Nikita Lipunov — why Trump is becoming more assertive and how the situation with the island differs from Venezuela
"The meeting was frank and constructive, but we still have fundamental differences," Danish Foreign Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen summed up the talks with the American side at the White House on January 14. Translating from the diplomatic language: everything is running.
And just a few hours after the press conference, the leaders of several European countries announced the deployment of limited military contingents to Greenland as part of Operation Arctic Endurance.
Donald Trump returned to his idea of fixing the need for Greenland to join the United States a year later after another high—profile statement and with even more enthusiasm, which greatly worried the Danes and other allies. And although this is far from the first territorial dispute within NATO — suffice it to recall the long-standing military and political tensions between Greece and Turkey — this is the first case of direct military threats from a key member of the alliance. And in relation to one of the most devoted partners.
What could be the outcome of the Greenland dispute this time?
Changing motives
American interest in the world's largest island dates back more than a century and a half. For the first time, the United States thought about buying Greenland from Denmark after the acquisition of Alaska from the Russian Empire in 1867. Back then, Washington's motivation was imperial and consisted in expanding the living space. During the 20th century, the United States repeatedly raised the issue again: before World War II, American interest was also primarily geographical. During the Cold War, Greenland's military and political importance to the United States became apparent, which only increased with the advent of nuclear weapons and the improvement of their means of delivery. The American Thule Air Force Base (now Pituffik, in northern Greenland) has become one of the key elements of the North American early warning and missile defense system.
The issue of buying the island returned to the agenda of the White House during the first presidential term of Donald Trump — already in a new international political context around the Arctic. Before taking office for the second time, Trump started talking about buying again, this time more aggressively.
Today, American interest in Greenland is motivated by objective and subjective circumstances. On the one hand, the island is really of great importance for the defense of not only the United States, but also the entire North American continent, since it stretches from the high-latitude Arctic to the North Atlantic. Key NATO communication and defense lines run along the Greenland coast, as well as some transport and logistics routes (for example, the Canadian Northwest Passage). Greenland is extremely rich in natural resources, including hydrocarbons and rare earth metals, which are essential for high-tech industry.
On the other hand, it is important to take into account the psychology of Donald Trump himself. The president of the United States is first and foremost an entrepreneur from the real sector, and only then a politician. For him, Greenland is a valuable asset that needs to be "mastered" in the full sense of the word, which he almost explicitly says himself. In addition, the prospect of expanding American territory is very attractive to Trump due to the fact that he seeks to "make history" at every opportunity. The eccentric rhetoric of the US president, including direct military threats, is nothing more than an entrepreneurial strategy. He deliberately puts forward deliberately unrealistic demands in order to conduct political bargaining from a position of strength, and makes the whole process as public as possible.
Differences from Venezuela and its position
Trump returned to the issue of acquiring — or seizing — Greenland after the Venezuelan operation, showing the whole world that he would not stop even before international law to achieve his goals. In addition, Greenland, according to the US president, is fully covered by the "Monroe Doctrine 2.0," which means, to quote the classic, "he has the right."
But there is one "but": unlike Venezuela, Greenland is a sovereign territory of an ally, for the defense of which the United States has been de facto responsible since 1951. And despite Trump's skeptical attitude towards NATO, a military takeover of Greenland would mean a serious crisis in transatlantic relations and potentially an armed conflict with European allies. And this, in the long run, no longer meets the interests of the United States itself, for which NATO remains one of the pillars of military and political power.
Such a scenario does not meet the interests of the Europeans themselves. On the eve of the Danish-American talks, Copenhagen announced the strengthening of its own military presence in Greenland during "military training events." Sweden, France and Germany have also joined Operation Arctic Resilience. It is noteworthy that the deployment of military contingents is still taking place on an intergovernmental basis and has not been officially supported by NATO. Judging by the scale, the operation is clearly symbolic so far and is designed, on the one hand, to signal to the United States that the use of force is unacceptable, and on the other, to show the willingness of Europeans to "invest" in defense in the North.
What do the Greenlanders themselves think? The vast majority of the island's population is still against joining the United States. Despite the strong separatist sentiments, Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has made it clear that the autonomy intends to remain with Denmark for the time being.
This is an "equation with many variables," but the most likely and preferable scenario for all parties is a lengthy political and diplomatic process. During it, the United States will seek unrestricted access to Greenland's natural resources and expand its military presence. And although Trump publicly motivates the desire to gain control of the island by "threatening to seize it by Russia or China," the irony is that the only real threat to Greenland's security today is the United States itself.
Nikita Lipunov, Associate Researcher at the MGIMO Institute of International Studies, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia
The editorial board's opinion may not coincide with the author's opinion. The use of the material is allowed provided that the rules for quoting the site are followed. tass.ru
