Editorial News Uncategorized

Trump’s dictatorship continues: Greenland will become part of the United States

Jacques Pj Provost

2026-06-20 23:44:11

The Myth of the Chinese and Russian Threat

To justify his territorial ambitions, Trump cites the Chinese and Russian threat. According to him, Greenland is “swarming” with Chinese and Russian warships. He claims that the United States must “own” the island to prevent Beijing and Moscow from seizing it. This rhetoric is nothing new. It echoes Cold War-era rhetoric, when Washington justified its military interventions by citing the need to contain communism. But there is a major problem: this threat is greatly exaggerated, if not entirely fabricated. No credible source confirms that Chinese or Russian ships are “swarming” around Greenland. The United States already has a military base on the island—Thule Air Base—where approximately 100 U.S. military personnel are stationed. A 1951 treaty with Denmark allows the U.S. to increase that number at will. In other words, the United States already controls Greenland’s security.

But Trump is not content with this military presence. He wants ownership. He wants the American flag flying over Nuuk, the capital of Greenland. He wants to be able to say that he has expanded U.S. territory, that he has achieved what no one before him dared to do. It is a personal obsession, not a strategic necessity. Denmark, incidentally, has invested heavily in Arctic security: by 2025, Copenhagen has allocated 90 billion kroner (1.2 billion euros) to the region’s defense. Frederiksen is right to say that “security in the Arctic is assured.” The problem isn’t security—it’s Trump’s ego. It’s his pathological need to leave his mark on history, even if it means destroying the international order to do so. And that is precisely what makes this situation so dangerous.

The Monroe Doctrine, Version 2026: Unabashed Imperialism

Trump’s statements are part of an imperialist logic reminiscent of the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine. At the time, the United States asserted its right to control the entire American continent, rejecting any European interference in the region. Today, Trump goes even further: he claims the right to annex territories that do not belong to him, in defiance of international law and the will of the affected populations. This worldview is profoundly archaic. It belongs to a bygone era, that of colonial empires and territorial conquests. But Trump is reviving it, modernizing it, and presenting it as a strategic necessity. He speaks of “protecting” Greenland, when in reality he seeks to conquer it. He invokes “national security,” while pursuing purely expansionist goals.

This rhetoric is all the more dangerous because it resonates with a segment of the American public. For many Americans, the idea that their country “owns” Greenland seems natural, obvious, almost logical. They don’t see the problem. They don’t understand that this worldview is incompatible with the democratic values the United States claims to defend. Trump has succeeded in normalizing imperialism, making it acceptable, even desirable. And that may be his greatest crime: convincing millions of people that might trumps right, that power justifies everything, that the United States can do whatever it wants because it is the strongest. This ideology is toxic. It destroys the very foundations of the international order. And it paves the way for a world where the law of the strongest once again becomes the only rule.

What strikes me most is the total lack of shame. Trump doesn’t even try to hide his intentions. He doesn’t pretend to be acting in the name of democracy or human rights. He simply says, “We want Greenland; we’re going to take it.” Period. This brutality, this blunt aggression, is something new. And it’s terrifying. Because if Trump can threaten Denmark with impunity, who will be next? Iceland? Canada? Where will this expansionist madness end?

Europe Facing Trump: Between Solidarity and Powerlessness

Statements of Support for Denmark

Faced with U.S. threats, Europe has responded with rare unanimity. France, through its diplomatic spokesperson Pascal Confavreux, stated that “borders cannot be changed by force,” assuring Denmark of its “solidarity.” The Nordic countries—Sweden, Norway, and Finland—posted messages of support on social media. Finnish President Alexander Stubb was particularly clear: “No one decides for Greenland and Denmark except Greenland and Denmark themselves.” ” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also voiced his support for Frederiksen, stating that “Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark—and only Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark—must decide Greenland’s future.” The European Union also responded, with spokesperson Anitta Hipper stating that “the EU will continue to uphold the principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the inviolability of borders.”

These statements are significant. They show that Europe is not prepared to passively accept Trump’s dictates. They demonstrate a European solidarity that, for once, seems genuine and sincere. But they also raise a crucial question: What will Europe do if Trump follows through? What will happen if U.S. troops land in Greenland? Is Europe prepared to break ties with Washington? Is it prepared to impose economic sanctions on the United States? Is it prepared to expel U.S. military bases from its territory? The answer to these questions is far from obvious. For Europe depends on the United States for its security. It depends on NATO to protect itself from Russia. And this dependence puts it in a position of weakness vis-à-vis Trump. It can protest, condemn, and express solidarity—but can it truly take action?

The End of NATO: An Increasingly Plausible Scenario

Mette Frederiksen’s warning is unambiguous: a U.S. attack on Greenland would mean “the end of NATO.” This prospect, which would have seemed absurd just a few years ago, has now become credible. NATO is based on a fundamental principle: Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which stipulates that an attack against one member of the alliance is considered an attack against all. But what happens if the aggressor is itself a member of the alliance? What happens if the United States, NATO’s central pillar, attacks Denmark, another member of the alliance? The treaty does not provide for this scenario. It was never designed to handle a situation where the protector becomes the aggressor. If Trump annexes Greenland by force, NATO will implode. It is inevitable. European countries will not be able to remain in an alliance whose leader violates its fundamental principles.

Such an implosion would have catastrophic consequences for European security. Without NATO, Europe would find itself alone against Russia. It would have to build its own collective defense, invest heavily in its military, and develop its own nuclear deterrent—a titanic undertaking that would take years, if not decades. Meanwhile, Russia could exploit this weakness to expand its influence in Eastern Europe. Poland, the Baltic states, and Romania would find themselves on the front lines, without the protection of the American security umbrella. It is a nightmarish scenario. And yet, that is exactly where we are headed if Trump persists in his madness. He is destroying the alliance that has guaranteed peace in Europe for nearly 80 years. And he is doing it on a whim, for a territorial trophy that will serve no purpose other than to flatter his ego.

I feel immense anger at this situation. Trump is sacrificing the West’s security on the altar of his personal vanity. He couldn’t care less about the consequences of his actions. He thinks only of himself, his legacy, and his place in history. And in the meantime, millions of people will pay the price for his megalomania. Europeans will have to live in a more dangerous, more unstable, and more unpredictable world. All because one man decided that Greenland should be American. It’s outrageously absurd.

Greenland: A Territory Coveted for Its Natural Resources

Mineral Resources: The Arctic El Dorado

If Trump wants Greenland so badly, it’s not just for strategic reasons. It’s also—and perhaps above all—for its natural resources. This immense Arctic island is teeming with rare minerals: rare earth elements, uranium, zinc, lead, gold, and diamonds. Global warming is making these resources increasingly accessible as the ice melts and reveals the riches beneath Greenland’s surface. Rare earth elements, in particular, are essential for the manufacture of modern technologies: smartphones, electric car batteries, wind turbines, and military equipment. Currently, China dominates the global market for rare earth elements, controlling about 80% of production. The United States is desperately seeking to reduce this dependence. And Greenland could be the solution. According to some estimates, the island may contain the world’s largest reserves of rare earth elements.

But mining these resources poses numerous challenges. First, it requires massive investments. Extreme weather conditions, geographic isolation, and a lack of infrastructure make mining extremely costly. Second, it raises major environmental concerns. Mining in the Arctic risks destroying fragile ecosystems, polluting waterways, and disrupting wildlife. The Greenlanders themselves are divided on this issue. Some see it as an opportunity for economic development, a chance to reduce their dependence on Denmark. Others fear the ecological and social consequences of massive industrialization. But Trump couldn’t care less about these debates. He sees only dollars, resources, and economic potential. He wants to get his hands on these riches, even if it means crushing the will of the Greenlanders.

The Strategic Position: Controlling the Arctic

Beyond its mineral resources, Greenland occupies a crucial strategic position. Located between North America and Europe, it controls access to the Arctic Ocean. With global warming, new shipping routes are opening up in the Arctic, significantly reducing the distances between Asia and Europe. These routes could revolutionize global trade, allowing ships to bypass the Suez Canal or the Panama Canal. But they also raise issues of sovereignty. Who will control these new routes? Who will set the rules? Russia, which has the longest Arctic coastline, is already claiming extensive rights over these waters. China, although not an Arctic nation, positions itself as a “quasi-Arctic power” and is investing heavily in the region. The United States does not want to be left behind.

Greenland offers them an ideal foothold from which to project their power into the Arctic. Thule Air Base, located in the northwest of the island, houses an early-warning radar system that monitors ballistic missiles. It plays a crucial role in U.S. missile defense. But Trump wants to go further. He wants to transform Greenland into a veritable American fortress, capable of controlling the entire Arctic. He wants to establish new military bases, deploy warships, and monitor Russian and Chinese movements. This militaristic vision completely disregards the aspirations of the Greenlanders. It reduces them to mere pawns on a geopolitical chessboard. It denies their right to self-determination—their right to decide their own future. And that is precisely what makes this situation so outrageous.

There is something deeply cynical about this logic. Trump talks about “protecting” Greenland, but in reality, he wants to exploit it. He wants to plunder its resources, militarize its territory, and turn its inhabitants into second-class citizens. And he presents all of this as an act of generosity, as if the Greenlanders should be grateful to be annexed by the United States. This is colonialism, plain and simple, dressed up in the language of national security. And the most shocking thing is that no one in the United States seems to be truly offended by it.

The People of Greenland: A Voice That Goes Unheard

Widespread Rejection of U.S. Annexation

The Greenlanders have made it clear: they do not want to become American. A poll conducted in January 2025 and published in the Danish and Greenlandic press reveals that 85% of Greenlanders oppose becoming part of the United States. Only 6% are in favor of it. These figures speak for themselves. They show that the overwhelming majority of the population categorically rejects Trump’s ambitions. But the U.S. president seems completely indifferent to this reality. He continues to speak of Greenland as if it were an empty territory, a land without people, a mere chunk of ice to be conquered. This attitude is deeply contemptuous. It denies the very existence of the Greenlanders as a people, as a nation. It treats them as obstacles to be eliminated, rather than as human beings whose opinions matter.

Yet the Greenlanders have their own distinct identity, a rich culture, and a history stretching back millennia. They are predominantly Inuit, descendants of the peoples who settled the Arctic thousands of years ago. They have developed a way of life adapted to the Arctic’s extreme conditions, based on hunting, fishing, and reindeer herding. For centuries, they lived in harmony with their environment, respecting natural cycles and conserving resources. Then came the European colonizers—first the Vikings, then the Danes. Greenland became a Danish colony in 1721. For centuries, the Greenlanders were oppressed, exploited, and deprived of their rights. It was not until 1979 that they gained autonomy, and in 2009 that they secured the right to self-determination. Today, they manage most of their internal affairs themselves, although Denmark retains responsibility for defense and foreign affairs.

The Aspiration for Independence: A Dream Under Threat

Many Greenlanders dream of full independence. They want to free themselves from Danish rule and become a fully sovereign state. This dream is legitimate. It is part of a global movement toward decolonization and the recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights. But independence poses immense challenges. Greenland has a population of only 57,000, scattered across a vast territory. Its economy depends heavily on Danish subsidies, which account for about 60% of the public budget. Without these subsidies, Greenland would struggle to fund its public services, infrastructure, and healthcare system. Mining could theoretically offset this loss of revenue. But it requires investments that Greenland cannot afford on its own. It would need foreign partners—and that’s where things get complicated.

Who would these partners be? China has already expressed interest in Greenland, offering to finance infrastructure projects in exchange for mining rights. But this prospect worries the United States and Denmark, which fear growing Chinese influence in the Arctic. Trump, incidentally, uses this argument to justify his ambitions: he claims he wants to “protect” Greenland from China. But in reality, he is only making the situation worse. His threats of annexation are pushing the Greenlanders to seek alternatives and turn to other partners. Paradoxically, Trump’s aggressive policy could end up bringing Greenland closer to China—exactly the opposite of what he claims to want. This is a perfect illustration of the incompetence and short-sightedness of his diplomacy. He believes he can achieve everything through force and intimidation. But all he is doing is creating resentment, mistrust, and hostility.

What revolts me the most is the utter contempt for the will of the Greenlanders. Trump speaks of them as if they didn’t exist. He doesn’t consult them, doesn’t listen to them, doesn’t respect them. He decides for them, as if their opinion didn’t matter at all. This is colonialism in its purest form. And it should remind us of the darkest hours of Western history, when European powers carved up Africa without asking Africans for their input. We thought we had left that era behind. But Trump proves to us that colonialism never truly died. It has simply changed its face.

Historical Precedents: When the United States Purchased Territories

Alaska: A Purchase That Changed History

Trump likes to point out that the United States has purchased territories in the past. The most famous example is Alaska, purchased from Russia in 1867 for $7.2 million—about $140 million in today’s money. At the time, the deal was widely criticized. Americans dubbed Alaska “Seward’s Folly,” after the Secretary of State who negotiated the purchase. They saw no value in this frozen, seemingly worthless territory. But history proved them wrong. Alaska turned out to be a gold mine—literally. Gold, oil, and natural gas have been discovered there. Today, it is one of the richest states in the United States in terms of natural resources. Trump sees this example as proof that buying Greenland would be an excellent deal. He is already imagining the wealth he could derive from it and the resources he could exploit.

But there is a fundamental difference between Alaska in 1867 and Greenland in 2026. Alaska was a sparsely populated Russian colony, inhabited mainly by Indigenous peoples who had no say in the transaction. Russia wanted to get rid of it, fearing it would be unable to defend the territory in the event of a conflict with Great Britain. The United States seized the opportunity. It was a transaction between two empires, which divided up a territory without consulting its inhabitants. Today, such a practice would be considered unacceptable. Modern international law recognizes the principle of self-determination of peoples. We can no longer buy and sell territories as if they were commodities. The affected populations must be consulted, and their consent must be obtained. Trump completely ignores this development. He thinks like a man from the 19th century, as if the world hadn’t changed in 150 years.

Louisiana, Florida: Purchases from a Bygone Era

Other historical examples come to mind. In 1803, the United States purchased Louisiana from France for $15 million—a vast territory that accounted for about one-third of the current territory of the United States. In 1819, the United States purchased Florida from Spain for $5 million. These transactions shaped American geography, allowing the United States to expand westward and southward. But again, these purchases took place within a colonial context. European powers were selling territories they had conquered themselves, without regard for the Indigenous peoples living there. Native Americans were driven from their lands, massacred, and herded onto reservations. This is a dark chapter in American history, one that Trump seems intent on repeating.

For that is precisely what this is about: Trump wants to revive 19th-century American expansionism. He wants to return to an era when the United States could expand by force or by purchase, without regard for the human consequences. He does not understand—or refuses to understand—that the world has changed. That the rules have evolved. That what was acceptable in 1867 is no longer acceptable in 2026. This nostalgia for an imperial past is dangerous. It threatens to set humanity back several centuries, to return the world to an era when might made right. And that is precisely what Trump is doing: he is destroying the modern international order to replace it with an archaic one, based on the law of the strongest.

I can’t help but think of the lessons we’re supposed to have learned from history. We’ve condemned colonialism, acknowledged the crimes committed against Indigenous peoples, and promised never to repeat those mistakes. And now Trump wants to start all over again. He wants to annex a territory against the will of its inhabitants. He wants to exploit its resources without regard for the consequences. He wants to erase centuries of moral and legal progress. It’s terrifying. And it should remind us that history doesn’t always move in the right direction. That democratic gains are fragile. That they can be swept away by a single man, if he is powerful and determined enough.

International Reactions: A Divided World

China and Russia: Interested Spectators

While the West is alarmed by Trump’s threats, China and Russia are watching with interest. On January 6, 2026, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement urging the United States to “stop using the so-called Chinese threat as a pretext to seek personal gain.” Beijing categorically denies that its ships are “swarming” around Greenland, as Trump claims. But beyond this denial, China sees this crisis as an opportunity. It is watching the collapse of the transatlantic alliance, the division of the West, and the weakening of NATO. And it is delighted. For a weakened Europe and a NATO in crisis mean greater room for maneuver for Beijing. China could take advantage of this situation to strengthen its ties with European countries, offer them economic partnerships, and present itself as a credible alternative to the United States.

Russia, for its part, makes no secret of its satisfaction. Vladimir Putin has always dreamed of seeing NATO implode. He has spent years trying to divide the alliance and sow discord between the United States and Europe. And now Trump is doing the job for him. The U.S. president is destroying NATO from within, without Putin having to lift a finger. It’s an unexpected windfall for Moscow. If NATO disappears, Russia will have free rein in Eastern Europe. It will be able to intimidate its neighbors, expand its influence, and rebuild its empire. The Baltic states, Poland, and Romania are already trembling at this prospect. They know that without American protection, they will be at Moscow’s mercy. And they see Trump sacrificing their security for a territorial whim.

The Global South: A Worrying Indifference

Meanwhile, countries in the Global South are observing this crisis with a certain degree of indifference. For many of them, the disputes between the West and Trump are just the latest episode in a saga that does not directly concern them. They have their own problems: poverty, conflicts, and climate change. The issue of Greenland seems distant and abstract to them. But this indifference is misleading. For what is at stake in Greenland is the future of the international order. If Trump succeeds in annexing Greenland by force, he will set a dangerous precedent. He will demonstrate that major powers can still seize territories that do not belong to them, in defiance of international law. And this precedent could be exploited by other countries in other parts of the world.

Imagine if China decided to annex Taiwan by force, citing national security reasons similar to Trump’s. How could the West protest, after having tolerated the annexation of Greenland? Imagine if Russia decided to invade the Baltic states, under the pretext that it must “protect” them from NATO. How could Europe react, after having allowed Trump to destroy the Atlantic alliance? The consequences of this crisis extend far beyond Greenland. They touch on the very essence of the international order—the principles that govern relations between states. And that is why countries in the Global South should be concerned. For if the international order collapses, no one will be spared. We will enter a world where might makes right, where great powers can do as they please, and where small countries will be at the mercy of the large ones.

What strikes me is the general blindness. We are witnessing the collapse of the international order, and no one seems to truly realize it. Or rather, everyone realizes it, but no one knows what to do. We are paralyzed, frozen in fear by the scale of the looming catastrophe. And meanwhile, Trump continues his march forward, destroying everything in his path. It’s like watching a car accident in slow motion, knowing there’s nothing we can do to stop it.

Possible Scenarios: Between Negotiation and Confrontation

The Optimistic Scenario: A Return to Reason

In the best-case scenario, Trump will eventually give up his ambitions regarding Greenland. He will realize that the political and diplomatic cost of a forced annexation is too high. He will understand that Europe will not let him do it, that NATO will implode, and that the United States will find itself isolated on the international stage. He will agree to negotiate with Denmark and Greenland to find a compromise that respects the island’s sovereignty while addressing U.S. security concerns. This compromise could take the form of a strengthened defense agreement, allowing the United States to increase its military presence in Greenland in exchange for guarantees regarding respect for Greenlandic autonomy. It could also include U.S. investments in Greenlandic infrastructure, helping the island develop economically without falling into dependence on China.

But let’s be honest: this optimistic scenario seems unlikely. Trump has never shown the slightest willingness to back down. He never backs down, never apologizes, never admits his mistakes. On the contrary, he doubles down, escalates, and provokes. This has always been his strategy: create chaos, then present himself as the only one capable of resolving it. He has used this tactic in business, politics, and diplomacy. And so far, it’s worked rather well for him. So why would he change now? Why would he give up on Greenland, when he’s already invested so much political capital in this issue? Backing down would be seen as a sign of weakness, a defeat. And Trump hates to lose. He’d rather see it through to the end, even if it means triggering a major international crisis.

The worst-case scenario: forced annexation

In the worst-case scenario, Trump will take action. He’ll send troops to Greenland, citing an imminent threat from China or Russia. He’ll organize a rigged referendum, in which Greenlanders will be “invited” to vote for annexation by the United States. He will offer substantial sums of money to every resident—some sources mention $10,000 per person—to buy their consent. And if that isn’t enough, he will use force. U.S. troops will occupy the major cities, take control of strategic infrastructure, and install a puppet government. Denmark will protest, but will be powerless to act. Europe will condemn the move, perhaps impose symbolic sanctions, but will not go so far as to break ties with Washington. NATO will implode, as Frederiksen predicted. And Greenland will become American, against the will of its inhabitants.

This nightmarish scenario is not science fiction. It has already happened in recent history. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea using exactly the same methods: military occupation, a rigged referendum, and the installation of a puppet government. The international community protested and imposed sanctions, but could do nothing to prevent the annexation. Crimea is now Russian, and no one seems capable of changing that reality. Trump could take inspiration from this example. He might tell himself that if Putin succeeded in Crimea, why couldn’t he succeed in Greenland? After all, the United States is far more powerful than Russia. Who would dare to oppose it? Europe? It is too divided, too weak. China? It has its own problems. The UN? It’s paralyzed by the U.S. veto. Trump could therefore act with complete impunity, knowing that no one will be able to stop him.

I don’t want to believe this scenario. I refuse to believe we’ve come to this. But I can’t rule it out either. Because Trump has already crossed so many red lines, violated so many norms, and destroyed so many institutions. Why would he stop now? What could hold him back? His conscience? He doesn’t have one. International law? He couldn’t care less. Public opinion? It cheers him on. We are facing a man who knows no limits, no scruples, no restraint. And that is precisely what makes him so dangerous.

Implications for the World Order: Toward a New Era of Chaos

The End of Multilateralism

If Trump annexes Greenland, it will spell the end of multilateralism. This system, patiently built after World War II, is based on the idea that states must cooperate, negotiate, and abide by common rules. It has helped prevent a third world war, reduce poverty, and promote human rights. But it is fragile. It depends on the willingness of the major powers to play by the rules and respect the standards they themselves have established. If the United States—the central pillar of this system—decides to break free from it, everything will collapse. For if Washington can annex Greenland with impunity, why wouldn’t other countries do the same? Why wouldn’t China take Taiwan? Why wouldn’t Russia seize the Baltic states? Why wouldn’t India settle its disputes with Pakistan by force?

We would then enter a world where the law of the strongest once again becomes the rule. A world where small countries live in terror of being invaded by their more powerful neighbors. A world where alliances are worthless, where treaties can be torn up overnight, where a promise is worth nothing. This is the world before 1945—the world of empires and conquests, the world that produced two world wars and tens of millions of deaths. We thought we had left that era behind. We thought we had built a more just, more stable, and more peaceful international order. But Trump is destroying all of that. He is dragging us back to a past we wanted to forget. And the most terrifying thing is that he is doing it consciously, deliberately, and with full knowledge of the consequences.

The Emergence of a Chaotic Multipolar World

The collapse of the U.S.-led international order does not necessarily mean the emergence of a new order. On the contrary, we risk entering a period of multipolar chaos, in which several major powers vie for hegemony without any one of them managing to prevail. The United States will remain the world’s leading military power, but it will have lost its moral legitimacy. It will no longer be able to present itself as the defender of democracy and international law, since it will have violated these principles itself. China will take advantage of this to expand its influence, offering its own model of authoritarian governance as an alternative to the Western model. Russia will continue to destabilize its neighbors and sow chaos in Europe. Europe, weakened and divided, will struggle to find its place in this new world.

This chaotic multipolar world will be marked by instability, conflict, and unpredictability. Regional wars will multiply, as the major powers will no longer have any interest in preventing them. On the contrary, they will use them to weaken their rivals, expand their influence, and test their new weapons. Humanitarian crises will also multiply, as no one will want to take responsibility for resolving them. Refugees will flood into wealthy countries, creating social and political tensions. Climate change will exacerbate all these problems, causing droughts, floods, and famines. And meanwhile, the major powers will continue to squabble, unable to cooperate to address humanity’s common challenges. It is a bleak, terrifying future. But it is the future we are heading toward if we let Trump destroy the international order.

