It is likely the Pentagon has had plans on hand for decades about how to invade Canada, Greenland, etc. Cadets at West Point sometimes get assignments like that, or so I have heard.
To me the article is rather vague and woolly about what Europe should actually do about this though. I mean, a sentence like "Even as the US exerts hegemonic influence, Europe's role as a convener could ensure that Greenland remains a space for multilateral co-ordination" is Euro-vacillation at its finest.
I suspect that Europe will not offer Greenland EU membership because WHAT IF Greenland accepts EU membership and Trump invades anyway? What then? Is the EU really prepared to go to war with America? Geopolitically I think this is what we have to be thinking of. Europe now has to consider not just the military threat of Russia, but the potential military threat of the USA.
Thee one problem I see with using airborne troops landing in Greenland, the US would have to fly over Canadian airspace unless they fly way out to the mid-Atlantic and then fly north. Just not going to happen in my book.
For one thing, the US may soon have all on with the Iranian issue - and I hope not militarily as that could make things worse.
Whilst the US could operate unilaterally on that, it still wouldn't be wise to piss off its European allies by annexing Greenland.
I suspect what's happening is that the various European powers will 'show willing' for a bit by stepping up Arctic patrols in order to play for time until a deal can be brokered that is more acceptable than threatened military action - whether or not those threats are empty.
It comes to something though, that we are even talking like this when we've had a close military alliance with the US since 1941 and Canada the same.
Would there be an alternative to the use of airborne troops in your opinion, @Gramps49? A seaborne operation by US special forces?
Obviously a combined air and sea operation would be their best option but as I've suggested upthread, we are only talking about a handful of key population centres and installations.
I can't see the US resorting to military means any time soon, not because the current administration isn't capable of being so shitty, but due to the logistical issues.
They clearly hold their allies in complete and utter contempt and that's one of the main take-aways from this.
No. They withdrew in 1985. The EU has not been consistent about overseas territories but more often excludes them.
The inconsistency is more often than not that "overseas territory" is a blanket term that covers a wide range of different relationships between European nations and bits of real estate in different parts of the world. That covers both the legal status of territories and the particular treaties that may be involved, and how the people of those territories view themselves. There are some overseas territories that consider themselves very much part of the "mother country" and are very unlikely to change (eg: the people of Gibraltar definitely consider themselves British), others where the ties are looser and the territory is on a trajectory towards independence (which is the case for Greenland).
When Denmark joined the EU (or, rather the European Communities as it was at the time) in 1973, the Greenland also joined (the Faroe Islands, on the other hand, chose to remain outside the EC - mainly because of fishing rights). As Greenland gained more autonomy, the people of Greenland voted to leave the EU in 1982, with a 3 year process to do so. If Greenland wishes to rejoin the EU there would need to be a vote of the population to do so, and the EU would need to accept their application (which would also mean Greenland would need to meet the economic conditions of membership). It's not something that could happen overnight, especially given the trajectory towards independence (which means that the Greenland economy would need to be considered on it's own merits and not as part of the Danish economy).
"If we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark," [Mr Nielsen] said.
"One thing must be clear to everyone. Greenland does not want to be owned by the United States. Greenland does not want to be governed by the United States. Greenland does not want to be part of the United States."
I wonder which part of that is not understood by the odious Trump?
I can't help but wonder what he's got planned for the 200th anniversary of the US declaration of independence. Having that as the date of the annexation of Greenland and it's admittance as the 51st state is something that has surely been mooted.
Presumably you mean 250th anniversary. I'm just a mere nuclear physicist but the difference between 1776 and 2026 isn't 200.
The problem, of course, is that the United States is a federal nation formed by treaties between States (that's literally what 'federal' means), I can't see how a treaty between Greenland and the current 50 states could be negotiated and agreed by 4th July - or even the end of the year so it's part of the anniversary year. Even if the Greenland people and government wanted that.
I keep wondering why Trump would want to add additional states that would be like to elect Democrat Senators? Or is his plan never to have elections again?
I don't think he needs to invade. He'll try another deal at some point.
He's on a roll after seizing Maduro but has bigger fish to fry with Iran.
He knows that the European powers aren't in a position to hit back at the US over any annexation of Greenland so will bide his time, or what passes for that in the mind of someone who wants everything yesterday.
I keep wondering why Trump would want to add additional states that would be like to elect Democrat Senators? Or is his plan never to have elections again?
Annexing Greenland does not mean that it will become a state. It will just be a territory. Clearly Puerto Rico ought to be a state, but it isn't.
I keep wondering why Trump would want to add additional states that would be like to elect Democrat Senators? Or is his plan never to have elections again?
If Puerto Rico is anything to go by, it could be a very long time indeed before an annexed Greenland becomes a state of the United States of America.
It would be a pretty weird state with such a small population. Google claims Wyoming is the least populous state with around 600 thousand, and Greenland is a tenth of that. By contrast Puerto Rico has over 3 million inhabitants, which would be a very respectable size for a state and garner it 4 House representatives.
It would be a pretty weird state with such a small population. Google claims Wyoming is the least populous state with around 600 thousand, and Greenland is a tenth of that. By contrast Puerto Rico has over 3 million inhabitants, which would be a very respectable size for a state and garner it 4 House representatives.
Puerto Rico is rather unique. The island is pretty evenly divided. About a third of the population favors statehood, a third favors remaining a commonwealth, and a third favors independence. Then too Republicans in Congress are very resistant to granting statehood because it will very likely come in as a democratic state. There are also economic and fiscal concerns.
I suspect part of the European reaction comes from the discomfort of colonial powers contemplating the prospect of being subjected to colonialism.
Except that Greenland is a(n arguably former) colony rather than a colonial power. It's not Denmark itself that Trump is trying to annexe. It's an attempt to treat the modern world like the 19th century, when the US could simply buy colonies (Alaska, Louisiana) or take them by force (New Mexico, California) from other colonial powers.
Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark (and Greenlanders are EU citizens, even if Greenland isn't part of the EU). I would say that the prevailing European perspective (or narrative) is that Greenland is part of Europe.
Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark (and Greenlanders are EU citizens, even if Greenland isn't part of the EU). I would say that the prevailing European perspective (or narrative) is that Greenland is part of Europe.
This.
Geographically, perhaps the country isn't part of Europe, but that's not the point. It's how Greenlanders view themselves that's pertinent.
But how do Greenlanders view themselves? I'm not sure they view themselves as European, exactly. And I'm not sure that Europeans really thought of Greenland as European exactly either. In fact I suspect that most Europeans didn't think about Greenland much at all.
I think the distress is not really about being treated "as a colony" but rather simply about being bullied. Of course being made a colony is an extreme example of being bullied but I think it's a red herring in this instance.
Sweden is preparing to send troops to Greenland at Denmark's request. First, it is sending a contingent of officers who will lay the groundwork for a larger deployment. Not sure how many troops Sweden is preparing to send.
Sweden is preparing to send troops to Greenland at Denmark's request. First, it is sending a contingent of officers who will lay the groundwork for a larger deployment. Not sure how many troops Sweden is preparing to send.
Interesting. Do you have a linky?
Sweden is already preoccupied with defending Gotland from the Russians...
While much has been said by Europeans about what matters is how Greenlanders view themselves, and what Greenlanders want, I think that the legacy of colonialism mean that this is more good public relations, or wishful thinking, on the part of former colonialists. As things stand (according to European thinking), it's the Kingdom of Denmark that has the final say on what happens to any part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
More generally, I think the issue of the fate of Greenland is forcing Europeans to face a question that they haven't previously had to answer definitively, which is what Europe is, in the sense of belonging, either in the sense of a group of territories that belong together, or in the sense of a unified territory that belongs to a group of people with a discernible sense of self.
From the perspective of sovereignty, "America belongs to Americans" in a way that "Europe belongs to Europeans" hasn't really been tested, up to now.
Sweden is preparing to send troops to Greenland at Denmark's request. First, it is sending a contingent of officers who will lay the groundwork for a larger deployment. Not sure how many troops Sweden is preparing to send.
Interesting. Do you have a linky?
Sweden is already preoccupied with defending Gotland from the Russians...
Sweden is preparing to send troops to Greenland at Denmark's request. First, it is sending a contingent of officers who will lay the groundwork for a larger deployment. Not sure how many troops Sweden is preparing to send.
Interesting. Do you have a linky?
Sweden is already preoccupied with defending Gotland from the Russians...
Some more now from the new statement issued by the Danish armed forces.
"From today, there will be an expanded military presence in and around Greenland", it says.
This will see an increase "comprising aircraft, vessels and soldiers, including from Nato allies." Further down the statement, it names some of the Nato countries that will contribute as Germany, France, Sweden and Norway.
It adds that the government of Greenland and the Danish ministry of defence will "continue to collaborate closely" on this to "ensure local involvement".
Greenland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and Research Vivan Motzfeldt says that it is a "core priority" that Greenland's security and defence "are strengthened, that this is achieved in close cooperation with our Nato allies."
The Danish Minister for Defence Troels Lund Poulsen says that “security in the Arctic is of crucial importance" to Denmark and, together with Arctic and European allies, the country "will explore in the coming weeks how an increased presence and exercise activity in the Arctic can be implemented in practice".
Whilst in the post meeting Greenland and Danish ministers are making a point of quoting NATO article 5 whilst also trying to speak nicely about the US.
But how do Greenlanders view themselves? I'm not sure they view themselves as European, exactly. And I'm not sure that Europeans really thought of Greenland as European exactly either. In fact I suspect that most Europeans didn't think about Greenland much at all.
I think the distress is not really about being treated "as a colony" but rather simply about being bullied. Of course being made a colony is an extreme example of being bullied but I think it's a red herring in this instance.
The Prime Minister of Greenland's exact words were 'If we have to choose between Europe and America, we choose Europe.'
In other words, they would really prefer to be left alone but as the rule of international law is breaking down, they would prefer to be aligned with the bloc that still believes in it.
While much has been said by Europeans about what matters is how Greenlanders view themselves, and what Greenlanders want, I think that the legacy of colonialism mean that this is more good public relations, or wishful thinking, on the part of former colonialists. As things stand (according to European thinking), it's the Kingdom of Denmark that has the final say on what happens to any part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Though, since 2009 the Kingdom of Denmark has recognised that Greenlanders have the right to self determination and given the Greenlandic Parliament the powers to trigger the process of becoming independent. The Kingdom of Denmark has had their final say on the future of Greenland - that's that they're going to let Greenlanders do what they want. Until such a time as Greenlanders choose independence, Denmarks final say is limited to defence and foreign policy.
The Self-Government Act [2009] transfers virtually all powers of governance to the Greenland local authorities, with the exception of defence, monetary policy and external relations. In fact, Greenland can even conclude treaties independently of Denmark. However, this does not extend to agreements affecting its status within Denmark.
Crucially, the Act recognizes Greenland as a self-determination unit. It can freely decide to change its status through a referendum among its population of around 57,000. If there is a decision in favour of independence, negotiations with Denmark about the terms of the divorce would need to follow. The results would then need to be endorsed by the Danish parliament, which retains authority to approve any change to the territory of Denmark.
My guess would be that the deployment from the European nations who've agreed to get involved would be relatively small.
Heck, I've heard that only one British officer might be involved. It's been billed as a 'reconnaissance mission.' That was yesterday though. Things may have ratcheted up since.
It's probably little more than a gesture. Trump's still saying that the US 'needs' Greenland and that this is in Europe's interests too.
Ok. If that's the case why not collaborate with allies rather than threaten them?
Comments
It seems that Trump's lunacy is infectious...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/12/donald-trump-greenland-eu-membership-europe
There are already close ties, of course, via Denmark.
Just so, although I get the impression that, this time, the desire is to include them.
Arguably this has been the case for some considerable time and we are only know waking up to reality.
Heck, even Obama had plans to flood the EU with substandard goods and services.
Why should we not expect worse from Trump?
The only good thing to come out of all of this is that it's now very clear where we stand.
I suspect that Europe will not offer Greenland EU membership because WHAT IF Greenland accepts EU membership and Trump invades anyway? What then? Is the EU really prepared to go to war with America? Geopolitically I think this is what we have to be thinking of. Europe now has to consider not just the military threat of Russia, but the potential military threat of the USA.
Whilst the US could operate unilaterally on that, it still wouldn't be wise to piss off its European allies by annexing Greenland.
I suspect what's happening is that the various European powers will 'show willing' for a bit by stepping up Arctic patrols in order to play for time until a deal can be brokered that is more acceptable than threatened military action - whether or not those threats are empty.
It comes to something though, that we are even talking like this when we've had a close military alliance with the US since 1941 and Canada the same.
