AU

Lupaka Gold may seize Peru state assets over unpaid $67M arbitration award

Staff Writer | January 19, 2026 | 

Credit: Lupaka Gold via LinkedIn

Lupaka Gold (TSXV: LPK) may look to seize certain Peruvian state-owned assets unless the South American nation pays the company its arbitration award, its chairman told Bloomberg.

Last year, the Canadian miner won an arbitration case against Peru for the government’s failure to curb community protests in 2018 that ultimately forced the closure of the company’s flagship gold project. The arbitration was launched in late 2019, with Lupaka alleging that the state had supported the protests that blockaded access to its Invicta project, located 120 kilometres north of the capital city Lima.

Before the situation escalated, Lupaka had completed 3,000 metres of underground workings, agreements from the community of Lacsanga and a 29-kilometre access road sufficient to handle 40-tonne ore trucks. The project was forecast to produce 185,000 oz. of gold equivalent over a six-year life.

$67 million unpaid

In June 2025, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) ruled that the Peruvian state must pay Lupaka $65 million. However, the arbitration award, now amounting to $67 million due to accumulation of interest, has yet to be paid, according to the company.

Without this payment, Lupaka said it has taken steps to identify overseas assets held by Peru as potential targets for seizure. Last November, it hired investigators to aid this process.

In a recent Bloomberg interview, Lupaka’s chairman Gordon Ellis said it has identified Peru’s national petroleum company Petroperu, which has “massive debts and pays large amounts of money on that on a regular basis,” as a potential target.

Other assets named by Ellis include ships and real estate as well as debt payments on Peru’s sovereign bonds.

Shares of Lupaka Gold have risen by over three-fold since its arbitration award win. At about C$0.25 apiece, the company has a market capitalization of C$5.7 million ($4.1 million).

Lupaka’s threats highlight the damaged relationship the Peruvian state has had with certain foreign investors. Last month, the Latin American nation was found in default in US federal court over another arbitration award totaling $91 million involving an airport contractor.

According to the Fraser Institute, Peru ranks behind some of its mineral-rich peers in the region such as San Juan, Argentina and Chile for investment attractiveness.

Caledonia secures $150M for Zimbabwe gold mine in rare international capital raise

Reuters | January 21, 2026 | 

Bilboes gold project in Zimbabwe. (Image courtesy of Caledonia Mining.)

Caledonia Mining Corporation on Wednesday said it raised $150 million via a seven-year convertible bond offering to fund its Bilboes project which, once operational, will be Zimbabwe’s largest gold mine.

Zimbabwe-focused Caledonia’s debt issuance is the biggest international capital raising in over a decade for the country, which had been shunned by global investors due to economic and policy volatility.

Spot gold prices surged to more than $4,800 per ounce on Wednesday, driven by investors seeking havens who are backing miners like Caledonia to lift output.

In a statement, Caledonia – which operates the 80,000-ounce-per-year Blanket mine in Zimbabwe – said demand for the offering from US institutional investors exceeded $600 million.

“Receiving more than $600 million of demand from high-quality North American investors is a tremendous endorsement of our strategy, the quality of our assets, our operational track record and the long-term prospects of the company,” Caledonia CEO Mark Learmonth said.

Caledonia said the bond issue is part of a broader strategy it is pursuing to fund Bilboes, which is expected to start production in late 2028. The mine is expected to reach annual output of 200,000 ounces from 2029 for an initial period of 10 years.

The company is also arranging a $150 million funding facility with a consortium of Zimbabwean and South African banks and will also engage regional and global lenders for Bilboes financing.

The Bilboes project has an expected total cost of $584 million and peak funding requirements of $484 million.

Zimbabwe’s gold output plunged to 3 metric tons during the height of its economic and political crisis in 2008. It has more than doubled production over the past decade to an all-time high of 47 metric tons in 2025.

(By Chris Takudzwa Muronzi; Editing by Nelson Banya and Thomas Derpinghaus)

Russia gains $216 billion in gold rally, replacing lost assets

Bloomberg News | January 20, 2026 

Stock image.

Russia has reaped a windfall from a surge in gold prices since the start of its war in Ukraine, generating gains on a scale comparable to the sovereign reserves frozen in Europe over President Vladimir Putin’s invasion.

The value of the Bank of Russia’s gold holdings has increased by more than $216 billion since February 2022, according to Bloomberg calculations. At the same time, the central bank has largely refrained from both major purchases of the metal and using its gold reserves during that period, despite the loss of access to foreign securities and currencies blocked under sanctions.

In December, European Union countries approved extending a freeze on around €210 billion ($244 billion) of Russian sovereign assets held in the bloc.

The increase in the value of bullion restores most of Russia’s lost financial capacity, even if it doesn’t return the blocked reserves. While securities and cash immobilized in Europe cannot be sold or pledged, gold can still be monetized if needed.

Russia, the world’s second-largest gold producer, mines more than 300 tons of the metal a year. Since 2022, however, Russian bullion has been shut out of Western markets and is no longer accepted by the London Bullion Market Association, effectively barring it from the world’s biggest over-the-counter gold-trading hub. That complicates any potential large-scale sales by the central bank to Asian buyers, where it would also face competition from newly mined gold produced by sanctioned Russian producers that cannot currently be sold elsewhere.

Gold prices have rallied sharply over the past four years, supported by strong demand from central banks, persistent inflation concerns, heightened geopolitical risks and investors seeking safe havens from uncertainty caused by trade wars.

In 2025, gold gained around 65%, its strongest annual performance since 1979. This has significantly lifted the valuation of official holdings worldwide even without additional purchases.

Russia’s international reserves reached $755 billion at the end of last year, including $326.5 billion held in gold, according to central bank data published on Friday. Gold prices have risen by more than 8% since then, surpassing $4,700 per ounce.

The Finance Ministry expects gold prices to keep climbing over the long term to $5,000 an ounce and higher. The current rally reflects a loss of confidence in global reserve currencies, while attempts to expropriate Russian assets are only increasing demand, Deputy Finance Minister Aleksey Moiseev said in an interview with RBC in late December.

The Bank of Russia only began drawing on its bullion toward the end of last year, with holdings falling by 0.2 million troy ounces to 74.8 million troy ounces. The decline reflected operations linked to the Finance Ministry’s sales of National Wellbeing Fund assets to finance the budget deficit.

From February 2022 through December 2025, the value of the country’s gold reserves more than doubled, while reserves held in foreign assets and currencies declined by about 14%, Bank of Russia data show. Gold accounted for 43% of total reserves compared with only 21% before the war.

Russia has stopped disclosing detailed information on its foreign currency reserves since the start of the war. As of Jan. 1, foreign currency and other non-gold assets totaled $399 billion, according to the data.

Russia’s Finance Ministry said in 2022 that roughly $300 billion of its overseas sovereign assets had been immobilized abroad.

The fate of those funds is poised to remain a subject of negotiation as talks over a potential peace settlement of the war in Ukraine continue under US leadership. EU countries have debated ways to use frozen Russian assets to provide a loan to Ukraine, but efforts to reach an agreement ultimately failed.

The Bank of Russia in response filed a lawsuit in Moscow seeking 18.2 trillion rubles ($227 billion) from Euroclear. Governor Elvira Nabiullina said the central bank doesn’t intend to drop its claim and is considering legal action in international courts.

Gold price extends record run, with $4,900 in sight

Staff Writer | January 21, 2026 

Stock image.

Gold extended its record rally to almost $4,900 per ounce on Wednesday, as geopolitical tensions surrounding Greenland and a meltdown in Japanese government debt kept safe-haven demand elevated.

Spot gold spiked as much as 2% to a record $4,887.19 per ounce before paring some gains. This marks the first time ever that gold has crossed the $4,800 threshold, and it comes a day after prices first broke past the $4,700-an-ounce level.

Gold is coming off its best annual performance since 1979, as mounting geopolitical risks and a global shift away from fiat currencies lifted the metal’s appeal, driving prices to record highs on more than 50 occasions through 2025 and into the new year.

This record-breaking rally in gold, which has risen by 75% over the past 12 months, reignited in recent days amid growing tensions between the US and its NATO allies. On Saturday, US President Donald Trump threatened tariffs on eight European nations that opposed his plan to take over Greenland, raising the specter of a damaging trade war.

Meanwhile, a meltdown in Japanese sovereign debt spilt over into bond markets worldwide earlier this week, with long-dated Treasuries and the dollar both tumbling. As well as sparking fears of the repatriation of capital to the East Asian nation as yields rise, the ructions highlighted worries about the fiscal situations of major economies that fueled the so-called “debasement trade”, where investors avoid currencies and government bonds.

The situation in Japan is spurring “fear of market-led debasement in the rest of the world,” Daniel Ghali, a senior commodity strategist at TD Securities, wrote in a note. “Gold’s rally is about trust. For now, trust has bent, but hasn’t broken. If it breaks, momentum will persist for longer.”

Gold is poised for more support from the world’s biggest reported buyer, the National Bank of Poland. The central bank approved plans to purchase another 150 tons, while Bolivia’s central bank has resumed purchases for its foreign reserves under new regulations enacted in December 2025.

“Gold remains our highest conviction,” Daan Struyven, co-head of commodities research at Goldman Sachs Group, said at a media briefing on Wednesday, citing continued purchases by central banks. He reiterated the bank’s base case scenario is for gold to climb to $4,900 an ounce, with risks to the upside.

Silver down

Meanwhile, silver retreated by over 1% after notching its all-time best $95.89 per ounce during the Tuesday session. The metal has benefitted from the gold trade and performed even better during 2025, recording a gain of 140% for the year.

