Former President Trump has stated that US control of Greenland is essential for national security, arguing that anything less is unacceptable, and that NATO should support the US in its acquisition efforts, as Russia or China would otherwise seize the territory. In response, a high-level working group between the US and Denmark will explore possible solutions to address the president’s concerns while respecting the country’s red lines. While Denmark and Greenland maintain they will not give up their sovereignty, Trump continues to make assertions that he will obtain the territory with or without a deal. Furthermore, European leaders have rejected Trump’s calls, as they are concerned about the effects of such an action on their relationship with Denmark.
Read More
French President Emmanuel Macron expressed grave concern over the US’s potential seizure of Greenland from Denmark, stating that such an action would trigger “unprecedented” consequences. Macron’s remarks were in response to US President Donald Trump’s insistence that US control of the Arctic island was crucial for his planned missile defense system, the Golden Dome, and national security. Denmark’s government and Greenland’s leadership have staunchly opposed Trump’s intentions, with Greenland’s Prime Minister clearly stating the island’s refusal to be under US control. Trump has intensified his push for ownership, despite the existing agreement allowing the US to station soldiers there.
Read More
Denmark’s Defence Committee Chairperson, Rasmus Jarlov, has stated that Denmark would defend itself against a potential US military attack on Greenland, despite acknowledging that Denmark’s forces couldn’t stop the US. Jarlov emphasized that such an attack would be unacceptable, leading to a disastrous conflict between two NATO allies. He also noted that Greenland is not for sale and that there is no justification for a military attack, considering existing defense agreements and the US already having access. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that a US military attack could lead to the end of NATO.
Read More
According to former Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Denmark feels bullied by the U.S. due to ongoing discussions about acquiring Greenland. She views the situation as an “act of aggression” and warns that any hostile actions toward Greenland could jeopardize NATO. Thorning-Schmidt believes the situation is dangerous for Denmark and NATO, potentially benefiting adversaries like Russia and China. She hopes the U.S.’s stance is a negotiating tactic, emphasizing the possibility of increased collaboration in Greenland.
Read More
The White House has confirmed that President Trump is actively discussing the potential purchase of Greenland, a territory of Denmark. This follows concerns over Greenland’s strategic importance for early warning systems and natural resources, especially considering its location between North America and the Arctic. While all options are considered, diplomacy is prioritized, according to the White House. This move comes after Trump’s previous attempt to buy the island in 2019, which was rejected, and amid international discussions and concerns regarding the use of military force.
Read More
Several political figures, including leaders from the Liberal Democrats, Green Party, and SNP, have criticized the US military action, urging the UK Prime Minister to condemn it as a violation of international law. Senior Labour MP Emily Thornberry echoed these concerns, stating the strikes were illegal and could embolden Russia and China. Although a limited number of Labour MPs have publicly condemned the US action, further criticism may arise in the House of Commons. The UN Security Council, with the UK as a permanent member, is discussing the operation, with the UK representative expressing a desire for a peaceful transition in Venezuela while reaffirming commitment to international law.
Read More
After a visit by a US official, Denmark is expressing its frustration with the United States’ recent behavior, stating unequivocally that the current approach to its relationship with Denmark is unacceptable. The situation feels like a bizarre neighborly dispute escalated to an absurd level. Imagine the scenario: a neighbor suddenly demands your house, claiming you’re in grave danger, despite your protests of safety and past assurances of support. This is essentially the current state of affairs, with the US’s demands for Greenland mirroring this unsettling scenario.
Denmark’s frustration stems from what it perceives as an entitled and arrogant attitude from the US, one that fails to recognize the contributions Denmark has made, especially concerning the significant loss of Danish military personnel in Afghanistan – a sacrifice exceeding that of any other NATO country.… Continue reading
The USA’s request for egg assistance from Denmark is, to put it mildly, a remarkably awkward situation. The sheer audacity of it all is almost comical. Imagine: threatening to invade a country’s territory, then turning around and asking for a favor, in this case, a significant quantity of eggs. It’s the kind of diplomatic maneuver that makes you question whether the individuals involved have any grasp of international relations or basic social etiquette. Perhaps a refresher course in both areas is in order.
This situation highlights a fascinating clash of soft and hard power. The US, wielding its economic might, is attempting to leverage its influence to address a domestic crisis.… Continue reading
Denmark’s recently announced $2 billion Arctic security plan is generating considerable discussion, particularly concerning its implications for European unity and the country’s relationship with the United States. The plan aims to bolster Denmark’s defenses in the Arctic region, a strategically important area increasingly attracting global attention due to its resources and geopolitical significance. This substantial investment underscores the growing concerns about regional stability and the need for a more robust defense posture.
The financial commitment, while significant, has prompted some to question its scale relative to the overall defense needs. Comparisons to the cost of an aircraft carrier highlight the complex balancing act between resource allocation and strategic priorities.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood