The arrogant stupidity of the Trump administration’s threats against Greenland almost defy comprehension. The hubris and foolishness are not merely alarming but almost incomprehensible.
No, possessing Greenland is not a strategic necessity for the United States. Sure, Pituffik Space Base has been a significant outpost for the US, but Denmark has made no suggestion that it will not be accommodated. Sure, Greenland is rich in mineral resources, but a lot of its rare earths and metals are inaccessible — besides which, more pertinently, they don’t belong to the US.
Still, if, for some reason, the Americans consider acquiring Greenland to be essential — something that never came up, by the way, until the historical equivalent of five minutes ago — the Trump administration could have made more serious attempts to purchase the place from the Danes. I may not have understood it but it would not have seemed objectionable. Trump and his allies heavily suggesting that it could be seized — with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt saying that deploying the US military is “always an option” — makes a friendly transfer impossible. If I say “sell me your bike, and if you don’t I’ll hit you”, any future sale would leave a bad taste in the mouth.
There is no point in trying to sound tough here. The US could take Greenland whenever it likes. In pure military terms, it would be like taking candy from a baby. Some of us have been writing for years about how complacent dependence on the US has allowed European states to neglect their own security — as well as to self-indulgently undermine their own cultural and demographic coherence.
But while there has most certainly been a need for more equal relations between the US and Europe, that does mean that there has been a need to ruin those relationships. If the US displays total contempt for Denmark, which has been a loyal and valuable ally in hosting Pituffik Space Base, supporting the US’s often thoroughly misguided wars, and increasing its NATO contributions, that won’t earn the US respect — it will fuel justified hostility and suspicion. What is the point of trying to be a good ally if you’re going to be treated like Nelson Muntz treats Milhouse Van Houten?
Perhaps American officials have consumed enough European decline porn as to convince themselves that European populations would, to borrow a phrase, welcome them as liberators. It would not surprise me in the least if Trump and his allies assume that someone like Tommy Robinson — who has called for Trump to “free us from our tyrannical dictator @Keir_Starmer” — represents popular opinion in Europe.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Heavy-handed American intervention would be one of very, very few things that could rally Europeans around their leaders. Trump is comically unpopular in Europe as it is. Somehow, even more British people, for example, have a negative opinion of Trump than of Keir Starmer, and that’s saying something. Send the US Army to push around a friendly neighbour and these polls are going to sink through the floor.
I suspect that initial success in Venezuela has inflated American egos
Right-wing European leaders like Marine Le Pen have been hurrying to distance themselves from Trump’s administration. From a British perspective, the Americans seizing Greenland would be an awful look for Nigel Farage and Reform. (Notably, Farage was equivocal on the merits of Trump’s capturing of Maduro.)
I suspect that initial success in Venezuela has inflated American egos. The ability to kidnap a third world dictator appears to have convinced some American right-wingers that they can do anything, anywhere, at any time. All moral questions aside — and there most certainly are moral questions — this seems short-sighted. Again, it is certainly true that the US could take Greenland without any serious military resistance. But the undermining of security relations, commercial interests and popular opinion would have long-term implications that would very much outweigh the satisfaction of short-term chest-beating about American might.
The US is the preeminent superpower in the Western Hemisphere. That is undeniable — and it comes with privileges. But even a superpower needs allies. I suspect that some within the Trump administration have convinced themselves that the benefits of their alliances are wholly one-sided, which partly inverts the truth — it was not the Europeans, say, who launched the War on Terror — and is partly plain untrue. The US might well have been leant on excessively but it still gains enormous trade and security advantages from its relationships with Europe.
I would call the US attitude towards Greenland gangsterism except that even gangsters tend to realise that their long-term success depends to some extent on public opinion. Al Capone funded a soup kitchen. The current attitude of the US appears to suggest that he should have seized vegetables from local grocers in case his horses were feeling especially peckish.