As with gold, analysts remain bullish on the white metal in 2026. “Silver’s rise to a three-digit number is looking quite possible given the price momentum we are seeing, but it will not be a one-way move. There could be some correction in prices and volatility can be higher,” ANZ commodity strategist Soni Kumari said on Wednesday.

(With files from Bloomberg and Reuters)

Gold, silver premiums in India surge on import duty hike bets

India is the world’s second-largest consumer of gold and the largest consumer of silver. 

Reuters | January 21, 2026 

Stock image.

Gold premiums in India surged past $100 an ounce on Wednesday for the first time in more than a decade, with silver premiums at a record high, as traders priced in possible curbs on precious metals imports to shore up the rupee.

Bullion dealers charged a premium of up to $112 per ounce over official domestic gold prices – inclusive of 6% import and 3% sales levies – the highest since May 2014. Last week, dealers offered a discount of up to $12.

Silver premiums surged to $8 per ounce, surpassing the previous peak of $5 scaled in October.

India is the world’s second-largest consumer of gold and the largest consumer of silver. The rupee slipped to a record low of 91.7425 against the US dollar on Wednesday.

“People are speculating that the government may raise import duties on gold and silver to curb imports in the budget,” said Chanda Venkatesh, managing director of Hyderabad-based bullion merchant CapsGold.

“Anticipating the hike, traders are charging premiums over record prices.”

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman is set to present the Union Budget for 2026/27 on February 1. She had slashed import duties on gold and silver to 6% from 15% in July 2024 to curb smuggling.

India meets most of its gold and silver demand through imports, which have surged in recent months, widening the trade deficit and putting pressure on the rupee.

Local gold prices soared to an all-time high of 158,339 rupees per 10 grams, while silver surged to a record 335,521 rupees per kilogram.

“Traders with short positions were squeezed as prices rose, forcing them to buy to close their positions,” said Prithviraj Kothari, president, India Bullion and Jewellers Association (IBJA).

While jewellery demand is down, investment in coins, bars, and exchange-traded funds has surged, Kothari said.

“Supply hasn’t kept up. This shortage is causing sellers to charge higher premiums,” said Chirag Thakkar, chief executive of Amrapali Group Gujarat, a leading importer.

The industry is concerned that the government may take steps to restrict bank funding currently used by jewellers for gold and silver imports, a move that is also lifting premiums on both metals, said Surendra Mehta, secretary, IBJA.

India’s Ministry of Commerce and Industry did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

(By Rajendra Jadhav and Aftab Ahmed; Editing by Harikrishnan Nair)

 

(Statement) International call to strengthen antifascist and anti-imperialist action

By Various

Published date 21 January, 2026

The extreme right and neo-fascist forces are advancing on every continent. 

While the threat manifests itself in different ways depending on the country or region, its common elements are readily identifiable: the goal of annihilating labor rights and protections, the suppression of workers’ organizations, the dismantling of social security and the imposition of a precarious existence for both employed and unemployed workers, the privatization of public services, the denial of climate change, the use of the high level of public debt as an excuse for intensifying austerity policies, the dispossession of peasants to clear the way for agribusiness, the displacement of indigenous peoples to promote unbridled extractivism, the tightening of inhumane migration policies, and an increase in military spending. 

Enforcing these policies requires restrictions on the right to strike, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly; the silencing of the press and of critical voices in schools and universities; denying scientific findings that contradict these policies; and strengthening of the structures and mechanisms of repression and surveillance.

The extreme right is co-opting discontent with the disastrous consequences of neoliberalism to accelerate these policies. To achieve this, like classical fascism, it seeks to direct this discontent against oppressed and dispossessed groups: migrants, women, LGBTQ+ people, those who benefit from inclusion programs, racialized people, and national or religious minorities. National chauvinism, racism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia, incitement to hatred, and the normalization of cruelty accompany the advance of the radical right at every step, depending on the specific circumstances of each country.

The desire to accumulate wealth in the hands of capital and the relentless pursuit of maximum profit that underpins far-right policies are also manifested by the intensification of imperialist aggressions aimed at seizing resources and exploiting populations. This phenomenon is intertwined with the perpetuation of colonial situations, exemplified by the case of Palestine, where it takes the form of a genocide orchestrated by the State of Israel with the complicity of its imperialist allies.

Beyond its complicity with the Netanyahu government, the far right is forging international ties: congresses, think tanks, joint declarations, mutual support in electoral processes, collaboration among podcasters, propagandists, and specialists in disinformation. It is urgent that we advance the struggle against the right and imperialist aggression, and to be effective our struggle must be international.

The forces fighting against the rise of the far right, fascism, and imperialist aggression are neither monolithic nor homogeneous, nor have they ever been. They are diverse, and there are significant differences in analysis, strategy and tactics, programs, and alliance policy, as well as sensibilities and priorities. Experience teaches us that while it is important to recognize these differences, coordinating the struggle against increasingly menacing enemies is essential. This convergence can and must include all forces willing to defend the working class, farmers, migrants, women, LGBTQ+ people, racialized people, oppressed national or religious minorities, and indigenous peoples; to defend nature against ecocidal capitalism; to combat imperialist and colonial aggression, regardless of its origin; and to support the struggle of the peoples who resist, even when they are forced to take up arms.

It is urgent that we share analyses, strengthen ties, and agree on concrete actions. Those are the goals that inspired the convening of an International Antifascist and Anti-imperialist Conference in the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil, from March 26 to 29, 2026.

The Porto Alegre conference is an important step on a much longer path. The undersigned organizations and individuals commit to continue, tirelessly and in the most unified way possible, the struggle against the rising far right and imperialist aggressions, which is an essential dimension of our emancipatory, socialist, ecological, feminist, anti-racist, and internationalist project.

As Che Guevara wrote to his children: “Above all, always be capable of feeling deeply any injustice committed against anyone, anywhere in the world. This is the most beautiful quality in a revolutionary.”

Sign the call here

Initial signatories:

Argentina
1. Atilio A. Boron, professor at the University of Buenos Aires and the National University of Avellaneda.
2. Verónica Gago, feminist activist and researcher at the University of Buenos Aires.
3. Julio Gambina, Corriente Politica de Izquierda - CPI (Left Political Current), ATTAC Argentina, CADTM AYNA.
4. Claudio Katz, professor at the University of Buenos Aires and researcher at CONICET.
5. Beverly Keene, Diálogo 2000-Jubileo Sur Argentina (Dialogue 2000-Jubilee South Argentina) and Autoconvocatoria por la Suspensión del Pago e Investigación de la Deuda (Coalition for the Suspension of Payment and Investigation of the Debt).
6. Claudio Lozano, President of the Instrumento Electoral por la Unidad Popular (Electoral Instrument for Popular Unity).
7. Jorgelina Matusevicius, representative of Vientos del Pueblo Frente por el Poder Popular (Winds of the People Front for Popular Power).
8. Felisa Miceli, Economist, Former Minister of Economy of Argentina 2005/2007.
9. Martín Mosquera, editor of Jacobin Latin America (Jacobinlat).
10. María Elena Saludas, member of ATTAC-CADTM Argentina, Corriente Politica de Izquierda - CPI (Left Political Current).

Australia
11. Federico Fuentes, editor of LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal.
12. Pip Hinman, Co-editor of Green Left.
13. Susan Price, Co-editor of Green Left.

Basque Country
14. Garbiñe Aranburu Irazusta, General Coordinator of the LAB Trade Union.
15. Igor Arroyo Leatxe, General Coordinator of the LAB Trade Union.
16. Josu Chueca, former professor at the UPV/EHU. Historical memory activist.
17. Irati Jiménez, parliamentarian in Navarre, EH Bildu.
18. Mitxel Lakuntza Vicario, general secretary of the ELA Sindikatua Trade Union.
19. Oskar Matute, deputy in the Congress of the Spanish state, EH Bildu.
20. Luisa Menendez Aguirre, anti-racist and feminist activist, Bilbao.
21. Amaia Muñoa Capron-Manieux, deputy general secretary of the ELA Sindikatua Trade Union.
22. Anabel Sanz Del Pozo, feminist activist, Bilbao.
23. Igor Zulaika, parliamentarian in the CAPV, EH Bildu.

Belgium
24. Vanessa Amboldi, Director of CEPAG popular education movement.
25. France Arets, retired history teacher, active in supporting undocumented people, CRACPE.
26. Eléonore Bronstein, federal secretary of the Mouvement Ouvrier Chrétien Brussels (Christian Labour Movement Brussels).
27. Céline Caudron, Gauche Anticapitaliste (Anticapitalist Left), union and feminist activist.
28. Giulia Contes, Co-president of the Coordination Nationale d’Action pour la Paix et la Démocratie – CNAPD (National Coordination for Action for Peace and Democracy).
29. Paul-Emile Dupret, jurist, former official of The Left in the European Parliament.
30. Pierre Galand, former senator, president of the Association Belgo-Palestinienne (Belgian-Palestinian Association), president of the Conférence européenne de coordination du soutien au peuple sahraoui – EUCOCO (European Conference on Coordination of Support for the Sahrawi People).
31. Corinne Gobin, professor at the Université libre de Bruxelles.
32. Henri Goldman, Union des progressistes juifs de Belgique (Union of Jewish Progressives of Belgium).
33. Jean-François Tamellini, general secretary of the trade union FGTB wallonne.
34. Éric Toussaint, spokesperson for CADTM international.
35. Felipe Van Keirsbilck, general secretary of the Centrale Nationale des Employés - CNE/CSC (National Employees’ Centre).
36. Arnaud Zacharie, lecturer at ULB and ULiège, general secretary of the Centre National de Coopération au Développement – CNCD (National Centre for Development Cooperation).

