Trump Rekindles Greenland Grab: Island Defiantly Rejects US Ownership Amid NATO Warning

Published 14 hours ago3 minute read
Pelumi Ilesanmi
Pelumi Ilesanmi
Trump Rekindles Greenland Grab: Island Defiantly Rejects US Ownership Amid NATO Warning

Donald Trump has unequivocally stated that NATO must support Washington's ambition to place Greenland under American control, asserting that anything less would be "unacceptable." Taking to Truth Social, Trump emphasized that the United States requires Greenland for national security, deeming it vital for the "Golden Dome" missile defense system being constructed. He warned that if the US does not acquire it, Russia or China would, a scenario he declared "not going to happen." Trump further argued that without the vast power of the United States, much of which he claimed to have built during his first term, NATO would not be an effective force, making Greenland's US ownership crucial for a more formidable alliance.

This assertive stance has ignited a geopolitical crisis, prompting Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen to declare that his country would choose to remain Danish over an American takeover. Ahead of critical White House talks, Nielsen firmly stated, "Greenland does not want to be owned by the United States. Greenland does not want to be governed by the United States. Greenland does not want to be part of the United States." Danish leader Mette Frederiksen echoed this sentiment, criticizing the "completely unacceptable pressure" from their closest ally and stressing that borders cannot be changed by force.

Trump's desire to buy or annex the autonomous territory has been a long-standing idea, resurfacing with heightened rhetoric since his return to the White House, with him stating the US would take it "one way or the other." He also disparagingly compared Greenland's defenses to "two dogsleds" in further Truth Social posts. These comments, along with the refusal to rule out military force, have jolted the EU and NATO, as Greenland is covered by many protections offered by Denmark's membership in both organizations.

High-stakes White House talks were scheduled to address the escalating tensions. Denmark's foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Greenlandic counterpart Vivian Motzfeldt were set to meet US Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Vance had previously made an uninvited visit to Greenland in March, where he criticized Denmark for a perceived lack of commitment to Arctic security, labeling it a "bad ally," a comment that enraged Copenhagen given its ardent transatlantic support and military contributions to US wars.

The strategic importance of Greenland is underscored by its location, lying on the shortest route for missiles between Russia and the United States, making it a crucial component of the US anti-missile shield. Washington has accused Copenhagen of insufficient efforts to protect Greenland from growing Russian and Chinese Arctic threats, though analysts suggest China's presence is minor. In response, Denmark's defence minister, Troels Lund Poulsen, announced that Copenhagen would "strengthen" its military footprint on the island and was in dialogue with NATO allies for increased presence in the Arctic. Frederiksen has called for stronger cooperation with the US and NATO for Arctic security, advocating collective security guarantees as the best defense.

The White House meeting aimed to iron out "misunderstandings" concerning Greenland's defense, the perceived Chinese and Russian military presence in the Arctic, and the complex relationship between Greenland and Copenhagen, which together with the Faroe Islands constitute the Kingdom of Denmark. Despite ongoing independence talks between Denmark and Greenland, a Greenland specialist, Mikaela Engell, clarified that these discussions have been long-standing and do not indicate an imminent secession, contrary to how some uninformed American listeners might interpret them. A Reuters/Ipsos poll revealed just 17% of Americans approved of Trump's efforts to acquire Greenland, with substantial majorities opposing the use of military force for annexation.

Recommended Articles

Loading...

You may also like...