Would there be an alternative to the use of airborne troops in your opinion, @Gramps49? A seaborne operation by US special forces?
Obviously a combined air and sea operation would be their best option but as I've suggested upthread, we are only talking about a handful of key population centres and installations.
I can't see the US resorting to military means any time soon, not because the current administration isn't capable of being so shitty, but due to the logistical issues.
They clearly hold their allies in complete and utter contempt and that's one of the main take-aways from this.
When Denmark joined the EU (or, rather the European Communities as it was at the time) in 1973, the Greenland also joined (the Faroe Islands, on the other hand, chose to remain outside the EC - mainly because of fishing rights). As Greenland gained more autonomy, the people of Greenland voted to leave the EU in 1982, with a 3 year process to do so. If Greenland wishes to rejoin the EU there would need to be a vote of the population to do so, and the EU would need to accept their application (which would also mean Greenland would need to meet the economic conditions of membership). It's not something that could happen overnight, especially given the trajectory towards independence (which means that the Greenland economy would need to be considered on it's own merits and not as part of the Danish economy).
"If we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark," [Mr Nielsen] said.
"One thing must be clear to everyone. Greenland does not want to be owned by the United States. Greenland does not want to be governed by the United States. Greenland does not want to be part of the United States."
I wonder which part of that is not understood by the odious Trump?
He is, once again, insisting that anything less than US ownership is 'unacceptable' (to him, of course).
It's now not if he invades, but when...
The problem, of course, is that the United States is a federal nation formed by treaties between States (that's literally what 'federal' means), I can't see how a treaty between Greenland and the current 50 states could be negotiated and agreed by 4th July - or even the end of the year so it's part of the anniversary year. Even if the Greenland people and government wanted that.
He's on a roll after seizing Maduro but has bigger fish to fry with Iran.
He knows that the European powers aren't in a position to hit back at the US over any annexation of Greenland so will bide his time, or what passes for that in the mind of someone who wants everything yesterday.
Annexing Greenland does not mean that it will become a state. It will just be a territory. Clearly Puerto Rico ought to be a state, but it isn't.
Puerto Rico is rather unique. The island is pretty evenly divided. About a third of the population favors statehood, a third favors remaining a commonwealth, and a third favors independence. Then too Republicans in Congress are very resistant to granting statehood because it will very likely come in as a democratic state. There are also economic and fiscal concerns.
Except that Greenland is a(n arguably former) colony rather than a colonial power. It's not Denmark itself that Trump is trying to annexe. It's an attempt to treat the modern world like the 19th century, when the US could simply buy colonies (Alaska, Louisiana) or take them by force (New Mexico, California) from other colonial powers.
Ouch!
I think @Arethosemyfeet is right on this one.
This.
Geographically, perhaps the country isn't part of Europe, but that's not the point. It's how Greenlanders view themselves that's pertinent.
I think the distress is not really about being treated "as a colony" but rather simply about being bullied. Of course being made a colony is an extreme example of being bullied but I think it's a red herring in this instance.
Interesting. Do you have a linky?
Sweden is already preoccupied with defending Gotland from the Russians...
More generally, I think the issue of the fate of Greenland is forcing Europeans to face a question that they haven't previously had to answer definitively, which is what Europe is, in the sense of belonging, either in the sense of a group of territories that belong together, or in the sense of a unified territory that belongs to a group of people with a discernible sense of self.
From the perspective of sovereignty, "America belongs to Americans" in a way that "Europe belongs to Europeans" hasn't really been tested, up to now.
This was posted an hour ago.
Thank you @Gramps49 .
It certainly makes good sense to call in people with expertise.
The Prime Minister of Greenland's exact words were 'If we have to choose between Europe and America, we choose Europe.'
In other words, they would really prefer to be left alone but as the rule of international law is breaking down, they would prefer to be aligned with the bloc that still believes in it.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/14/us-invasion-threat-greenland-trump-denmark
Heck, I've heard that only one British officer might be involved. It's been billed as a 'reconnaissance mission.' That was yesterday though. Things may have ratcheted up since.
It's probably little more than a gesture. Trump's still saying that the US 'needs' Greenland and that this is in Europe's interests too.
Ok. If that's the case why not collaborate with allies rather than threaten them?
Denmark and Greenland are probably thinking very hard about copying them right now.