Greenland, NATO and war: Fact-checking Trump’s Davos speech

Copyright AP Photo

By Tamsin Paternoster & James Thomas & Estelle Nilsson-Julien and Noa Schumann
Published on 21/01/2026

Addressing the World Economic Forum, US President Donald Trump attacked Europe’s energy policies and alleged the US “returned” Greenland to Denmark following World War Two. The Cube looks at where facts back his claims.


From repeating his long-running claim regarding ending eight wars, to evoking World War II history to stake his claim on Greenland, US President Donald Trump made a series of bold statements during his Wednesday speech in Davos.

The Cube, Euronews’ fact-checking team, has looked at some of his assertions to determine their accuracy.

NATO has 'never done anything' for the US

Trump repeatedly criticised NATO and its members for not pulling their weight in his speech, complaining that the US gets very little compared to what it gets back, casting doubt on whether the alliance would support his country in an attack.

“We’ve never got anything out of NATO,” the president said, adding later: “We’ve never asked for anything, it’s always a one-way street.”

“We’ll be there 100% for NATO, but I’m not sure they’ll be there for us,” Trump added.

However, the US is the only country to have ever invoked NATO’s Article 5 common defence measure, triggering an obligation for each country to come to its assistance. It did so in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks in 2001.

RUTTE CALLED TRUMP 'DADDY'

President Donald Trump meets with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office of the White House, in Washington on 22 October 2025. AP Photo

According to NATO, the alliance assisted the USin various ways, including enhancing intelligence sharing, providing increased security to US facilities, and launching its first-ever anti-terror operation — Operation Eagle Assist — between October 2001 and May 2002.

Trump also asserted that the US was paying “virtually 100%” of NATO’s budget before he entered office, but that’s not true either.

If he was referring to NATO’s common budget, then according to thealliance’s figures, the US was contributing some 15.9% to its funds between 2024 and 2025, alongside Germany. This included its civil budget, military budget and security investment programme.


The number has dropped to just under 15% for 2026-2027, again alongside Germany. The next biggest contributors are the UK (10.3%), France (10.1%) and Italy (8%).

French service members participate in multinational military Exercise Pikne ("Lightning") on Saaremaa Island, Estonia, September 2025. AP Photo

It’s possible that Trump was referring to NATO members’ defence spending, which he criticised at several points during his speech, too, but it’s still wrong to say the US was ever contributing 100% to the alliance’s defence.

Back in 2016, the last year before Trump took office the first time around, US defence spending was in the clear majority (71%) of the total by all NATO members, but that’s not close to 100%.

Since then, it’s fallen to a figure estimated to be around 66%.

These numbers are not to be confused with members’ defence spending as a percentage of their GDP, which was originally set at a 2% target. It has since been increased to 5% by 2035 (excluding Spain), after Trump criticised that not enough countries were meeting the original number.

Recent figures put Polandat the topwith 4.48%, followed by Lithuania (4%) and Latvia (3.73%). The US is in sixth place at 3.22%.
Are Germany’s electricity prices 64% higher than 2017?

During his speech, Trump attacked European countries' energy policies and claimed that Germany's electricity prices are 64% higher now than they were in 2017.

“Germany generates 22% less electricity than it did in 2017. And it's not the current Chancellor's fault, he is solving the problem, he is going to do a great job. But what they did before him, I guess that's why he got there. The electricity prices are 64% higher,” he said.

It’s not clear where Trump is getting his data from, and whether he is counting electricity prices for households or for non-households. It is true that Germany has generated less electricity in recent years since 2017, and that renewables account for a much larger share of the country’s total energy generation, a shift that has grown steadily over decades.

President Donald Trump and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz pose during the family picture at the Gaza International Peace Summit, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, October 2025. AP Photo

An initial look at data from the German Association of Energy and Water Industries, which represents around 2,000 energy and water companies in Germany, shows that household electricity cost 30,36 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2017 on average. In 2025, the average price was around 39.28 cents per kWh.

That represents an increase of around 29%, not 64%.

Data from Germany’s Federal Statistics Office and Eurostat depict a similar picture. According to it, households in Germany paid an average of 30.4 cents per kWh in 2017 and 39.92 cents in the first half of 2025 — an increase of around 31%.

Elsewhere, Trump blamed the renewable energy policies of left-leaning governments for “extremely high prices” and what he called the “New Green Scam”.

“There are windmills over the place, and they are losers,” he told the crowd.

Overall, Germany’s electricity prices have increased. They spiked particularly in 2022 and 2023 in what experts say was an increase directly linked to the collapse of gas supplies over Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022.

Wind turbines operate as the sun rises at the Klettwitz Nord solar energy park near Klettwitz near Klettwitz, Germany, October 2024. AP Photo

Renewable energy has added long-term system and grid costs to electricity bills, but it was not the main driver of Germany’s electricity price spike during this period.

Trump also said of the UK that it “produces just 1/3 of the total energy from all sources that it did in 1999. Think of that 1/3. And they're sitting on top of the North Sea — one of the greatest reserves anywhere in the world, but they don't use it.”

UK government data shows that energy production in 2023 is down 66% from 1999, when “UK production peaked”, so roughly by one-third.

According to it, oil and gas production from the North Sea, a major source of energy for the UK for decades, has declined naturally as “most accessible oil and gas has already been extracted”, making Trump’s claim that the UK “doesn’t use” its North Sea reserves misleading.
ADVERTISEMENT



Recently, there has been an uptick in rhetoric, particularly from the Conservative Party, that the UK should push for more oil and oil production in the North Sea.
Fixing eight wars

During his address, Trump reiterated his claim that he has ended eight wars since commencing his second Presidential term in January 2025.

He has previously listed these conflicts as: Israel and Hamas, Israel and Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia, India and Pakistan, Serbia and Kosovo, Rwanda and Congo, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Cambodia and Thailand.

Although Trump has played a part in mediation efforts in a number of these conflicts, his impact is not as clear-cut as he alleges. Although he is credited with ending the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, this can be seen as a temporary respite from an ongoing cold war.

Fresh fighting broke out between Cambodia and Thailand in December. Although a peace agreement between Congolese forces and Rwanda-backed rebels was brokered by the Trump administration, fighting has continued, and M23 — the Rwandan-backed rebel group in the eastern DRC — was not party to the agreement.

Although the US announced the launch of the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire plan in mid-January, the next steps in this process remain shrouded in uncertainty. Many of the points in the first phase of Trump's 20-point plan have not materialised.

