Trump wants to conquer Greenland - can Europe stop him?

Key Concepts

• US Foreign Policy Shift: A move away from traditional international leadership and towards a more unilateral, interests-driven approach.
• Greenland Dispute: The US administration’s expressed desire to acquire Greenland, met with resistance from Denmark and Greenland.
• NATO Cohesion: Concerns about the potential fracturing of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization due to US actions and rhetoric.
• Iranian Protests & US Response: The ongoing protests in Iran and the ambiguous US response, raising questions about US objectives.
• Domestic US Politics: The influence of domestic political considerations, including the MAGA base and upcoming midterms, on US foreign policy.
• Transatlantic Alliance: The state and future of the relationship between the US and its European allies, particularly the UK.

The Shifting Global Landscape: US Policy, Greenland, Iran, and the Future of Alliances

This discussion, held on January 16th, 2026, centers on a period of significant geopolitical turbulence marked by events in Venezuela, Iran, and the unexpected US pursuit of Greenland. Rachel Elhus, Director General of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), provides expert analysis on these developments and their implications for the international order.

The Greenland Controversy: A Question of Conquest?

The core of the discussion begins with the recent press conference regarding the US administration’s interest in Greenland. The Danish government explicitly characterized the US approach as a question of “conquest,” a term that underscores the severity of the situation. Crucially, the meeting itself was initiated by Denmark and Greenland, demonstrating a proactive and direct approach to confronting the US administration. Prime Ministers Mette Frederiksen (Denmark) and Jens Frederik Nielsen (Greenland) jointly affirmed Greenland’s preference for remaining within the Kingdom of Denmark, maintaining its NATO membership, and pursuing ties with the European Union – explicitly rejecting US overtures.

Despite this clear stance, the US continued to express a desire to acquire or control Greenland, citing unspecified “security” concerns. Elhus dismisses the rationale of Russian and Chinese military presence as largely unfounded, noting limited activity in the region beyond the Russian Arctic. She highlights Denmark’s substantial investment in Arctic security – 13.7 billion USD in 2025 alone – and the existing defense agreements between the US, Denmark, and Greenland (including a 1951 bilateral agreement and a US base with 150-200 personnel) as sufficient mechanisms for addressing any legitimate security concerns. She also points to potential economic motivations, specifically access to Greenland’s rare earth minerals, but notes that previous US offers for resource extraction have been ignored. Ultimately, Elhus suggests the pursuit of Greenland stems from President Trump’s long-held personal obsession and a desire for a legacy akin to past presidential expansions of US territory – a matter of “prestige.”

European Response and Signaling

The European response to the Greenland situation, including France opening a consulate and the UK sending a single soldier to a joint reconnaissance unit, is viewed as a strategically important signal to the US. Elhus emphasizes the need for European follow-through on these commitments to avoid criticism and demonstrate a genuine commitment to regional security.

The Potential Collapse of NATO

A central concern raised is the potential impact of a US annexation of Greenland on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Elhus states that a military annexation would likely be the end of NATO, as the alliance lacks provisions for conflict between member states. While acknowledging the unlikelihood of a military invasion due to US public opinion, Congressional opposition, and economic ties, she outlines a scenario where such an event would trigger both military and economic retaliation from European allies. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s silence on the matter is attributed to the US’s membership within the alliance, limiting his ability to publicly criticize US actions. Elhus believes that even in a worst-case scenario, a European-led security framework would likely emerge, potentially utilizing Article 42.7 of the EU treaty as a foundation.

Iran: Ambiguous Signals and Domestic US Politics

The discussion then shifts to the situation in Iran, focusing on the ambiguous US response to ongoing protests. The US administration’s rhetoric, including a tweet urging protestors with a promise of “help is on the way,” has created disappointment and anger among Iranians, who fear repeated unfulfilled promises. Elhus suggests that the US administration’s caution may stem from a complex calculation of potential consequences, advising against military strikes unless clear targets can demonstrably support the opposition without providing the Iranian regime with a scapegoat.

She connects the situation to broader domestic US political considerations, noting the declining approval ratings of the President and the upcoming midterm elections. She posits that foreign adventurism could be a distraction from domestic issues. Elhus questions whether the US genuinely desires the fall of the Iranian regime or would prefer a “defanged” but stable government, drawing parallels to the Venezuela scenario. She acknowledges the possibility of US consideration of alternative leadership options in Iran, such as the exiled Reza Pahlavi.

The Impact of Domestic US Politics on Foreign Policy

A significant theme throughout the discussion is the influence of domestic US politics on foreign policy. Elhus highlights the growing disconnect between the US political elite and the concerns of ordinary Americans, particularly regarding interventionism and the prioritization of domestic issues. She notes the rise of the MAGA movement as a backlash against past US foreign policy failures and the increasing distrust in the civil service and military. She emphasizes the importance of rebuilding trust and focusing on local issues to bridge the divide.

The Future of the Transatlantic Alliance

Elhus acknowledges the unique position of the UK, balancing its close relationship with the US with its post-Brexit status outside the European Union. She praises Prime Minister Starmer’s ability to navigate this complex dynamic and maintain transatlantic ties. However, she cautions that the UK must be wary of potential US policy shifts and diversify its relationships to ensure its long-term security and economic interests.

Advice for Denmark and Greenland

Elhus commends Denmark and Greenland’s direct approach to confronting the US administration and advises them to continue this strategy. She stresses the importance of rallying support within the US, leveraging bipartisan opposition to the acquisition of Greenland, and following through on security commitments. She also supports Greenland’s eventual pursuit of independence.

Synthesis and Conclusion

The discussion paints a picture of a rapidly changing global landscape characterized by a US increasingly willing to act unilaterally and prioritize its own interests, even at the expense of traditional alliances. This shift is driven by domestic political considerations and a rejection of established international norms. The future of NATO and the transatlantic alliance hangs in the balance, requiring European nations to demonstrate a greater commitment to their own security and to forge a path forward independent of US leadership if necessary. The situation in Iran underscores the complexities of US foreign policy and the potential for unintended consequences. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the need for clear communication, strategic partnerships, and a renewed focus on domestic priorities to navigate this turbulent era.

Notable Quote:

“If the US would invade Greenland, withdraw from NATO…something that looked more like a European version of the alliance would emerge.” – Rachel Elhus, highlighting the potential for a post-NATO European security framework.