Benin
37. Émilie Atchaka, feminist, president of CADD Benin.

Bolivia
38. Gabriela Montaño, physician, former President of the Chamber of Deputies and Senators, former Minister of Health.

Brazil
39. Ricardo Abreu de Melo “Alemão”, FMG.
40. Luana Alves, black feminist, PSOL municipal councilor in São Paulo.
41. Frei Betto, writer.
42. Sâmia Bomfim, PSOL federal deputy.
43. Bianca Borges, president of UNE.
44. Ana Cristina Carvalhaes, Journalist, Inprecor magazine.
45. Raul Carrion, Historian, former deputy, member of the FMG and the Secretariat of International Relations of the PC of Brazil.
46. Rodrigo Dilelio, president of the Partido dos Trabalhadores (Worker’s Party) of the city of Porto Alegre; Organizing Committee.
47. Israel Dutra, Secretary of Social Movements of PSOL, member of the National Directorate of PSOL.
48. Olívio Dutra, Former Governor of the State of Rio Grande do Sul; Former Minister of Cities (PT).
49. Luciana Genro, state deputy of Rio Grande do Sul and president of the Lauro Campos/Marielle Franco Foundation.
50. Tarso Genro, Former Governor of the State of Rio Grande do Sul; Former Minister of Justice (PT).
51. Socorro Gomes, CEBRAPAZ and the World Peace Council.
52. Amanda Harumy, International and Latin American affairs analyst.
53. Elias Jabbour, Geographer and China specialist.
54. Joao Machado, economist, PSOL.
55. Fernanda Melchionna, federal deputy of RS.
56. Maria do Rosário Nunes, Federal Deputy; Former Minister of Human Rights (PT).
57. Misiara Oliveira, assistant secretary of International Relations / National Executive Commission (PT).
58. Raul Pont, historian, former mayor of Porto Alegre, PT.
59. Ana Maria Prestes, historian, PhD in Political Science and secretary of International Relations of the CC of the PC of Brazil.
60. Edson Puchalski, president of PC do B Rio Grande do Sul.
61. Roberto Robaina, councilor and president of PSOL in Porto Alegre.
62. Miguel Rossetto, PT leader in the Legislative Assembly of Rio Grande do Sul.
63. Juliana Souza, PT leader in the Municipal Council of Porto Alegre.
64. Joao Pedro Stedile, social activist, Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra – MST (Landless Rural Workers Movement).
65. Gabi Tolotti, president of PSOL Rio Grande do Sul.
66. Thiago Ávila, international coordination of the Global Sumud Flotilla for Gaza.

Catalonia
67. Ada Colau, social activist, former Mayor of Barcelona, President of the Sentit Comú Foundation.
68. Gerardo Pisarello, deputy in the Congress for Comuns. Professor of law. University of Barcelona.
69. Daniel Raventós, professor at the University of Barcelona. Editorial Board of the magazine Sin Permiso and President of the Red Renta Básica (Basic Income Network).
70. Carles Riera, sociologist, former deputy and member of the Board of the Parliament of Catalonia for the CUP (2016-2024), president of the FDC Foundation, president of the Global Network for the Collective Rights of Peoples.

Chile
71. Daniel Jadue, Communist Party of Chile.
72. Jorge Sharp Fajardo, former mayor of Valparaíso, member of Transformar Chile (Transform Chile).

Colombia
73. Wilson Arias, senator of the Republic.
74. Isabel Cristina Zuleta, senator of the Pacto Histórico (Historical Pact).

Congo, Democratic Republic of
75. Yvonne Ngoyi, feminist, president of the Union of Women for Human Dignity (UFDH).

Ivory Coast
76. Solange Kone Sanogo, President of the Forum national sur les stratégies économiques et sociales - FNSES (National Forum on Economic and Social Strategies), National Coordination of the World March of Women.

Cuba
77. Rafael Acosta, writer, academic and researcher.
78. Aurelio Alonso, deputy director of the magazine Casa de las Américas.
79. Katiuska Blanco, writer and journalist, RedEDH.
80. Olga Fernández Ríos, Institute of Philosophy and Vice President of the Academy of Sciences of Cuba.
81. Norma Goicochea, president of the Asociación Cubana de las Naciones Unidas (Cuban Association of the United Nations), member of the Red en Defensa de la Humanidad - REDH (Network in Defense of Humanit).
82. Georgina Alfonso González, Dr., Director of the Institute of Philosophy.
83. Rafael Hernández, political scientist and professor. Director, Temas magazine.
84. Marilín Peña Pérez, popular educator, Dr. Martin Luther King Memorial Center (CMLK).
85. Pedro Prada, journalist, researcher and diplomat.
86. Abel Prieto, writer, former Minister of Culture, deputy to the National Assembly of People’s Power, president of Casa de las Américas (House of the Americas).
87. Raul Suárez, Rev., pastor emeritus of the Ebenezer Baptist Church, Founder of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Center.
88. Marlene Vázquez Pérez, director of the Center for Martí Studies.

Denmark
89. Per Clausen, member of the European Parliament, GUE/NGL, Red-Green Alliance.
90. Søren Søndergaard, member of Parliament, Red-Green Alliance.

Ecuador
91. Alberto Acosta, former president of the Constituent Assembly in 2007-2008.

France
92. Manon Aubry (LFI), co-president of the Left group (The Left) in the European Parliament.
93. Ludivine Bantigny, historian.
94. Olivier Besancenot, NPA - l’Anticapitaliste.
95. Leila Chaibi, member of the European Parliament, La France Insoumise (LFI), The Left.
96. Fabien Cohen, General Secretary of France Amérique Latine-FAL.
97. Hendrik Davi, deputy in the National Assembly of the ecological and social group and member of APRES.
98. Penelope Duggan, member of the bureau of the Fourth International, editor-in-chief of International Viewpoint.
99. Annie Ernaux, Nobel Prize in Literature 2022.
100. Angélique Grosmaire, General Secretary of the Fédération Sud PTT.
101. Rima Hassan, member of the European Parliament, LFI.
102. Michael Löwy, sociologist, ecosocialist.
103. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, La France Insoumise.
104. Ugo Palheta, editor of the Revue ContreTemps, author of “La nouvelle internationale fasciste”.
105. Patricia Pol, academic, representative of Attac France on the international Council of the World Social Forum.
106. Raymonde Poncet Monge, senator Les Écologistes (The Ecologists).
107. Thomas Portes, LFI deputy in the National Assembly.
108. Christine Poupin, Spokesperson for NPA - l’Anticapitaliste.
109. Denis Robert, founder and editorial director of Blast, independent media outlet.
110. Catherine Samary, researcher in political economy, specialist on the Balkans, member of the FI and the ENSU (European Network in Solidarity with Ukraine).
111. Aurélie Trouvé, deputy in the National Assembly, La France Insoumise (The Unsubmissive France).
112. Cem Yoldas, Spokesperson for the Jeune Garde Antifasciste (Young Anti-Fascist Guard).
113. Sophie Zafari, FSU trade unionist.

Galicia
114. Ana Miranda, member of the European Parliament, Bloque Nacionalista Galego – BNG (Galician Nationalist Bloc).

Germany
115. Angela Klein, chief editor in charge of the magazine SOZ.
116. Carola Rackete, biologist, activist, ship captain arrested in Italy in June 2019 for protecting refugees, former member of the European Parliament.

Greece
117. Zoe Konstantopoulou, lawyer, head of the Political Movement “Course to Freedom”, member of Parliament, former President of the Greek Parliament, initiator-president of the Truth Committee on Public Debt.
118. Nadia Valavani, economist and author, alternate finance minister in 2015 and former member of the Greek Parliament.
119. Yanis Varoufakis, leader of MeRA25, co-founder of DiEM25, professor of economics – University of Athens.

Haiti
120. Camille Chalmers, professor at the Université d’Etat d’Haiti (UEH), director of PAPDA, member of the regional executive committee of the Assemblée des Peuples de la Caraïbe – APC (Assembly of Caribbean Peoples), member of the Comité national haïtien pour la restitution et les réparations – CNHRR (Haitian National Committee for Restitution and Reparations).

India
121. Sushovan Dhar, Alternative Viewpoint magazine, member of the IC of the World Social Forum and of CADTM India.
122. Vijay Prashad, director, Tricontinental Institute for Social Research.
123. Achin Vanaik, retired professor from the University of Delhi and founding member of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP).

Indonesia
124. Rahmat Maulana Sidik, Executive Director, Indonesia for Global Justice (IGJ).

.Iraq
125. Noor Salem, radio journalist.

Ireland
126. Paul Murphy, member of Parliament.

Italy
127. Eliana Como, member of the National Assembly of the CGIL union.
128. Nadia De Mond, feminist activist and researcher, Centro Studi per l’Autogestione (Center for Self-Management Studies).
129. Domenico Lucano, mayor of Riace in Calabria, member of the European Parliament (left group The Left), persecuted for his humanist policy of welcoming migrants and refugees by the Italian judicial system and the far-right Interior Minister Mr. Salvini, unjustly sentenced to 13 years in prison before winning his appeal after a long legal battle and thanks to solidarity.
130. Cristina Quintavalla, philosophy teacher, decolonial activist, against privatizations and public debt.
131. Ilaria Salis, anti-fascist activist, unjustly imprisoned in Budapest until her election in June 2024, member of the European Parliament (The Left).

Kenya
132. Ikal Angelei, Dr., academic activist for indigenous rights.
133. David Otieno, General Coordinator, Kenya Peasants League and Convening Chair of the Civil Society Reference Group, member of La Vía Campesina.

La Réunion/France
134. Françoise Vergès, author, decolonial feminist activist.

Lebanon
135. Sara Salloum, co-founder and president of AgriMovement in Lebanon.

Luxembourg
136. Justin Turpel, former deputy of ’déi Lénk – la Gauche’ (The Left) in the Chamber of Deputies.
137. David Wagner, member of déi Lénk (The Left) in the Chamber of Deputies.

Madagascar
138. Zo Randriamaro, President of the Movement of the Peoples of the Indian Ocean.

Malaysia
139. Jeyakumar Devaraj, President of the Socialist Party of Malaysia.

Mali
140. Massa Kone, from the organizing committee of the World Social Forum 2026 in Benin.

Martinique/France
141. Mireille Fanon-Mendes-France, co-president of the Frantz Fanon International Foundation.
142. Frantz Fanon Foundation

Mexico
143. Armando Bartra, writer, sociologist, philosopher and political analyst.
144. Verónica Carrillo Ortega, member of the Promotora Nacional para la Suspensión de la Deuda Pública en México (National Coalition for the Suspension of Public Debt in Mexico), CADTM AYNA.
145. Ana Esther Ceceña, coordinator of the Latin American Geopolitics Observatory and the Latin American Information Agency. National Autonomous University of Mexico.
146. Martín Esparza Flores, General Secretary of the Sindicato Mexicano de Electricistas – SME (Mexican Electricians Union).
147. Diana Fuentes, philosopher and political analyst, full-time professor-researcher at the Metropolitan Autonomous University.
148. María Auxilio Heredia Anaya, trade unionist and feminist, Autonomous University of Mexico City (UACM).
149. Ana López Rodríguez, a founder of the PRT and peasant leader from Sonora, member of the MSP.
150. Sara Lovera Lopez, journalist/feminist.
151. Pablo Moctezuma Barragán, political scientist, historian and urban planner; researcher at the Metropolitan Autonomous University, spokesperson for the Congreso por la Soberanía (Congress for Sovereignty).
152. Massimo Modonesi, historian, sociologist and political scientist, Full Professor at the Faculty of Political and Social Sciences of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM).
153. Humberto Montes de Oca, secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Sindicato Mexicano de Electricistas – SME (Mexican Electricians Union).
154. Magdalena Núñez Monreal, Federal Deputy in the Congress of Mexico.
155. César Enrique Pineda, sociologist and activist, teacher at the Faculty of Social Policies of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
156. Mónica Soto Elízaga, feminist and co-founder of the Promotora Nacional para la Suspensión de la Deuda Pública en México (National Coalition for the Suspension of Public Debt in Mexico), CADTM AYNA.
157. Paco Ignacio Taibo II, writer and Director of the Fondo de Cultura Económica.
158. Carolina Verduzco Ríos, anthropologist, professor at the National Polytechnic Institute, member of Comité 68 (Committee 68).

Morocco
159. Fatima Zahra El Belghiti, member of Attac CADTM Morocco.

Nigeria
160. Emem Okon, founder and director of the Kebetkache Women’s Development and Resource Centre.

Pakistan
161. Sheema Kermani, Performing Artist, human rights defender.

Palestine/France
162. Salah Hamouri, Franco-Palestinian lawyer, former political prisoner for 10 years in Israeli prisons, deported to France in 2022.

Peru
163. Evelyn Capchi Sotelo, Secretary of National Organization of NUEVO PERÚ POR EL BUEN VIVIR (New Peru for Good Living).
164. Jorge Escalante Echeandia, political responsible for the SÚMATE current, national leader of the organization NUEVO PERÚ POR EL BUEN VIVIR (New Peru for Good Living).
165. Yolanda Lara Cortez, Feminist and socio-environmental leader of the province of Santa Ancash.
166. Flavio Olortegui, Leader of the Federación Nacional de trabajadores textiles del Perú (National Federation of Textile Workers of Peru).

Philippines
167. Walden Bello, co-chair of the board of directors, Focus on the Global South.
168. Jen Cornelio, President of Inged Fintailan (IP/Women’s Organization of Mindanao).
169. Dorothy Guerrero, consultant, African Womin Alliance; Co-chair of the board of directors of the London Mining Network.
170. Reihana Mohideen, International Office, Partido Lakas ng Masa-PLM (Party of the Laboring Masses).
171. Lidy Nacpil, Coordinator of the Asian People’s Movement on Debt and Development.
172. Reyna Joyce Villagomez, General Secretary of the Rural Poor Movement.

Portugal
173. Mamadou Ba, researcher, leader of SOS Racismo Portugal (SOS Racism Portugal).
174. Jorge Costa, journalist, member of the national leadership of Bloco de Esquerda (Left Bloc).
175. Mariana Mortágua, economist, Bloco de Esquerda (Left Bloc).
176. José Manuel Pureza, coordinator of Bloco de Esquerda (Left Bloc).
177. Alda Sousa, former MEP of Bloco de Esquerda (Left Bloc).

Puerto Rico
178. Manuel Rodríguez Banchs, spokesperson for the Instituto Internacional de Investigación y Formación Obrera y Sindical - iNFOS (International Institute for Labor and Trade Union Research and Training).
179. Rafael Bernabe, author and university professor; former member of the Puerto Rico Senate for the Movimiento Victoria Ciudadana (Citizen Victory Movement).

Senegal
180. Aly Sagne, founder and director of Lumière Synergies pour le Développement (Light Synergies for Development).

South Africa
181. Mercia Andrews, coordinator of the Assembly of Rural Women of Southern Africa, founding member of the Palestine solidarity campaign and active member of BDS South Africa.
182. Patrick Bond, Distinguished Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Johannesburg, where he directs the Centre for Social Change.
183. Samantha Hargreaves, founder and director of WoMin.
184. Trevor Ngwane, President, United Front, Johannesburg.

Spain
185. Fernanda Gadea, coordinator of ATTAC Spain.
186. Estrella Galán, Member of the European Parliament for SUMAR, The Left group.
187. Manuel Garí Ramos, ecosocialist economist, member of the Advisory Council of the magazine Viento Sur.
188. Vicent Marzà i Ibáñez, deputy in the European Parliament for Compromís, Valencian Country.
189. Fátima Martín, journalist, editor of the online newspaper FemeninoRural.com, member of CADTM.
190. Irene Montero, political secretary of PODEMOS, MEP and former Minister of Equality.
191. Jaime Pastor, editor of the magazine Viento Sur.
192. Manu Pineda, former deputy to the European Parliament and head of International Relations of the Communist Party of Spain.
193. Olga Rodríguez, journalist and writer.
194. Teresa Rodríguez, Spokesperson for Adelante Andalucía (Go ahead, Andalusia), secondary and high school teacher.
195. Isabel Serra Sánchez, Deputy in the European Parliament for Podemos/The Left.
196. Miguel Urban, former MEP, member of the editorial board of the magazine Viento Sur.
197. Koldobi Velasco Vázquez, participant in the Alternativa antimilitarista y del Movimiento Objetor de Conciencia/Acción Directa No Violenta (Anti-militarist Alternative and the Conscientious Objector Movement/Non-Violent Direct Action). University professor of Social Work, Canary Islands.

Sri Lanka
198. Swasthika Arulingam, President of the United Federation of Labour.
199. Kalpa Rajapaksha, Dr., senior lecturer, Department of Economics, University of Peradeniya.
200. Amali Wedagedara, Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies.

Switzerland
201. Sébastien Bertrand, Enseignant.e.s pour le climat (Teachers for the climate), Syndicat des Services Publics (Swiss Union of Public Service Personnel) and member of solidaritéS Geneva.
202. Hadrien Buclin, deputy of Ensemble à Gauche (Together on the Left) in the Parliament of the Canton of Vaud.
203. Marianne Ebel, World March of Women and solidaritéS Neuchâtel.
204. Jocelyne Haller, solidaritéS, former cantonal deputy of Geneva.
205. Gabriella Lima, member of CADTM Switzerland and the Ensemble à Gauche (Together on the Left) platform.
206. Mathilde Marendaz, deputy of Ensemble à Gauche (Together on the Left) in the Parliament of the Canton of Vaud.
207. Aude Martenot, researcher and associative coordinator.
208. Mathieu Menghini, historian of cultural action.
209. Françoise Nyffler, Feminist Strike Collective Switzerland.
210. Stefanie Prezioso, former deputy, Swiss Parliament.
211. Juan Tortosa, spokesperson for CADTM-Switzerland and member of SolidaritéS Switzerland.
212. María Wuillemin, ecofeminist activist, member of the Colectivo Jaguar (Jaguar Collective).
213. Jean Ziegler, writer, former parliamentarian, former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food.

Syria
214. Joseph Daher, academic and specialist in the political economy of the Middle East (resident in Switzerland).
215. Munif Mulhen, left-wing political activist. Former political prisoner for 16 years during the Hafez al-Assad regime (1970-2000).

Tunisia
216. Imen Louati, Tunisian activist, one of the founding members of the Arab food sovereignty network (Siyada).
217. Layla Riahi, member of the Siyada network for food sovereignty.

United Kingdom
218. Gilbert Achcar, professor emeritus, SOAS, University of London.
219. Jeremy Corbyn, member of Parliament, co-founder of Your Party.
220. Michael Roberts, economist and author.
221. Zarah Sultana, member of Parliament, co-founder of Your Party.

