President Trump’s “Big Stick Policies” in Greenland Are Causing Fear in Europe

All of a sudden, the news headlines have filled up with stories of back-and-forth comments from President Donald Trump, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, and Greenlandic Premier (Prime Minister) Jens-Frederik Nielsen. Although this may all be a distraction from whatever new agenda that the global elites are cooking up and the Jeffrey Epstein Files and other scandals within the president’s circles, the current administration is adamant about acquiring the world’s largest island, and European countries are fairly united on preventing the United States from taking it by force. Greenlanders, who seemingly would prefer to remain as part of Denmark (protests of thousands of people have erupted against Trump in Greenland and Denmark), should have a say in their political future, and it is astonishing that Trump supporters, who claim that they believe in the founding principles and the Declaration of Independence, blindly follow their cult leader down the road to forcing a nation to join an empire that it does not wish to be a part of (if you believe that American colonists had the right to self-determination, why would you not be consistent and believe that Greenlanders do too?).

Greenland, which is roughly the size of Alaska and Texas combined and has a population of only about 57,000 (35% of which live within the capital city of Nuuk, and 80% of the island’s land is covered in an ice sheet and is uninhabitable), has some of the largest reserves of rare-earth minerals (particularly neodymium and dysprosium, which are utilized for manufacturing magnets and motors, centered in Kujalleq municipality) that are necessary toward the contribution of modern technology and defense systems (such as semiconductors). Currently, China has access to the majority of these important elements, thus, making jealousy and greed part of Trump’s plans to capture the island, and since China is viewed as a threat, the United States wants to be able to compete and acquire access to more of these minerals. Greenland also has other important resources (cryolite, lead, zinc, silver, coal, iron, uranium, copper, molybdenum, diamonds, graphite, germanium, gallium, and oil and natural gas), so all around, exploiting the land is a strategic goal (germanium is used for fiber-optic wires, while gallium is an important component of semiconductors, and China holds a near monopoly on the latter’s supplies and a majority stake in the former’s). With the race to challenge China’s dominance in acquiring materials for manufacturing and technological advantages (including artificial intelligence, or AI), Greenland becomes of the utmost importance, especially given that there is internal uncertainty around whether the Danish or Greenlandic governments would put restrictions on the mining of rare-earth minerals and undermine efforts for Americans to extract the resources.

Since the Arctic is supposedly becoming warmer, this has also opened up shipping lanes between Russia, Canada, the United States, and Europe, and with Russia and China exploring and developing technologies (including icebreaking ships) to utilize for their own economies, Greenland sits at a strategic point to control the new trade routes. We are essentially seeing a new geopolitical race to colonize and militarize the Arctic, and President Trump does not believe that having a treaty with Denmark and leasing the land for resource mining and military bases (the United States already has Pituffik Space Base, which was formerly Thule Air Base, in the northern reaches of the island, and even after the American threats, North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, exercises were planned like nothing happened) will be enough to keep the island out of the hands of its superpower rivals (Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis suggested that the American president is correct in his national security analysis, and he is the only European leader so far to make such comments). Trump has declared that Denmark is not doing enough to prevent Russia from threatening his interests, so he needs to be in control of the island’s destiny (and its resources).

Greenland was first settled by Norse explorer and Erik the Red, who was banished from Iceland (a Norwegian colony) to establish a new colony on the island around 982 to 986, thus establishing the West (near Nuuk) and East (near Qaqortoq) Settlements; and not too long after that, Inuit Thule people migrated (around 1100) to the island from Canada and began dominating the land as the Norse settlements declined. After Norway and Denmark united into a single kingdom (1537), Denmark gained interests in the island, but it was not until 1721 when Norwegian missionary Hans Egede recolonized it (establishing the city of Nuuk), and by 1814, Norway separated from the union, ceding full rights of Greenland to Denmark.

During World War I, the United States agreed to Denmark’s permanent rule over the entire island (parts of it had been claimed due to exploration) in exchange for purchasing the Danish West Indies (now the United States Virgin Islands, where Jeffrey Epstein’s island was located) to prevent German control over the Caribbean Sea, and now, this treaty is being threatened. After Germany conquered Denmark during World War II, the United States temporarily protected Greenland, and after a few more decades, Denmark granted the island home rule (1979), paving the way for it to achieve autonomous territory status in 2009 (it is still heavily dependent on Denmark for large subsidies just to survive, but it is essentially a constituent country within the Kingdom of Denmark, or Danish Realm).

After the kidnapping of Nicolas Maduro and the regime change war in Venezuela, President Trump’s imperial ambitions were confirmed, and with threats to Cuba, Mexico, and Colombia, it has become apparent that the current administration is looking to create a North American union or expand the direct territory of the United States by declaring the majority of the Western Hemisphere as part of the American Empire. As a result of what White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called a “national security priority,” France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom condemned Trump’s move, affirming that Greenland should remain as part of Denmark. As a symbolic gesture of solidarity with Denmark and Greenland, Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and the Netherlands have made decisions to deploy troops to the island (joining the Danish military) to attempt to dissuade the United States from taking it by force, while Italy and Poland refused to join in, believing that such a deployment would be pointless. Canada, though not in Europe, has considered sending troops as well to protect Denmark’s territorial claims.

If President Trump were to invade Greenland, which seems highly unlikely (though possible), it would cause the crumbling of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Though I believe that NATO is an offensive force that bombs countries opposing American interests and has outlived its relevance and acts more like a welfare system that drains money from American taxpayers to bolster the defenses of European countries that do not pull their own weight, leaving the alliance under these circumstances does not give the United States the moral high ground. If Greenland is to be acquired, it should be done through peaceful and voluntary means (not through force, bribes, or manipulation), and leaving NATO should not be a threat used as a bargaining chip (leave the alliance because it is detrimental, not because you want to get your own way).

However, the federal government has threatened any NATO members that have deployed troops to Greenland with an additional 10% punitive tariff (actually economic sanctions) that would increase to 25% by early summer. Throwing a temper tantrum for not getting what you want is exactly what we should expect from an eighty-year-old man who always gets his way, but utilizing economic terrorism against your allies is stooping to a whole new level of absurdity. Even if the threat of sanctions against fellow NATO members is simply a method for them to come to the table and discuss a deal for how the United States will purchase Greenland (Americans, struggling to pay for basic necessities, do not have the money to spend on frozen territory), what are the moral implications of this?

In response, the European countries affected are planning a series of retaliatory tariffs against the United States (which only harms American citizens and small businesses and not the ultra-wealthy, like Trump), and they may invoke the “Anti-Coercion Instrument,” which could prohibit the United States from continuing opportunities to make investments and perform banking, trade, and digital activities within the European Union (EU). President Trump is starting a trade war with Europe, as he has done with China, and the result may backfire in the end. Americans will only be able to take so much of increased costs of living, and with economic tit-for-tat policies, prices will surely continue to rise. Just because the United States is currently the most powerful empire on earth and can bully weaker nations around for the time being, it does not mean that this status will last forever. Trump can only act like Theordore Roosevelt with his “big stick policy” for so long. Eventually, enough nations will band together to overthrow the current world order run, on the surface but not underneath, by the United States. But, for now, the United States can continue to enjoy global domination and get away with whatever it and the global elites want.

President Trump’s response to European leaders regarding Greenland and the fact that he did not get the Nobel Peace Prize was, “I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace.” It seems that the president was rightfully passed over for the award, and he is now on an imperialistic and bullying path that includes invading and waging war against several countries.

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.

As a sort of fun thought experiment, there is a satirical petition going around to support Denmark forcing the United States to sell California as New Denmark because it is a matter of Danish national security, and the point is to show the ludicrousness of President Trump’s arguments (though, perhaps using the Virgin Islands instead of California would have been more comparable with the historical ties and the fact that Greenland is not part of “Denmark proper”).