The prospect of U.S. interest in Greenland is becoming increasingly realistic, especially given recent geopolitical tensions. With Donald Trump’s history of aggressive foreign policy and a desire for significant legacies, the idea of seizing Greenland instead of simply raiding it seems plausible. The context of Trump’s actions in Venezuela, described by Douglas Macgregor as a vanity project, adds weight to this speculation. As Trump faces declining fortunes at home, including a probable loss in the Ukraine conflict and domestic economic struggles, the lure of transformative headlines may drive him to pursue Greenland aggressively. The notion of a substantial territorial acquisition could serve as a powerful historical monument, arguably more impressive than an addition to Mount Rushmore.
🇬🇱 The true size of Greenland pic.twitter.com/k4W3fI1uyS
— World of Statistics (@stats_feed) January 5, 2026
Many observers note that Greenland would be relatively easy for the U.S. to acquire, given its small population of fewer than 60,000, a significant number of whom reside in Nuuk, the capital. The U.S. already operates a military base there, and Denmark has offered various concessions without fully relinquishing control or selling Greenland. Currently, EU states express solidarity with Denmark, yet they lack the capability to effectively deter a U.S. attempt to take Greenland.
It remains possible that Denmark may negotiate a price that benefits both parties. However, one potential deterrent for Trump could be the collapse of NATO, which many analysts believe is a likely outcome. This shift could lead European countries to diversify their arms purchases away from the U.S. and strengthen their own military capabilities in response.
Given the current state of leadership across Europe, the continent seems ill-prepared to respond effectively. A recent Joint Statement illustrates this growing unease and the strategic shifts needed within Europe.
Critically, how can they reduce their reliance on U.S. intelligence for military operations, particularly given the presence of U.S. bases across Europe? The U.S. currently stations around 84,000 troops in Europe, with key bases like Ramstein in Germany crucial for operations in the Middle East. Unlike Incirlik in Turkey, where Turkey maintains some control over U.S. actions, Ramstein operates as a full U.S. military installation.
The military-industrial complex may express hesitance about pursuing Greenland directly, especially if defense contractors warn Trump against potential ramifications for business. Recently, the Financial Times reported on growing anxiety among European leaders regarding Trump’s increasing threats towards Greenland.
The US will “de-colonize” Denmark by annexing Greenland. Stephen Miller will not rule out military force, and points out the weak Europeans will not fight back. After decades of enthusiastic support for US imperialism, Europe now finds itself on the receiving end. pic.twitter.com/pbYybUpBrg
— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) January 6, 2026
It’s important to note that while Trump has made aggressive statements, he hasn’t yet taken substantial action, such as deploying additional troops to the Pituffik Space Base. Despite verbal exchanges at the Munich Security Conference and in national security documents, many European leaders remain in denial about the risks arising from Trump’s presidency, particularly as various unpopular leaders have pinned their hopes on anti-Russian sentiment.
“It’s a fine line,” said one senior European official. “The solidarity with Denmark is crystal clear for everyone. But then there’s Venezuela where nobody is sorry [Nicolás] Maduro is going, but there are legal questions. And we want to keep the US onside for a dignified outcome in Ukraine.”
A second EU official added: “We know who our allies no longer are. It’s just we are still hoping we are wrong and the problem will go away,” while acknowledging the need to reduce dependency on Washington.
A Financial Times reader echoed this sentiment, succinctly stating:
Androcydes
The lesson is that if you outsource your security to someone else, you can’t defend yourself from those that provide your security.
The fear of Trump has reached such a level that he seems to inspire a sense of taboo among European leaders. Few countries explicitly denounce U.S. actions, entirely avoiding mentioning Trump by name, even as he openly states the U.S. “needs Greenland” shortly after Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen urged him to cease his threats regarding the island.
Frederiksen cautioned that continued U.S. ambitions over Greenland may jeopardize NATO’s future: “If the United States attacks another NATO country, everything stops,” she stated.
Under a decades-old defense agreement, the U.S. maintains the only military base on Greenland, with local authorities historically indicating a willingness to expand U.S. presence on the island. Yet, U.S. troop levels have dramatically decreased from over 10,000 during the Cold War to fewer than 200 today.
While Greenlandic ministers welcome business opportunities, U.S. investors have shown little interest in the emerging mining sector. “The only thing they haven’t yet offered is something they can’t ever offer: for Greenland to become part of America,” commented a senior EU diplomat.
A second diplomat noted the puzzlement surrounding U.S. intentions: “They don’t need to annex it. They can have whatever they want.”
The analysis reveals a misunderstanding of Trump’s approach. His extreme materialism and egoism thrive on the notion of direct territorial expansion rather than merely legal rights or influence. Trump’s excitement over the idea of a lavish resort in Gaza or his coined “Donroe Doctrine” exemplifies this drive.
The implications of U.S. military action towards Greenland are profound for NATO, as such an incident could create direct conflict between allies, complicating the mutual defense obligations of the alliance. Notably, other NATO members have begun advocating for a greater strategic role in the Arctic given the changing dynamics.
Trump recently belittled Denmark’s military efforts, claiming they only contributed “one dog sled” to the defense of Greenland. Meanwhile, Copenhagen announced a substantial allocation of $4.2 billion for Arctic defense initiatives, including new military units and surveillance capabilities.
Matt Stoller highlighted the historical precedents for Trump’s expansionist tendencies, citing earlier instances of U.S. intervention driven by corporate interests.
The best way to understand what just happened is to start with history, as Trump’s rationale for territorial acquisitions often mirrors past U.S. endeavors for resource dominance, entwining corporate and state interests.
In summary, the current European leadership appears to underestimate Trump’s unpredictable behavior. His inclination to escalate tensions with nations like China, even after potential economic repercussions, raises alarms. As the situation develops, particularly regarding Greenland, the ramifications of a confrontational U.S. stance could soon unfold.
It is crucial for European leaders to recognize the implications of Trump’s deteriorating mental state as well. Reports suggest that his condition could lead to increasingly reckless and ego-driven actions, raising the stakes for all involved.
00 joint statement on Greenland