United States
222. David Adler, Deputy General Coordinator of the Progressive International.
223. Anthony Arnove, editor. Tempest Magazine and Haymarket Books.
224. Tithi Bhattacharya, professor of History, Purdue University, co-author of Feminism for the 99% : A Manifesto.
225. Robert Brenner, professor emeritus of history and director of the Center for Social Theory and Comparative History at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
226. Vivek Chibber, professor of sociology at New York University. Editor of Catalyst.
227. Olivia DiNucci, anti-militarism and climate justice organizer based in Washington D.C. and writer, affiliated with Code Pink, a grassroots feminist organization working to end U.S. wars and militarism.
228. Dianne Feeley, retired auto worker (UAW Local 235), member of Solidarity, Metro Detroit DSA and editor of Against the Current magazine.
229. Nancy Fraser, professor emerita, New School for Social Research and member of the Editorial Committee of New Left Review, co-author of Feminism for the 99% : A Manifesto.
230. Michael Hudson, professor of economics, emeritus, UMKC, and author of Super Imperialism.
231. Neal Meyer, member of DSA and editor for Socialist Call.
232. Christian Parenti, investigative journalist, scholar, author and contributing editor at The Nation.
233. Jana Silverman, Professor of International Relations, Universidade Federal do ABC (UFABC) and co-chair, Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) International Committee.
234. Bhaskar Sunkara, founding editor of Jacobin, president of The Nation magazine.
235. Suzi Weissman, professor of Political Science at Saint Mary’s College of California.

Venezuela
236. Luis Bonilla-Molina, director of Otras Voces en Educación (Other Voices in Education).

 Taking over Greenland, a long-standing US obsession

ANALYSIS

Days after US forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas, US President Donald Trump suggested that other regions of the world could be on Washington’s radar, including Greenland. Ever since his first term, the billionaire has repeatedly expressed interest in the mineral-rich Danish autonomous territory in the Arctic – a focus that predates Trump’s presidency.


Issued on: 07/01/2026 
By:
Stéphanie TROUILLARD/
Romain HOUEIX/
Sébastian SEIBT

President Donald Trump has reiterated his wish to bring Greenland under US control. © France Medias Monde graphic studio

US President Donald Trump is considering "several options" to acquire Greenland, including "using the military", his spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday, stoking further concern in Europe over the future of the Arctic island.

In a joint statement, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the UK voiced support for Denmark against Trump’s claims over the semi-autonomous territory. "Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland," the European leaders said, stressing that Denmark is a NATO member like the United States and is bound to Washington by a defence agreement.

The statement followed new threats from Trump. Speaking to The Atlantic last week, the US president said it was up to observers to judge what the special forces operation in Venezuela – which led to the ouster of Nicolas Maduro and his wife – might mean for Greenland. “They are going to view it themselves. I really don’t know,” he added.

WATCH MOREHow far will Trump go: Is Greenland next?

“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it,” Trump insisted, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday evening. “We’ll take care of Greenland in about two months … let’s talk about Greenland in 20 days,” he added.

Trump’s renewed focus on the Arctic has sparked debate in Washington and abroad. Senior US officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, told lawmakers that the administration would prefer to negotiate a purchase with Denmark rather than resort to force, though the option of military involvement has not been ruled out.

© France 24
02:02

Trump had already expressed a desire to annex Greenland, a vast Arctic island home to some 57,000 people, during his first term. In August 2019, he told reporters he wanted to buy the territory from Denmark, calling it "essentially a real estate deal", following reports by The Wall Street Journal on his interest in the island.
A land long sought after

The Danish province has been coveted for centuries. From the 10th century, Scandinavians began colonising the land, discovered in 982 by the Viking Erik the Red and previously inhabited by Indigenous peoples. Until the early 18th century, Norway and Denmark contested its sovereignty. In 1814, when the two kingdoms separated, Greenland remained under Danish control under the Treaty of Kiel.

Greenland, breaking the silence: The scandal of Denmark's forced contraception campaign

Meanwhile, the United States claimed Greenland as part of its sphere of influence. Under President James Monroe’s 1824 doctrine, Washington warned European powers against interfering in the affairs of the "Americas". “From a US perspective, Greenland is North American,” Mikaa Blugeon-Mered, a geopolitics researcher specialising in Arctic regions, told FRANCE 24.

A few decades later, the United States sought to annex Greenland. In 1867, it tried to acquire the island as part of a purchase including Iceland, but Denmark rejected the offer. The US instead acquired Alaska from Russia for $7 million.
From one war to another

During World War I, Copenhagen and Washington resumed talks. In 1917, the United States purchased the Virgin Islands (formerly known as the Danish West Indies) from Denmark for $25 million to secure the Panama Canal, while recognising Danish sovereignty over Greenland.

During Denmark’s occupation by Nazi Germany, the United States invoked the Monroe Doctrine after losing contact with Greenland, which opposed any European expansion in the Americas. In April 1941, Washington signed a defence agreement with Denmark’s ambassador in the US, despite instructions from his government-in-exile. The deal allowed American troops to be stationed on Greenland, effectively turning the island into a US protectorate. Several bases were established, including Thule Air Base, now known as Pituffik.

The scramble for Greenland: Can Danish dependency resist Trump pressure?

After World War II, President Harry Truman proposed buying the island in 1946 for $100 million, but Denmark refused.

During the Cold War, Greenland proved strategically vital once again. The two countries signed a new agreement allowing the United States to strengthen its Thule base, which became a genuine US military enclave. "If there had been an exchange of intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at the United States, they would have passed over the Arctic. That’s why they created this base, which still exists today. It is their first line of defence," said Blugeon-Mered, author of Les mondes polaires.

Politics, strategy and resources

With this long history in mind, Blugeon-Mered said he was not surprised by the US president’s recent remarks. "Trump's 2019 proposal to buy Greenland attracted a lot of attention. Journalists called me, dismissing it as absurd, though it really isn’t. The issue involves political, strategic and resource stakes," he said.

With climate change and melting ice, Greenland now sits along newly accessible shipping routes that could shorten global trade routes. In January 2025, Trump expressed concern about Chinese and Russian activity in the Arctic region.

“You don’t even need binoculars. You look outside, you have Chinese ships all over the place. You have Russian ships all over the place. We’re not letting that happen,” Trump said.

The territory, covering two million square kilometres and 85 percent ice, also contains vast mineral reserves, including rare earths – essential for smartphones, computers and electric vehicles – as well as untapped oil.

"According to the US Geological Survey, Greenland could hold hydrocarbon reserves equivalent to around 31 billion barrels of oil, roughly 15 percent of Saudi Arabia’s reserves," Blugeon-Mered said.

© France 24
06:50

Accessing these resources, however, is expected to be difficult. "All foreign companies that have attempted to locate commercially viable or exploitable deposits have come up empty," the researcher added.

For Blugeon-Mered, "this geo-economic battle is becoming a geopolitical one". He added: “When China takes an interest in Greenland, it is mainly for resources; when Russia does, it is primarily about strategic chokepoints. And when the Americans or Europeans are involved, all of these factors come into play.”

Faced with such ambitions, Greenland has consistently insisted it is not for sale and wants to determine its own future. In January 2025, a poll published in the Danish and Greenlandic press found that 85 percent of Greenlanders opposed annexation by the United States, while only 6 percent were in favour.

This article has been translated from the original in French.

US military ‘always an option’ to secure Greenland, says Donald Trump


President Donald Trump is exploring ways for the United States to take control of Greenland, with military force “always an option", the White House said on Tuesday, raising tensions with NATO ally Denmark.


Issued on: 07/01/2026 
By: FRANCE 24
Video by: Fraser JACKSON

A man walks as Danish flag flutters next to Hans Egede Statue in Nuuk, Greenland on March 9, 2025. © Marko Djurica, Reuters
03:02



President Donald Trump is exploring how to take control of Greenland and using the US military is "always an option", the White House said Tuesday, further upping tensions with NATO ally Denmark.

Washington's stark warning came despite Greenland and Denmark both calling for a speedy meeting with the United States to clear up "misunderstandings".

The US military intervention in Venezuela has reignited Trump's designs on the autonomous Danish territory in the Arctic, which has untapped rare earth deposits and could be a vital player as melting polar ice opens up new shipping routes.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that "acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States", to deter adversaries like Russia and China.

"The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilising the US military is always an option at the commander in chief's disposal," she said in a statement to AFP.

Trump's renewed claims over self-governing Greenland have stoked concerns in Europe that the transatlantic alliance with the United States could be about to fracture.

Earlier, Greenland and Denmark said they had asked to meet US Secretary of State Marco Rubio quickly to discuss the issue.

"It has so far not been possible," Greenland's Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt wrote on social media, "despite the fact that the Greenlandic and Danish governments have requested a meeting at the ministerial level throughout 2025."

Denmark's Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said meeting Rubio should resolve "certain misunderstandings".

Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen again insisted that the island was not for sale and only Greenlanders should decide its future.

His comments came after Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain joined Denmark in saying that they would defend the "universal principles" of "sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders".

"For this support, I wish to express my deepest gratitude," Nielsen wrote on social media.

Washington already has a military base in Greenland, which is home to some 57,000 people.

Trump hinted on Sunday that a decision on Greenland may come "in about two months", once the situation in Venezuela, where US forces seized President Nicolas Maduro on Saturday, has stabilised.

'Broken record'

The European leaders' joint statement called Arctic security "critical" for international and transatlantic security.

Denmark, including Greenland, was part of NATO, it added, urging a collective approach to security in the polar region.

The statement was signed by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez.

"Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland," the statement said.

But Macron and Starmer both sought to play down the issue as they attended Ukraine peace talks in Paris alongside Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner.

"I cannot imagine a scenario in which the United States of America would be placed in a position to violate Danish sovereignty," Macron said.

Starmer said he had made his position "clear" in the joint statement – although he did not restate that position in front of the cameras.

Trump has been floating the idea of annexing Greenland since his first term.

"It's like a broken record," Marc Jacobsen, a specialist in security, politics and diplomacy in the Arctic at the Royal Danish Defence College, told AFP.

Trump has claimed that Denmark cannot ensure the security of Greenland, saying it had bought just one dog sled recently.

But Copenhagen has invested heavily in security, allocating some 90 billion kroner ($14 billion) in the last year.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

France working with allies on plan should US move to take over Greenland

France is working with ‍partners on a plan ​over how to respond should the United States act on its threat to take over Greenland, ⁠as Europe seeks to address US President Donald Trump's ambitions in the region. Denmark and Greenland say they are seeking a meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.


Issued on: 07/01/2026 - RFI

Danish forces participate in military exercises with hundreds of troops from several European Nato members in Kangerlussuaq, Greenland, 17 September, 2025. 

AP - Ebrahim Noroozi


The White House said on Tuesday that Trump was discussing options for acquiring Greenland, ​including potential use of the US military, in a revival of his ambition to control the strategic island, despite European objections.

Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot ‍said the subject would be raised at a meeting with the foreign ministers of Germany and Poland later on Wednesday.

"We want ​to take action, but we want to do so together with our European partners," ​he said on France Inter radio on Wednesday morning.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and his Greenlandic counterpart, Vivian Motzfeldt, have requested the meeting with Rubio in the near future, according to a statement posted Tuesday to Greenland's government website. Previous requests for a sit-down were not successful, the statement said.

However, Barrot suggested a US military operation had been ruled out by a ‌top US official.

"I myself was on the phone yesterday with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (...) who confirmed that this was not the approach taken ... he ‍ruled out the possibility of an invasion (of Greenland)," he said.

Trump weighs military option to acquire Greenland

Trump renews Greenland ambitions

Trump has in recent days repeated that he wants to gain control of Greenland – an idea first voiced in 2019 during his first presidency. He has argued it is key for the US military and ‍that Denmark has not done enough to protect it.

A US military seizure of Greenland from a longtime ally, Denmark, would send shock waves through the ​Nato alliance and deepen the divide between Trump and European leaders.

Leaders from major European powers and Canada have rallied behind Greenland, saying the Arctic island belongs to its people.

A US military operation over the weekend that seized the leader of Venezuela had already rekindled concerns that Greenland might face a similar scenario. It has repeatedly said it does not want to be part of the United States.

'That's enough': Greenland PM reacts to Trump threats

The world's largest island but with a population of just 57,000 people, Greenland is not an independent member of NATO but is covered by Denmark's ‍membership of the Western alliance.

Mette Frederiksen, the Danish prime minister, warned on Monday that any US attack on a NATO ally would be the end of both the military alliance and "post-second world war security“.

Strategically located between Europe and North America, the US has an early warning air base in northwestern Greenland.

The island's mineral wealth also aligns with Washington's ambition to reduce reliance on China.

(with newswires)

Trump plots to buy Greenland as NATO ally Denmark seethes

Washington (United States) (AFP) – US President Donald Trump is considering making an offer to buy Greenland, the White House said Wednesday, despite the island's people and controlling power Denmark making clear they are not interested.


Issued on: 07/01/2026 - FRANCE24

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio speak to reporters after they briefed senators © Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP/File

Trump has repeatedly refused to rule out force to seize the strategic Arctic island, prompting shock and anger from Denmark and other longstanding European allies of the United States.

After a request from Copenhagen, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he would soon hold discussions with Danish representatives.

"I'll be meeting with them next week. We'll have those conversations with them then," Rubio told reporters.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump and his national security team have "actively discussed" the option of buying Greenland.


"His team is currently talking about what a potential purchase would look like," she told reporters.

Leavitt reiterated that Trump believed it was in the US interest to acquire sparsely populated Greenland, whose size is around that of the largest US state of Alaska.

"He views it in the best interest of the United States to deter Russian and Chinese aggression in the Arctic region. And so that's why his team is currently talking about what a potential purchase would look like," Leavitt said.

Neither Leavitt nor Rubio ruled out the use of force. But Leavitt said, "The president's first option, always, has been diplomacy."

House Speaker Mike Johnson, speaking as Rubio and Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth briefed lawmakers, also downplayed the potential for a US attack.

"I don't think anybody's talking about using military force in Greenland. They're looking at diplomatic channels," Johnson said.

Johnson, however, has acknowledged he had no prior notice when Trump on Saturday ordered a deadly attack on Venezuela, in which US forces removed the president, Nicolas Maduro.

The at least tactical success of the operation has appeared to embolden Trump, who has since mused publicly about US intervention in Greenland, Cuba, Iran, Mexico and Colombia.
'Stay focused on real threats'

Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican who is retiring, criticized Trump's threats in a joint statement with Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"When Denmark and Greenland make it clear that Greenland is not for sale, the United States must honor its treaty obligations and respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark," they said in a joint statement.

"We must stay focused on the real threats before us and work with our allies, not against them, to advance our shared security."

Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has repeatedly insisted that the island is not for sale and that only its 57,000 people should decide its future.

Denmark holds sovereignty over Greenland, which has semi-autonomous status.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned Monday: "If the United States decides to military attack another NATO country, then everything would stop -- that includes NATO and therefore post-World War II security."

Denmark is a founding member of NATO and has been a steadfast US ally, including controversially sending troops to support the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.

Trump, in sharp contrast to previous US presidents, has criticized NATO, seeing it not as an instrument of US power but as smaller countries freeloading off US security.

"We will always be there for NATO, even if they won't be there for us," Trump wrote Wednesday on his Truth Social platform.

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul put a brave face on Trump's language on NATO and Greenland.

"I have no doubt whatsoever that we will remain closely united and that this alliance will remain exactly what it has always been -- the most effective defense alliance," he said.

© 2026 AFP

Denmark and Greenland seek talks with Rubio over US interest in taking the island

By Gavin Blackburn

Published on 07/01/2026 - EURONEWS

Greenland sits off the northeastern coast of Canada, with more than two-thirds of its territory lying within the Arctic Circle making its location crucial to the defence of North America since World War II.

Denmark and Greenland are seeking a meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio after the Trump administration doubled down on its intention to take over the strategic Arctic island.

Tensions escalated after the White House said on Tuesday that the "US military is always an option."

President Donald Trump has argued that the US needs to control the world's largest island to ensure its own security in the face of rising threats from China and Russia in the Arctic.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned earlier this week that a US takeover of Greenland would amount to the end of NATO.

"The Nordics do not lightly make statements like this," Maria Martisiute, a defence analyst at the European Policy Centre think tank, said on Wednesday.

"But it is Trump, whose very bombastic language bordering on direct threats and intimidation, is threatening the fact to another ally by saying 'I will control or annex the territory.'"

US President Donald Trump speaks to House Republican lawmakers during their annual policy retreat in Washington, 6 January, 2026 AP Phot

The leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom joined Frederiksen in a statement on Tuesday reaffirming that the mineral-rich island "belongs to its people."

Their statement defended the sovereignty of Greenland, which is a self-governing territory of Denmark and part of NATO.

The US military operation in Venezuela last weekend has heightened fears across Europe and Trump and his advisers in recent days have reiterated a desire to take over the island, which guards the Arctic and North Atlantic approaches to North America.

"It's so strategic right now," Trump told reporters on Sunday.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and his Greenland counterpart, Vivian Motzfeldt, have requested a meeting with Rubio in the near future, according to a statement posted Tuesday to Greenland's government website on Wednesday.

Previous requests for a sit-down were not successful, the statement said.

'This is America now'

Thomas Crosbie, an associate professor of military operations at the Royal Danish Defence College, said an American takeover would not improve upon Washington's current security strategy.

"The United States will gain no advantage if its flag is flying in Nuuk versus the Greenlandic flag," he said.

"There's no benefits to them because they already enjoy all of the advantages they want. If there's any specific security access that they want to improve American security, they'll be given it as a matter of course, as a trusted ally. So this has nothing to do with improving national security for the United States."

Danish military forces participate in an exercise with hundreds of troops from several European NATO members in Kangerlussuaq, 17 September, 2025 AP Photo

Denmark's parliament approved a bill last June to allow US military bases on Danish soil. It widened a previous military agreement, made in 2023 with the Biden administration, where US troops had broad access to Danish airbases.

Rasmussen, in a response to lawmakers’ questions, wrote over the summer that Denmark would be able to terminate the agreement if the US tries to annex all or part of Greenland.

But in the event of a military action, the US Department of Defence currently operates the remote Pituffik Space Base, in northwestern Greenland, and the troops there could be mobilised.

Related

• Greenland is not seeking to join the EU and will not be part of the US, PM Nielsen tells Euronews
• European leaders show solidarity with Denmark following Trump’s latest Greenland threat

Crosbie said he believes the US would not seek to hurt the local population or engage with Danish troops.

"They don't need to bring any firepower. They don't to bring anybody," Crosbie said on Wednesday.

"They could just direct the military personnel currently there to drive to the centre of Nuuk and just say, 'This is America now,' right? And that would lead to the same response as if they flew in 500 or 1,000 people."

'Greenland is not for sale'

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said he spoke by phone with Rubio on Tuesday, who dismissed the idea of a Venezuela-style operation in Greenland.

Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen at the Prime Minister's Office in Copenhagen, 16 September, 2025 AP Photo

"In the United States, there is massive support for the country belonging to NATO – a membership that, from one day to the next, would be compromised by…any form of aggressiveness toward another member of NATO," Barrot told France Inter radio on Wednesday.

