Close Menu
    Geopolitik

    Ein US-Angriff auf Grönland würde das Ende der Nato bedeuten, sagt der dänische Premierminister


    Ein US-Angriff auf Grönland würde das Ende der Nato bedeuten, sagt der dänische Premierminister

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/05/trump-must-give-up-fantasies-about-annexation-says-greenland-pm

    View 29 Comments

    29 Kommentare

    2. Soft-Ingenuity2262 on

      Yeah, no shit. That’s best case scenario if the takeover actually happens. What’s next is the issue. A weakened EU with militaristic autocrats on the east and the west.

    3. Grime_Fandango_ on

      The issue is – the US doesn’t care. It can look after itself without NATO. The end of NATO doesn’t threaten them – it threatens Eastern Europe.

    4. Bob_Spud on

      Why has it taken such a long time for any of substance to highlight something that is obvious? Trump has been on about this for a long time.

      Why has the mainstream media also been silent on the implications to NATO. I have never seen anything that suggests or implies that an attack on Greenland could cause the end of NATO.

    5. ApostleofV8 on

      So, who will get the honor of freezing their balls off occupying the place, so Elon and the tech oligarchy can swim in lithium and eating caviar in sunny Miami?

    7. PolarizingKabal on

      I don’t think it will come to that.

      But I think Denmark really needs to consider just selling it to the US and cut their losses.

      Let’s be real, the country is literally 1/3 of the size of the US, with a population no bigger than a small city. Literally a population the same size as my own city, w/56k.

      For all intents and purposes, Greenland is just an extension of the Artic outpost.

      I also find it absurdly funny that „greenlanders“ want independence from Denmark, yet only „when they are financially capable of it“.

      The country is literally comparable to Puerto Rico. I don’t think they have a say in any sale of the country.

    8. DaySecure7642 on

      TBH, many NATO countries these days are helping the biggest adversary of the US, China, more than anyone else. The EU alone absorbed 500 billion of China exports, almost cancelled the effects of the US tariffs. In the process the EU incurs hundreds of billions of trade deficits to China.

      The EU also sold IPs and did lots of stupid tech transfer deals with China that greatly accelerated its growth. Very often the EU might gain only a few years market access and profits, before eventually pushed out of the markets by Chinese companies. On top of the traditional industries that are struggling, the high-end EV, battery and very soon lithography, semiconductor industries will be obliterated by China.

      The EU either doesn’t understand the dynamics of the exploitative trade practice of China, or „thinking“ that it is betting on both sides. In reality it is just betting against itself and the US while helping China for nothing.

      The EU needs to pick a side. You can’t expect the US to pour in billions of dollars to protect you, while facilitating the rapid growth of China. Keep doing that and eventually the EU will become the enemy of the US.

    9. EconomistStreet5295 on

      Here’s the deal. We all assume the EU maintains its current policy position, but we are all forgetting the continental shift towards the far right. What this means is that in 5 years we might find ourselves in a situation where European governments might suddenly be ideologically aligned with the states. Specifically the UK, Germany, France, Poland. At that point the NATO question becomes more interesting.

      The EU is dependant on the US in terms of nuclear deterrent, access to Tech and logistic. We cannot afford to lose our NATO alliance at this stage, we are to keep it simple, stuck for the foreseeable future. We would require continent wide agreement and a real joint effort to be able to become autonomous. As we have seen with the recent vote of accessing Russian assets, that we don’t have this solidarity for the sake of European interests.

      It’s going to be very interesting to see if we can build a united sense of identity and a sense of European momentum in order to survive as a geographic bloc in a world of hard power. Ideologically we must stand as the democratic counterpart to Authoritarian blocs, namely China, Russia and the US.

      What we need is a new way of communicating with voters, alongside processes to exert pressure on member states like Hungary that deviate from the necessary continental policy direction. That is what will define the validity of a European military alliance that will help us replace NATO.

