Why Trump Is Threatening to Attack Denmark (Yup, He Is)

In other words, the core security functions that make Greenland important are already being performed by the United States, with Danish consent, under NATO frameworks, and with Greenland’s local authorities involved. From a strictly military perspective, there is no access problem to solve. Asking for sovereignty would be like demanding to take over Britain. Or Venezuela or Gaza.

This distinction between access and ownership is central. Modern power is built on treaties, basing agreements, alliances, and collaborations. The United States has bases in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Qatar, and dozens of other countries. It does not “own” or “run” those territories and does not need to.

That said, the United States has explored buying Greenland before. In 1946, President Truman offered Denmark $100 million in gold for the island (worth about $1.6 billion today – strangely little, considering that it’s about a week’s savings account interest on the fortune of Elon Musk). Denmark predictably declined. The matter ended. There was certainly no Trumpy public bellicosity, because Truman was an adult.

Historians view this episode as the last moment when territorial purchases still fit within accepted diplomatic practice. After the creation of NATO and the consolidation of the UN system, sovereignty stopped being treated as a commodity. Since then, the American approach has been to secure everything it needs through cooperation rather than possession. That basically worked, and enjoyed the benefit of legitimacy.

Trump’s rhetoric introduces instead the idea that if something is important to US security, it should belong to the United States. That principle, once adopted, has no natural stopping point.

Trump and his goons point to China and Russia. He has repeatedly suggested that if America does not “get” Greenland, one of them will.

But neither country has made territorial claims on Greenland. Russia is militarizing the Arctic, expanding bases and patrols along its northern coast, but it treats Greenland as part of NATO territory. China, for its part, has pursued economic influence rather than sovereignty, seeking investment footholds in mining, airports, ports, and infrastructure projects.

Several of those Chinese initiatives were blocked by Danish and Greenlandic authorities precisely because of US and NATO security concerns. A proposed Chinese-backed airport project in 2018 was stopped after Denmark stepped in with funding. China’s interest is real, but it is economic and political, not territorial. It operates through contracts and capital, not conquest. Russia’s interest is military and strategic, but it has shown no intention of challenging Greenland’s sovereignty directly. There is no vacuum waiting to be filled.

So the US is being aggressive and expansionist in a way that hasn’t been tried for over a century and the consequences for NATO are devastating. The alliance is built on the assumption that borders among its members are settled. Denmark is a founding NATO member. Greenland is part of the Danish realm, with extensive self-rule and a clear path toward possible future independence.

The moral authority of NATO rests on the idea that it exists to deter coercion – and by outsiders. That it is happening internally is absurd, explaining the European agitation. This undermines the entire logic of the post-1945 order.

For anyone who needs a reminder, NATO and the post-World War II order were useful because they institutionalized the idea that power should be constrained by rules, and security should be collective rather than coercive. After two catastrophes born of unchecked nationalism and great-power bullying, the alliance system was designed not just to deter external aggression, but to make war between its own members unthinkable. The post-1945 order was built to replace fear with predictability, zero-sum bullying with mutual obligations, and raw strength with legitimacy. It has kept the West relatively stable for nearly eighty years, created huge prosperity for America, and spread it around the globe no little.

Several of those Chinese initiatives were blocked by Danish and Greenlandic authorities precisely because of US and NATO security concerns. A proposed Chinese-backed airport project in 2018 was stopped after Denmark stepped in with funding. China’s interest is real, but it is economic and political, not territorial. It operates through contracts and capital, not conquest. Russia’s interest is military and strategic, but it has shown no intention of challenging Greenland’s sovereignty directly. There is no vacuum waiting to be filled.

So the US is being aggressive and expansionist in a way that hasn’t been tried for over a century and the consequences for NATO are devastating. The alliance is built on the assumption that borders among its members are settled. Denmark is a founding NATO member. Greenland is part of the Danish realm, with extensive self-rule and a clear path toward possible future independence.

The moral authority of NATO rests on the idea that it exists to deter coercion – and by outsiders. That it is happening internally is absurd, explaining the European agitation. This undermines the entire logic of the post-1945 order.

For anyone who needs a reminder, NATO and the post-World War II order were useful because they institutionalized the idea that power should be constrained by rules, and security should be collective rather than coercive. After two catastrophes born of unchecked nationalism and great-power bullying, the alliance system was designed not just to deter external aggression, but to make war between its own members unthinkable. The post-1945 order was built to replace fear with predictability, zero-sum bullying with mutual obligations, and raw strength with legitimacy. It has kept the West relatively stable for nearly eighty years, created huge prosperity for America, and spread it around the globe no little.