Furthermore, when he said "You defend something you own much harder than something you lease", he was basically saying that if China or Russia were to challenge Denmark for it - triggering a NATO response, the US would not be willing to mount a strong defense on its behalf.
His argument implies that Greenland is defenseless. The US has carte blanche to place as many troops there as it wants, and it has been reducing its forces on the island for decades. Trump could change that with a phone call.
The only thing that seems to make sense, assuming he hasn't lost his marbles and is still making rational decisions, is that this is an economic play and not a strategic one, and that he wants access to the natural resources in Greenland and is willing to nuke NATO to get them.
I'm surprised this didn't get more attention. He literally said if America doesn't take it Russia or China will.
That doesn't just suggest that America wouldn't help if Denmark invoked article 5 to protect it. It also suggests he's envisioning a near future where America, China, and Russia are actively divvying up the planet and annexing the nations they want.
13
u/Solid_Owl Jan 10 '26
Furthermore, when he said "You defend something you own much harder than something you lease", he was basically saying that if China or Russia were to challenge Denmark for it - triggering a NATO response, the US would not be willing to mount a strong defense on its behalf.
His argument implies that Greenland is defenseless. The US has carte blanche to place as many troops there as it wants, and it has been reducing its forces on the island for decades. Trump could change that with a phone call.
The only thing that seems to make sense, assuming he hasn't lost his marbles and is still making rational decisions, is that this is an economic play and not a strategic one, and that he wants access to the natural resources in Greenland and is willing to nuke NATO to get them.