Denmark, along with six NATO countries, issued a joint statement on Greenland on Tuesday, calling for respect for “sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders” after renewed calls from the US for an American takeover of Greenland.
The European leaders said: “Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland,” leaders of Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the UK said in a statement.
“Security in the Arctic must therefore be achieved collectively, in conjunction with NATO allies including the United States, by upholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders. These are universal principles, and we will not stop defending them,” leaders underscored.territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders.”
Whoever knew the White House until the time of Joe Biden (including Trump 1, but minus Trump 2), would have sworn that the above statement was intended for the Russian dictator, perhaps the Chinese dictator, possibly a dictator from an African country where threats and armed conflicts between neighbors are commonplace.
The fact that the statement is instead, addressed to the US president, and in defense of an allied state (of the seven, but also of the US) represents something extraordinary and indicates not the simple fact that times have changed a lot, but the infinitely more complicated aspect that the change in this case is a profound degradation, and the rot that has just set is a scene setter for the future.
Probably January 6, 2026 will remain in history as the moment when seven European countries considered Washington as a direct threat to the integrity of the borders and sovereignty on ‘the old continent.’
Another painful symptom of these times is the fact that the seven who put on a common front and reacted promptly are just seven out of a total of dozens.
On the issue of taking over Greenland, the Trump-MAGA rhetoric emphasizes a national security imperative.
But, as Bloomberg columnist Marc Champion has just pointed out, if this had been the real concern of the Trump administration, “then it would have already increased the number of US troops in Greenland from the current skeletal core from 150 to 200; during the Cold War, up to 6,000 American soldiers had been there. Denmark has said it is open to negotiations to discuss any proposed increases.”
As happened in the case of Venezuela (and probably as it could happen in the future with other states in its vicinity), the official pretext invoked by Trump has no connection with what many suspect is his real interest: the seizure of territories rich in mineral resources.
In fact, the fact that US national security is actually the last concern that eats away at the chief oilman and miner in the White House in this second term results from three key aspects:
- Through its operation in Venezuela, the US has so far helped Russia and China, and thereby weakened Europe with which, however, America is in a system of alliances (which protect Europe, but also protects the US).
- By announcing that he intends to take over Greenland, Trump sent a shockwave directly at NATO. If it does take over, depending on the method it chooses, this step could even be deeply destructive for NATO. And all this, given that NATO is a protective umbrella for US security as well, is a gold mine for the American defense industry and represents an extensive platform for projecting American influence and strength globally. So, where is the national security imperative, since the US is actually risking piercing its most protective security umbrella?
- Last but not least, it is worth remembering an episode during Trump’s first term as president. In his book, “Fear”, by journalist Bob Woodward, famous primarily for exposing Watergate which brought down Nixon reveals an episode in which Trump shocked his White House national security advisers, intelligence chiefs and the generals at the Pentagon. At that time, and a clue to his background as a real estate businessman and clearly incapable of evolving, Trump wanted to break the KORUS agreement, a trade agreement with South Korea, but more than a commercial one, because it also included ultra-secret national security elements. For example, thanks to that agreement, the Americans had sensitive intelligence instruments on the Korean Peninsula, capable of detecting the launch of a nuclear missile from North Korea in less than 10 seconds, while its radars in Alaska would have done so only after a quarter of an hour. In the case of a nuclear attack, it is basic knowledge that 5-10-15 minutes more can make all the difference between the death or survival of hundreds of thousands or even millions of people. But Donald Trump was more interested in his phantom idea that South Koreans were tricking the US. Once again: South Korea was and still is a country where the U.S. had and deployed tens of thousands of troops and numerous state-of-the-art military systems. In addition to the fact that Trump had been ready to jeopardize a special bilateral relationship, both economically profitable and with ultra-special national security implications, the same Trump in his first term had also been ready, according to Woodward, to withdraw the THAAD anti-ballistic system, deployed in South Korea. For all his genius, the leader in the White House did not seem able to understand, even after repeated sessions of detailed explanations, why America was still spending its dollars on its troops and military systems in South Korea. President Trump’s intellectual decay was actually so advanced that he got angry and began to threaten that if he kept spending billions on the THAAD system, then at least he would move it from South Korean territory to American territory. The thoroughbred real estate agent in him had even found the optimal ground – somewhere in Portland, Oregon. For a while, the generals and national security advisers struggled in vain to explain to him that the presence of THAAD in South Korea helped to defend the inhabitants of Seoul, but also the American military deployed on the peninsula from possible North Korean fire. In the end, the agreement with Seoul was not broken, but was renegotiated, but the relationship was strained depending on President Trump’s moods.
PS: The Americans themselves have a lot to consider in the context of their president’s bellicose-expansionist initiatives both in Latin America and Europe.
On the one hand, under Donald Trump they risk seeing alliances that are essential for the national security of the United States and for the well-being of the U.S. economy torn apart. And on the other hand, they also risk seeing democracy at home, individual freedoms and the institutional architecture of the American state blown up.
Optimists are likely to say that in the next key midterm congressional elections, Republicans could have unpleasant surprises, and as a result, Democrats could regain control and finally restrain a president who has lost his compass.
They might be encouraged by the fact that Trump is increasingly unpopular in the polls, that he has even become the most unpopular president in decades at this point in his term.
But these things remain valid only in a framework where everyone respects the rules of the game. But in his second term, Donald Trump shows us that he excels precisely at the opposite of this.
The pessimists, on the other hand, may not all of them, but enough (myself included) are now wondering if those November elections will really take place when they should.
For Donald Trump (and his inner circle) has accumulated so much power and exercised it with such contempt for rules and norms, that he may conclude that once he has this power, it can’t be lost, just because democracy demands elections are held.
After all, it has just been five years since the assault on the Capitol, caused by Trump’s refusal to admit that he had lost the election and his insistence on remaining in the White House, according to the model patented by Putin in the Kremlin.
For the indefinite postponement or suspension of elections, objective reasons may arise or, in conditions of accelerated authoritarian drift, pretexts presented as objective reasons may be made. In the era of Trump 2, the US is increasingly leaning towards the second scenario.
From the way he used power, Donald Trump does not seem like the type to shy away from posing the issue of the midterm elections, for Congress, in the following terms: either polls show we will win them, or we will no longer organize them.
Perhaps this hypothesis seems to be in the realm of science fiction, but it doesn’t seem like that anymore if we take into account the fact that in foreign policy Trump is already going into unfathomable areas, demolishing realities that for decades had seemed unassailable and building a reality that was unimaginable until yesterday.
Why would he refrain from this kind of approach at a domestic level, where he has already started to dismantle the rule of law and freedoms?
Why would he refrain from doing so, given the fact that, through forceful external interventions (either already happened, others apparently in progress), Trump can also prepare the ground for declaring an ‘exceptional situation’ at the right time?