Asked if he has a plan in case Trump does claim Greenland, Barrot said he would not engage in "fiction diplomacy."

Rubio to meet Danish officials next week over US interest in Greenland

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Wednesday he will meet with Danish officials next week amid rising fears that Washington plans to seize the world's largest island by force.


Issued on: 07/01/2026 
By: FRANCE 24

An aircraft carrying US businessman Donald Trump Jr. arrives in Nuuk, Greenland on January 7, 2025. © Emil Stach, AFP

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he plans to meet with Danish officials next week after the Trump administration doubled down on its intention to take over Greenland, the strategic Arctic island that is a self-governing territory of Denmark.

President Donald Trump has argued that the US needs to control the world’s largest island to ensure its own security in the face of rising threats from China and Russia in the Arctic, and the White House has refused to rule out using military force to acquire the territory.

Rubio told a select group of lawmakers that it was the administration’s intention to eventually purchase Greenland, as opposed to using military force.

The remarks, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, were made in a classified briefing Monday evening on Capitol Hill, according to a person with knowledge of his comments who was granted anonymity because it was a private discussion.

On Wednesday, Rubio told reporters that Trump has been talking about acquiring Greenland since his first term.

“That’s always been the president’s intent from the very beginning,” Rubio said. “He’s not the first US president that has examined or looked at how we could acquire Greenland.”

READ MORETaking over Greenland, a long-standing US obsession

Tensions with NATO members escalated after the White House said Tuesday that the “US military is always an option”.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned earlier this week that a US takeover would amount to the end of NATO.

Rubio did not directly answer a question about whether the Trump administration is willing to risk the NATO alliance by potentially moving ahead with a military option regarding Greenland.

“I’m not here to talk about Denmark or military intervention, I’ll be meeting with them next week, we’ll have those conversations with them then, but I don’t have anything further to add to that," Rubio said, telling reporters that every president retains the option to address national security threats to the United States through military means.

© France 24
01:46

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and his Greenland counterpart, Vivian Motzfeldt, have requested a meeting with Rubio in the near future, according to a statement posted Tuesday to Greenland's government website. Previous requests for a sit-down were not successful, the statement said.

The leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom joined Frederiksen in a statement Tuesday reaffirming that the mineral-rich island, which guards the Arctic and North Atlantic approaches to North America, “belongs to its people”.

Denmark’s parliament approved a bill last June to allow US military bases on Danish soil. It widened a previous military agreement, made in 2023 with the Biden administration, where US troops had broad access to Danish airbases in the Scandinavian country.

Rasmussen, in a response to lawmakers’ questions, wrote over the summer that Denmark would be able to terminate the agreement if the US tries to annex all or part of Greenland.

But in the event of a military action, the US Department of Defense currently operates the remote Pituffik Space Base, in northwestern Greenland, and the troops there could be mobilised.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said he spoke by phone Tuesday with Rubio, who dismissed the idea of a Venezuela-style operation in Greenland.

“In the United States, there is massive support for the country belonging to NATO – a membership that, from one day to the next, would be compromised by … any form of aggressiveness toward another member of NATO,” Barrot told France Inter radio on Wednesday.

Asked if he has a plan in case Trump does claim Greenland, Barrot said he would not engage in “fiction diplomacy”.

 

How Ukraine is shaping the European response to Trump's threats against Greenland

Copyright Yoan Valat/AP

By Jorge Liboreiro

Published on 07/01/2026 - EURONEWS

As Europeans seek to defend Greenland against Donald Trump's annexation threats, the fear of losing US support for ending Russia's war on Ukraine makes for a delicate balancing act.

For the past year, staying in Donald Trump's good graces has become a top priority for European leaders, who have gone the extra mile to appease the mercurial US president, rein in his most radical impulses and keep him firmly engaged in what is their be-all and end-all: Russia's war on Ukraine.

Though Europe is by far the largest donor to Kyiv, nobody on the continent is under the illusion that the invasion can be resisted without US-made weapons and come to an eventual end without Washington at the negotiating table.

In practice, the strategic calculus has translated into painful sacrifices, most notably the punitive tariffs that Trump forced Europeans to endure.

"It's not only about the trade. It's about security. It is about Ukraine. It is about current geopolitical volatility," Maroš Šefčovič, the European Commissioner for Trade, said in June as he defended the trade deal that imposed a sweeping 15% tariff on EU goods.

The same thinking is now being replicated in the saga over Greenland's future.

As the White House ramps up its threats to seize the vast semi-autonomous island, including, if necessary, by military force, Europeans are walking an impossibly thin line between their moral imperative to defend Denmark's territorial integrity and their deep-rooted fear of risking Trump's wrath.

The precarity of the situation was laid bare at this week's meeting of the "Coalition of the Willing" in Paris, which French President Emmanuel Macron convened to advance the work on security guarantees for Ukraine.

The high-profile gathering was notable because of the first-ever in-person participation of Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the chief negotiators appointed by Trump.

At the end of the meeting, Macron hailed the "operational convergence" achieved between Europe and the US regarding peace in Ukraine. By his side, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was equally sanguine, speaking of "excellent progress".

But it did not take long for the elephant in the room to make an appearance.

Hard pivot

The first journalist who took the floor asked Macron whether Europe could "still trust" America in light of the threats against Greenland. In response, the French president quickly highlighted the US's participation in the security guarantees.

"I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of that commitment," Macron said. "As a signatory of the UN charter and a member of NATO, the United States is here as an ally of Europe, and it is, as such, that it has worked alongside us in recent weeks."

Starmer was also put on the spot when a reporter asked him about the value of drafting security guarantees for a country at war "on the very day" that Washington was openly talking about seizing land from a political ally.

The Coalition of the Willing met in Paris. Ludovic Marin/AP

Like Macron, Starmer chose to look at the bright side of things.

"The relationship between the UK and the US is one of our closest relationships, particularly on issues of defence, security and intelligence," the British premier said. "And we work with the US 24/7 on those issues."

Starmer briefly referred to a statement published earlier on Tuesday by the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the UK and Denmark in defence of Greenland.

The statement obliquely reminded the US to uphold "the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders" enshrined in the UN Charter – precisely the same tenets that Moscow is violating at large in Ukraine.

The text did not contain any explicit condemnation of the goal to forcefully annex Greenland and did not spell out any potential European retaliation.

"Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland," its closing paragraph read.

Conspicuous silence

The lack of censure was reminiscent of the European response to the US operation that just a few days earlier removed Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela.

Besides Spain, which broke ranks to denounce the intervention as a blatant breach of international law, Europeans were conspicuously silent on legal matters. Rather than condemn, they focused on Venezuela's democratic transition.

Privately, officials and diplomats concede that picking up a fight with Trump over Maduro's removal, a hostile dictator, would have been counterproductive and irresponsible in the midst of the work to advance security guarantees for Ukraine.

The walking-on-eggs approach, however, is doomed to fail when it comes to Greenland, a territory that belongs to a member of both the EU and NATO.

Donald Trump wishes to annex Greenland. Associated Press.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that the entire security architecture forged at the end of World War II, which allies have repeatedly invoked to stand up to the Kremlin's neo-imperialism, would collapse overnight in the event of an annexation. The worry is that trying to stay in Trump's good graces at all costs might come at an unthinkable price.

"Europeans are clearly in a 'double-bind': Since they are in desperate need of US support in Ukraine, their responses to US actions – whether on Venezuela or Trump threatening Denmark to annex Greenland – are weak or even muted," said Markus Ziener, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund.

"Europeans are afraid that criticising Trump could provide a pretext for the US president to conclude a peace deal at Ukraine's and Europe's expense. Is this creating a credibility gap on the part of the EU? Of course. But confronted with a purely transactional US president, there seems to be no other way."

Trump aide Miller says no one would fight US over future of Greenland

By Kieran Guilbert

Published on 06/01/2026 - EURONEWS

European leaders defend Greenland's sovereignty after US presidential aide Stephen Miller ramps up Trump threat to annex autonomous Danish territory.

One of US President Donald Trump's senior aides has ramped up Washington's threat to take over Greenland, stating on Monday that no one would militarily challenge the United States over the future of the autonomous Danish territory.

In an interview with CNN, Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller said it was Washington's "formal position ... that Greenland should be part of the US".

His comments followed the US president's renewed call for the strategic, mineral-rich Arctic island to come under Washington's control in the aftermath of the weekend military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of Nicolás Maduro.

Related

• Greenland is not seeking to join the EU and will not be part of the US, PM Nielsen tells Euronews
• Denmark demands US respect its sovereignty after Trump deploys Greenland envoy

Miller questioned Denmark's right to "control" Greenland, which is a part of its kingdom.

"The real question is what right does Denmark have to assert control over Greenland? What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is their basis of having Greenland as a colony of Denmark?" Miller said during the interview with CNN on Monday afternoon.

FILE: United States Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller reacts on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Sunday, Oct. 26, 2025. Mark Schiefelbein/Copyright 2025 The AP. All rights reserved.

The top Trump aide also said the US "is the power of NATO. For the US to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the US."

When asked if the US would rule out the use of force to annex Greenland, Miller said there was "no need to even think or talk about" a military operation in the Arctic island.

"Nobody is going to fight the US militarily over the future of Greenland," he said.

Miller is widely seen as the architect of several of Trump's policies, steering the president on his hardline immigration stance and domestic agenda.

EU leaders defend Greenland

Meanwhile, leaders of six European nations — Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the UK — issued a joint statement on Tuesday defending Greenland's sovereignty.

