A MOST DANGEROUS MAN

Politics among western governments risk spinning out of control, largely because of the actions of one man. US President Donald Trump has raised the stakes in his efforts to annex Greenland from Denmark. He wrote on social media on 14 January that 'anything less' than US control over the territory would be 'unacceptable'. His ostensible justification is that Russia or China 'will get it' if the US does not. This, according to Trump, is because Denmark and NATO have done too little to protect Greenland. He has refused to rule out using military means to acquire the island, and I think that possibility has to be contemplated in earnest by NATO members.

It should be acknowledged that the competition in the Arctic is one of the most pressing geopolitical challenges of today. As maritime routes and mining opportunities open up owing to the melting icecap, it is China and Russia that have been developing the relevant capabilities to take advantage. The US did not need to be left behind. In recognition that Greenland is a vital component of the North Atlantic area, and aware that Denmark has modest resources to defend it alone, a 1950s agreement between the US and Denmark provides for NATO protection of the island, giving the US significant freedoms to operate militarily (and more besides) on Greenland. Thus, the latent means to defend the territory from China or Russia exist.

The ongoing row over Greenland therefore suggests something different. I wish to argue that it shows the US is presently a greater danger to NATO than Russia. Europeans need to abandon the soft soap and start to stand up to Trump. They should not expect constraints within the US political system to curb his expansionist ambitions.

Tyrant Trump demands more land

Claims that the latest row is all about NATO's inadequacy in defending Greenland from Russia and China are dubious. This is evident when one considers three things: what has actually happened in recent days, US Arctic policy up until today, and the very premise that Russia and China are a direct threat to the strategically-important island.

The 14 January post: the first salvo in the latest round of Trump's land grab ambitions on Greenland

Following Trump's 14 January social media post, the Danish government announced that it was moving more land, sea and air forces to Greenland, in conjunction with conducting military drills with seven NATO allies.

Trump responded to those military drills by 'announcing' tariffs on Denmark and the seven other allies; he said they were 'playing a very dangerous game.' He also said Denmark had only 'two dogsleds' to defend the island. I noticed someone write on social media that Trump is punishing Denmark with tariffs for moving soldiers on its own territory. It is worse than that. He is punishing Denmark for doing what he said was necessary: making an effort to protect the territory of Greenland. If Trump was genuinely concerned above all with keeping the territory away from China and Russia, he should be glad to have seen Denmark respond so swiftly.

America's past actions also contradict the logic of Trump's claim. The US has invested poorly in the Arctic over recent years; it has not taken the threat seriously enough. The US has only three icebreakers, although more are on order, and that is just one example as to why it is in a weak position to compete with China or Russia. Trump has no one but the US itself to blame for its lack of competitiveness. (Denmark operates several lighter icebreakers; it retired heavier ones in the 2010s but plans to acquire an icebreaker capability for the Arctic.)

If the US had wished to enhance Greenland's defences, it already had the means to do so. The 1951 agreement with Denmark allows the US a more or less free hand to build military facilities on the island (China and Russia enjoy no such privilege). Article II of the agreement says that the US can install and operate military facilities, station personnel, without any compensation to Denmark. The agreement establishes that the laws of Denmark do not apply in such areas that the US is using for military purposes. It acknowledges that the US bears a responsibility for working with Denmark to defend Greenland as part of NATO-covered territory.

Denmark has said it is willing for the US to expand its presence under the terms of the 1951 agreement. Denmark has been a loyal US ally. It should be remembered that Denmark proved one of the most willing contributors to the US war on terror, losing more soldiers as a proportion of its population in Afghanistan than anyone other than the US itself and Georgia.

Another relevant point here is that the premise that China or Russia might 'seize' Greenland seems fanciful. Russia is only making advances in Ukraine because the US ended its support for Kyiv, and those advances are incremental. Russia does not look in a position to 'seize' Greenland any time soon even if it wanted to. As to China, it has certainly considerably expanded its influence globally but geography does not favour its chances of 'seizing' Greenland. Trump, combining the two rivals into a single threat, claimed: 'Outside of Greenland right now, there are Russian destroyers, there are Chinese destroyers, bigger, there are Russian submarines all over the place.' That has been roundly rebutted as nonsense.

The contest for the Arctic is fierce and I do not disagree that both Russia and China are stealing a march on the US, but I'm unconvinced that they are a military threat to Greenland.

Trump is petulant and boorish. We can tell ourselves that it is immature to react – but is that not just seeking comfort in our own weakness? Can we stand up to the bully?

NATO wobbles

These details betray that Trump's initial claims were mere pretext; as he said plainly, he wants the territory and no other outcome is acceptable to him. This has an important implication for Europeans. Namely, their efforts to persuade him that his grievances can be resolved through NATO's collective defence provisions will miss the mark. It suggests that he is motivated by control over the island's mineral wealth at least as much as defending against an armed attack from China or Russia. Finding solutions with the US through NATO – as many European allies seem committed to, and which seemed to spur Danish and Greenlandic ministers when they talked to Secretary of State Marco Rubio on 14 January – is consequently Panglossian and a waste of effort.

