President Donald Trump said on Monday that if the United States does not seize Greenland, then China or Russia would, according to ANI. Trump has long pondered whether the United States should seize Greenland for grounds of national security.
Trump Revives Greenland Takeover Argument
Denmark defends Greenland, which has a population of around 57,000. The United States, which maintains a military post on the island, has a far larger military than Denmark’s. Greenlanders have said that they do not wish to join the United States, and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has cautioned that a US invasion of Greenland may herald the end of NATO.
China or Russia will seize Greenland if we don’t. And I will not allow it to occur. Making a deal with them (Greenland) would be wonderful. It is simpler. But we are going to have Greenland in one form or another,” Trump said.
Remarks on Greenland’s Defense and NATO
Trump said, “Greenland, effectively, their defense is two dog sleds,” in reference to the island. Are you aware of that? Do you know how they defend themselves? There are two dog sleds. Meanwhile, Chinese and Russian submarines and destroyers are everywhere. We will not allow it to occur. And if it has an impact on NATO, then it has an impact on NATO, but they depend on us much more than we do.
U.S. President Donald Trump called the Russia-Ukraine crisis “Biden’s war” in reference to his plans to “take over” Greenland and the consequences for NATO and the conflict.
🌍 Why Greenland Matters Strategically
- Location: Key Arctic territory between North America and Europe
- Security: Growing concern over Russia and China’s Arctic presence
- Military: Existing US military base on the island
- NATO Angle: Denmark warns takeover could weaken alliance unity
- Population: About 57,000 residents opposing US annexation
Ukraine War and Trump’s Position
While trying to arbitrate a situation that he stated during his campaign he could handle in a single day, the US president has encountered challenges in fulfilling his pledge to quickly stop the war in Ukraine and has voiced irritation with both Zelenskyy and Putin.
“I do not even want to discuss the fact that we profit from the conflict. My goal is to save lives. Their lives are Ukrainian and Russian. It is Biden’s battle. It ought never to have occurred. If I had been president, that would never have occurred,” he said.
Rare Earths and Economic Interests
In order to prevent China or Russia from seizing Greenland in the future, Trump said on Friday that the United States must seize control of the territory. The Nordic nations have rejected his repeated claims that Chinese and Russian ships are operating close to Greenland.
During a one-year suspension of more stringent regulations that Trump claimed Xi Jinping agreed to in October, the United States is hurrying to boost rare earth supply from sources outside of China, according to the AP.
⛏️ Rare Earths & Global Power Play
- China Dominance: Over 90% of global rare earth supply
- US Response: Investments in MP Materials and recycling firms
- Greenland: Long-term potential, slow development timeline
- Goal: Reduce dependence on Chinese supply chains
- Risk: Military threats could strain global alliances
NATO Spending and Alliance Tensions
Trump has threatened to use military action to seize Greenland if Denmark refuses to sell, although a number of businesses across the globe are already manufacturing rare earths or magnets and can deliver them more quickly than Greenland.
“Everyone has been sprinting to reach this destination. According to Ian Lange, an economics professor at the Colorado School of Mines who specializes in rare earths, visiting Greenland is like traveling back in time.
The U.S. government has directly invested in a lithium mining business, a company that recycles batteries and other items using rare earths, and MP Materials, which runs the nation’s only rare earths mine.
According to Scott Dunn, CEO of Noveon Magnetics, these investments might lessen China’s dominance, but because more than 90% of the world’s rare earths come from China, it is still challenging to fast tip the scales.
Dunn stated, “There are very few folks that can rely on a track record for delivering anything in each of these instances, and that obviously should be where we start, especially if you are the U.S. government,” according to the AP. Dunn’s company currently produces more than 2,000 metric tons of magnets annually at a plant in Texas using materials it sources outside of China.
Trump’s Claims on NATO Contributions
On Sunday, Trump refuted that idea and claimed credit for bolstering NATO by pressuring its members to boost their defense spending. “I am not only someone who rescued NATO,” he said. It was me who persuaded them to spend 5.5% of GDP. They were not paying, and it used to be 2%. They are now paying 5%. It was me who kept NATO together.
He said, “I like NATO.” Then he said, “Would they be there for us if we needed NATO? I doubt they would.
In reality, only once has NATO’s Article 5—which views an assault on one member as an attack on all—been activated, after the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, which led to NATO’s military action in Afghanistan.
European Response and Arctic Security
This week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will meet with German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, who will discuss the Greenland problem and NATO’s potential to contribute to regional security.
Wadephul said in a statement on Sunday, “Because security in the Arctic is becoming more vital, I also want to explore on my trip how we can best shoulder this duty in NATO – in light of ancient and emerging rivalry in the area by Russia and China — jointly.” “We would want to talk about this in NATO.”
Imran Bayoumi, an associate director at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Centre for Strategy and Security, reportedly told the Associated Press that he doubted Trump would seize Greenland by force because it is unpopular with both Democratic and Republican lawmakers and would probably “fundamentally alter” US relations with allies around the world.
But the U.S. raid to apprehend Venezuela’s leader this month and the administration’s more aggressive remarks about potentially using military force to seize Greenland have forced European leaders to swiftly devise a reaction. Germany is to suggest the establishment of a combined NATO mission to protect the Arctic, according to a Bloomberg article that cited sources.
Frequently asked questions
1. What is Donald Trump’s motivation for wanting the US to annex Greenland?
Trump contends that Greenland is strategically crucial to US national security and asserts that China or Russia may increase their military presence there if the US does nothing.
2. Does Greenland want to join the US?
No, Greenlanders and Denmark have made it quite plain that they do not want to be part of the United States and that Greenland is not for sale.
3. What effects could a US occupation of Greenland have on NATO?
As a NATO member, Denmark has cautioned that such a move may seriously undermine NATO unity and perhaps herald the alliance’s demise.
4. Is there proof of military activities by China or Russia close to Greenland?
Nordic nations have rejected Trump’s assertions that Chinese and Russian ships are operating close to Greenland as false or inflated.
5. Is Greenland essential for rare earth minerals?
Greenland has the capacity to produce rare earth elements, but experts believe it would take years to develop these resources, and the US already has quicker options outside of China.
Conclusion
Global discussions over Arctic security, NATO unity, and the great-power competition with China and Russia have resurfaced as a result of Donald Trump’s reinvigorated desire to take control of Greenland.
Strong resistance from Denmark, the people of Greenland, and US allies indicates that any attempt—especially by force—would seriously strain international ties, despite Trump’s framing of the problem as one of national security and economic interest.
The most practical way to maintain peace in the strategically important Arctic area, according to experts, is still diplomatic cooperation within NATO rather than territorial aspirations.
