Ewan Gleadow
January 14, 2026
European countries were urged by a political analyst to cut ties with Donald Trump's America as the threats to Greenland continue.
Trump has suggested his administration will take Greenland "the easy way or the hard way" and has refused to rule out boots on the ground action. The president should be taken at his word according to columnist Alexander Hurst, who urged EU countries to stand their ground and choose the rest of Europe over Trump.
Hurst, writing in The Guardian, suggested EU leaders must stand against the new image of the US as an "active and hostile" threat to friendly nations. He wrote, "Will its leaders have the courage to tell the full truth – that the US isn’t simply abandoning its allies and destroying the international order but is now in the position of active and hostile predation by force – and more importantly, to act on it?"
"Donald Trump has already set the tone by saying the US will seize Greenland 'one way or the other', and no part of the triumvirate around him is trying to hide their imperial intentions any more."
Trump's rhetoric has made it clear where he stands too, with the president suggesting it is just his own "morality" that will affect his decision making the world over. Hurst added, "When Trump says that the only constraint on his exercise of power is “my own morality”, that means there is no constraint."
"Like Vladimir Putin, he will keep grabbing until someone imposes a limit on him." Hurst has since urged European countries to "maintain a space of democracy and the rule of law in a world that is rapidly reverting to imperialism, oligarchy, and the rule of power".
He wrote, "By boldly detaching from the US now, visibly and decisively, Europe might even send a resuscitative shock through the US’s ailing democratic corpus."
"Only Americans can save their country from a descent into something even uglier and deadlier than what we are witnessing already. But for everyone’s sake, theirs included, Europe must cut the cord now, and not follow them into the storm."
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at a press conference, as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio react to a Sky News reporter's question about NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte calling President Trump 'daddy', at the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, June 25, 2025. REUTERS/Brian Snyder
President Donald Trump issued a warning to NATO on Wednesday morning.
Taking to Truth Social, Trump wrote, "The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building. NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! Militarily, without the vast power of the United States, much of which I built during my first term, and am now bringing to a new and even higher level, NATO would not be an effective force or deterrent - Not even close! They know that, and so do I. NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES.
Anything less than that is unacceptable. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DJT"
Russia and China are closer to the United States land through Alaska than they are to Greenland.
The U.S. also already has a Space Force base on Greenland. The Island is also part of NATO since it is part of Denmark. So, if Greenland is attacked by China and Russia NATO is attacked and all members will fight back.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has long sought to eliminate NATO, Business Insider explained in a report after the invasion of Crimea.
"Trump declares war on Greenland, Denmark, and NATO. Will someone remove this man from office before he has the armed forces killing and dying all over the world. Well, we do now. This is much worse. Putin over Nato? I take NATO. National healthcare. But I was born into the big lie," commented a self-described intelligence worker named John Burden.
Denmark's Foreign Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen and Greenland's Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt at the Danish embassy for a meeting with US leaders January 14, 2026.
A possible war with NATO is escalating after Denmark made it clear to military leaders that if the United States fires on its forces, Danish defenders must fight back.
The comments come after Stephen Miller, a top aide to President Donald Trump, told CNN that there were only 30,000 residents of Greenland, leading him to conclude that no one would fight back against the United States if it took over the Arctic island.
“Danish military units have a duty to defend Danish territory if it is subjected to an armed attack, including by taking immediate defensive action if required,” Danish Defense Command spokesperson Tobias Roed Jensen, said when speaking to The Intercept.
The 1952 royal decree applies to the Kingdom of Denmark, of which Greenland is still a part.
Such an order ensures that “Danish forces can act to defend the Danish kingdom in situations where Danish territory or Danish military units are attacked, even if circumstances make it impossible to await further political or military instruction,” Jensen added.
Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson confirmed the news on X, saying that Swedish Armed Forces officers were also joining the Danish military.
"Together, they will prepare for upcoming elements within the framework of the Danish exercise Operation Arctic Endurance. It is at Denmark's request that Sweden is sending personnel from the Armed Forces," he said, according to a translation on X.
Thus far, Denmark’s willingness to stand up to the U.S. has not deterred orders from the Trump administration.
“One way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland,” Trump announced on Sunday.
