As the Guardian and others have reported:
Donald Trump had a fiery phone call with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen over his demands to buy Greenland, according to senior European officials.
As they note:
Speaking to the Financial Times, officials said that Trump, then still president-elect, spoke with Frederiksen for 45 minutes last week, during which he was described to be aggressive and confrontational about Frederiksen's refusal to sell Greenland to the US.
The Financial Times reports that according to five current and former senior European officials who were briefed on the call, the conversation “was horrendous”. One person said: “He was very firm. It was a cold shower. Before, it was hard to take it seriously. But I do think it is serious and potentially very dangerous.”
According to one former Danish official, the call was a “very tough conversation” in which Trump “threatened specific measures against Denmark such as targeted tariffs”.
Why note this? There are three reasons.
First, the USA does not need Greenland. That it wants to take territory is old-style fascist aggression and nothing else.
Second, although this demand is very obviously insane, Trump is very obviously intent on pursuing it.
Third, the same madness is apparent in the whole programme now being unrolled by Trump.
We wanted to believe that Project 2025 was not real. It is. Trump wants to deliver it. The world is descending into chaos.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Next up, the Sudetenland….
What is truly shocking is that the Trump wants a South China Sea situation at the North pole, because instead of conceding the changing ice caps confirm that global warming is happening, instead there will be a Klondike sort of gold rush to access the mineral/oil resources because all they can think of is in terms of opportunism and ‘get in there first’. ‘Drill baby, drill’.
The U.S. is not the only state thinking like this either which I find astonishing.
It also reifies what the version of ‘freedom’ Trump and his supporters are after.
Their freedom and no one else’s apparently. As Michael Hudson has been pointing out for some time, it’s always been America First.
Freedom from:
– regulation
– taxation
– oversight
– government
– worker interference (unions/pensions)
– …
A good description of a Freeport or SEZ!
Thank you, Richard.
US interest in Greenland dates to WW1. Then, Denmark fobbed the US off by selling their bit of the Virgin Islands.
In 2022, so under the Biden presidency, Samantha Power, then head of USAID, also a White House official under Obama and a colleague of Obama at Chicago university’s law school, visited Greenland and hinted at a change in its status.
It’s not just Trump. The US war machine and big business have long coveted Greenland.
The US and its European vassals are no longer able to shake down the rest of the world. Therefore, the US is shaking down its vassals.
As the US shakes down its vassals and some, but not all vassals, squeal about international law, the rest of the world thinks about Palestine, laughs at the vassals and buys popcorn.
What did the vassals expect?
I forgot to add that US interest in Greenland is also a means of pressurising Canada into a closer relationship.
Again, this goes back a century. The US was interested in Newfoundland, which was sort of forced into joining Canada in 1949.
Trump is just the latest to express that interest, but in his inimitable way.
The vassals need to learn some imperial history.
I also forgot to add that, under the treaty to sell the Danish Virgin Islands to the US, it was acknowledged by both parties that Greenland is and remains Danish, but in the event of a sale of the territory, the UK gets first dibs.
It would be wonderful if the UK exercised its rights if the circumstances arose and Starmer gave away / sold to the US.
Trump is not the first US leader to covet the island. The US is the problem, not Trump. There’s far too much obsession with Trump in the west. The rest of the world makes no such distinction and, perhaps perversely, prefers the WYSIWYG Trump.
The obsession with Trump is useful, however. Liberals rage over him, in their fury forgetting the criminal and despicable deeds of Democrat politicians. Both sets are equally vile, and in pursuit of the same long-standing goals.
Putin wants Ukraine (and quite likely the Baltic countries too), Xi wants Tiawan, so why wouldn’t yet another tyrant want Greenland?
What’s interesting is the US have had a military base and an early warning radar base there since the 1950s – both very large – so why does it have to ‘own’ Greenland. But I guess for the same reasons that it’s not enough for Putin or Xi to simply have normal, diplomatic relations with their neighbors.
The question which must now be asked is what will the US military do when ordered to occupy Greenland by force? Certainly Trumps Secretary of Defense won’t have a problem with it. Indeed, I suspect he’s salivating (and having a few drinks) at the prospect.
We live in very dangerous times.
That is just the standard western narrative with all its “new Hitler” “unprovoked aggression” “territorial ambitions.”
Russia seeks security. There are always two sides to the security dilemma. How would the UK feel if Ireland agreed to base North Korean missiles? Would it say, oh well, that’s up to Ireland. It’s a sovereign state after all. It can do what it wants.
Of course the UK wouldn’t stand for it.
I urge you to read “The Budapest Memorandum: The Fake Narrative Supporting a Long War in Ukraine.”
https://glenndiesen.substack.com/p/the-budapest-memorandum-the-fake
Jonathan Haslam in his book Hubris shows that the origin of the NATO expansion policy was the US determination to remain relevant in Europe (i.e. able to influence, and let’s face it, dominate).
There was a moment when Blair Merkel and Sarkozy were aligned in bringing Russia in to a pan European security arrangement, but Donald Rumsfeld knocked that on the head (Condaleeza Rice might have supported such a policy, but she was dismissed by Rumsfeld and the other hawks, and G W Bush basically had no idea about foreign policy so would have been no support).
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674299078
So many wise heads (conveniently listed in the link below) have warned against drawing Ukraine into NATO. Not least Zbignew “geopolitical chess player” Brezinski himself, one of the architects of the expansion policy, advised against bringing Ukraine into NATO.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1700719253685678286.html
Might bullying, theft, greed, imperialism and ally predation also be appropriate words and phrases?
Might it be more democratic if the opinions of the inhabitants of Greenland and Denmark were genuinely involved?
“Imperialism is a system of exploitation that occurs not only in the brutal form of those who come with guns to conquer territory. Imperialism often occurs in more subtle forms, a loan, food aid, bullying and blackmail. When we oppose imperialism, we are fighting against a system that enables a handful of people to rule and exploit everyone else”. [From Thomas Sankara]
Parenting that fails to teach that human beings do better as a whole if they continously seek to balance individual needs against those of others is the root cause of agressive authoritarianism. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all badly mistreated as children.
? The last time one member of NATO had territorial differences with another would be Greece/Turkey over Cyprus? And perhaps USA/Turkey over Kurds?
And the EU will have to decide how it responds to (so far) an external economic threat to a member state?
With international law not much respected in the West (except when Putin breaks it, and even then, only if we feel like it – no reaction on Georgia/Crimea, massive reaction on E. Ukraine), the Danes may find themselves feeling a bit on their own.
I sense something of a hurricane of diplomatic international hypocrisy is about to overwhelm us. Let’s hope that’s all it is.
He wants the oil and rare earth metals that will be uncovered when global warming melts the ice.
There is also a lot of oil under the Antarctic that would be exposed for exploitation should the planet warm to extreme degrees.
At least he’s acknowledging the reality of global warming, even if he won’t admit it directly.
Or is he encouraging the global warming as it is in the interests of the USA – or its oligarchical elite? Pretending it is a hoax merely gives him political cover with the electorate, who prefer his brazenly disingenuous story to the truth. Just as Greenlanders will be won over by the promise of wealth beyond imagining if they vote to become part of the USA, so US voters will opt for lower taxes and the hope of more trickle down from the riches to raked in by the elite.
USA under Trump vis a vis Europe – the enemy
Russia under Putin vis a vis Europe – the enemy
One consolation: the Dutch company ASML produces (in the Netherlands) the production machinery for advanced semiconductors (the ones with 3 nanometre dimensions).
At the moment the Dutch are “not allowed” (by the USA) to supply the Chinese. Thus options are open to Europe, if it acts collectively.
a) USA takes Greenland then: a1) Chinese get ASML kit, a2)European no longer supply USA with ASML kit but rather expands IC production in EU.
What is clear is that the USA is unrelaible: the Dixecrats under Clinton set the scene for 2007/2008, Pres Shrub ignited the middle east, Obama saved Wall Street and destroyed Main Street – leading directly to the rise of Trump. Europe cannot trust the USA – half the electorate is mad and those in charge are mostly only in it for themselves. Europe does not need the USA and would do well to cut all ties asap & expel all USA citizens, close all military bases etc etc..
& in response to the USA taking over Greenland – other actions Europe could take include arming Hamas and helping the Syrians.
Excellent point about ASML.
There seem to be a lot of US interests in Europe, not least their military bases. If Trump really thinks he needs Greenland for US security (I doubt it) then he should weigh that against the loss of security from losing European military bases. There is a great deal Europe could do to retaliate. Hopefully it won’t be necessary.
The Danish PM is obviously a woman, and he is used to bullying them.
Greenland has a number of valuable minerals -rear earths, graphite, uranium, platinum and niobium used for semi-conductors , gas and oil pipelines, aero-engines and for structural uses. No doubt there is strong corporate pressure behind the scenes.
It would be the 51st state. The first added since 1959 with Hawaii ( thus five-oh). It would be part of his ‘legacy’.
I am pretty sue this is also about personal ambition.
The same that applies to Putin. he wants to make up for the humiliation of the post communist era and also to re-incorporate former Imperial Russian areas such as Ukraine. He controls Belarus through his proxy Lukashenko. A former student of mine lived there for some years and confirmed this to me recently. ‘Moscow-vites’ tend to demand the best positions. That begs the question of the Baltic states. They have a total population less than London but they are NATO members and in 1989 the people of the states formed a 600Km human chain to demand independence.
The poll in the Observer shows a majority say we should align more with Europe tha the US. We need strong leadership in these times.
Regarding aligning with Europe, I’ve recently read ‘Corporate Coup’ by Anja Parampil which details the many and various ways in which the USA attempts to usurp the socialist Government of Venezuela, due it would seem because Venezuela has the worlds largest oil reserves and Venezuela’s unwillingness to give America oil companies drilling rights. These attempts included banning Venezuela’s use of the US dollar to sell its oil (important apparently as the global oil price is set in US dollars) . According to Parampil, this back fired when the BRICs countries (whose numbers are ever expanding) stepped in and developed a different payment system. This seems to be happening increasingly and the USAs adventures in Venezuela and possibly Greenland, Panama etc. could well see a further exodus of countries no longer wanting to tie themselves to the dollar and instead to go down the BRICs route.
Worth mentioning the European Critical Rawl Materials Act, adopted in 2024: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal/green-deal-industrial-plan/european-critical-raw-materials-act_en
Among its 2030 targets, mining within EU borders must count for at least 10% of EU’s annual consumption of critical raw materials.
Given this ambition, we should expect EU countries to strongly back Denmark.
A request for Richard: I would like to understand how much leverage Trump can really pull with tariffs. I mean both externally and internally. (Surely, he must know that tariffs make products more expensive for American consumers.)
The tariff weapon is hard to appraise.
It will reduce exports to the US, but by how much is very hard to guess. The biggest impact will be on the US consumer. US inflation is very likely. The impact will be exported via higher interest rates, the impact of which will be heaviest on developing countries. Trump appears to have no concern about any of this.
Trump cannot substantially jack up tariffs against foreign imports because American manufacturers have built their supply chain around these imports. If Chinese imports become much more expensive then American manufacturers will simply switch to other countries but these will be more expensive and the increased costs will be passed onto American consumers triggering inflation. The introduction of tariffs must therefore be phased in slowly with incentives to Americans to set up manufacturing plants on home territory to feed the supply chain. The world has reached this state affairs because quangos like the WTO and IMF have not enforced the rule that all member countries freely float their currencies. In other words these quangos have lacked democratic accountability. We can see where lack of accountability has led to the farce of water and sewage authorities in the UK polluting rivers and beaches. As ever democracy is a great deal about preventing corruption.
Trump has long been a megalomaniac. He’s since had his sense of self-importance ridiculously inflated el grande by his recent election success. That, coupled with the acquisition of him position of becoming the most powerful person on the planet, aided and abetted by people of immense personal wealth – we’re probably looking at a situation without historical parallel even though there are potentially many past and worrying historical similarities.
His desire for this mass land grab with his desire for the assimilation too of Canada into the USA together with his ‘gulf of America’ stupidity, is most likely no more than a childish desire to see the USA dramatically expanded geographically in order to feed into his gargantuan ego – MAGA as a demonstrable geographical expansion. I’m very much reminded of Lebensraum here, a modern day manifestation, Very concerning.
Meanwhile, Trump is saying Starmer “is doing a very good job”. Is this perhaps because he is aligning himself with Trump’s regime like a good little boy, rather than pulling towards Europe.
Trump knows exactly which politicians will sell their own grandmother in this country. Everytime Farage visits reinforces his contempt for British politicians!
There are at least four credible reasons that Trump wants Greenland. Ironically, two of them include an implicit acknowledgement that climate change is real. The first reason is pure greed. Someone has something valuable that he hasn’t. In Trump’s mind this is unacceptable. Secondly, acquiring Greenland would play well with the MAGA faithful. Thirdly, there are abundant natural resources that he and his mates would love to plunder, a process made much easier as the ice sheet retreats. Finally, as Arctic ice disappears Greenland will acquire some strategic significance. Trump’s paranoia is probably assuming that if US doesn’t control it, China or Russia will take it. But, who knows what Trump is really thinking.
Maybe what Vance is thinking (or rather, what those who control Vance are thinking) will be the more pertinent question in the not too distant future.
The USA has spent the last 80 years intervening in other country’s governments, and taking their resources.
It is not much different from Britain’s colonial past.
This is behind neoliberalism.
See: Killing Hope @ Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Hope
Yep – I have that book Ian.
When you really think about it, American capitalism is very intolerant of anything in its way. Look at how American capitalism developed within its own borders and the plight of the continent’s indigenous peoples.
External American aggression in capitalism and attitudes to resource acquisition can therefore be said to be home grown for sure.
We should pay attention to Project 2025 – just like we should have paid attention to Mein Kampf.
Good suggestion, thank you. I’d go further and say we should be reviewing the whole WWII playbook, to avoid previous mistakes, i.e. Chamberlain government.
Trump is ticking all the fascist boxes at an impressive speed – getting to power democratically, pardoning your violent supporters (Mussolini and the Blackshirts, 1922), changing the status of federal employees (Hitler’s law for the restoration of the civil service of April 1933), the living space… It’s like Trump has made a checklist from a history book and is just getting through it as fast as he can, before we catch on.
It is already very sketchy and time to call it for what it is.
Much is by the Project 2025 playbook (https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf – or see
summary https://static1.squarespace.com/static/638fc20fd93399770320c800/t/66a2ae022e43cc10beb87518/1721937410135/Explainer+Project+2025+PDF.pdf)
But not on Greenland, strangely. On Greenland, it commends diplomatic relations:
“Concerning Greenland, the opening of a U.S. consulate in Nuuk is welcome. A
formal year-round diplomatic presence is an effective way for the U.S. to better
understand local political and economic dynamics. Furthermore, given Green-
land’s geographic proximity and its rising potential as a commercial and tourist
location, the next Administration should pursue policies that enhance economic
ties between the U.S. and Greenland.”
Demand to buy is such a strange phrase. He prefers buying it because it has an appearance of legitimacy, a fair transaction, but he is demanding and threatening, so not a voluntary transaction, more like blackmail. One has to wonder if he’s prepared to take it by force. I think and hope not, but I don’t know what can be reasonably expected anymore.
We are about to discover just how many spineless appeasers there are in UK and EU politics. We seem to have one for PM.
Thank you and well said, John.
In 1936, the League of Nations failed to support member state Abyssinia against Italy. The other members were soon threatened by Italy and its ally Germany.
Imperial history is rarely taught in Europe. A century of humiliation awaits Europe.
Do you think the human race HAS a century?
However disturbing, I don’t think ‘insane’ describes it. We do not usually have US Presidents, released of constraints. Most of all Trump is an isolationist, and we have been spared that since before Roosevelt, or before Woodrow Wilson. Triumphant isolationists are rare, and given Trump is second term, not under the direct political pressure on all first term Presidents.
President Andrew Johnson bought Alaska for $7m from Russia in 1867. His very experienced Secretary of State, William H Seward (he had been Lincoln’s Secretary of State), soon after proposed buying Greenland and Iceland from Denmark (vulnerable after the second Schleswig War, 1864). President Taft took up the proposal again in 1910, but WWI soon intervened.
There is an economic and geopolitical drift that is relentless, like it or not. The young Soviet Union in the late 1920s bought coal mining companies on Svalbard (Spitzbergen). Svalbard was critical to arctic convoys in WWII. This is geopolitical realpolitik. It is always dangerous, but different views prevail when you find you are the State at a serious disadvantage. During WWII Roosevelt, before entering the war, extend the US neutrality zone to Greenland and the Azores.
Alll of this is geopolitically more complicated for Trump in the 21st century, but his approach is a simplification of the well estblished American past, fuelled by fewer internal political constraints, and by isolationism; both rarities among most modern US Presidents.
See, James P Rogers and Caroline Pipe, ‘History Explains Trump’s Interest in Greenland—And Why Buying It Won’t Be So Easy’ Jan., 25th, 2025 ‘TIME Magazine’
But Denmark is a US ally, John.
And this is a different world where the dangers of colonbialism are recognised.
Thank you, both.
I must quibble with Richard. The US, like other powers, has no friends or allies, just interests.
A dozen or so years ago, when Denmark’s presidency of the EU ended, I remember many of the Danish bureaucrats I engaged hastening to join US firms, not even a decent interval.
I agree with you CS, about friends being trumped by interests.
“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” (Lord Palmerston, House of Commons, 1848).
You may say that is history, and we live in a different world. We do. And then Brexit reminded us of the hold the belief in long held ‘interests’ (wise or erroneous) have for the British, over friends and allies. We taught that to the Americans in the eighteenth century. We talk of our ‘special relationship’ with the US. It was trumped, long before Trump; by Israel. There is a ‘special relationship’, that is special; and there is little ‘special’ left in ours.
Trump preaches Palmerston (and there is a long queue of American Presidents, on the matter of ‘interests’). How far he takes it, I cannot say; but it cannot be ignored. The world has changed. Last year was a different age.
Thanks
Which is why I wrote this:
“All of this is geopolitically more complicated for Trump in the 21st century, but his approach is a simplification of the well established American past, fuelled by fewer internal political constraints, and by isolationism; both rarities among most modern US Presidents”.
But it is never clear whether Trump will change his mind completely. For Trump last week, Starmer was a disaster. This week a success. Next week? Who knows. Much more important, I do not think you are taking into account the idea that Isolationism, for the first time since the US became the leading world power; is run by an Isolationist President. How far he intends to take this is not clear, but Trump clearly intends to use it to bring pressure on “allies”; notably NATO. There is no doubt that some European NATO members are now talking about 2.5% of GDP on defence, as a floor. Trump is not using standard diplomatic approaches; he ‘deal-makes’ foreign policy, drawn straight from business, at the rougher end. Your confidence in the continuation of what you call the “different world”, I would treat with caution. A war in Europe – and we have one – is not the different world; and Putin is intent on colonisation. They day we assume the foundations of a “different world” are securely set, and we will see consistent progress in the world from there; would be a very bad mistake.
We will have to disagree.
Denmark has been a fervent supporter of NATO and the US.
As has been noted before, it may be bad to be the US’s enemy, but it is fatal to be its friend.
Perhaps you and the other commenters here might understand the steps both Russia and China have taken to secure their borders against it. It is unfortunate that the EU puppets prevented Europe doing the same.
Thank you and well said, SeaN.
It seems that the European puppets have not listened to Henry Kissinger.
One analysis I saw of the Falklands Campaign was. and recognising that the World was a very different place then, that most nations as they had land frontiers and the resultant disputes didnt want to set a precedent for settling these disputes by force.
As a result the UK got quite a lot of help, with the exception of New Zealand mostly on the quiet, with the Task Force and wasn’t hindered by nations that did not assist.
I suggest that that rational pragmatic and above all safe behaviour is now out of the window with China, Russia & now the USA making the world a much less safe place.
This report by Michael Hudson covers the fact that financial pressure will play a very significant part in Trump’s moves to exert control over various parts of the world.
