By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen directly addressed President Trump, urging him to cease threats against Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark and a NATO member. This warning followed a U.S. military operation that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, fueling concerns about potential forced territorial acquisitions. Trump’s desire to purchase Greenland and make Canada a U.S. state has been well-documented, with both nations rejecting his advances. The Prime Minister emphasized the existing defense agreement between the United States and Denmark, which provides the U.S. with extensive access to Greenland.
Read the original article here
Denmark tells Trump to stop threatening to seize Greenland. It’s a direct message, crystal clear: the United States needs to back off. The whole idea is, frankly, absurd. Greenland isn’t for sale, and it’s not up for grabs.
Denmark, quite rightly, points out that it’s a member of NATO, which means an attack on Greenland is an attack on the entire alliance. The existing defense agreements already give the U.S. significant access to Greenland. Plus, Denmark has invested heavily in Arctic security. The Prime Minister’s call to “stop the threats” is essentially a plea for respect and an end to the ridiculous talk of annexation.
Of course, the whole Greenland situation feels like another episode in a larger story. Some observers see a pattern. There’s a concern that the U.S. government, driven by a desire for immediate gains and headline-grabbing “successes,” is willing to disregard the long-term consequences and basic principles of international relations. The fear is that this could lead to all sorts of unpredictable and destabilizing actions.
It’s clear that Trump operates in his own reality. Talking about “conquering” Venezuela by removing its leader, even if the situation is complicated, shows the kind of thinking in play. The focus is on power grabs and short-term wins. The irony, though, is that such actions often backfire.
The very idea of the U.S. attempting to seize Greenland has raised some crucial questions about the role of NATO. The alliance was formed to defend against threats from countries like China and Russia. It wasn’t really designed to deal with a situation where a member nation itself becomes the aggressor. Would NATO protect an ally like Greenland against the U.S.? It’s a complicated scenario, and the answer isn’t clear. The fear is that diplomacy or economic pressure could be the only recourse, leaving smaller nations vulnerable to a powerful ally’s overreach.
One suggestion is to prepare for the defense of Greenland. Putting the Royal Danish Navy on high alert and sending more troops to the area could be a necessary step. Historically, telling Trump to stop hasn’t worked. The need is to get ready to defend their sovereignty, quietly and decisively. This is a situation that requires preparation, not just words.
The general sentiment is that Trump’s actions are driven by a hunger for power and immediate gratification. There’s a clear sense that the current administration is not operating within the bounds of international law or diplomatic norms. Annexing Greenland could be a sign of something much worse.
Some feel the U.S. is on the brink of a dangerous period, potentially taking reckless actions against countries like Cuba, Colombia, Iceland, or Canada. The concern is that a power-hungry leader, seeking their next “thrill,” could cause an international crisis.
The situation with Venezuela further fuels this perception. The idea of the U.S. “seizing” a nation, no matter the internal situation of that country, is seen as an attempt to exert power and control.
The best answer is that actions speak louder than words. The correct approach would be to prepare for any contingency, send the Americans out of the country and send a clear message. The focus should be on practical steps, like increasing military readiness and reinforcing Greenland’s defense.
There’s a shared worry that the current administration doesn’t respond to reason or facts. The focus for some is on the necessity of showing force, making it clear that Greenland won’t be taken without a fight.
Some see a broader pattern of potential aggression. The fear is that the administration will escalate its actions. There are concerns of additional military actions.
The bottom line is that Denmark and other allies need to be ready to defend themselves. The U.S. is not to be trusted, and its words can’t be taken at face value. A strong defense, supported by its allies, is the only way to safeguard Greenland’s sovereignty and send a clear message to the world.