The future of Greenland

Greenland is a vast country with a population of just 56,000. It  was a colony of Denmark, and has voted to be largely self governing with its own Parliament. The King of Denmark is the ceremonial Head of State, Denmark sends an annual grant to assist, and Denmark has some powers over foreign affairs and defence policy. In practice the defence of Greenland rests with the US base and US forces that could be assembled in the event of a hostile attack from a joint enemy of Greenland and the US as members of NATO.

The US should make clear it has no intention of invading and occupying Greenland by force, as it is a NATO member and allied democracy of the US.

During the Second World War the US sent troops to Greenland to prevent a German invasion and occupation, when  Denmark was forcefully integrated into the German Reich. The trend of Greenland politics has been to distance itself more from Danish influence and power, whilst showing  little  wish to become a state of the USA. An earlier attempt by the US to purchase Greenland as they had Alaska was rejected by Denmark.

The US position today seems to be based on worries about the threat to all that unsettled land and the adjacent sea routes from Russia and China which is seen as a threat to North America itself. It is also likely based on the possible exploitation of minerals, oil and gas that may lie below the ice and could be useful to the arsenal of democracy. President Trump probably wants a deal that the US offers more defence security to Greenland in return for good US access to minerals and economic development opportunities. Greenlanders may be reluctant to allow mineral and fossil fuel exploitation for environmental and sovereignty reasons.

As the US Secretary of State, the First Diplomat, has said, these matters need resolution by negotiations.  The defence of Greenland is an important issue for all NATO members, and Greenland though with a tiny population might find more ways to help. The US needs to remember the purpose of NATO is to defend democracies and the rights of people to govern themselves. Maybe Greenland should start with a referendum on whether it wishes to loosen its remaining  ties with Denmark as part of seeking a solution to its future.

100 Comments

  1. Wanderer
    January 10, 2026

    The Greenlanders should be allowed to decide their future whether it be independence or selling themselves to the US, whatever they want. In reality others will probably decide for them.

    As for NATO’s purpose being “to defend democracies and the rights of people to govern themselves”, I don’t think so. Not if the Greenlanders voted to join Russia. Not when the EU interfered in Romanian democracy. Not when eastern Ukranians want separation from the Kiev dictatorship.

    Reply
    1. hefner
      January 10, 2026

      There was general elections in Greenland on 11 March 2025 (‘2025 Greenlandic general election’, Wikipedia) with a majority (30.3%) wanting both more independence from Denmark but also giving a clear message against more US role in the future of the island.

      Reply
      1. hefner
        January 10, 2026

        And today (10/01) the five Grrenlander parties published a common declaration ‘We don’t want to become Americans’.

        Reply
        1. Lifelogic
          January 10, 2026

          Is this just a price negotiation stance? It seems they pay 40-42 % income taxes currently. Perhaps if they the US offered the existing voters the right pay none for the rest of their lives many may be persuaded differently. Or perhaps a cash lump sum instead.

          I see that Iceland imposes an inheritance tax of 10% on the share of each beneficiary, not on the entire estate. Surviving spouses and cohabitants (if specified in a will) are exempt from this tax. So hugely better than the 40% in the UK over £325k each.

          For estates established from January 1 to December 31, 2025, the tax-free threshold is ISK 6,789,790. About £400k!

          Reply
          1. Lifelogic
            January 10, 2026

            Greenland sadly has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, with a recent age-standardized rate of approximately 71.3 per 100,000 population in 2022. This is about 8 times the world average.

            Perhaps they need to buy more sun lamps & vitamin D which your skin produces naturally when exposed to sunlight (specifically UVB rays). It’s vital for strong bones, immune health, and muscle function, but hard to get enough from food alone. Perhaps trump could throw these in to the deal too.

          2. Lynn Atkinson
            January 10, 2026

            Trump has proposed $1 million per person in Greenland, also access to the USA markets etc that come with joining.
            I can’t see how they can afford not to.

          3. Lifelogic
            January 10, 2026

            Indeed Lynn.