Friction between Egypt and Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is best described as heightened tension, not war. There has been no threat of war between Serbia and Kosovo during Trump’s second term, nor has he made any significant contribution to improving relations in his first year back in the White House.

And while the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan signed a deal aimed at ending a decades-long conflict at the White House in August, they have yet to sign a peace treaty, and their parliaments would still need to ratify it.
RelatedFact check: Can the EU defend Greenland in a US attack?
Fact check: What is Trump's 'Board of Peace' and would it have real power?
Has Greenland banned Donald Trump and his descendants?
The US ‘returned’ Denmark to Greenland

Donald Trump repeatedly claimed during his speech that the United States had returned Greenland to Denmark after World War Two.

“We already had it as a trustee, but respectfully returned it back to Denmark not long ago,” the former president said.

In reality, while the US assumed responsibility for Greenland’s defence during the war, this did not affect Denmark’s sovereignty over the island.


After the conflict, Denmark was required to list Greenland with the United Nations as a “non-self-governing territory”, effectively acknowledging its colonial status.

The US has sought to purchase Greenland on several occasions over the past century. Most notably, in 1946, President Harry Truman offered Denmark $100 million in gold, an offer Copenhagen rejected.

Under a 1951 defence agreement, Washington formally recognised the “sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark over Greenland”.

In 2004, the US also acknowledged Greenland’s status as an equal part of the Danish kingdom, following changes to the territory’s constitutional position.

Trump actively dismantling the international rules-base order

US president Trump is systematically dismantling the international order and may provoke a major trade war with Europe that will hurt everyone. / bne IntelliNews

FacebookTwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By Ben Aris in Berlin January 21, 2026

Trump is actively dismantling the international rules-based order, dismantling or sidelining the multinational institutions that have been built up since the end of WWII, and put himself personally in charge of running the world.

This process has been unfolding for a year already. It started in Ukraine when he conflated the principled support for Ukraine’s stand against Russian aggression with business deals.

As part of his 28-point peace plan (28PPP) was a proposal to seize the Central Bank of Russia (CBR)’s frozen $300bn in reserves and create a $100bn Ukraine restoration funds and another $200bn US-Russia investment fund for commercial joint venture projects – a major sop for Russian President Vladimir Putin and a de facto rehabilitation of Russia into the international community. In addition, Trump tied any support for Ukraine to the minerals deal that was signed on April 30 and gave significant concessions to US companies, but offered no critical security guarantees in return whatsoever.

That episode could still be sold as a “pragmatic” solution to winning over US support for Ukraine’s fight to regain control over its sovereign territory, but with the decapitation of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s regime on January 3 all pretence at following the rules was dropped.

America’s early morning bombing and helicopter assault on Caracas. The kidnapping of a sitting president. The cold-blooded execution of 100 Venezuelan presidential guards and their Cuban colleagues. And Trump’s open admission that the entire operation was all about grabbing control of Venezuela’s oil. This was all totally illegal under international law and flies in the face of the UN Charter that is supposed to be the bedrock of the international order.

To add insult to injury, Trump’s decision to hand over the concession to dispose of 50mn barrels of oil seized as part of the raid to his mega-donor Vitol, the world’s largest independent oil trader, to dispose of was a corrupt insider deal worthy of the Kremlin and Putin’s sweetheart deals for his inner circle of stoligarchs.

Trump is becoming bolder and bolder as he asserts his transactional approach to geopolitics. The emerging new economic paradigm is a return to nineteenth century imperialism where might-makes-right is the new rule book. This was codified in the recently released National Security Strategy (NSS) where the trans-Atlantic shared values “special relationship” that has driven US-EU relations since the end of WWII is over. Europe has been downgraded to simply being a US market and the White House has openly said it will interfere with European domestic politics, favouring the parties of the far-right. The upgraded Monroe Doctrine that is spelled out in the NSS is a reassertion of “America First, and everyone else last”.

The latest escalation is even more extreme. All coming one on top of the other, Trump is now proposing to send in 100,000 troops to Greenland, which has a population of 57,000 people, to take control of the country for the sake of US “national security” needs. It will be the easiest invasion ever, as US soldiers will outnumber the unarmed Greenlanders five-to-one and can simply walk into the parliament building without firing a shot.

Trump has justified this plan by claiming that Russia and China “may” annex the island, which is complete nonsense. China’s foreign ministry issued a statement this week, calling on Trump to drop the “fake China-threat” argument, used to justify his own “selfish” ambitions.

Russia has never expressed any interest in Greenland either, but has bitterly objected to Trump’s proposed annexation of Greenland. The idea of US troops establishing bases on the island, which lies on Russia’s northern border creates a security issue for the Kremlin where there was none before – very similar to the Kremlin’s objection of Nato moving into Ukraine on Russia’s western borders, just across from European Russia where 80% of the population lives.

Just the possibility of the US moving missiles into a new “51st state” that could strike Russian missile and military bases deep inside the country, that were previously out of range of European-based Nato munitions, would create a new security crisis where none existed before. Russia would inevitably respond. It invaded Ukraine simply because the US refused to contemplate any exclusion from Nato for Ukraine despite the fact the White House and Brussels have adamantly repeated there was never any plans to allow Ukraine into Nato. Turning Greenland into a US militarised proxy, even if no more bases are built and no troops are stationed there, is a giant step on from any possible Nato-proxy threat Ukraine poses to Russia.

The implications of a US annexation of Greenland are too grim to contemplate. One Nato country attacking and annexing another Nato country spells the end of Nato. It flies in the face of the UN charter. It makes the US the enemy of Europe, more aggressive and threatening than Russia or China. Putin has invaded Ukraine which is neither a member of the EU nor Nato. Trump would have invaded Greenland, which is a member of both.

A US annexation of Greenland means there are no rules at all anymore. But that was already clear after Trump ordered the kidnap of Maduro purely so he could seize Venezuela’s oil.

Peace Council

Trump’s efforts to dismantle the international order are no longer haphazard or piecemeal. As the process goes on, it is becoming systematic and it is escalating.

2025 was characterised by a series of ad hoc measures, but as his confidence grows he is now attempting to institutionalise the process. The latest initiative is to set up a “Board of Peace” that is an attempt to sideline the UN and silence the voices of all the other countries in the world in the process.

This could trigger a new and extreme crisis. Europe, in particular, has been put in a desperate position where it now has to choose to either stand up to Trump and stick to its principles or trigger a debilitating trade war.

