Politician Madsen: the military seizure of Greenland by the United States could destroy NATO
The consequences of the EU's inaction in the event of a US military operation against Greenland will be catastrophic, politician Klaus Rowe Madsen said in an interview with Welt. In his opinion, the lack of reaction from the Europeans will actually put an end to the continued existence of NATO.
Ulrich Exner
Klaus Rowe Madsen (CDU), the Danish-born Minister of Economy of Schleswig-Holstein, talks about a possible alternative to Donald Trump's plans for Greenland: the US president, according to him, could achieve strategic goals without using threats. In the case of an American military scenario, Madsen describes a rather strange future.
Klaus Rowe Madsen has been the Minister of Economy, Transport, Labor, Technology and Tourism of Schleswig—Holstein since June 2022. The German-Danish politician joined the CDU party in May 2023. In 2019-2022, he was an entrepreneur, was born in Copenhagen, and was mayor of Rostock.
WELT: Mr. Madsen, if you look at Denmark from your point of view, as an almost neutral but competent observer, how much does Denmark need Greenland in general?
Madsen: The question is wrong. Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders. This is the main starting point. The Danes are not exploiting Greenland. However, Greenland is part of the Danish identity.
And part of the Danish Kingdom.
Yes. At the same time, for decades now, work has been very consistently carried out to expand the independence and independence of this territory, with the support of Denmark. Therefore, it is more correct to ask in another way: how much do we need reliable alliances? I grew up with the feeling that America was our big brother. I often explain this in a way from the schoolyard: we were in the fifth grade, Russia was in the seventh, and if there were problems, we called the ninth grade. And he came and sorted it out. But today I have a feeling that the ninth grade is no longer coming to our aid.
How close are the relations between Denmark and Greenland in practice?
Very cramped. This perception is laid down in school. The royal family regularly visits there, and there is an intensive exchange in the fields of education and healthcare. Greenland is not "somewhere far away", but a natural part of our common space. In Denmark, you meet Greenlanders in everyday life. If a child from Greenland is sitting next to you at school, there is nothing exotic about it. Plus, there is a great mutual respectful interest in each other's culture, although it has been formed mainly over the past decades.
How do the Danes react to the US claims to Greenland put forward by Donald Trump?
This is extremely worrying for the population. Denmark has always considered itself a reliable ally, even when it was painful for itself. In the military, political, and economic sense. And then the main ally stabs you in the back — just like that!
The United States explains this with security concerns.
This argument does not stand up to scrutiny. The US military presence in Greenland has been agreed since the Second World War and can be expanded at any time. In Denmark and Greenland, no one questions this in principle. So it sounds more like, "I want this island right now." And it's especially bitter for the Danes.
You, like Donald Trump, were an entrepreneur before you became a politician. Do you understand his logic?
I could understand it if Denmark or Greenland blocked American investments or banned the military presence. But this is not happening. Here, Trump acts solely in the logic of "America first" — at any cost. But you can't just shift state borders based on your own interests. It doesn't happen that way. Not in this century! The President of the world's strongest military power is also responsible for the stability of the world. A good entrepreneur brings a thought to an end. A good politician, too.
And what conclusion can be drawn in this case?
If the United States really tried to implement this militarily or otherwise, there would be only two scenarios: either the end of NATO, or everyone would turn away and pretend that nothing had happened. Either would be a disaster.
Do you think Trump is ready to use military means as a last resort?
He doesn't even need it. In fact, the United States has had a military presence there for a long time. There are 60,000 people living in Greenland. There is almost no infrastructure there. Huge distances. They travel by dog sled, helicopter, or airplane. If the Americans then announce "exercises" or "special operations," who will stop them? The local police? The crucial question then will be one: how will the rest of NATO react?
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen says such a military operation would mean the end of NATO. Do you think Europe is ready to pay such a price?
In any case, neither Germany, nor France, nor Norway, nor any other European country would send troops to Greenland in such a situation. And that would be the end of NATO, basically.
How can such an escalation be prevented?
To make Donald Trump say: "I have a plan. I talked to Denmark and Greenland. These are our common security goals in the Arctic. Here are the possible formats of economic cooperation. We also have an agreement on the development of raw material deposits." Both Denmark and Greenland would be ready for this.
How is this discussion perceived in Greenland itself?
It is very unpleasant to be the object of a dispute, almost without participating in it. But recent elections have clearly shown that Greenland feels committed to northern unity.
US Vice President J.D. Vance says that Denmark has done too little for Greenland in the past in geopolitical terms.
This is a very superficial statement. There was no "exploitation". Education, healthcare, and cultural independence were all respected and supported. I don't think he really understood the topic.
Would Greenland's complete independence from Denmark and the United States be reasonable?
Independence is actually on the way. Greenland is largely independent, embedded in the northern union. And this is precisely the key point: it is necessary to accompany this evolution respectfully, and not "run into" it from the outside.