The Trump baby blimp. Photo by Ritchie333, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=57935634

The possibility of the US annexing Greenland by force is therefore a serious prospect. I would even argue that the US is a bigger risk to NATO right now than Russia. Maybe this should not be a surprise, given the US president once called the alliance 'obsolete', but to threaten to annex territory from a NATO ally is nonetheless staggering.

The US is the biggest risk to NATO today because it has the means to carry out its threats. By contrast Russia, however much it might eye the Baltic states, is bogged down in Ukraine and not in a strong position to attack a NATO member state in the short term.

It is hard to see NATO surviving if its largest member state annexes territory by force from another member state. NATO has survived disputes among its members (Turkey and Greece over Cyprus in the 1970s), but this would be a different order of magnitude. Trust in the US's treaty promises to its allies would plummet. Trump is simply not invested in NATO and speaks as if the US were not a member of the alliance. He clearly does not see it as a provider of mutual gains, seeming to believe it serves Europe's interests alone and that Europeans are ungrateful.

Trump throws his toys out of the pram

19 January: Trump invokes 'the Russian threat'?

Europe needs to respond to Trump's threats as forcefully as it is able. I wrote in my previous blog that rather than trying to constrain Trump's America, Europeans need to adapt to it. I am having second thoughts about what adapting means.

It may be that trying to constrain Trump's policy is futile, but Europeans do have to find a way of hurting Trump. Flattering him may worked in the past, but there should be few doubts that he is serious in his expansionist goals. We can tell ourselves that it is immature to react – but are we not really just seeking comfort in our own weakness? The UK, especially, appears too dependent on the US to stand in Trump's way. How is its soft-soap policy working out? It sent one officer to take part in the Greenland military exercise; sending one person has brought the threat of a 10% tariff on all exports to the US.

The US sent the Speaker in the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, to address British parliamentarians and 'calm the waters'. It was a meaningless gesture; the waters are choppy because of the US and Johnson's platitudes cannot be trusted.

This is the cleft stick Europeans are in: doing nothing risks emboldening Trump, whilst doing anything risks demonstrating that his convictions are right and that Europe is weak

Europeans cannot rely on the checks and balances within the US political system. At the moment, some Republicans in Congress are criticising Trump's approach to the issue. Others claim that a US takeover of Greenland will not happen, suggesting it is 'a negotiating tactic'. But critics have a habit of changing their tune on Trump. We should remember that JD Vance was once a 'never Trump guy' who considered he might have to vote for Hillary Clinton; Marco Rubio once said people 'will be having to explain and justify how they fell into this trap of supporting Trump because this is not going to end well one way or the other': today they are vice president and secretary of state, respectively. Thankfully people change their minds in the opposite direction, as well.

On 20 January, Trump posted an AI-generated image of him briefing Europeans on the annexation of Canada. I do not think he is making a joke.

As in any crisis, EU officials are harping on about this being 'Europe's moment' to act. I am ever sceptical but would dearly like to be proved wrong. The main tool on the table appears to be France's Emmanuel Macron's call for the EU to deploy its 'trade bazooka'; the 'anti-coercion instrument' (to give it its formal name) was designed to protect the bloc from economic coercion, mainly with the Chinese in mind. But in the event that there is sufficient support for the measure, it would take months to come into force.

Less likely still is the eviction of the US from its military bases on European soil. That would be something Trump would have to take note of. But Europeans will not do it because they lack confidence in themselves to enforce it if US troops refused to comply with orders. Would Europeans really employ muscle to remove US troops by force it they refused to leave? I doubt it. Besides, the withdrawal of US troops would undermine the continent's defences against Russia. This is the cleft stick Europeans are in: doing nothing will embolden Trump, but doing anything risks demonstrating that Trump's convictions are right and that they are weak.

The EU has other options. One of the most viable is to deny overflight rights to US military and spy aircraft; though that, too, risks the enforcement challenge. They could expel US diplomats, but I doubt they will even issue a démarche in protest. If Europe does not find a way to be more forceful, Trump's imperialist appetite will likely only grow.

Trump is petulant and boorish. His letter to Norway's prime minister, widely shared on Monday morning, connected his prospective land grab to being snubbed (as he sees it) by the Nobel committee. Since he was not awarded the peace prize, he says, he 'no longer feel an obligation' to pursue peace at all costs. He has said he wants Canada to become a state of the US; what is to stop him moving on to Canada next if non-American allies are too weak to stop a Greenland grab? The toys are all over the floor. Can anyone seriously doubt how dangerous this man is?

This post is free to read. Please consider sharing with your network. If you don't already subscribe, you can do so here.