Europe’s collective economy is already flat on its back due to the boomerang effect of the Russian sanctions. France is facing a major budget deficit crisis it has lost control of. Germany’s economic model has been wrecked by the end of cheap Russian gas and has been in recession for three years now. And the UK is being strangled by its mounting and increasingly unsustainable debt burden.

The game is in play in Davos where European leaders are due to meet Trump in the next few days and have an almost impossible choice to make.

Trump is proposing to set up a conflict resolution body, the Board of Peace, with himself as chairman and retaining veto powers over any decision the council reaches.

We don’t need a Peace Council. We already have one. It’s called the UN. And everyone is already a member of that. Trump is actively trying to usurp the UN and put himself personally in charge of running the world. If Russian President Vladimir Putin had done this, he would be called a fascist and compared to Hitler.

So far invitations to join the Peace Council have been extended to 60 countries. (The UN has 193 members.) Countries that have already said yes include UAE, Kosovo and Israel. Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko gleefully signed off on accepting his invitation yesterday. Russia has also been invited but the Kremlin is still thinking about it. (The Kremlin has always said the UN is the appropriate body to run a multipolar world.)

Other countries that have reacted positively to the idea include Hungary, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Argentina, Morocco and Canada. Those that have already definitely rejected the invite include France, Norway and Sweden. Notably, Brussels has yet to comment. Trump says he only needs three countries to say yes to set the Council up.

The foundation of the rules based international order was established by the UN Charter signed in 1945 that was designed to prevent another world war. It commits members to sovereign equality, non-use of force, territorial integrity, and peaceful settlement of disputes. The economic and financial governance was covered by the Bretton Woods deal in 1944 and trade by General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947.

Trump has already withdrawn from multiple UN institutions, most notably the Paris Climate Agreement. But that process is now accelerating, after he recently cancelled the US membership in 66 international institutions, 31 of them UN bodies including the UN Human Rights council and WHO. On economics he has threatened to punish any country that tries to drop the dollar and on trade he is using the US status as a major trade partner to weaponize tariffs with his poignantly named Liberation Day tariff regime.

The construction of an international order has been going on since the end of WWII. A major plank in this effort were Helsinki Accords signed in 1975 by 35 states, specifically including the US and the Soviet Union that codified the rules and stabilised tensions during the Cold War.

The Accords emerged from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) that set post-war borders in Europe, and created rules for coexistence between East and West. Crucially, they linked security, economic cooperation, and human rights into a single framework in three “baskets”: the inviolability of existing borders in Europe; trade and economic cooperation; and guarantees for human rights and fundamental freedoms

Trump is proposing to throw all this work out of the window and Europe, as the leader of the values-based system, is now facing an existential choice.

French President Emmanuel Macron summed up the issues in his speech delivered in Davos on January 20. Wearing sunglasses to conceal his eye condition, the president warned that the world is entering a phase of “increasing instability”.

“International law is trampled underfoot and the only law that seems to matter is that of the strongest,” he told the assembled captains of the global economy.

“We are approaching a world without rules,” he cautioned, in a speech marked by explicit references to the return of “imperial ambitions” and the “normalization of conflict as a political tool.”

Former Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen put it even more bluntly: "The time for flattery of Trump is over."

Should I stay or should I go?

Following the raid on Caracas, the threats of bombing Iran (which still might happen next week) and now the potential invasion of Greenland, the EU’s policy of appeasing Trump is facing a litmus test. Trump has largely ignored all European demands and entreats so far. Europe is coming up to a red line where it may be forced to take retaliatory trade action itself. Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping must be looking on in amazement.

But European leaders are split on Trump's offer to join the Peace Council and the issue will only deepen the already increasingly divided EU. It is clear that France will fight back, but for countries like Britain, which is not an EU member, London may choose to fold and attempt to revive its own “special relation” with the US, forged in the days of the Margret Thatcher, Ronald Reagen double act. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico will go with Trump. The Nordic states will oppose him.

The Peace Council has already undermined Western unity in the Ukraine conflict. Lukashenko was delighted by the offer and leapt on the possibility to reagitate Belarus’ return to the, albeit Trumpian, international order. (Although he also made it clear he was not going to pay the $1bn membership fees Trump is demanding.)

Trump is clearly narked by Macron’s criticism and leaked private messages from Macron in which the French president proposed organizing a G7 summit in Paris, even with the possibility of inviting Russia on the sidelines of the meeting, which would have marked the first high-level rapprochement since the start of the war in Ukraine. In Davos, Macron denied any such meeting was planned and avoided elaborating on the episode.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk is another one that is calling for a showdown. He urged European countries to resolutely defend their interests amid “blackmail” by Trump. Tusk, without directly mentioning either the US or Trump, called on European partners to stop "appeasement" and to defend their interests more firmly.

"Appeasement is always a manifestation of weakness. Europe cannot afford weakness - neither towards enemies nor towards an ally. Appeasement ends with a lack of results - except humiliation. At this time, European perseverance and confidence are very much needed," the Polish Prime Minister noted.

The choice is between economic wellbeing and points of principles. The US-Europe trade pair is the biggest in the world with over $1 trillion of annual turnover. At the same time, they have also the heaviest mutual foreign direct investment (FDI) of some $5 trillion investment stock in each other’s country – the fruits of 80 years of that special relationship.

A major trade war would wreck this relationship permanently with major economic consequences.

Now we are waiting to see what will happen next. Trump is firing his first salvos, threatening to put 10% on European countries that do not join the Peace Council, and singled out France for a 200% tariff on champagne.

The EU has already prepared its own retaliatory package of tariffs that target things like US-made motorbikes and bourbon whiskey in case Trump rolls out his threatened 10% additional tariffs on top of the 15% already conceded by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last year. However, if things escalate, Brussels has its "trade bazooka" in reserve: a set of regulations that could freeze US companies out of the European market entirely.

Trump tells Norway's PM he has no obligation to 'think purely of peace' after Nobel snub

KOMMANDER IN CHIEF; BONESPURS

By Gavin Blackburn

Published on 19/01/2026 - EURONEWS

Trump has boasted about ending eight wars, styling himself as "the president of peace" and therefore deserving of the Nobel honour but those claims have been exaggerated.

US President Donald Trump told Norway's prime minister he no longer needed to think "purely of peace" after failing to win the Nobel Peace Prize, in a message published on Monday.

"Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace," Trump said in a message to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre.

It is unclear why Trump decided to send a message to Støre as the peace prize is decided by the Norwegian Nobel Committee and not the government.

In a written comment, Støre underlined that the Nobel Peace Prize was not awarded by the Norwegian government.

"I have clearly explained, including to president Trump what is well known, the prize is awarded by an independent Nobel Committee," Store said.

US President Donald Trump speaks at a dedication ceremony in Florida, 16 January, 2026 AP Photo

Trump has long coveted the annual peace prize and last week Venezuela's opposition leader María Corina Machado gifted her Nobel Peace Prize medal to him at the White House.

Machado was awarded the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for her leadership of Venezuela's opposition movement amid a crackdown by President Nicolás Maduro, most notably in the much-maligned 2023 presidential election.

Machado's gesture to Trump followed a series of developments in Venezuela after a blitz US military raid captured Maduro and his wife and brought them to New York to stand trial on drug trafficking charges two weeks ago.

During the visit, Machado gave Trump her Nobel medal "as a recognition for his unique commitment to our freedom," she told reporters outside the US Capitol.

Trump confirmed on social media that Machado had left the medal for him to keep and said it was an honour to meet her.

The Prime Minister of Norway Jonas Gahr Støre speaks in London, 4 December, 2025 AP Photo

"She is a wonderful woman who has been through so much. María presented me with her Nobel Peace Prize for the work I have done," Trump said in his post. "Such a wonderful gesture of mutual respect. Thank you María."

Ahead of Machado's visit to Washington, the Norwegian Nobel Institute, organisers of the Nobel Prize, said in a statement that a Peace Prize cannot be withdrawn, transferred or shared once it has been announced.

The Nobel Foundation's statutes and Alfred Nobel's will — which dictate the merits awardees should have — state that the title of the winner belongs personally to the individual and cannot be legally shared or reassigned to another person.

The medal or the associated diploma can be physically given, sold or auctioned, but this does not confer the award's title on anyone else

Related

Ending eight wars?

Trump has often boasted about ending eight wars, styling himself as "the president of peace" and therefore deserving of the Nobel honour but those claims have been exaggerated.

The latest conflict he claims to have ended was two years of fighting between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

The other seven are Israel and Iran, Pakistan and India, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, Thailand and Cambodia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Egypt and Ethiopia and Serbia and Kosovo.

But some of those conflicts lasted just days and one, Egypt-Ethiopia, had no fighting to end but rather involved long-standing issues of water sharing from the Nile River.

A view of the rostrum where the Nobel Committee announce the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, 10 October, 2025 AP Photo

Ethiopia formally inaugurated the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) last year. It sees the dam as a boon to its economy but Egypt opposed its construction, arguing that it would reduce the country's share of Nile River waters.

Trump recently told Fox News that one of the ongoing conflicts that has continued despite his claiming to have stopped it, a simmering border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, should actually count more than once.

"I did put out eight wars, eight and a quarter, because, you know, Thailand and Cambodia started going at it again," he told Sean Hannity last week.

Considerations on the Morality of Donald Trump

by Kim Petersen / January 19th, 2026

In an interview with the New York Times, when asked if there were any checks on his powers on the world stage, Trump replied: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

A voice jumps in to ask: “Not international law?”

“I don’t need international law,” said Trump. “I’m not looking to hurt people.”

Trump’s own morality.

Morality is a set of principles that distinguishes between right and wrong that guide one’s behavior accordingly.

This inquiry into the morality of Trump will leave aside exploration of Trump’s alleged sexual peccadilloes, sexual abuse, adulterous flings, grabbing pussies, except for his questionable relationship with a known sex offender.

Thou shall not kill

Trump identifies as non-denominational Christian; therefore, the ten commandments should apply to Trump. In this case, the prohibition against taking human life is applicable and particularly worth examining because it is generally considered a universal principle that is also encoded in international law.

The list of lives erased at Trump’s behest is long. The recent US attack launched against Venezuela took 100 lives. That was on the heels of several snuff videos of small boats that Trump alleges were narco traffickers.¹ There were no interceptions, no presumption of innocence, just killing. As of 31 December 2025, CBC cited the number of crew members killed at 115.

On 22 June 2025, the US attacked three nuclear facilities in Iran. The number of casualties is unclear.

Clear is that the US sneak attack on Iran was an intrusion into the Iran-Israel war to aid the sneak-attacking Israel belligerent. Israel has been engaged in warring against its neighbors Lebanon, Syria, and was wreaking a genocide in Palestine, with devastating destruction in Gaza. This genocide has been abetted by Trump’s US (of course, with Democrats on side with Israel).

Sovereignty

The sneak attacks speak to the pusillanimity at the core of the Trump and Netanyahu governments.

As well, the US attacks demonstrate a disregard for US adherence to international law as per the UN Charter to which the US is a signatory, thus it is legally binding under the US Constitution. Article 2(1) of the UN Charter recognizes the sovereign equality of states, regardless of size or power. Further, Article 2(7) prohibits outside intervention in domestic matters, such as the protests recently in Iran where Trump threatened intervention, even though protests were also ongoing in the US for the killing of a critic of the Trump administration by ICE operatives.

By launching attacks abroad without Congressional approval, Trump is criticized for failing to abide by the US Constitution which he pledged to uphold in his oath of office.

Lying

Lying is considered an abnegation of morality. Ethics Officer Tim C. Mazur reasoned,

Lies are morally wrong, then, for two reasons. First, lying corrupts the most important quality of my being human: my ability to make free, rational choices. Each lie I tell contradicts the part of me that gives me moral worth. Second, my lies rob others of their freedom to choose rationally.

Trump has a history of documented lying including recently.

The big lies are insidious. For example, the Trump administration kidnapped Venezuela’s president Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, on the accusation of running a cocaine narco-trafficking operation to the US. The Trump administration has focused on Tren de Aragua (TDA), a cartel that took root in prisons, and is allegedly linked to Maduro. US attorney general Pam Bondi called TDA “a highly structured terrorist organization” and “a foreign arm of the Venezuelan government.”

El País downplayed Bondi’s assertion, citing the opinion of experts that “Tren de Aragua in no way poses a national security issue for Washington, as Donald Trump claims.” Moreover, on 7 April 2025, the US National Intelligence Council issued a memo that stated,

While Venezuela’s permissive environment enables TDA to operate, the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States.

More than two hundred people have died based on, at best, erroneous assessment of intelligence, or worse, outright disinformation.

After the attack on Venezuela, Trump said: “We’re going to take back the oil that frankly we should’ve taken back a long time ago.” And “we’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country.”

Not mentioned concerning the theft of Venezuelan oil is why the oil infrastructure is “badly broken.”

However, this is readily understandable when one considers the dire effect of economic sanctions that the US has imposed on Venezuela. One research report estimated that the sanctions had caused more than 40,000 estimated deaths in Venezuela from 2017 to 2018. A 2025 Lancet paper laid bare the perniciousness of economic sanctions for which 564,258 deaths worldwide per year were attributed for the period from 2012 to 2021.

Trump is a known braggart, and oftentimes his lies take the form of boasting. To wit his claim that he’d end the warring between Russia and Ukraine in 24 hours: “They’re dying, Russians and Ukrainians. I want them to stop dying. And I’ll have that done — I’ll have that done in 24 hours.”

It wasn’t just a one-off boast, presumably to attract votes. CNN notes that there were 53 times Trump said he’d end the Ukraine war within 24 hours or before taking office.

Even more unseemly is that the Russia-Ukraine conflict is only partially that. It is a NATO-Ukraine proxy war against Russia. So while Trump is bragging that he’ll bring a quick end to the Ukraine-Russia war, he is deeply involved in it — attested to by US secretary-of-state Marco Rubio: “And frankly, it’s a proxy war between nuclear powers – the United States, helping Ukraine, and Russia.”

Trump’s duplicity in the proxy war came to the forefront when a drone attack was launched from Ukraine targeting a residence used by president Vladimir Putin in the Novgorod region, this while Putin was in telephone discussions with Donald Trump (about which Trump lied) on ending the war in Ukraine. A downed Ukrainian drone provided decoded navigation data information, according to Russia, that proves it contained the precise coordinates of the intended target — Putin’s residence — including data on the flight path of the drone.

Former US Marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter was unambiguous as to the meaning:

American digital “fingerprints” were all over this guidance component, something the Russians knew when their head of military intelligence handed one of these intact components over to the US military attaches in Moscow.

Russia knows the truth.

And the truth is that the United States under Donald Trump still seeks the strategic defeat of Russia.

Rudenness

Are manners not necessarily attached to morality, facilitating social interaction and guiding us to live a virtuous life?²

Social etiquette befuddles Trump who addresses many people in a decidedly rude manner. In fact, he dehumanizes and humiliates people. The examples are myriad: he referred to DPRK president Kim Jong-un as “little rocket man”; he called Canada a 51st state, Canadians “mean and nasty,” and has driven his closest trading partner, Canada, to renewed  relations with China, a nation Trump calls a “threat to the world”; he considered his former appointee as US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, to be a “birdbrain”; former president Joe Biden is demeaned as either “Sleepy Joe,” Crooked Joe,” or even “sleepy son of a bi**h”;  of his director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard relaying the intelligence community’s assessment of Iran not pursuing nuclear weapons, Trump said, “I don’t care what she said” he called one female reporter “piggy”; and the list of people derided by Trump is much, much longer — indicating a penchant for crudely dealing with people he disagrees with.

What are Tariffs and Who Pays

Trump not only uses sanctions to inflict harm on other nations to achieve political aims, he also is imposing tariffs on other nations, friend and foe alike, as a cornerstone of his economic agenda and in support of his imperialist ambitions.

Trump envisions the US as a tariff nation. He frames a tariff as a tax on another country. He hopes to create a surfeit of cash to pay off the staggering US debt (now approximately $38.45 trillion) and create manufacturing jobs in the US.

But the question is who will pay the tariff. Trump maintains it is the exporting nation.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy calls Trump’s claim erroneous and that American consumers will bear much of the cost through higher prices.

Indeed, Trump’s claim that tariffs are borne by exporters is widely held to be false.³

Noted Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs predicts the Trump tariff policy will fail.

What is in the Offing?

There is other sordid information that might have strong negative implications for Trump and his morality that is is still seeping out.

The release of the Epstein files may well speak to the morality of Donald Trump. The release of the files is staunchly opposed by Trump, but dribs and drabs have emerged. Epstein is notorious for having been charged with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. Children and adolescents who become entangled in sex trafficking sometimes come from backgrounds with traumatic experiences; young age and a history of trauma can be a recipe for exploitation of vulnerable youth.

Epstein operated frequent flights with high profile guests to his private island, Little Saint James, in the US Virgin Islands. There is much documented and video evidence of alleged sex trafficking of minors to the island and Epstein abodes elsewhere. Trump’s relationship with Epstein and his world puts him in an unwanted spotlight.

Trump posted on Truth Social in January 2024, “I was never on Epstein’s Plane, or at his ‘stupid’ Island.” However, documents released by Trump’s own Justice Department –including flight logs and emails — indicate that Trump had been a passenger on Epstein’s private jet “far more often” than realized.

As of 16 January 2026, Will Gottsegen wrote, “Less than 1 percent of [the Epstein files] have been released. A CNN poll reveals that two-thirds of Americans believe the Trump government is holding back certain information.

How do Americans feel about the morality that guides Trump, and do they even care? Time will tell; the US November midterm elections are in the offing.

ENDNOTES:

• 1
  “Trump says boat crews are narco-terrorists. The truth is more nuanced, AP finds.”
• 2
  See Sean Walsh, “On philosophy, morality and good manners,” The Article, 20 August 2024.
• 3
  See Forbes, a leading American business magazine; the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research says US consumers are bearing the brunt of the tariffs; the centrist Peterson Institute for International Economics finds that so far US businesses are paying the tariffs; the Council on Foreign Relations, a establishment think tank says tariffs are paid by importers; the nonpartisan Brookings Institute states, “Tariffs are a tax on businesses and consumers”; Fox News matter-of-factly notes that a “Tariff is an import tax, a tax on consumption.”

Kim Petersen is an independent writer. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.com. Read other articles by Kim.

Trump's Greenland ambitions lack domestic support, polls show


Issued on: 19/01/2026 

Video by: FRANCE 24


Despite US President Donald Trump’s insistence on acquiring Greenland, public support for the idea remains low. A Reuters/Ipsos poll of US residents this week showed that fewer than one in five respondents back acquiring Greenland, while a separate CBS poll found that just 14 percent would approve the use of military force to take the island. Instead, many Americans say they want the president to focus on domestic economic pressures, particularly the cost of living. A CNN poll last week found that 58 percent of Americans believe Trump’s first year back in the White House has been a failure, especially on the economy.

Greenland on the Chessboard of U.S. Imperialism

Lotte Rørtoft-Madsen

 January 19, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Photograph Source: Inter-rede – CC BY-SA 3.0

On 14 January, a few hours before the historic meeting in Washington between representatives from Greenland and Denmark and their U.S. counterparts, J. D. Vance and Marco Rubio, Denmark and several of its NATO allies reinforced their military presence in Greenland and announced that more reinforcements would follow.

Some interpreted this move as pressure on the Trump Administration before the meeting. But anyone familiar with NATO-Denmark politics would recognise that appeasement with the empire is the more likely explanation.

At the Washington meeting, the U.S. reiterated its firm demand for “having Greenland”: ““It is clear that the president wants to conquer Greenland,”” declared the Danish foreign minister after the meeting. The parties agreed to establish a “high level working group” in an effort to contain the crisis.

But the crisis continues, and its magnitude is huge.

The reality is that for over a year, the nearly 57,000 Greenlanders and their vast island have been turned into a bargaining chip, a pawn to be moved at will on the great chessboard of U.S. imperialism.

Trump has repeatedly stated that the U.S. seeks to control and own Greenland, by military means if necessary. The brutally effective aggression against Venezuela on January 3 and the kidnapping of the country’s head of state and his wife have erased any doubt that the White House administration is capable of putting Trump’s words into action.

The threat is imminent, and it is felt acutely among the Greenlandic people. The population is stuck in a vice, and the country’s politicians must fight hour by hour simply to get a seat at the table and be heard., Not only by the U.S., but also by Denmark.

Greenland, or Kalaallit Nunaat, has been inhabited for 4500 years, and its people are linked to the Inuit communities across the Arctic. It is the world’s largest island, with an area larger than France, Germany, Spain, Great Britain, Italy, Greece, Switzerland and Belgium combined. It became a Danish colony with the establishment of the state-owned Royal Greenland Trading Company in 1774. The Royal Greenland Trading Company functioned as the de facto colonial administration until the early 1900s, when trade and administration were separated. During this period, Danish companies extracted various minerals, including cryolite, iron, zinc, lead and silver.

The colonial era formally ended in 1953, but political equality with Denmark did not follow. Following a referendum, so-called home rule was introduced in 1979, which was replaced in June 2009 by the current status of self-government. Under self-government, Greenlanders hold the rights to the island’s subsoil and the minerals found there. However, foreign and security policies remain decided in Denmark, which is why Greenland is considered NATO territory.

Greenland is not a member of the European Union. In a 1982 referendum, 53 percent of the Greenlandic people voted to leave the European Economic Community, now the EU. Today, Greenland is classified as one of the EU’s Overseas Countries and Territories.

In 1951, a secret agreement between the U.S. government and Denmark’s envoy to the United States granted U.S. military involvement in Greenland. The agreement was highly controversial and in detriment to official Danish policies at the time. Nevertheless, it remains in force today and has been repeatedly confirmed. In practice, it grants unlimited U.S. military rights over Greenland.

Thus, for decades, the U.S. has maintained several military facilities in Greenland. The history of these facilities includes forced evictions of Inuit families in 1953, the crash of an American B-52 plane carrying four atomic bombs in 1968, and other harms inflicted on the local population.

The Danish government repeatedly states that Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders and is not for sale. But in reality, Denmark has been selling off Greenland to the U.S. for decades. “We already have a defence agreement between the Kingdom and the United States today, which gives the United States wide access to Greenland,” the Danish Prime Minister stated in an official statement earlier this week.

This raises the question: Why does the Trump Administration seek an annexation of Greenland, when the U.S. empire already holds extensive rights over Greenland? The answer lies in a new security strategy and the demand for unquestioned and unlimited control over oil, control over minerals, and military dominance.

Greenland possesses at least 25 of the 34 minerals designated as “critical raw materials” by the European Commission. Greenland has significant deposits of rare earths, copper, nickel, zinc, gold, diamonds, iron ore, titanium, tungsten and uranium. Trump wants U.S. companies, many of which have invested heavily in his re-election, to have unfettered access to Greenland’s mineral deposit resources.

Moreover, Greenland’s geographic position near the Arctic is important. Control over northern sea routes, such as the Northeast Passage, is becoming increasingly important as climate change advances. A fully controlled, militarised and rearmed Greenland is also intended to serve as an advanced base against both Russia and China. Beyond the prospect of super-profits, keeping socialist China far away from Greenland is a strategic goal for both the U.S. and Denmark.

Until a few years ago, Greenland was undergoing a process of independent decision-making and freeing itself from neo-colonialism. But the current era of intensified imperialism emanating from the White House has caused a serious setback to Greenland’s ability to determine its own destiny. The threats and pressures are enormous.

It is so important to hold on to the principle of right to self-determination. How Greenland organises its society, with whom it collaborates, and what alliances it enters to realise its self-determination in practice should be determined solely in Nuuk.

Produced by Globetrotter and No Cold War Perspectives.

Lotte Rørtoft-Madsen is the chair of the Danish Communist Party. She was the editor-in-chief of Arbejderen.

Greenland Between Denmark And The USA: What Is The Price For The Largest Island In The World? – Analysis

January 19, 2026 
By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic

The largest island in the world, Greenland (that is not green at all but rather covered by white ice), has in recent months and even several years become one of the hottest geopolitical spots and disputes in world politics and international relations. The island, which has been administratively part of the Kingdom of Denmark for two centuries, has seriously caught the eye of the USA, namely its Trump administration, which firmly claims that the island simply must be under direct control and administration of the USA for its national security, otherwise it will be “swallowed up” by Russia and China (whose [Russian] submarines already operate around the island). The latest statements by NATO leaders support the idea of “Russian occupation of Greenland” as the reason for the increased presence of (small and meager) NATO soldiers on the island, but in essence, this position advocates the transfer of the island under American administration.

Greenland politically belongs to Denmark, i.e., the European Union, and in a military-political sense to the NATO pact. Geographically, it belongs to the North American continent and is closest to Canada, not the USA, and far away from Denmark. However, in a purely military sense, Greenland has been under the “occupation” of the USA since the summer of 1940 (after Nazi Germany’s overrun of Denmark), and in that context, the island is much more tied to the American, rather than the Danish, i.e., European administration. If, and this is in fact more or less a fait accompli, Greenland does indeed belong to the USA in one form or another, it will only be a formal recognition of the real state of affairs since the time of World War II up to today.

Nevertheless, what is Greenland, and what are its basic characteristics?

Geographical and military-technical characteristics of the island

Greenland (Grønland) is an Arctic island, the largest in the world, located off the northeastern part of the North American continent, next to Canada. It has an area of ​​2,130,800 sq km, with coastal islands of 2,175,600 sq km, and a population of almost 55,000 (the area of ​​Europe is about 10,180,000 sq km). Greenland is politically part of the territory of the Kingdom of Denmark with a certain degree of local autonomy. The island is mostly in the Arctic Circle, with its northernmost point 708 km from the North Pole. It is about 2,650 km long from north to south, and about 1,300 km wide from east to west. The island generally rises steeply from the surrounding seas, bays, and straits into highland terrain and over 3,000 m. altitude.

The island has a very rugged coastline with a large number of fjords. The eastern coast, despite its great ruggedness, is practically inaccessible for the most part due to icebergs. The interior of Greenland, together with the ice sheet, forms a plateau between 2000 and 3000 meters above sea level. It is estimated that about 1,860,900 sq. km. of the island’s territory is permanently covered with ice, with a thickness of between 500 and 1500 m., and only about 13% of Greenland’s surface is free of ice, and in the coastal zone it is up to 150 m. wide. The highest peak is located on Mount Forel, 3440 m.

The Greenland Sea is the main link between the Arctic and the western Atlantic. It is of great importance for Arctic fishing and whaling. Its northern part is mostly covered with ice, and its southern part is covered with icebergs or floes.

Probably the greatest geopolitical value of the island of Greenland is that whoever holds it in their hands essentially controls access to the North Atlantic.

The climate in Greenland is of the Arctic type. The southern part of the west coast is the most favorable for life because it is reached by the warmer Atlantic current, and where the average January temperature is about minus 14 degrees C, and July about plus 8 degrees C. In the interior of the island, the temperature can reach minus 50 degrees C.

It is important to note, at least from a military-economic point of view, that the seas, bays, and straits around Greenland freeze over except in its southwestern part, i.e., these waters are covered with icebergs as well as mountains broken off from glaciers, which descend from the interior of the mainland into the sea. Along the northern coast, the sea is constantly under ice. There are no land communications on the island. The ports in the south of the island are of insignificant capacity, at least in military terms. In Greenland, dog sledding on land and boats at sea are the only means of transport. However, in terms of air traffic, Greenland is in a very important position because the shortest flight routes from North America to the northern parts of Europe and Western Siberia pass through it.

The economy of Greenland

The current economy of the island is very poor, i.e., insignificant, because the main economic activity of the islanders is limited to fishing, which is not as profitable as in the cases of Iceland or Norway. It is mainly about catching cod, whale, seal, walrus, and, on the mainland, bear hunting for fur. A small number of sheep and goats are raised on the island, while vegetables and potatoes are grown sparingly in the southern coastal belt.

However, the island is rich in certain natural minerals. There are deposits of cryolite, copper, lead, graphite, and uranium. Greenland has the largest mines of cryolite in the world, which is used in the aluminum industry. Cryolite ore is mined in the southwestern part of the island and exported. Graphite and coal are mined in smaller quantities, while lead and zinc ores have been exploited since 1956. It is claimed that there are large quantities of oil and especially natural gas in the depths of the island. In this context, Greenland can be considered a part of the Arctic that has been proven to lie on huge reserves of natural gas and probably other energy sources, which would be the main reason for the international race for the largest island in the world.

Population and Constitution

The indigenous population of Greenland is of Inuit origin, who have settled mainly in its southern (more domesticated) part along the coast. There are a small number of ethnic Danes as well as US citizens who are stationed at US military bases, especially at the large Tula naval and air base on the northwestern coast of the island. The capital of Greenland is Gothop/Nuuk, which in 1965 had a population of almost 4,000 but today has almost 20,000. It is also the northernmost capital city in the world.

Greenland is, according to the Constitution of the Kingdom of Denmark of June 5th, 1953, an integral province of the Kingdom of Denmark with special autonomy (the same as the Faroe Islands) since 2009. Greenland has its own separate (autonomous) flag and local administration. The island sends two representatives to the Parliament of the Kingdom of Denmark. The executive power on the island is exercised by the Landsråt (Country Council), which consists of 13 members elected from among the inhabitants of Greenland. The President of the Landsråt is appointed by the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Denmark.

Short history of the island

The island was discovered in 982 by the Vikings, and after that, the southwestern coast of Greenland was settled by the Normans (Vikings), but their settlements later disappeared. New settlements from Europe began at the end of the 18th century. The settlements in southern Greenland came under the rule of the Kingdom of Denmark in 1814, and the entire island was annexed to it in 1921. When the Germans occupied Denmark on April 9th, 1940, by decision of US President F. D. Roosevelt, military units of the US Army landed on Greenland, where they remained throughout World War II, and to this day.

Denmark is one of the 12 founding members of the NATO pact in 1949, as is the US. The United States has built the Thule air and naval base in the northwestern part of the island and the Narssarssuaq air base in the southern part. By a mutual defense agreement with the Kingdom of Denmark of April 27th, 1951, the United States was granted the right to use these two military bases, which also serve as air traffic. East of Thule, a nuclear power plant was built by the United States in an agreement with Denmark, and a long-range air intelligence radar system was also built, which is linked to the northern parts of Canada. In other words, the capital military-economic infrastructure of the island is built up by the USA, not by Denmark.

The Future of the “Greenland Question“

Realistically, the US will certainly take over Greenland from Denmark, the only question is whether by July 4th or by the November 3rd, 2026, US elections. There are two practical scenarios for this takeover:

1) Either by using soft power, i.e., bribery, purchases, political blackmail, and/or economic sanctions;

2) Or by using hard power, i.e., direct military intervention or occupation and annexation of the island under the excuse of security or whatever geopolitical reasons.

The first option involves pro-American propaganda among the inhabitants of Greenland, who number as many as the inhabitants of one major street in New York. They will be promised a better future and life within the United States, and especially a higher standard of living. The Americans will promise large investments in the exploitation of mineral and other natural resources on the island, from which the inhabitants of Greenland will directly benefit, which was by no means the case while Greenland was under Danish rule, because it is well known that the Danish authorities did not invest much in the economy of Greenland.

The island is, by the way, one of the poorest regions of the European Union in terms of infrastructure, economy, and living standards. Therefore, it will not be very difficult for the Trump administration to indoctrinate the majority of the island’s inhabitants and bribe them with economic propaganda, especially if we know that there is already a solid pro-American core in Greenland. After its propaganda work, the soft power would end with a general vote on the island for its independence, which would be declared with all possible electoral manipulations under the supervision of the “international (pro-American) community”. Therefore, the transition of Greenland from Denmark to the US administration would take place according to formally “democratic” principles. The amount of money that Denmark would receive from the US for this “democratic” transition from Denmark to the US will probably never be known.

