asia and South America. What makes anyone think they can't do the same in Greenland?
In
November, the Russian defence ministry reportedly inaugurated plans to
create a new Arctic fleet to ensure the safety of the Northern Sea
Route. China has simultaneously plotted an expansion of its Polar Silk
Road infrastructure along this route.
A more robust Russian
military footprint in the Arctic could increase the risk of hostile
actions around Greenland’s GIUK Gap and disruptions to Trans-Atlantic
supply chains. China’s track record suggests that it could transform
civilian infrastructure investments into dual-use facilities that carry
out espionage and reconnaissance.
Instead of dismissing these
threats as fabrications, Europe should work with Washington on
mitigating these concerns. Building on the 1951 US-Denmark treaty’s
provisions, the EU should encourage Greenland to allow expansion and modernisation of
American bases. The Sondrestom Air Base in Kangerlussaq aided America’s
early warning efforts during the Cold War and the Narsarsuaq Air Base
assisted refuelling efforts during the Second World War.
While Trump has
not yet publicly tied his takeover ambitions in Greenland to critical
minerals, a rare earth deal could dissuade him from unilateral action.
Greenland possesses at least 25 of the 34 EU-designated critical
minerals and its harsh terrain means that it would profoundly benefit
from US extraction technology.
Trump’s incendiary rhetoric about Greenland has provoked righteous anger throughout Europe. Now is the time to compartmentalise those emotions and strike a pragmatic deal with Washington that saves Nato.
Europe has responded to Trump' incendiary comments by meeting fire with with hot air. France has spearheaded the deployment of a token contingent of European forces to Greenland and warned that a US seizure or the island would imperil trade with the EU.
Polish prime minister Donald Tusk declared that American military intervention in Greenland would be “the end of the world as we know it.” There is also growing chatter about the rollback of European intelligence sharing with the US and a suspension of US-EU trade negotiations.
While European leaders have coalesced around the opinion that Trump’s threats towards Greenland are serious, there is still a potential off-ramp that can avoid a worst-case scenario. Instead of engaging in fiery rhetoric that provokes Trump towards escalation, Europe should seek out a grand bargain solution that acknowledges American concerns and keeps Nato intact.
America’s primary motivation for acquiring Greenland is to prevent the island from becoming a haven of Russian and Chinese influence. While Trump’s assertions that Greenland is flooded with Russian and Chinese vessels are exaggerated, America’s national security concerns are not wholly without foundation. As the ongoing situation in Ukraine has shown, Europe is invapable of defending anything. Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war European leaders have cut back on defence spending and relied on US military strength for protection as the threat posed by eastern powers appeared to diminish. Now China and Russia are resurgent it seems Trump is trying to realign the world order before China does it.
Streamlining America’s return to at least one of its existing but somewhat run down bases on the island could help convince Trump that outright annexation is unnecessary. In response to Russia and China’s enhanced coordination in the Arctic, Europe should consider new customised military readiness exercises with America and increase intelligence sharing about Moscow and Beijing’s intentions. Musings about security partnership decoupling should be replaced with calls for increased collaboration.
However the issue is clearly not about bases. The 1951 agreement pretty well allows the US carte blanche over that. So it must be something else. Is it mineral rights? Is it simply ego? If we take his comments at face value, Trump is prepared to destroy NATO to get Greenland. But observing as somebody familiar with negotiating techniques in business it seems to me the President is merely setting out his position for negotiating a deal. Instead of carrying on like a bunch of maiden aunts who have accidentally logged on to Porn Hub, Leaders of EU Nations, UK, Norway and Canada should get together with Denmark and instead of simply saying 'No' and blethering about 'international law' put together a proposal acceptable to NATO. Denmark and as far as possible the Greenlanders but with a little common ground that can form the basis for negotiation..
Instead of such businesslike approach, they feign outrage and intheir responses to Trump insult and provoke him. He’s now threatening anyone who supports Denmark with increased tariffs. Denmark cannot defend Greenland, it is a socially and tevhnologically advanced nation but has a population of around 6 million and an area of about 25,000 square miles. The native (Inuit) population of Greenland want ull independence and should they gain it, seem to think the major powers would let them continue their traditional way of life while sitting of £$€trillions worth of natural resources. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are politically naive rather than stupid.
Trump is neither naive or stupid ... hate him as much as you like, but accept the truth of this ... and while his approach may be blantanly ained as advancing American economic interests, Europe's leaders, who are both naive and stupid as well as being to arrogant to be aware of their naivete and stupidity, NATO without the USA cannot hold the line against China and Russia. We have seen these two nations gain control in Africa, South East Asia and South America. What makes anyone think they can't do the same in Greenland?
In November, the Russian defence ministry reportedly inaugurated plans to create a new Arctic fleet to ensure the safety of the Northern Sea Route. China has simultaneously plotted an expansion of its Polar Silk Road infrastructure along this route.
A more robust Russian military footprint in the Arctic could increase the risk of hostile actions around Greenland’s GIUK Gap and disruptions to Trans-Atlantic supply chains. China’s track record suggests that it could transform civilian infrastructure investments into dual-use facilities that carry out espionage and reconnaissance.
Instead of dismissing these threats as fabrications, Europe should work with Washington on mitigating these concerns. Building on the 1951 US-Denmark treaty’s provisions, the EU should encourage Greenland to allow expansion and modernisation of American bases. The Sondrestom Air Base in Kangerlussaq aided America’s early warning efforts during the Cold War and the Narsarsuaq Air Base assisted refuelling efforts during the Second World War.
While Trump has not yet publicly tied his takeover ambitions in Greenland to critical minerals, a rare earth deal could dissuade him from unilateral action. Greenland possesses at least 25 of the 34 EU-designated critical minerals and its harsh terrain means that it would profoundly benefit from US extraction technology.
Trump’s incendiary rhetoric about Greenland has provoked righteous anger throughout Europe. Now is the time to compartmentalise those emotions and strike a pragmatic deal with Washington that saves Nato.
FROM THE ARCHIVE: