Warum Donald Trump Grönland (und alles andere) will

On Tuesday, giddy after the success of a daring weekend raid to capture the Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, Trump’s White House put out a statement threatening Denmark, a NATO ally, with military action if it did not hand over Greenland. It was “a threat so reminiscent of Vladimir Putin’s bald demands in the run-up to his invasion of Ukraine that it had Russian officials openly cheering,” Susan B. Glasser writes. In the days since, Trump has insisted that the United States simply must have the vast, sparsely populated, and resource-rich territory. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is set to meet with Denmark’s leaders next week to present terms. Seven European nations put out a joint statement condemning the threats, leading to yet another Trump statement claiming that it was the Europeans who could not be trusted to defend their fellow alliance members.

What some of Trump’s own senior officials once viewed as the delusional musings of a dilettante have now become a genuine international crisis, one that could lead—or maybe it already has led—to the effective end of NATO. After this week, is there anyone who can credibly claim to be sure that the United States, under Trump, would honor the commitment to mutual defense that is the foundation of the alliance? At the link, Glasser writes about the burgeoning international crisis.

There are several reasons:

1. Abundant energy reserves: oil and natural gas.

2. Rich mineral resources: large deposits of rare earth minerals and 31 types of critical minerals identified by the European Union.

3. Abundant water resources: This is often overlooked. The Great Lakes in the United States are severely polluted, and the importance of water resources in the future may rival that of oil. Greenland is the world’s second-largest freshwater reserve.

4. Strategic geographic location: With global warming, Arctic sea ice is melting at an accelerated rate. The commercial potential of the Arctic shipping route is becoming increasingly prominent, as it can reduce shipping times and bypass traditional strategic chokepoints like the Suez Canal and Panama Canal, which are vulnerable to disruption.

5. Enhanced military deterrence: Due to factors such as deindustrialization and the decline of the shipbuilding industry in the United States, there are growing doubts about American military strength worldwide. The U.S.’s most significant global export—the U.S. dollar—relies on oil settlements and military deterrence. When necessary, expanding territory or establishing colonies serves as a warning to other nations: be cautious and do not defy the United States.

In fact, the United States’ approach has never changed. However, due to shifts in the global landscape, it can no longer maintain the facade of a values-based alliance. Ironically, only when the United States turns its attention to Europe do Europeans speak out to accuse it of being undemocratic or imperialist. Consider the countries in Latin America, the Middle East, and other regions—they have faced such circumstances for decades.