Trump has also claimed that Russian and Chinese “destroyers and submarines” are “all over the place” in Greenland. He has argued that if the U.S. does not take Greenland, they will. Trump maintains that owning the island is the only way to protect it, even though, as part of NATO, the United States is already obligated to defend it.
Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) backed him up on it by introducing legislation authorizing the use of force to annex Greenland, even if that meant leaving NATO and starting a war with Europe.
Trump’s critics responded with their own legislation, the No Funds for NATO Invasion Act, which would bar any federal dollars from being used to invade a NATO member state. Congress’s remaining leverage over Trump is its control of the budget.
Trump mocked, “Their defense is two dog sleds."
Though that isn't entirely accurate. Despite the small size of the Greenland military, Denmark and NATO could be sent to protect the island from the U.S.
Reporter Benjamin Alvarez, U.S. Correspondent for Deutsche Welle, confirmed that the soldiers were sent quickly.
Sweden's "Expressen" reported that the Swedish Armed Forces are arriving in Greenland on Wednesday, a Google translation of the article said.
Oddly, the State Department approved "a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Denmark of maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft worth an estimated $1.8 billion," said The Intercept.
The foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland are meeting Wednesday with Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Read the full report here.
Retired 4-star general Wesley Clark on CNN on January 14, 2026
Retired U.S. General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, said that there is no reason for the United States to take over Greenland to accomplish national security goals.
Greenland, which already has a Space Force base on the island, has called in soldiers from Denmark and Sweden to support it in a possible military conflict with the U.S.
"It would certainly seem to be the case that you could set up an arrangement and put the bases in that you want. You could do the patrols. You can bring the Danes in with you in a joint headquarters. You could call it national security control of Denmark, [but it] doesn't have to necessarily mean ownership. Just have the control. You could also set up the same arrangement with, let's say, economic exploration of minerals in Greenland. So there are different ways to go at this other than simply saying you've got to own the territory," Clark explained.
CNN host Boris Sanchez was curious about why Trump would pursue a kind of hostile takeover of a NATO ally.
Clark noted that Trump has indicated it makes him more comfortable to own Greenland because he thinks that Russia and China will take the Arctic island. Doing so would trigger a war with NATO, which includes the United States.
"But, you know, he's the president. That's what he wants to do. There are alternatives to this that would be more palatable. I think it has put a lot of stress on NATO," he added.
Clark explained that he's not aware of the specific details about Trump's plans to understand why simply "putting assets in Greenland would be less effective than, let's say, legal ownership of the territory. the territory."
"I do feel that these relationships in the Arctic are changing," he continued. "Russia is up there, and they're challenging us. China wants the Northwest Passage over the top of Siberia to get to Europe on a shorter route. There's a lot of challenges in the Arctic coming. And the United States really hasn't prepared for it very well."
He noted that the U.S. doesn't have icebreakers like Russia does.
"We need to work in the Arctic, but we can have all the access we need under the existing arrangements in Greenland, it seems to me," Clark said. "So, maybe there's something here that we don't see."
He added that he hopes the meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio "turns out the right way and gives us whatever shred of additional control that we need."
NATO could set up an Arctic command, he said, as an option.
"But again, this proliferates commands, and the Pentagon has been trying to reduce the number of commands. But there are many ways to go after this," he closed.
Watch the segment below:
Spectral Threats: China, Russia and Trump’s Greenland Rationale
The concerns about China and Russia seizing Greenland retells the same nonsense President Donald Trump promoted in kidnapping the Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. Looking past the spurious narcoterrorism claims against the former leader, it fell to the issue of who would control the natural resources of the country. If we don’t get Venezuelan oil now and secure it for American companies, the Chinese or the Russians will. The gangster’s rationale is crudely reductionist, seeing all in a similar vein.
The obsession with Beijing and Moscow runs like a forced thread through a dotty, insular rationale that repels evidence and cavorts with myth: “We need that [territory],” reasons the President, “because if you take a look outside Greenland right now, there are Russian destroyers, there are Chinese destroyers and, bigger, there are Russian submarines all over the place. We are not gonna have Russia or China occupy Greenland, and that’s what they’re going to do if we don’t.” On Denmark’s military capabilities in holding the island against any potential aggressor, Trump could only snort with macho dismissiveness. “You know what their defence is? Two dog sleds.”