"Greenland belongs to its people," said the statement, which was later backed by Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof.

"It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland."

On Sunday, Trump doubled down on his claim that Greenland should become part of the US, despite calls by the Danish and Greenlandic leaders to stop "threatening" the territory.

"Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place," Trump said while aboard Air Force One en route to Washington. "We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it."

Related

• European leaders show solidarity with Denmark following Trump’s latest Greenland threat
• Greenland prime minister says 'enough' after latest Trump threat

In response to those comments, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said that a US takeover of Greenland would amount to the end of the NATO military alliance.

Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen also issued a statement in which he urged Trump to abandon his "fantasies about annexation" and accused Washington of "completely and utterly unacceptable" rhetoric. "Enough is enough," he said.

Greenland has been under Danish control since the early 18th century but gained home rule in 1979, although Copenhagen continues to oversee its foreign and security poli

The island holds vast mineral wealth, including rare earths, crucial for advanced technologies.

US Envoy Says Trump Supports Independent Greenland, Downplays Fears Of Annexation

 January 7, 2026  

EurActiv

By Magnus Lund Nielsen

(EurActiv) — An independent Greenland with close economic ties to the United States would serve Washington’s interests and need not be coordinated with European allies, the newly appointed US envoy to Greenland Jeff Landry said on Tuesday.

The remarks come as US President Donald Trump steps up rhetoric on Greenland, arguing the US “needs Greenland for defence”. On Monday, Trump’s deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller questioned Denmark’s sovereignty over the island, an autonomous territory within the Danish realm.

However, Landry – who is also governor of Louisiana – sought to dial down concerns about annexation, saying he wanted to engage directly with Greenlanders.

“The president supports an independent Greenland with economic ties and trade opportunities for the United States,” he told CNBC on Tuesday.

US officials are widely reported to be considering a Compact of Free Association with Greenland – an arrangement Washington has with Pacific island states such as Palau and Micronesia – The Economist reported this week.

Asked on Tuesday whether the US would take Greenland by force, an idea Trump has previously floated, Landry urged caution.

“No, I don’t think so,” he said. “I can’t wait to have discussions with Greenlanders.”

Landry – who has yet to visit Greenland in his new capacity – also framed the issue as an opportunity for the US, praising Trump’s revival of the Monroe Doctrine. While Greenland is part of the Danish realm, it is geographically part of North America and closer to New York than Copenhagen.

Europe pushes back

Landry’s remarks came on the same day as eight European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, have urged Washington to respect the territorial integrity of Greenland and Denmark.

“I would like to express my deepest gratitude for this support,” Greenland’s home-rule leader Jens-Frederik Nielsen wrote on Facebook.

Asked whether US engagement with Greenland should involve European NATO allies, Landry deflected. “I think we should ask the Greenlanders,” he said.

“I think we should ask the Greenlanders,” Landry insisted.

He also rejected suggestions that the US overtures resemble Russia’s rhetoric on Ukraine.

“When has the United States engaged in imperialism? Never,” he said.

The US envoy argued that it is rather Europe that has done so in the past, which is how Denmark gained its foothold in Greenland in the first place.

Greenland gained expanded self-rule in 2009, transferring more powers from Copenhagen to Nuuk, though foreign policy remains largely under Danish control. Both Denmark and Greenland have since embraced the principle of “nothing about Greenland without Greenland”. Direct US–Greenland cooperation that sidelines Copenhagen could therefore clash with Danish law.

Greenland By Force: How A US Takeover Would Shatter NATO And Ignite Arctic Conflict – OpEd


January 7, 2026 
By Simon Hutagalung


The United States faces a significant military and strategic crisis due to its proposed acquisition of Greenland by force. The acquisition would create instability within NATO while making the Arctic region more militarised, and it would push American military resources to their limits, which could lead to a major conflict between great powers, thus damaging the U.S. ability to maintain its position as a worldwide security authority. The research evaluates military consequences which would result from this action by placing the analysis within the context of alliance relations and operational difficulties and worldwide security systems, and upholding the legal framework of the United Nations Charter and the North Atlantic Treaty.

A coercive acquisition would trigger an immediate conflict with Denmark, along with its sovereign territory of Greenland, and all NATO member states. The action would break Article 2(4) of the UN Charter because it bans any form of military force which threatens or attacks the sovereign territory of any nation. The United States would be considered a violator of international rules because it has traditionally protected the rules-based international order. The reversal would lead to worldwide disapproval, which would damage Washington’s reputation as a moral leader and might result in military clashes in the North Atlantic region.

The past demonstrates how dangerous it becomes when people perform such actions. The 2014 Russian seizure of Crimea established a precedent which showed that state violations of sovereignty would generate security problems which would lead to extended conflicts. The alliance took economic measures and enhanced its Eastern border protection while Russia built permanent military facilities throughout the Black Sea area. The 1982 Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands led to an expensive military conflict with the United Kingdom, which forced Argentina to maintain a permanent military presence on the islands while spending heavily on defence costs. The two situations show that forced land grabs create permanent military and political, and economic effects which surpass any expected strategic advantages.

The forced takeover of Greenland would harm NATO’s ability to preserve trust between its member nations. The North Atlantic Treaty contains Article 5, which requires member states to defend each other, but this provision would become ineffective when the United States faces an attack. The NATO allies would need to decide between taking action against Washington or giving up their commitment to collective defence. The alliance would experience a complete breakdown in both cases. The United States would lose international trust, which would result in reduced cooperation between nations for intelligence exchange and military training, and strategic development. The current security alliances between nations could transform because multiple countries which lose faith in U.S. actions will consider joining new defence partnerships with either the European Union or Russia, or China, which would create an unfavourable power dynamic for Washington.

The strategic location of Greenland serves as a crucial hub for all Arctic political operations. A coercive acquisition would trigger fast military expansion, which would expand across multiple surrounding countries. Russia would boost its Arctic military operations because it continues to expand its Arctic territory, while China would work to establish itself as a power that operates near the Arctic region. The United States could answer by building up its radar and missile defence capabilities throughout Greenland, but this action would create more diplomatic conflict and military competition. The Arctic region will face increasing competition for its newly accessible shipping routes because climate change has opened up these areas to navigation. The naval battles to control sea lanes would make strategic errors more likely, which would lead to an escalation of the conflict. The United States would start an unstable competition which would threaten the stability of a critical international area.


The military would face major operational and logistical challenges if it occupied Greenland. The process of securing the territory would require major military force deployments together with base construction and supply network development through the difficult Arctic environment. The extreme environmental conditions of extreme cold and ice and restricted infrastructure would create complex supply chain operations which need customised equipment and personnel training. The established requirements would redirect military resources away from different operational areas, which would lead to excessive strain on U.S. military units that currently operate across multiple international locations. The extended stay in Greenland would create an unaffordable situation, which would make it impossible to maintain military readiness in essential areas, including the Indo-Pacific region and the Middle East.

A coercive acquisition would create major security challenges which affect the entire world. The United States would experience a decline in its ability to deter because Washington would break its promise to support sovereignty and international law through its actions. International courts, together with sanctions programs, would impose legal penalties on the United States because they seek to hold U.S. military personnel and military operations accountable. The situation becomes dangerous because opposing nations could use this crisis to their advantage by having Russia and China establish themselves as protectors of international standards. The risk of great-power conflict would increase because the Arctic region would become a strategic area, which could lead nations to engage in military combat. The acquisition of Greenland would create more global instability than it would provide any security benefits to the United States.

The domestic effects of this situation would spread across all regions of the United States. The military faces potential civil-military conflicts because it needs to decide if it should follow orders which violate both military rules and ethical standards. The military will face two major challenges because service members will avoid participating in what they see as an unauthorised operation, which will harm both recruitment efforts and team morale. The congressional disagreement about this matter would create an obstacle which would block military budget approval and monitoring processes. The domestic strain would cause U.S. defence organisations to experience institutional failures, which would result in more national security risks.

The upcoming obstacles consist of various complex issues. The United States would become completely isolated because its foreign alliances would disappear, while security needs require multiple nations to work together. The Arctic region would become a new military competition area, which would require additional resources and personnel that the United States might not have enough to support. The operational challenges of military control during an occupation would exhaust all available military resources, which would reduce their capacity to defend other vital strategic locations. The domestic reaction against the United States would harm its internal power base because of political and military resistance from within the country. The problems demonstrate that the United States’ forced takeover of Greenland creates a major security risk which threatens both military capabilities and national defence strategies.

The forced takeover of Greenland would create instability within NATO while making the Arctic region more militarised, and it would push U.S. military resources to their limits and increase the chances of major power conflicts. The action would harm our national defence capabilities, while other nations would condemn us, and our military would become unable to operate as a unified force. The Constitution needs bipartisan leadership to protect its authority while preventing any actions which could result in permanent harm to national and international security.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own.

ReferencesMessmer, M. (2026, January 6). US intentions towards Greenland threaten NATO’s future. But European countries are not helpless. Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/01/us-intentions-towards-greenland-threaten-natos-future-european-countries-are-not-helpless Chatham House

U.S. Naval Institute. (2026, January). War in the Arctic? Proceedings – U.S. Naval Institute. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2026/january/war-arctic U.S. Naval Institute
Gronholt-Pedersen, J. (2026, January 6). 

European leaders rally behind Greenland in the face of renewed US threat. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/only-greenland-denmark-can-decide-their-future-european-leaders-say-joint-2026-01-06/ reuters.com

Simon Hutagalung
Simon Hutagalung is a retired diplomat from the Indonesian Foreign Ministry and received his master's degree in political science and comparative politics from the City University of New York. The opinions expressed in his articles are his own.