            I can see the argument that Trump makes that Greenland would be better in USA hands given the nature of Russia and China has some merit.

          4. glen cullen
            January 10, 2026

            Take the politcians out of the loop ….give the people a referendum

    2. Lifelogic
      January 10, 2026

      Indeed.

      The US needs to remember the purpose of NATO is to defend democracies and the rights of people to govern themselves.

      So will the UK still be a democracy after Starmer goes with his cancelled elections and giving ever more powers to the unaccountable EU, political judges, the Quangos, cancelling numerous elections, giving votes to children at the next election who are currently 12?

      Reply
      1. Ian B
        January 10, 2026

        @Lifelogic – ‘So will the UK still be a democracy’ No not part of the Plan

        Reply
        1. Mickey Taking
          January 10, 2026

          a ‘sort of ‘ democracy!

          Reply
        2. Lifelogic
          January 10, 2026

          Seems so, see the current absurd attacks on X/Twitter/Musk/free speech. Ofcom is an evil organsiation that played an appaling part in the Covid “vaccine safe and effective” misinformation enforcment by Boris, Hancock, Neil O’brien…

          The BBC says his software can be used to undress people “without their permission” have we not always been able to do this with a couple of photos, some scissors and bit if paste? Or just with a bit of imagination? Or any of hundreds of other photo or videos software tools!

          Reply
  2. David Peddy
    January 10, 2026

    My understanding is that the uS has one operational base there but in the past had more which are still there but empty.If the US wants to increase its surveillance and monitoring capability ,surely all it needs to do is resurrect those erstwhile facilities ?

    Reply
  3. Lynn Atkinson
    January 10, 2026

    Why is Greenland a NATO country by virtue of being a colony of Denmark when Gibraltar is not although it belongs to the UK and is north of the Tropic of Cancer?

    I dispute NATO is committed to Greenland and Greenland can’t expect other independent countries to defend it at enormous cost.

    They need to decide whether they wish to remain the status quo, defended by the USA or become prey for China or, horror of horrors, Russia.

    The European ‘leaders’ need to engage their brains and think that question through too.

    Reply Greenland has its own defence Agreement with the US, the dominant leader of NATO

    Reply
    1. Lynn Atkinson
      January 10, 2026

      Ah so Greenland has a defence agreement with the USA but not with NATO.
      Ukraine has a defence agreement with France and The U.K. but not with NATO.
      Trump can reasonably tell Greenland how much it costs per person to defend Greenland. Perhaps they will pay for that defence or make a better agreement for continued free defence.

      I see many Europeans, especially Germans are seeking Greenland citizenship in the hope of acquiring US citizenship I suppose. They don’t need to worry, Mertz has confirmed that ‘German troops will only be deployed in Ukraine with the authority of Russia’. Acknowledgement of the victor do you think?

      Reply
      1. Mickey Taking
        January 10, 2026

        ‘Trump can reasonably tell Greenland how much it costs per person to defend Greenland’
        Would Starmer reasonably tell UK how much it costs per person to assist Ukraine?

        Reply
        1. Lynn Atkinson
          January 10, 2026

          Yes. Starmer should tell us that. And he should ask us whether we are prepared to pay that price and to what end.

          Reply
  4. James Neill
    January 10, 2026

    Greenland has a history with Norway and Denmark going back one thousandv years the Greenlanders have a right to stay as they are for another thousand years – the Americans in the form of NATO have bases there and that should be enough – Greenland doesn’t need a referendum – if they needed a referendum they would have needed one last year or the year before. Last word – If we here in Britain are not careful Trump will want to take the Channel Islands next or the Isle of Man so as to control the Western Approaches to the British Isles and all for Britains benefit.

    Reply
    1. Ed M
      January 10, 2026

      Trump’s mentality, on Greenland, is more the Christmas games, Monopoly or Risk – not the rule of law (in the spirit of Magna Carta). And so more tyrant than king (‘king’ in the healthy psychological Jungian sense of the word). Just as Labour and Lib Dems are more wimp than king.
      Greenland is a step too far. Definitely into the area of tyrant.

      Reply
      1. Lynn Atkinson
        January 10, 2026

        Magna Carta was IMPOSED on the wicked King John by the Barons who had armies.
        All land is held by force of arms, nobody has a ‘right to anything’.

        Reply
        1. Jas
          January 10, 2026

          Yes yes! And in the land of the blind the one-eyed is king / but what if the Greenlanders decide to join with Canada their nearest neighbour because of their much better health system? – now that would certainly upset someone

          Reply
          1. Lynn Atkinson
            January 10, 2026

            Canada has not offered to defend Greenland. Indeed Canada can’t defend itself.

            Neither can the EU.

            Neither can the U.K.

            When you are weak always best to avoid threatening all and sundry.

        2. Ed M
          January 10, 2026

          You have a cynical view of power as if all the barons were tyrants. Also, England was a Christian country back then with Christian values – compared to now at least.
          No doubt, back then, you would have been Maid Marian on the side of Robin Hood.

          Reply
    2. Robert Bywater
      January 10, 2026

      That is exactly the kind of concern I have.
      Demagogues always set out to “protect” the lands they want to grab. Putin is only the kind Russian uncle rescuing little Ukraine from nazis and other nasties. It’s one of the oldest games in the world.

      Reply
    3. Donna
      January 10, 2026

      Author and Cambridge professor Helen Thompson, who is described in this Unherd Podcast as one of a small number of experts on oil and how it intersects with geopolitics, predicts that after Greenland Trump will set his sights on The Falklands …. and access to the oil in the southern Atlantic.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IuCswB2RLI

      If he does, there’s nothing we can do about it. We have no Navy to go to the rescue now.

      Reply
      1. Nick
        January 10, 2026

        @Donna – Well, we could enter talks to become the 51st state. Falklands could be part of the dowry, along with Gibraltar, Chagos etc.

        Or England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland could become the 51st, 52nd, 53rd and 54th states, thereby solving a whole heap of historic problems as well as rectifying George III’s regrettable colonial policy blunder.

        Reply
    4. Mickey Taking
      January 10, 2026

      Trump may prefer to take Scotland, with the outlying islands, much more practical defence against Russia.

      Reply
  5. Bloke
    January 10, 2026

    Keep Keir Starmer out of it.
    With his record he might offer Greenland free to a distant enemy and commit to paying £billions to that enemy at British taxpayers’ expense for many years after for the upheaval of taking it on.

    Reply
    1. Ian B
      January 10, 2026

      @Bloke – that would depend on how it funds his legal industry chums

      Reply
    2. IanT
      January 10, 2026

      Well of course, it’s in the gift of the Danes to do as they wish.
      They don’t even have to consult the Greenlanders.
      They could just cede Greenland to the Icelanders (and pay them $100M a year for the next 100 years).
      There is recent precedent (in “International Law”) for doing this….ask the Chagossians.
      The Danes could ask Lord Hermer to act on their behalf in this matter, I’m sure his fees are very reasonable.

      Reply
  6. Oldtimer92
    January 10, 2026

    The use of force by the USA to take over Greenland would have huge consequences and be a profound mistake. A negotiation to develop US bases and keep China and Russia out is a basis for an agreement. Access to minerals is another issue.

    Reply
    1. Peter Parsons
      January 10, 2026

      The US already has an agreement in place which allowd US bases on Greenland. Successive US administrations (including Trump’s first term) have wound down that presence by choice.

      Your last sentence hits the nail on the head. Just as with Venezuela, this is really about the US gaining control of the natural resources of a sovereign country for their own ends. NATO/defense is just a distraction tactic, as illegal drugs (which, for consumption in the US are primarily produced in Mexico – fentanyl – and Columbia – cocaine) were with Venezuela.

