In the first major crisis in US-UK relations since the Labour government came to power in 2024, US President Donald Trump, having already threatened to quit NATO if members do not support him on Greenland, today announced a 10 per cent tariff on all goods sent to the US by Britain and its European allies from Feb 1. The levy will increase to 25 per cent on June 1, unless Britain and seven other major European economic powers agree to let The USA take control of Denmark's semi auonomous territory, Greenland.)
As well as UK and Denmark the levy will aply to Germany, France, Norway, Finland, Netherlands and Sweden.
Trumps announcement triggered a round of outraged pearl clutching from the political maiden aunts who lead the affected nations. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he would be “pursuing this directly with the US administration” although what effect this personality - deficient nonentity thinks he can have is a mystery.
French President Emmanuel Macron was more forceful (well at least his wife has balls even if he doesn't,) saying of the tariffs of the tariffs: “No intimidation nor threat will influence us.” He probably means the cheese eating surrender monkeys will do what they uually do.
Trump’s move will force Sir Keir and other leaders to either suffer the economic consequences of an international trade war or agree to cede land belonging to a Nato ally, threatening the future of the security alliance. If they had a grain of cmmon sense beteen them instead of blethering about international law they would recognise that with Europe having recently shown itself to be totally ineffectual militarily and politically and Greenland, with its wealth of mineral resources being vulnerable to pressure from hostile powers, they should be talking abot a deal with the USA on the basis of security guaratees for mineral rights.
Economists have warned that the new tariffs could push Britain into recession if they were kept in place long-term and with most European nations in de facto recession even though creative accounting is masking the dire state of their economies they are not in any position to stand on their principles.
Mr Trump said: “This tariff will be due and payable until such time as a deal is reached for the complete and total purchase of Greenland.”
This is just bluster of course, Trump is merely laying out his opening gambit in what would necessarily be long and complex negotiations for a deal over Greenland. The US president has for the past few months been ramping up his threats to seize the Arctic island either through force or a deal, saying Europe has insufficiently defended the strategic territory that he claims is coveted by China and Russia.
A big puzzle in the equation is why Denmark is so determined to preserve the status quo around Greenland. The Danes, like other Scandinavians, are a politically correct bunch and may think they are preserving the rights of Greenland's Inuit population to continue their traditional way of life unmolested. However the Inuit have for years been pressing for full independence so there is evidently not much graitude for Denmark's political and financial support over the centuries.
The Danes are not stupid - though the Inuit may be, unless they they think they may get a better deal from Russia or China that Europe and the USA. If that is the case then they are not just stupid, they're idiots.
Something that none of the media coverage of Trump’s desire to control Greenland seems to mention is that Greenland has large deposits of rare earth minerals that so far it’s decided not to mine for “environmental” reasons. Although a lot of rare earths are used in “renewable” energy generation such as wind turbines which Trump isn’t interested in they’re also used in a lot of computers/electronics including a lot of military systems. China currently controls 85% of the world’s supply of rare earths and in terms of national security this is a major problem for the US. All this and the security question will ensure Trump will get Greenland eventually. If we liken the manoeuvres to a game of poker, Trump has four aces and Europe has no cards to play.
We Boggart Bloggers, having discussed it over a couple of pints in The Albion earlier, suspect that Trump’s main reason for wanting to control Greenland is to ensure the US has sufficient amounts of essential raw materials.
We are not soothsayers or mind readers but beteen us have vast experience and based on knowledge of past events feel there may well be secret talks going on to arrange a deal whereby Greenland permits mining and in return for US security guarantees American investors and commodity traders can buy the output at preferential rates.
Talk of military action or buying Greenland may well just be a tough opening position in negotiations, as we have suggested bove, to try and force a deal whereby Greenland remains part of Denmark and the US gets rare earths and oil exploration rights..
What seems strange in Smarmer's response is he was so eager to giveaway our strategically important Indian Ocean territory (the Chagos Islands,) to a client state of communist China and not only that, to PAY Mauritius for taking it off our hands, many billions of pounds we cannot afford, yet our virtue signalling PM is absolutely adamant that Denmark must not sell Greenland and sends a powerful military fore of ONE squaddie to Greenland as our contribution to defending the island. Perhaps Kommie Keir has been told by his Chinese masters that in addition to approving plans for their spy hub super embassy in London he must to do all he can to deliver the world's biggest island into their hands.



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 deal, 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: