Trump Wags The Dog Next In Greenland

After Trump’s latest military intervention in Venezuela, seizing President Maduro, his focus seems to have turned elsewhere in the region, more specifically to Greenland. Thereby in a series of posts on X, various close MAGA associates of Trump reiterated in recent days the Trump administration’s interests to acquire Greenland from Denmark. The White House confirmed this in a statement made to the BBC on January 5.

The message provided to the BBC read:

“The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the US military is always an option at the Commander-in-Chief's disposal."

Secretary of State, Mario Rubio, tried to nuance this somewhat suggesting that the U.S. was looking to buy Greenland off Denmark, similar to the purchase of Louisiana from France in 1803. Denmark has though made clear that Greenland is not for sale.

Notwithstanding Rubio’s attempts to transactionalise US intentions, the WH reference by the to the potential use of the US military is ominous and deeply worrying for Denmark and also the U.S.’s supposed European allies. This raises the potential spectre of two NATO allies, the U.S. and Denmark, going toe to toe in a military conflict.

In reality, the Danish military is unlikely to resist - it would be a useless exercise given the overwhelming odds in favour of the U.S. And likely if the Trump administration decided to take Greenland by force, any such operation would be over in a matter of hours - similar perhaps to the Russian occupation of Crimea in 2014.

But while a military conflict over Greenland is nigh on impossible to see, any U.S. annexation of Crimea, against the will of Denmark, and indeed the occupants of Greenland - where opinion polls show overwhelming opposition to US annexation - raises so many red flags.

First, and referencing back to the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia, any such U.S. move undermines the European case on Ukraine, that borders cannot be changed by force. It likely would also open up a whole Pandora’s box in Europe where there are so many potential territorial disputes, which were thought to be resolved with the 1971 Hensinki Final Act of 1975, or the progress in resolving these which have come with EU accession - albeit not the case with Cyprus. Europe would argue that U.S. actions send a message that might is right, the powerful take whatever territory they can when then can, and smaller nations should just submit to great powers rights to spheres of influence. That would be a green light for further Russian expansionism in Europe. And perhaps for China to take Taiwan by force.

Second, it raises huge question marks about the future of NATO, the status of the US security backstop for Europe, as the Danish prime minister, Mete Frideriksen has raised this week. Indeed, what is the point of NATO’s Article 5 assurance - any attack on one is an attack on all - when one member, the U.S. is seen militarily intervening to seize another NATO member’s territory. And Frideriksen hinted this week that Denmark could withdraw from NATO on any such U.S. move, warning then perhaps that the whole future of NATO would be at stake. Such a move would undeniably weaken NATO, send solace to NATO’s enemies in Russia and China, and undermine confidence in the security that NATO has provided to Europe over the past 80 years or so, and which has been a key pillar of peace, security and prosperity in Europe over this period.

It would raise the question is NATO dead?

So what are Europe’s defences to the US push to take over Greenland?

First, the message should be that the current security arrangement between the US and Denmark dating back to 1951 provides ample assurance to the US that it can ramp up military deployments to Greenland, within the current Danish sovereignty model. If the U.S. is worried about the security of Greenland it is welcome to increase military deployments, and European NATO will partner in this. The reality though is that the U.S. has actually cut its troop deployments to Greenland from up to 10,000 during the Cold War to a few hundred now. This suggests that US aspirations to acquire Greenland are not really about its security after all.

Second, some have suggested that it’s about the US quest to capture mineral resources, of which Greenland has abundance. Well again, Denmark has made clear it is willing to greater cooperation with the US in this field. This should not be an issue again wishing the current sovereign status.

Third, but my sense here is that US interest in Greenland is not really about the economics - given the inclement climate harvesting Greenland’s natural resources would likely be prohibitively expansive, which is why Denmark has not itself done much in this regard. It’s about Trump’s ego, his desire to put a big U.S. flag on a huge territorial land mass - as did the wife of WH adviser, Stephen Miller only this week. And as with the operation in Venezuela this week, it is more about a Wag the Dog style operation, or changing the news cycle from low poll ratings for Trump, unpopular policies at home and the Epstein affair. If that is the case, then Denmark and Europe should go on the offensive by spelling out the costs of this operation to Trump. And therein Denmark and Europe have some leverage.

Denmark can play the line that its Greenland or NATO. If Trump moves to take Greenland against the will of Denmark, then NATO is dead. Does Trump really want to be the president of the US that instigated the collapse of the most succesful defence alliance in history? And that same alliance came to the rescue of the US, in the aftermath of 911, the only time that NATO’s article five commitment has been triggered. Remembering here that thousands of Europeans - Danes, Brits, Turks, died fighting alongside Americans in Afghanistan, et al.

Europe can also go back to Trump’s much loved tariffs and reconsider the assymetric 15% tariff deal, demanding reciprocity with the levy to be lodged then on US exports to Europe. Europe held back from demanding this back in 2025 as it was eager to ensure the continuation of the U.S. security backstop for Europe. But if with the forced annexation of Greenland that is no longer credible, why should Europe play nice on tariffs, or for that matter digital and social media regulation that so many large US companies seems to eager to steam roll Europe on.

Europe should take the gloves off with the US, and threaten meaningful costs to the US from any such forced annexation of Greenland. Europe has leverage, it should realise that, and use it.