This scratchy logic is unsustainable for one obvious point. Were Russia or China to attempt an occupation of Greenland through military means, Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty would come into play, obliging NATO member states, including the United States, to collectively repel the effort. With delicious perversity, any US effort to forcibly acquire the territory through use of force would be an attack on its own security, given its obligations under the Treaty. In such cases, it becomes sound to assume, as the Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen does, that the alliance would cease to exist.
Such matters are utterly missed by the rabidly hawkish Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who declared that, “Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.” It was up to the US “to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests” in incorporating Greenland. To take territory from a NATO ally was essentially doing it good.
Given that the United States already has a military presence on the island at the Pituffik Space Base, and rights under the 1951 agreement that would permit an increase in the number of bases should circumstances require it, along with the Defence Cooperation Agreement finalised with Copenhagen in June 2025, much of Miller’s airings are not merely farcical but redundant. Yet, Trump has made it clear that signatures and understandings reflected in documents are no substitute for physically taking something, the thrill of possession that, by its act, deprives someone else of it. “I think ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty,” he told the New York Times. “Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”
What, then, of these phantom forces from Moscow and Beijing, supposedly lying in wait to seize the frozen prize? “There are no Russian and Chinese ships all over the place around Greenland,” states the very convinced research director of the Oslo-based Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Andreas Østhagen. “Russia and/or China has no capacity to occupy Greenland or to take control over Greenland.”
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen is similarly inclined. “The image that’s being painted of Russian and Chinese ships right inside the Nuuk fjord and massive Chinese investments being made is not correct.” Senior “Nordic diplomats” quoted in the Financial Times add to that version, even if the paper is not decent enough to mention which Nordic country they come from. “It is simply not true that the Chinese and Russians are there,” said one. “I have seen the intelligence. There are no ships, no submarines.” Vessel tracking data from Marine Traffic and LSEG have so far failed to disclose the presence of Chinese and Russian ships near the island.
Heating engineer Lars Vintner, based in Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, wondered where these swarming, spectral Chinese were based. “The only Chinese I see,” he told Associated Press, “is when I go to the fast food market.” This sparse presence extends to the broader security footprint of China in the Arctic, which remains modest despite a growing collaboration with Russia since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. These have included Arctic and coast guard operations, while the Chinese military uses satellites and icebreakers equipped with deep-sea mini submarines, potentially for mapping the seabed.
However negligible and piffling the imaginary threat, analysts, ever ready with a larding quote or a research brief, are always on hand to show concern with such projects as Beijing’s Polar Silk Road, announced in 2018, which is intended as the Arctic extension of its transnational Belt and Road initiative. The subtext: Trump should not seize Greenland, but he might have a point. “China has clear ambitions to expand its footprint and influence in the region, which it considers… an emerging arena for geopolitical competition.” Or so says Helena Legarda of the Mercator Institute for China Studies in Berlin.
The ludicrous nature of Trump’s claims and acquisitive urges supply fertile material for sarcasm. A prominent political figure from one of the alleged conquerors-to-be made an effort almost verging on satire. “Trump needs to hurry up,” mocked the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council and former President Dmitry Medvedev. “According to unverified information, within a few days, there could be a sudden referendum where all 55,000 residents of Greenland might vote to join Russia. And that’s it!” With Trump, “that’s it” never quite covers it.
Ewan Gleadow
January 14, 2026
President Donald Trump speaks as he meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy (not pictured) during the 80th United Nations General Assembly, in New York City, New York on Sept. 23, 2025. REUTERS/Al Drago
Donald Trump's voter base is starting to turn on him as his biggest supporters question his reasoning for a potential invasion of a foreign ally.
The president made it clear that he wanted to take the Kingdom of Denmark's territory of Greenland in a move that would allegedly bolster national security. Natural mineral deposits have also been cited as a reason for the Trump administration's interest by some political commentators.
Those who voted for Trump in the 2024 election believe the president has no right to threaten military action against the country, and that the administration should not interfere in Greenland. A collection of Trump voters, speaking to the New York Times, voiced their opposition to the administration's continued push for territory.
Heather, a 55-year-old Republican, said that the administration's actions in Venezuela are understandable but there is no need for Greenland to be in the conversation. She said, "In Venezuela, we need to go in and not just take him [President Nicolás Maduro] out. We need to get rid of his entire cabinet, everybody that was underneath him that is following in his footsteps and start afresh."