I feel a deep sadness at this prospect. We had built something precious, something fragile but real: a world where law mattered more than force, where small countries could live in safety, where conflicts were resolved through negotiation rather than war. It wasn’t a perfect world—far from it. But it was a better world than the one that came before it. And we are in the process of destroying it. We are in the process of ruining everything, of sacrificing everything on the altar of one man’s ego. It is outrageously stupid.

What Can Europe Do? Limited Options in the Face of American Power

Strengthening Europe’s Strategic Autonomy

Faced with threats from Trump, Europe must urgently strengthen its strategic autonomy. It can no longer rely on the United States to ensure its security. It must build its own collective defense, independent of NATO. This means massively increasing military budgets, developing a European defense industry, and creating an integrated European army. Several countries have already begun moving in this direction. France, under Emmanuel Macron, has been advocating for a “Europe of Defense” for years. Germany announced a massive rearmament plan in 2022, with an additional 100 billion euros in defense investments. The Nordic and Baltic countries, which are directly threatened by Russia, are also increasing their military spending. But these efforts remain insufficient and poorly coordinated. Europe lacks a common vision and a coherent strategy.

The main obstacle to European strategic autonomy remains its technological dependence on the United States. Europe purchases most of its military equipment from Washington: fighter jets, missile defense systems, and surveillance satellites. It also depends on the United States for intelligence, logistics, and command. Breaking this dependence would take years, if not decades. It would require developing European alternatives to all these systems, training thousands of engineers and technicians, and building new factories. This is a titanic undertaking that would require colossal investments and exceptional political will. But it is the only way for Europe to regain its sovereignty and no longer be at the mercy of Washington’s whims. The Greenland crisis should serve as a wake-up call, a warning signal. It should push Europeans to finally take the issue of their strategic autonomy seriously.

Building Alternative Alliances

Europe must also rethink its international alliances. If the United States is no longer a reliable partner, with whom can Europe cooperate? Canada appears to be a natural ally. Like Europe, it is threatened by Trump’s expansionist ambitions. The U.S. president has, in fact, repeatedly raised the idea of annexing Canada—or at least some of its provinces. Ottawa and Brussels might therefore benefit from drawing closer together and coordinating their responses to Washington. Japan and South Korea are also potential partners. Both countries depend on the United States for their security, but they are increasingly concerned about Trump’s unpredictability. They might be interested in enhanced cooperation with Europe, particularly in the areas of defense and technology.

But Europe must also be realistic. It cannot completely cut itself off from the United States. The economic, cultural, and historical ties between the two sides of the Atlantic are too deep to be severed overnight. The goal is not to replace the U.S. alliance with another alliance, but to diversify partnerships—to stop putting all its eggs in one basket. Europe must learn to navigate a multipolar world, to play both sides, and to maintain relations with all major players without depending on any one of them. It is a delicate balancing act that requires subtle diplomacy and a clear strategic vision. But it is the only way for Europe to preserve its independence and its interests in the chaotic world that lies ahead.

I am torn between hope and despair. On the one hand, I see Europe beginning to wake up, to realize the need for its autonomy. On the other, I see just how long the road is, just how numerous the obstacles are. Europe is divided, weakened, and hesitant. It lacks leadership, vision, and courage. And meanwhile, Trump continues to advance, to destroy, to conquer. We are in a race against time. Either Europe pulls itself together quickly, or it will be swept away by the coming storm.

Conclusion: Greenland as a Symbol of a Changing Era

A historic turning point whose magnitude we can barely fathom

The Greenland crisis is not merely a diplomatic incident. It is a historic turning point, a moment when history shifts, when one world collapses and another emerges. We are witnessing the end of the liberal international order—the order built after 1945 on the ruins of World War II. This order was based on simple yet powerful principles: respect for the sovereignty of states, the prohibition of the use of force to resolve disputes, and the primacy of international law. These principles were never fully respected—far from it. The great powers have often violated the sovereignty of smaller countries, used force when it suited them, and ignored international law when it got in their way. But at least these principles existed. They served as a benchmark, an ideal to strive toward. They made it possible to distinguish right from wrong, and what is legitimate from what is illegitimate.

