Trump Threat to Greenland Could End Nato, Danish PM Warns

by Chief Editor

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen issued a stark warning Monday: a US attack on Greenland would effectively dissolve the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Her statement represents the strongest rebuke yet against renewed threats from former President Donald Trump regarding the Danish territory.

Escalating Tensions Over Greenland

Frederiksen stated that Trump is “serious” about seeking control of Greenland from Denmark. She explained that any military action by the US against a NATO country would have catastrophic consequences, stating, “If the US chooses to attack another Nato country militarily, everything stops. Including our Nato, and the security that has been provided since the end of the second world war.”

Norway’s Foreign Minister, Espen Barth Eide, echoed Frederiksen’s concerns, telling Aftenposten that a US attack on Greenland would “break” the idea of NATO and make its survival improbable. These warnings followed Trump’s reiteration of his desire to control Greenland, citing US “security” interests, despite earlier appeals from Frederiksen to cease such threats.

Did You Know? The US currently maintains a defense agreement with Denmark that allows for a US military base on Greenland, though the US presence has significantly decreased from over 10,000 soldiers in past decades to fewer than 200 today.

The situation escalated further after a map of Greenland with the US flag imposed on it was posted on X (formerly Twitter) by Katie Miller, wife of Stephen Miller, a close advisor to Trump, accompanied by the single word “soon.” Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen condemned the post as “disrespectful” and demanded an end to “pressure” and “fantasies of annexation,” emphasizing Greenland’s status as a democratic society distinct from the situation in Venezuela.

“Hemispheric Defence” and US Interests

Trump, while traveling on Air Force One, again asserted the US need for control of Greenland, stating, “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it.” He also claimed, “the European Union needs us to have it.” Trump’s administration has previously framed its military intervention in Venezuela as part of a broader “hemispheric defence” strategy, and has included Greenland within that concept.

Frederiksen countered that the US has “no right to annex one of the three countries” within the Kingdom of Denmark – Greenland, Denmark, and the Faroe Islands – and affirmed that Greenland is protected by NATO’s security guarantee.

Expert Insight: The current rhetoric represents a significant strain on transatlantic relations. While the source does not indicate a definitive course of action, the explicit warnings from Denmark and Norway highlight the potential for a serious crisis if the US were to pursue unilateral action regarding Greenland, potentially jeopardizing decades of security cooperation through NATO.

European leaders, including UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and those from Nordic and Baltic nations, have voiced support for Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland. Denmark’s ambassador to the US, Jesper Møller Sørensen, has called for “full respect for the territorial integrity of the kingdom of Denmark.”

Frequently Asked Questions

What is NATO’s role in this situation?

According to the Danish Prime Minister, a US attack on Greenland would end NATO and the security it has provided since the end of the Second World War.

What is the US justification for wanting to control Greenland?

Trump and senior US officials have stated the US needs control of Greenland for its “national security,” and have accused Denmark of neglecting the island’s security.

What has been Greenland’s response to the US rhetoric?

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has described the US rhetoric as “disrespectful” and “unacceptable,” demanding an end to pressure and annexation fantasies.

Given the escalating tensions and firm stances taken by both sides, what steps might be taken to de-escalate the situation and reaffirm the importance of international cooperation in the Arctic region?

You may also like

Leave a Comment