New reports say that European countries are actually discussing sending troops to Greenland in order to deter President Donald Trump after he said taking control of it is an "absolute necessity" while warning of the potential for China or other US global rivals to obtain the island's mineral wealth.
Trump has never yet ruled out the use of military force to take it, and earlier this week NATO chief Mark Rutte offered a compromise of letting NATO secure the vast Arctic territory instead. This as Denmark’s prime minister insisted has remained firm in insisting that Greenland is not for sale.
"I will never support the idea of fighting allies. But of course, if the U.S. puts tough terms on Europe, we need a collective and robust response," PM Minister Mette Frederiksen told reporters in Brussels when EU leaders gathered for defense talks Monday.
On Friday The Telegraph reports on the most extreme (and we must admit, a highly dubious) scenario as follows:
Nato countries discussed deploying troops to Greenland in response to Donald Trump threatening to use the US military to seize the Danish island.
Germany was among dozens of European allies understood to have held informal talks over “what Nato troops would do” if the US president followed through on his threats, diplomatic sources told The Telegraph.
Questions were even raised over whether Article 5, the Western military alliance’s mutual defense clause, could be invoked in the event of an American invasion of a fellow Nato member state.
Certainly Putin would sit back and grab the popcorn, and without doubt the Kremlin is enjoying this unusual and entertaining example of inter-NATO angst and disunity.
"Berlin doesn’t want to send troops to Ukraine because the situation is ‘too ambiguous’ but is openly flying kites about sending Nato troops to Greenland," a Nato diplomat told The Telegraph, commenting on the irony of the situation. "It’s a moral compass without a needle."
One EU official identified as Robert Briegeran - an Austrian general in charge of the EU’s military committee - has said that sending deploying NATO troops to Greenland would send a "strong signal" to Washington. Of course, there are some NATO and American troops already stationed there, it should be noted.
But rather than deter Trump it would probably provoke him to more drastic action and pressure on Europe. While no one believes that some kind of NATO on NATO shooting war would actually erupt over Greenland, Trump likely has plenty of cards to play to pressure the Europeans to back down.
Last month when the controversy first emerged, Danish defense minister Troels Lund Poulson admitted that Denmark had "neglected for many years to make the necessary investments in ships and in aircraft that will help monitor our kingdom, and that is what we are now trying to do something about."
But it's looking too little, too late at this point as Washington continues to eye a purchase or takeover deal. As detailed before, Greenland’s geopolitical significance has surged alongside the melting of its vast ice sheet, transforming the island into a key player in global security and resource extraction.
Beyond its role as host to an American military base critical to missile detection and space surveillance, Greenland’s untapped reserves of gold, diamonds, uranium, and rare earth minerals have made it a coveted prize in the competition for dominance over strategic minerals.