    10. ThetaCygni on

      No shit. But I think people would prefer knowing of an actual plan in case of war. Because just babbling about the end of NATO isn’t enough

    11. WateredDown on

      Well yeah, thats what Putin and Xi want. The nationalists get thier big boy ego stroke, the elites get resources to extract, the Russian/Chinese plants get the dissolution of thier rivals alliance. The only Trump admin faction without a direct dog in this hunt are the theocrats but a swelling tide raises all ships.

    13. ObjectiveMall on

      I’m not sure if the dissolution of NATO would be in Europe’s best interests.

    14. Jodid0 on

      Now who on earth would benefit the most from NATO being fractured and cut up? Especially when it’s the US breaking off from the rest. Who stands to gain the most from an invasion of Greenland? Then ask yourself who has President Trump rolled out the red carpet for in both terms?

    17. dirgela on

      Europeans keep on saying that „you can’t just annex a part of another country“. But Trump completely disagrees – he recognized Israel’s annexation of Golan heights, West Bank (at least Jerusalem), keeps on pushing Zelensky to give up territory to Russia. he clearly believes that it is just o.k. to occupy another country or part of it „if you really need it“.

    18. Baselines_shift on

      ‚Crucially, Trump’s argument for seizing Greenland shows a misunderstanding of Arctic security. When he says, “Russian and Chinese ships are all over the place” along Greenland’s coast, he’s mixing up different parts of the Arctic. Russia and China do send ships into the Arctic, but those ships are nowhere near Greenland. They’re way out in the Barents and Bering Seas, thousands of miles away.

      The U.S. Coast Guard has encountered Chinese and Russian warships, bombers, and coast guard vessels [operating](https://www.isdp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/SP-Arctic-Sep-2025-final.pdf#page=23&zoom=auto,-222,689) together off Alaska’s coast. That’s where American attention would be better [applied](https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/alaska-greenland-should-worry-the-united-states-arctic/) when it comes to Arctic security, not Greenland.

      # Taking a step back

      Instead of threatening force or coercion, Washington should focus on deals that benefit both sides and respect Greenland’s right to govern itself. That means treating Greenland’s government as a partner, not a prize.

      Denmark’s intelligence service [points](https://www.fe-ddis.dk/en/produkter/Risk_assessment/riskassessment/intelligence-outlook-2025/) out that America’s unpredictable approach pushes countries to cut deals with China instead. Ironically, Trump’s push to buy Greenland to counter China could backfire, making Beijing seem like a more stable and reasonable partner compared to Washington’s existential threat.‘

      **Source:** [https://responsiblestatecraft.org/trump-greenland-next/](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/trump-greenland-next/)

    20. Pepphen77 on

      That would be in Russia’s best interest. So I guess that is Trump’s best interest.

    21. czk_21 on

      taking Greenland by force doesnt make sense for US

      1. they already have military presence on the island and can enlarge it

      2. there are lot of resources, but guess what there are lot of resources in the US itself! and they are lot easier to access and lot cheaper to extract than in Greenland

      3. it would create huge fallout with US allies, yes maybe even end of current NATO framework, instead of it could remain just european part of NATO, ETO? and NATO is net benefit for the US as well

      basically its not really in the interest of the US as a state, but only in interest of trump to satisfy his ego

    22. Alarmed_Fee_4820 on

      So does nato article 5 protect members even from fellow rogue nato states? Especially its most powerful member?

    23. Uneeda_Biscuit on

      I don’t think it would be an attack per se, the US would just take it and Denmark would not be able to do anything.

    24. Competitive_Ask881 on

      Genuine question, Denmark were about to give Greenlanders the right to vote for independence and they would most likely do so. Why do they know care that the US will take them now?

    25. RedditConsciousness on

      There is no possible world in which the US attacks Greenland.

      Also, the US should get out of NATO.

    28. 0fiuco on

      Danish PM is supposed to say something that make the u.s. think twice about taking greenland. If you say that is the end of NATO they would hit two birds with a stone and would want to take greenland even more.

    29. ultrapernik on

      any logical reasons for Trump’s demands though? afaik geopolitics usually analyses reasonings.

    Leave A Reply