By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following President Trump’s statements about taking over Greenland, which sparked controversy and warnings about the implications for NATO, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has voiced strong support for Denmark. Starmer affirmed that Greenland’s future lies with Denmark, a close NATO ally, echoing the Danish Prime Minister’s stance. While condemning Trump’s rhetoric, Starmer and other Labour ministers have been less direct in condemning the US’s actions in Venezuela. This contrast in responses highlights a complex political situation regarding international law and the actions of the US government.
Read the original article here
Starmer says he stands with Greenland after Trump threatens to take it over. This is a sentence that, quite frankly, would have sounded like something out of a satirical news site just a few years ago. Now, it’s a stark reminder of the times we’re living in. It feels almost unreal, like the world has been flipped on its head.
The US, or at least a certain segment of the US leadership, seems to understand only the language of money. So, if this aggressive move on Greenland were to become reality, perhaps the best recourse would be to hit them where it hurts – their wallets. Maybe sanctions on American companies, increased taxes on them. It’s the only thing they might understand, right? The Epstein files were supposed to be released legally, yet they haven’t been. It’s all a desperate attempt, it seems, to distract from the real issues.
If this “takeover” of Greenland were to happen, it could be game over for the political order of the last eighty years. It’s a scary thought. Of course, the worrying thing is that the US might try to pull off a non-violent occupation, and the world would just have to deal with it. I’m holding onto the hope that we can navigate through these dark times, even though I’ve seen a few of those hopes slip through my fingers already.
I am more concerned about potential targets in Latin America. It’s always been assumed that the UK would back the US. The claim of needing it for strategic defense is a joke. We, along with Canada and Greenland/Denmark, are all part of NATO. If the US has concerns, let’s hear them and work within the alliance framework to address them. The US already has defense installations on Greenland, and even used to have an underground base there. They even accidentally dropped a nuke there, which is still a hazard. What more could they possibly want?
The real motivation behind this move likely revolves around resources and control. This sounds like a power grab, a mad king wanting to build a new empire. It’s frightening to watch this unfold in real-time. NATO will likely not fall, but may fight America. This is exactly what Putin wants, and he’s using Trump to destabilize everything for Russia’s benefit, while Trump revels in the power play. If it does happen, what then? And if he decides to cast his gaze on territories in the Caribbean? Denmark should push for a multinational EU force to be stationed at strategic points.
It’s surprising, that Starmer is taking a stand. I’m confused, though. Is this a firm commitment to defend Greenland militarily if the US attacks, or is it just “thoughts and prayers?” The recent actions in Venezuela might give them the confidence to do whatever they want. It feels like Trump wants to take over Cuba, Puerto Rico (because they’re Americans), and then Greenland, and not for its resources, but because he’s a narcissist. It’s good that Starmer is speaking up, but it’s not enough.
A joint statement from the Five Eyes and European leaders is needed. Every former US ally has been trying to play it safe, hoping they can get things in place before they have to truly rely on the US. Now, they may have to accept that appeasement just won’t work anymore. The entire EU should be speaking up. Starmer is a start, but we can’t let it just be lip service.
When Trump talks about “taking over” Greenland, it violates the core principles of national sovereignty and international norms. Leaders like Starmer are sending a clear message that such behavior is unacceptable, that alliances and the rule of law matter. The real test will be if European countries are willing to take action. If the US can do as they please, nukes become a less effective deterrent. I’m still waiting to see Starmer actually stand up for the UK.
So, will Denmark defend Greenland? We’ll see. The response seems to suggest that everyone will “stand with Greenland” until the US actually makes a move. Then what? Harshly worded letters? If they are not willing to do anything then these words are empty.
Trump just wants to grab headlines. I would applaud his backbone, however, it is apparent that it is not made up of any integrity. I don’t think he has any personal beliefs. If he stood up to Trump because he was genuinely against him, it would be admirable, but at this point, I think he would do anything for a few more votes.
It’s astonishing that this conversation even exists. We’re approaching a decade of this clown show. It’s time to act preemptively. The world needs to close embassies, expel diplomats, and revoke visas for US travelers to put pressure on the US to fix its problems. While I’m American, I have to ask what countries aren’t driven by money and greed? Maybe stop exporting food to the US. “More guns than people” combined with “no food at the grocery store” will quickly lead to an internal crisis.
The post-WWII political order is dead. A multipolar world is returning, with great powers vying for control. China will dominate East Asia, a more unified EU or resurgent Russia will rule Europe and the Middle East, and the crumbling US will have less influence outside the Western Hemisphere. I am very skeptical that anyone will actually do anything about it. I doubt there are the leaders and the guts to start using tactical nukes to stop Trump. I suspect we’re heading towards a one-world government run by the greediest people.
The UK has become increasingly uncomfortable with American actions. They stopped providing the US with intelligence around the Caribbean, which is unprecedented because the UK and the US have one of the closest intelligence-sharing pacts in history. The UK has typically stood by its allies. They went to Afghanistan when the US invoked Article 5, even though the US sat on the fence when Argentina invaded a UK overseas territory. They even went to war with the world’s strongest military in WWI due to an old alliance with Belgium. Since Denmark is a NATO ally, the UK would be strongly opposed to the US taking territory just because it’s strategically useful.