By Li Yue
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to seize Greenland and has even publicly said that he does not rule out the use of force since the beginning of his second term. Denmark and Greenland's autonomous government have firmly rejected such demands and have planned to strengthen military deployments in Greenland to respond to the threat. However, these measures have failed to effectively deter the ambitions of the US. Trump recently has once again declared on multiple occasions his determination to take over Greenland, which has fueled widespread anxiety in Denmark and across Europe.
Some commentators suggest that Trump's series of statements may be aimed at diverting domestic attention away from the US economic downturn to improve the Republican Party's prospects in the upcoming midterm elections. Others believe that Greenland's abundant mineral resources are the core factor attracting Trump.
In this regard, military expert Jin Yi'nan stated that Greenland's mineral resources and the US midterm election outlook are only part of the reasons behind Trump's desire for Greenland. The more important reason, he said, is Trump's ambition to realize his "imperial dream." At present, the US ranks fourth in the world in terms of land area, behind Russia, Canada, and China. If the US were to seize Greenland, its territory would increase by more than two million square kilometers, making it the world's second-largest country by land area. In addition, Greenland sits between the Arctic Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean. As Arctic shipping routes continue to open up, Greenland's strategic importance will become even greater. Moreover, Greenland is located to the north of Canada, forming a geographic echo with the US mainland to the south, while Canada lies right in between.
Jin pointed out that at the beginning of Trump's second term, he referred to Canada as "the 51st state of the United States," revealing his ambition to annex Canada. Of course, it would not be easy for the US to "swallow up" Canada, as it would require planning and the right opportunity. By contrast, gaining control of Greenland would be relatively easier. Greenland has a population of only 57,000 and is far from its sovereign state, Denmark. If the US were to take Greenland, its next target would likely be Canada. If that day ever came, the Monroe Doctrine of the past would evolve into "Donroe Doctrine," and the Americas would truly become the Americas of the US. Trump's recent words and actions regarding Greenland, in fact, reflect a growing sense of overconfidence following the US' successful surprise strike on Venezuela.
In a recent interview with The New York Times, Trump admitted "it may be a choice" when asked if obtaining Greenland was more important than preserving NATO. Some commentators believe his remarks suggest that he is prepared to bear the consequences of damaging NATO alliance relations. Some European officials even suspect that the real purpose of Trump's so-called "Make America Great Again" may be to undermine the NATO system, because the US Congress will not allow the US to withdraw from NATO, but forcibly seizing Greenland could potentially push European countries to abandon NATO on their own.
Jin believes that Trump is not truly facing an either-or choice. Europe cannot do without NATO, and the US is NATO's leader. If the leader were to "swallow up" Greenland, Europeans would likely protest and demonstrate briefly. However, it is extremely unlikely that they would withdraw from NATO or dissolve it. European countries would eventually reach the conclusion that even if Greenland were lost, they still cannot completely fall out with the US because they still need NATO to safeguard their security. At the same time, Trump also understands that the US cannot afford to lose NATO, which has been its most important alliance system since World War II. Therefore, he will not completely disrupt the alliance network just for Greenland.
Jin further pointed out that the greatest impact of seizing Greenland would be on Denmark's interests. For major European countries such as the UK, France, and Germany, it would mainly be a loss of face, and the actual impact on them would not be as significant as people imagine. From the perspective of the NATO system, NATO would not truly fall apart simply because of the loss of Greenland. Even if Greenland were ultimately "taken" by the US, NATO would still exist because the US needs NATO, and Europe needs NATO even more.
Editor's note: Originally published on military.cnr.cn, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.