      Reply
  7. Rod Evans
    January 10, 2026

    It would be fair to say Greenland is a protectorate of the USA. If there was a threat to Greenland’s democratic freedoms from a hostile invasion then it would be the USA that would come to its aid. Denmark would contribute where it could, but Greenland’s wellbeing depends entirely on the USA.
    That situation will not change, unless the elected council/government became hostile to the NATO cover. Only then when a potentially unfriendly landmass off North America’s east coast transformed into a strategic defence concern, would real change in Greenland’s independence take place.
    I am guessing, the US military activities already in place in Greenland along with the economic contribution they make to the national GDP, is a significant positive the Greenlanders would not be happy to lose.
    As ever, President Trumps unique diplomatic style is causing the media class to get the vapours, I think he enjoys the mischievous fun he creates.

    Reply
  8. Donna
    January 10, 2026

    Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and has wide-ranging autonomy but that doesn’t include foreign and security policy. It is not a member of the EU but as a Danish Crown Dependency is in NATO. Denmark is incapable of providing security to Greenland and so is NATO without USA involvement. Militarily (as with a great deal else) the EU is a joke, and it has no jurisdiction in Greenland anyway.

    If Greenland was attacked by Russia, NATO would have to intervene. It is understandable, therefore, that the USA as the leading member of NATO, wants to strengthen its defences, create a realistic deterrence and secure the USA’s “back yard.” The sea lanes in the north Atlantic and Arctic area need to be closely monitored.

    Trump is a deal-maker; he wants a deal. And it will obviously encompass oil and mineral rights. I think the Greenlanders and Denmark should start a dialogue. It is in their interests that Greenland’s security is strengthened.

    Reply
    1. Ian B
      January 10, 2026

      @Donna +1

      Reply
    2. Lynn Atkinson
      January 10, 2026

      Greenland disassociated itself from the EU unilaterally. Denmark was not consulted. Why should Denmark be consulted now because 4 Vikings pitched up on the shore and added nothing since?
      If we have to surrender NI where we have investment, kin, and history why should Danish Imperialism be protected?

      Reply
      1. Brian
        January 10, 2026

        Exactly as SJ suggested maybe a referendum is called for same as we could have a border poll in NI

        Reply
        1. Lynn Atkinson
          January 10, 2026

          👍🏻 as Hefner points out the 5 political parties present Hobson’s Choice so nobody knows what the citizens think.

          Reply
  9. Geoffrey Berg
    January 10, 2026

    It has been obvious to me all along and I believe to President Trump but to few others that Greenland has such a small population and such potentially valuable land that all Trump has to do is offer each Greenlander a sufficient direct financial bribe and the U.S,A, will be able to take over and that would be the best result for all concerned.

    Reply
    1. IanT
      January 10, 2026

      $56B might do it…

      Reply
      1. IanT
        January 10, 2026

        Reminds me of that old cabbage – “Will you sleep with me?”
        {Certainly Not – Who do you think I am?}
        “What if I give you $1M for just one night?”
        {Well maybe…..}
        “So it’s not about the Principle, just the Price?”

        Reply
    2. Peter Gardner
      January 10, 2026

      ApparentlyTrump has indeed done exactly what you suggest. It already pays for its Pituffik Space Base.

      Reply
  10. Sir Joe Soap
    January 10, 2026

    The problem with a referendum is that it could be held under the auspices of bribes from either or both EU and USA. But the answer is clearly to reach some sort of agreement between the parties.
    The primary goal of defence should be the key and to be decided between Greenland and NATO if it’s decided that a protectorate is required.
    Extraction of resources can come later and be decided entirely separately by Greenland.

    Reply
  11. Mark B
    January 10, 2026

    Good morning.

    As a show of solidarity and to deter the USA from invasion, not that I think it will, the European allies, including the UK, could make a sworn declaration that, should indeed the above happen they will no longer see the US Dollar as the reserve currency and will cease to use it.

    To do that would be the end of the US economy.

    Reply
  12. Sakara Gold
    January 10, 2026

    After two years of sustained central bank buying, gold now ranks as the world’s top reserve asset.

    According to World Gold Council data, global gold reserves are approaching $4 TRILLION. US Treasury holdings total approximately $3.9 TRILLION

    Gold was up over 64% in 2025. Since January 2024, gold has surged by over 115$ There are structural reasons, but silver has also started to draw the attention of savvy investors

    The rapid increase of gold reserves is part of a broader de-dollarization trend as foreign governments pivot away from dollar-denominated assets and into gold bullion. This trend will not change in 2026. Trump’s global tariffs war and his “big beautiful bill” will cause accelerating inflation in the land of the free. Except of course Greenland, which is about to be annexed to assuage Trump’s megalomania

    The BoE failed to buy a single ounce of gold in 2025. Or 2024. Not one.

    Reply
    1. Donna
      January 10, 2026

      Wouldn’t it have been beneficial if Gordon the xxx hadn’t sold ours off at rock bottom prices, having told the Markets in advance what he intended doing 🙂

      Reply
      1. Christine
        January 10, 2026

        Our gold reserves are currently 310.29 tonnes, which is near a 25-year low, dropping from a high of 588.27 tonnes. Brown announced the planned auction, which lowered the price to US$252.80. The sale gained only US$3.5 billion, but he wanted the money to invest in foreign currency deposits, including euros. He invested 40% of the gold sale proceeds into euro-denominated assets to show public support for the new euro currency. Yet another expense of our EU membership.

        Reply
  13. Diana Duggan
    January 10, 2026

    I visited Greenland 2 years ago. At the time the main topic of conversation with the islanders, was the ever increasing presence of Russian ships in the arctic circle and to the northern shores . Personally I think it is right for President Trump to think ahead and protect the western world so to speak. I wish him every success in negotiations.

    Reply
    1. Hat man
      January 10, 2026

      Diana, please have look at the map here and tell us how Russian ships could be present ‘to the northern shores’ of Greenland: https://arcticportal.org/shipping-portlet/shipping-routes.

      The ice-free waters are to the West, facing Canada, and nowhere near Russia.
      Do explain how Russian ships are doing what you think they’re doing.

      Reply US has to look out for subs and for missile/ drone flight paths

      Reply
      1. Hat man
        January 10, 2026

        Reply to reply: So does Russia. So does any country that is concerned about its borders.

        Reply
    2. Lynn Atkinson
      January 10, 2026

      I agree. A population the size of Chepstow really is too small to exist independently and it will be snapped up by one of the big 3.

      Which do we prefer it to be?

      Reply
  14. Richard1
    January 10, 2026

    It seems very unlikely trump will use ‘force’ to take over Greenland. $1m to each inhabitant to vote it through would be a more sensible approach, with a few US$ billions to Denmark.

    I think Trump’s attempt to take over Greenland, sovereign Danish territory, in defiance of the wishes of its people, is a foolish outrage. But how is it different eg from Spain’s claims on Gibraltar, claims which are regularly pressed with the threat of imposition of foolish inconveniences, and which appear to be supported by the EU, in clear defiance of international law and of the wishes of the vast majority of Gibraltar’s population? Outrage is very selective.

    Reply
    1. Ian B
      January 10, 2026

      @Richard1 – Outrage is very selective – so true

      Reply
  15. James Morley
    January 10, 2026

    I agree with your position, the arguments put forward by Trump sound similar to those put forward by Putin to justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We in the UK should be very concerned by the US attitude, Scottish Golf courses are also sparsely populated!

    Reply
    1. Mickey Taking
      January 10, 2026

      as is the great majority of Scotland!

      Reply
  16. hefner
    January 10, 2026

    nytimes.com 07/01/2026 ‘Buy Greenland? Take it? Why? An old pact already gives Trump a free hand.’

    Reply
  17. Old Albion
    January 10, 2026

    Slightly, but not entirely, off topic. With the constant whining about Brexit, I was astonished to discover the UK was not the first country to leave the EU. We were beaten by none other than Greenland, who left in 1985.
    Yet I’ve never heard a word about it. Never heard Remainiacs bleating constantly about Greenlandexit. Selective memory from the EU fanatics again.