"But also, Venezuela is hopefully more for the people’s sake, to end the suffering for them. Greenland just seems more of a – why are we there? What do we need from Greenland? I mean, there’s no conflict there. Can we just bring the focus back to somewhere else in America?"
Fellow Republican voter Bill, 62, suggested there was an argument to be made for the natural resources on Greenland but that a want for those did not give Trump a right to use the military against the country. He said, "Greenland has resources that Trump wants to be able to take advantage of. But what gives him the right to go in militarily and take it?"
Daniel,. 54, says there is an obvious comparison between Trump's threats to Greenland and what Putin is "doing to Ukraine." He added, "What gives him the right to do that as well? So it just doesn't feel right. It's a negative impact, I believe, on the United States."
Bill added, "And if he does go into Greenland with force, if you read today’s news, they talk about how all of the NATO countries over there are not happy with that. That could spell the end of NATO."
Trump, in a recent post to Truth Social, reiterated the US needs Greenland "for the purpose of National Security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building."
Ewan Gleadow
January 14, 2026
RAW STORY
U.S. President Donald Trump attends a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 10, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard
Donald Trump may be convinced to leave Greenland alone should Europe "repackage" security measures and "put a big bow on top" of a potential deal.
The president made it clear he wanted the Kingdom of Denmark's territory for security reasons but has faced resistance from NATO nations. A European Union diplomat familiar with the details of one proposed plan has suggested it could be enough to convince Trump to leave Greenland alone if other nations can make security assurances.
Speaking to Politico, the unnamed insider said, "If you can smartly repackage Arctic security, blend in critical minerals, put a big bow on top, there’s a chance." They added that "this is always how things have gone" when negotiating on defense.
But another diplomat says Trump will not be as easily swayed as some are hoping. The insider suggested the Make America Great Again slogan had become "a geographical concept; he wants to go down in history as the man who has made America ‘greater’ — in geographical terms".
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has since warned that, should Trump approve military action in Greenland, it would be unlike anything the organization had dealt with since its founding in 1947.
Minister Pistorius said, "It would be an unprecedented situation in the history of NATO and any defense alliance. EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius and Danish Prime Minister Mette Fredriksen have both said NATO "would stop" should Trump breach its rules.
A third unnamed diplomat added, "This is serious - and Europe is scared." EU countries have already been urged to "cut the cord" with Trump's administration should he pursue an invasion of Greenland.
Alexander Hurst, writing in The Guardian, suggested EU leaders must stand against the new image of the US as an "active and hostile" threat to friendly nations.
He wrote, "Will its leaders have the courage to tell the full truth – that the US isn’t simply abandoning its allies and destroying the international order but is now in the position of active and hostile predation by force – and more importantly, to act on it?"
"Donald Trump has already set the tone by saying the US will seize Greenland 'one way or the other', and no part of the triumvirate around him is trying to hide their imperial intentions any more."
Robert Davis
January 13, 2026
RAW STORY
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters, on his return from Detroit, Michigan, at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, U.S., January 13, 2026. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
President Donald Trump threatened yet another foreign leader on Tuesday during a press gaggle at Joint Base Andrews after returning to Washington, D.C. from a brief trip to Detroit.
Earlier in the day, Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said his country would rather stay as part of Denmark than become part of the U.S. Nielsen's comments come at a time when Trump has upped the ante against Greenland, saying the U.S. needs to control the island nation for its own national security.
Nielsen's comments apparently didn't sit well with Trump, who was asked to respond to them during the press gaggle.
"That's their problem," Trump said. "I disagree with them. I don't know who he is, don't know anything about him, but that's going to be a big problem."
Nielsen is just the latest foreign leader that Trump has threatened in recent weeks. He has also threatened the Colombian President Gustavo Petro and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum over their country's drug policies. The threats followed Trump's middle-of-the-night operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and bring him to the U.S. to stand trial for narco-terrorism charges.
The Trump administration's moves against foreign officials also come at a time when the administration has faced accusations its seeking to distract from the ongoing release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Recently released files painted Trump's relationship with the disgraced financier and convicted sex criminal in an unsavory light.
No comments:
Post a Comment