Let us not forget that Trump has already threatened European countries that oppose his policy of annexing Greenland with the introduction of tariffs of 10% to begin with, and if the countries in question do not collaborate, successively higher and higher tariffs on the export of their goods to the US market. This moment is extremely important because the governments of European countries will have a strong argument before their citizens as to why they are not more resolutely defending the territorial integrity of Denmark. Such blackmail is an extreme variant of the application of soft power.

The second scenario involves the direct use of military force in Greenland, which would be formally justified by security reasons. For the US to “occupy” the island, they would need one destroyer and one battalion of Marines, just in case. There are already two US military bases on the island anyway. In the event of an American landing on the island, the “international community” would not take any concrete action, and the protests would be reduced to a boring repetition of the story about the violation of “international law”.

Let us recall that the USA has a long tradition of military aggression against other states that violate this right, totaling around 22 or 33 since 1945, including directly instigating coups d’état and military coups. A classic example is the military occupation of the independent island state in the Caribbean Sea – Grenada, in October 1983, under the administration of President Ronald Reagan, under whose administration the President of Panama, General Manuel Noriega, was kidnapped in 1989 (anyway, a long-time CIA collaborator).

The “international community” has not taken any concrete action against the Israeli genocide in Gaza or the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Maduro, and it will not do so in the case of the military occupation of Greenland. Only Denmark will protest for a while, but it will soon calm down. Great Britain, Poland, and the Baltic states will probably give direct support to the occupation, while the EU and NATO bureaucracy will try to cover up the whole matter as soon as possible in order to consolidate their members against their main enemy – “aggressor” Russia.

The current deployment of bizarre EU/NATO military troops to Greenland is primarily an unproductive demonstration of “force” against the “Russian and Chinese occupation” of the island, not a “force” to contain the US real occupation of Greenland. The threats by Washington and Paris to leave NATO are of the nature of diplomatic bickering, i.e., moving the ball from one court to another. It is clear to anyone who understands even a little about international relations that these are primarily empty phrases and empty rhetoric aimed at scoring political points on both sides, primarily against Russia.

The price of transfer (?) and possible consequences in international relations

According to estimates by some Western experts, and as reported by the American television NBC TV Network, the value of Greenland today is up to $ 700 billion, including its geopolitical position. The interest of the United States to simply buy the island for cash dates back to 1946, when US President Harry Truman offered $ 100 million in gold for it. However, this information was not learned until 1991. For comparison, in 1999, the American CIA estimated the total value of the southern province of Serbia, Kosovo, at $ 500 billion.

In essence, at least from a military and geopolitical perspective, the transfer of Greenland to the US will not fundamentally change anything, as the island has been de facto under US control since June 1940, and the complete transfer of the island from Danish to US hands would be an insignificant operation within the framework of the NATO pact.

The only question is, who is next in line to be occupied for the sake of US national security?

 There are many candidates: Colombia, Mexico, Iran, etc. For now, the Trump administration is promoting the implementation of the “Monroe Doctrine” from 1823 – “America, for the Americans”, i.e., that the entire Western (American) Hemisphere falls under US rule. It is clear that if this regional project of American imperialism is realized, it is only a matter of days in the context of the implementation of the global MAGA project, when American imperialism will move to the Eastern Hemisphere, where it also has a larger number of solid military-political strongholds (especially around Iran).

Finally, in this whole policy of transferring Greenland to the US, the biggest real winners will be China and Russia, and the only loser, along with Denmark, will be the European Union. The diplomatic moves of Beijing and Moscow on this issue clearly indicate that they are de facto staying on the sidelines, with the US award to Russia likely being a solution to the “Ukrainian Question” according to the Russian will, while the award to China remains a secret, as in many other similar cases so far.Personal disclaimer: The author writes for this publication in a private capacity, which is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions of any other media outlet or institution. The author of the text does not have any moral, political, scientific, material, or legal responsibility for the views expressed in the article.

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirovic is an ex-university professor and a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies in Belgrade, Serbia.

Trump Taking Greenland Would Be the End of NATO – senior analyst

by RT / January 19th, 2026

The US president’s push to acquire the island follows a “long and complex historical tradition of American territorial expansion,” Mats Nilsson has told RT

Protesters on City Square during a protest in support of Greenland on January 17, 2026 in Copenhagen, Denmark. © Martin Sylvest Andersen/Getty Images

US President Donald Trump’s acquisition of Greenland without Denmark’s consent would have far-reaching consequences for NATO itself, Mats Nilsson, a senior analyst at the Dissident Club, told RT on Sunday.

“It would be another nail in NATO’s coffin,” he warned. “If the United States were to grab Greenland against the wishes of Denmark, the idea of a united NATO would effectively collapse.”

Nilsson argued that Trump’s renewed push to acquire Greenland follows a “long and complex historical tradition of American territorial expansion,” rooted in the ideology of ‘manifest destiny’ and imperial thinking.

He stressed, however, that such thinking is fundamentally incompatible with modern international law.

Trump’s actions were legally very incoherent and very political, naive for today’s setting. It might have worked well in the 19th century and early 20th century, but since the mid-20th century, territorial sovereignty is inseparable from the will of the people who inhabit it.

According to Nilsson, any change in Greenland’s status “can only legally come from a process led and approved by the Greenlandic people themselves, not from a bilateral sale or purchase by the United States.”

Over the last weeks, Trump has once again declared that Washington would obtain the territory “the easy way” or “the hard way,” insisting the US needs Greenland for “national security.” On Saturday, he also announced tariffs on Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland, saying the measures would remain in place until a “complete and total purchase” of the Arctic island is achieved.

European NATO members have largely refrained from direct public confrontation, but behind the scenes, resistance is mounting. This week, Denmark, which retains responsibility for Greenland’s foreign and defense policy, coordinated with several allies to send small contingents of troops to the island ahead of the bloc’s Arctic Endurance exercises.

Both Danish and Greenlandic authorities have rejected any prospect of ceding the island, insisting that its future must be decided by its people, who voted in 2008 to retain autonomous status within the Kingdom of Denmark.

RT network now consists of three global news channels broadcasting in English, Spanish, and Arabic. Read other articles by RT, or visit RT's website.