Today, Trump is destroying these principles. He openly claims that the United States can seize Greenland by force, that Denmark’s sovereignty doesn’t matter, and that international law is a fiction. And the most terrifying thing is that he is not alone. Millions of Americans share his vision. They cheer when he threatens Denmark, when he talks about forced annexation, when he tramples on international rules. They see this aggressiveness as a form of strength, virility, and greatness. They do not understand—or refuse to understand—that this worldview takes us back to a barbaric era, to a time when might took precedence over right, when the big devoured the small, when war was the continuation of politics by other means. We thought we had moved beyond that era. We thought we had learned the lessons of history. But Trump proves to us that we have learned nothing, that we are still capable of falling back into the same mistakes, the same horrors.

The Urgency of Collective Resistance

In the face of this downward spiral, resistance is imperative. We cannot let Trump destroy the international order without reacting. We cannot accept Greenland being annexed by force. We cannot tolerate the sovereignty of states being violated, international law being flouted, or democratic principles being trampled underfoot. This resistance must be collective. It must unite Europe, Canada, Japan, and all countries that still believe in a rules-based international order. It must be firm, determined, and uncompromising. For if we give in now, if we let Trump act with impunity, we will open Pandora’s box. We will enter a world where anything goes, where the great powers can do as they please, and where small countries will live in constant fear.

This resistance will not be easy. It will require sacrifice, courage, and determination. It will force us to rethink our alliances, strengthen our defense, and assert our sovereignty. But we have no choice. For the alternative is worse. The alternative is a world where Trump and his followers dictate their own rules, where might makes right, where democracy retreats in the face of authoritarianism. It is a world we do not want, one we must not accept. Greenland has become the symbol of this struggle. That is where the future of the international order is at stake. That is where we must draw a red line, say “no” to Trump, and assert that certain things are non-negotiable: the sovereignty of states; the right of peoples to self-determination; and respect for international law. These principles are worth defending. They are worth fighting for.

I conclude this article with a sense of urgency. We no longer have time to hesitate, to procrastinate, or to get lost in fruitless debates. Trump is taking action. He is destroying the international order. And we must respond. Now. Not tomorrow, not next week—now. Because every day that passes brings us a little closer to the point of no return. Every day that passes makes disaster a little more inevitable. We are at a pivotal moment in history. A moment when our choices will have consequences for future generations. We can choose to resist, to fight, to defend the principles we believe in. Or we can choose to submit, to accept the law of the jungle, to let Trump shape the world in his own image. I know which choice I’m making. What about you?

Sources

Primary sources

NOS (Nederlandse Omroep Stichting), “Trump: Greenland Will Become American, ‘Willingly or by Force,’” published January 10, 2026. Reuters, “Trump Says U.S. Needs to Own Greenland to Deter Russia, China,” published January 9, 2026. Le Monde, “Greenland: ‘If the United States chooses to launch a military attack on another NATO country, then everything stops,’ warns the Danish prime minister,” published on January 5, 2026, updated on January 6, 2026. The Atlantic, interview with Donald Trump on Venezuela and Greenland, published on January 4, 2026.

Secondary sources

BBC News, “U.S. Discussing Options to Acquire Greenland, Including Using Military,” published in January 2026. CNN, “House Republicans Grapple with Trump’s Greenland Threat,” published on January 7, 2026. Al Jazeera, “Europe Should Prepare for Greenland’s Annexation and the End of NATO,” published on January 9, 2026. The Guardian, “Why is Donald Trump renewing calls for a takeover of Greenland?”, published on January 6, 2026. France 24, “Greenland: Marco Rubio announces talks with Denmark”, published on January 7, 2026. La Croix, “Greenland: Trump ‘actively’ exploring the idea of a ‘purchase,’” published January 7, 2026. Le Nouvel Observateur, “He Wants a Territorial Trophy for His Personal Legacy: Can Donald Trump Really Buy Greenland?”, published on January 9, 2026. Touteleurope.eu, “Greenland: What Do European and NATO Treaties Allow in the Event of Annexation by the United States?”, published in January 2026.

This content was created with the help of AI.

Commentaires

0 0 votes

Article Rating