I wonder how many people have actually recognised the significance of these plans?
https://geopoliticaleconomy.substack.com/p/michael-hudson-trump-tariffs-global-economy?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=457596&post_id=155688069&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=2u5u94&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
I suspect all the countries accept there is global warming and the forecasts of the impact of climate change are real
I think they now also believe it’s unavoidable
So the capitalists are thinking how can we make money from the situation and also the aftermath
Reminds me of the capitalists in the film ‘Don’t Look Down’ who tried to make money mining from the asteroid that was coming towards Earth to obliterate it !
All the comments here bemoaning a lack of EU action seem to miss the essential point: the EU currently has no power outside if its management if the internal market.
Sure, there are movements within the EU to expand its role and to turn an economic bloc into a quasi-political, supranational alliance, but at the moment the EU is powerless. It can only impose trade restrictions on the US, but unlike Trump it understands the delicate balance of global trade.
Now we have an interesting notion: a NATO state invadimg another NATO state… what are the protocols there?
I still think it’s Trump screaming incoherently from his pram. He won’t disrupt the relationship with one of his largest tradimg partners, he’s not that mad, is he?
Can’t say how mad he is, but mad enough?
Some American commentators emphasised that clever advisors around Trump acted as safeguards in Trump 1.0. I am not seeing that in Trump 2.0, if anything his new entourage seems worse. Some of those previous advisors have not hesitated to call him a fascist, and are no longer with him.
I wonder about what respect he really has for Europe, given how upset he is about countries not contributing enough to NATO. On day 1 of his presidency, he told a journalist that Spain was a BRIC. That’s anecdotical, but I wouldn’t be surprised if his overall view was contemptuous, certainly with regards to Denmark, a small country.
Then there is his admiration for Putin.
I don’t know, his ability to undo the current world order depends on how confident he is that he can forge another one that he regards as more interesting. Why negotiate with Europe if he can forge an allegiance with Russia? Putin would jump at the chance of being part of the new world order – Munich speech 2007.
Richard today drew our attention to Greenland, but there is also Panama.
There is, indeed, Panama.
And the UK government does not offer a peep of protest about another NATO member being bullied. It is shameful and reminds of how badly we treated the Czechs in the 1930s.
Thank you, Jason.
Plus Abyssinia.
Palestine was and is ignored by the west, vide the latest arrest in Switzerland on behalf of Israel. The west will soon learn what imperial America is capable of, a lesson the rest of the world has and is organising to avoid.
Panama will be Trump’s Rhineland move.
Canada will be his Anschluss move.
Greenland will be his Sudentland move.
He’s already building the camps. He freed his brownshirts from prison. He’s firing bureaucrats who aren’t loyal to him personally. He’s appointing unqualified cronies in high places. He’s ignoring the laws of the land.
We’ve seen this playbook before.
Apposite news clips on Trump’s actions, from the Wall Street Journal today:
Cancelled 25% tariffs on trade with Colombia now they have agreed to accept migrants back.
25% tariffs threatened against Mexico and Canada.
A number of inspectors general from govt watchdogs across a range of agencies fired without notice or justification.
“On behalf of President Trump, we are writing to inform you of a change in priorities. Therefore, your position as the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior has been terminated, effective immediately. Thank you for your service.” This terse email terminated Mark Greenblatt’s 5 year employment.
At least 12 IGs have had their employment illegally terminated as the President must notify Congress 30 days prior to removal of an IG and provide “substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons” for removal.
IGs are watchdogs tasked by Congress with rooting out abuse and illegality within federal agencies. They play a critical role in ensuring accountability, transparency, and fairness within systems. They investigate, expose, and prevent misconduct, corruption, abuse of power and inefficiencies.
The corrupt, tangerine felon is intent on hiding his nefarious actions whilst he is President.
As Prof Glenn Diesen quipped “The sheep spends its life in fear of the wolf, but is eaten by the shepherd.”
I think it was the Danish FM who was saying (in effect) “but wait – we’ve been really really good ally.”
Surely it is clear by now that International Law is comatose if not dead and that at the pointy end of international relations might is right.
We’ve all seen how the West, and Europe in particular (with very few exceptions), has spectacularly failed to stand up for International Law and Human Rights, let alone freedom of speech.