With Greenland Threats, Trump is Destroying the Western Alliance
A point-by-point breakdown of Donald Trump's aggressive letter to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre about a Nobel Peace Prize and control of Greenland
U.S. President Donald Trump has been demanding control of Greenland, which is part of Denmark, a U.S. treaty ally. The people of Greenland and Denmark have adamantly refused, with support from various European countries, and Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on Europe if they don’t capitulate.
On January 18, Trump sent a letter about this to the prime minister of Norway, Jonas Gahr Støre. It’s so full of lies, and such a good illustration of the current U.S. government’s approach to the world, that it’s worth going through point by point.
Here is the full text of the letter (in italics below) with my comments interspersed (in regular text).
Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided to not give me the Nobel Peace Prize
As Norway has repeatedly explained, the government does not decide who gets the prize. And Norway has no say in who controls Greenland.
for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS
Total bullshit, and not worth our time to debunk each lie. The “eight” includes Congo-Rwanda, where fighting continues, India-Pakistan, who say they reached their current status themselves, and Iran, which Trump bombed to little effect. The weird “PLUS” at the end is probably leveling up the lie, similar to how the number of wars he falsely claimed to have stopped was seven at first, then grew to eight.
I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but now can think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.
So absurd it’d be laughable if it weren’t deadly serious. In the first year of his second term, Trump ordered the U.S. military to launch attacks in Venezuela, Nigeria, Yemen, the Caribbean, eastern Pacific, Somalia, Syria, and Iran. His illegal tariffs have undermined the global trading order that has helped keep the world relatively stable—a lesson from the 20th century, since the collapse of trade in the Great Depression contributed to World War II—and his threats to U.S. treaty allies have weakened the United States.
Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China
Of course Denmark would have trouble protecting its land on its own if a larger country attacked. But it doesn’t need to. Denmark and its security partners in NATO, the most powerful alliance in history, protect Greenland together, along with the rest of the North Atlantic. Besides, Russia and especially China are not threatening Greenland. America is.
Everyone can see Trump doesn’t care about protecting land from Russia. Ukraine is under Russian attack, but rather than working to counter Russia’s aggression, Trump has been trying to get Ukraine to surrender.
The main beneficiaries of Trump undermining the Western alliance, America’s trade relationships, and the U.S.-led world order are China and Russia. Taking advantage of America’s new hostility, China recently cut a deal with Europe to allow more sales of Chinese electric vehicles, and another deal with Canada, a broader agreement that Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney hailed as “a new strategic partnership.”
Russia’s aggression under Vladimir Putin means few countries are interested in a deal with Russia, but Putin has long dreamed of ending NATO, and probably can’t believe his luck. On Russian state TV, commentators celebrated Trump’s Greenland threats for “delivering a catastrophic blow to NATO” that is “truly tremendous for Russia.”
and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also.
There are written documents, namely the Greenland Home Rule Arrangement of 1979 and the Self-Government Act of 2009, reflecting the will of the people of Denmark and Greenland. But yes, the reason it’s Denmark and not Sweden, Portugal, the U.K., or another country traces back to who landed boats centuries ago.
Many will note the hypocrisy of a white American president saying that boats landing hundreds of years ago is not a basis for current ownership. But Trump’s stance is consistent with a worldview that rejects sovereignty, rights, law, and related concepts, where there’s no such thing as legitimate claims to land, and ownership is exclusively a question of force.
I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding
An up-is-down, reality-inverting lie. Trump has singlehandedly weakened the alliance, creating more friction inside NATO than ever before, potentially destroying it.
Trump apologists might note that European countries have increased defense spending, which has long been a bipartisan American goal. Except the big increases came in 2014, when Russia took Crimea from Ukraine, and 2022, when Russia launched a full-scale invasion. It was a response to external threat, not American persuasion, and Trump was not president either time.
To the extent he’s gotten Europe to spend more on security, it’s been by convincing them that the U.S. might not honor its treaty commitments, making Europeans feel less secure, and reduce their cooperation with the United States. But the reason American leaders wanted Europe to spend more on defense was to strengthen NATO as a whole, not weaken it.
and now, NATO should do something for the United States
NATO does valuable things for the United States every single day, including intelligence sharing and defense coordination to better address shared challenges. Various members allow U.S. military bases, which America uses to facilitate operations in the Atlantic, the Middle East, and elsewhere. That includes Greenland, where the U.S. military has had a base since the 1950s.
Starting with Dwight Eisenhower, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander has always been a U.S. military officer. Other NATO members have at times placed their forces under at least partial U.S. command, a historical rarity that increases American power.
The only time countries have acted on Article 5 of the NATO charter—”an attack on one is an attack on all”—was in response to the September 11th attacks in the United States, increasing counterterrorism cooperation and sending troops to fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Not incidentally, the country that took more casualties per capita than any other U.S. partner in Afghanistan was Denmark. They didn’t deploy because they were attacked, but because America asked for help.
The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT.
Another thing that’s the opposite of true. The United States already had military access to Greenland. Trump’s threats have made the world, and America, less secure.
Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden, and other European countries have sent some troops to Greenland in an attempt to demonstrate their commitment and deter the United States. They aren’t big deployments, but they still take up time, attention, and military assets that could be used to counter Russia or any other external threat. Instead, NATO members have to spend those resources countering NATO’s strongest country.
To the extent there are real security issues involving Greenland, they concern the Arctic, which will become increasingly accessible as the world warms, opening up shipping lanes and resource deposits. Except the Trump administration’s official stance is that climate change is a hoax, so that’s another lie.
Russia has the most land above the Arctic circle and the longest coastline. Everyone else with territory in the Arctic is in NATO: Canada, the Scandinavian countries, and the U.S. via Alaska. The best way, by far, for the United States to advance American interests in the Arctic is partnering with NATO allies, not cutting off U.S. access by antagonizing them. As I wrote a year ago when Trump first started threatening Greenland, Canada, and others, “allies are assets, you idiots.”
Some call Trump’s threats against an ally “insane” or “mad king” behavior—and it is by traditional American values—but it fits an aspiring autocrat who called Russia’s invasion of Ukraine “savvy” and “genius,” an anti-democracy narcissist who sees wealth and glory for himself as a paramount national interest, a liar who frequently screwed over business partners, a convicted criminal who thinks it’s unfair if laws apply to him, and a rapist who likes taking things without consent.
None of that was remotely hidden when Americans decided to elect him a second time.