    Reply
    1. Donna
      January 10, 2026

      Greenland left the EEC, before it was morphed into the EU with no mandate.

      Reply
  18. kenneth
    January 10, 2026

    The underlying problem is that Europe has lagged behind in its commitments to defend itself let alone and other NATO areas.

    The U.S. recognises this so why doesn’t Europe?

    Reply
  19. Harry MacMillion
    January 10, 2026

    Trump has fired opening shots over Greenland but like most opening bids it’s OTT and somewhat alarming. Trump has a long way to go before he can actually be in control of the area, but that is what negotiations are for – I just wonder what it is that the Greenlanders would want in exchange?

    Typical of of our war-minded PM he is busy rounding up an army of the willing to fight any intrusion of Greenland – he doesn’t understand anything about diplomacy.

    Yes it seems that Greenland is a vital area of security for several reasons – Certainly that responsibility is well beyond Greenland to control, and if the EU were to get involved in it would make it a disaster area.

    Reply
  20. CJD George
    January 10, 2026

    I heard on that “interesting” font of all knowledge BBC4 USA already has a deal the Greenland approved by Denmark to put into numbers of it’s troops in Greenland an was responsible for a substantial reduction in number following the reduction of tensions after the cold war. All Trump has to do is operate an existing treaty for the mid and negotiated any access to minerals in a civilian forum in competition in the commercial world. With his commercial ”skills” “surely” he would out wit the Chinese?(smile)

    Reply
    1. Lynn Atkinson
      January 10, 2026

      The Chinese show great skill at extending credit to the point where it can never be repaid. They effectively ‘own’ Africa by this means, the Africans have not yet twigged but even they will shortly.

      Reply
  21. Lifelogic
    January 10, 2026

    “It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine,” P.G. Wodehouse, used humorously to suggest Scotsmen are often dour or complaining. Not that I have found this with the several I know (usually ones now not living in Scotland).

    I wonder if such a statement applies to Greenlanders I have never met even one? Might sunlamps and Vit D help this and decrease suicides?

    Reply
  22. iain gill
    January 10, 2026

    I am more interested in the future of Bradford, Rotherham, small heath, slough, Limehouse, etc

    someone should start extraction of the mineral wealth in Greenland, controlling its sea lanes, putting in place anti ballistic missile defences to stop Russia, China, India overflying the territory in times of war. if the USA needs to take control to do that great.

    good to see robert jenrick come out and say what we all think, now if he could do the same about indian outsourcing, followed a few trump policies, and get the rest of the Conservative party to agree wholeheartedly then maybe the Conservatives would be vaugely electable.

    ah well

    Reply
    1. Lynn Atkinson
      January 10, 2026

      With you all the way.

      Reply
    2. Donna
      January 10, 2026

      Just as well he got in before Two-Tier implements his “don’t you dare criticise Islam or Muslims” assault on free speech.

      Reply
  23. Ian B
    January 10, 2026

    To Me, it is funny how Donald Trumps bluster gets spun by all the US haters out there.

    If the USA is by far and a long way ahead in funding NATO in 2024 some $935 million more than 50% of all spending from a population of 350 million, is that equitable?

    The EU population 450 million its spending is a bit of a grey area to get to an answer from as they want to dance around percentages of GDP to justify their activity. Germany last year pumped up spending to $97billion(a massive jump for them), France $64billion with little Poland contributing $34billion. But all falling short as an equitable reciprocal part of the deal.

    The point being is the USA is stretched they have a massive western seaboard with China begining to dominate. China has the largest Navy and is acting more aggressively every day. So should the USA be protecting the EU when they are basically neglecting to do it for themselves?

    The weak border for the USA is it northern border, as those that fly know over the top is the shortest route. Little old Greenland is caught in the middle, independent of the EU but gets its orders via a State within the EU. Yet the EU is all consuming in its protection racket it wont look after what is after-all one of their own. With the EU sucking up to Vladimir Putin & Xi Jinping they are more likely to hand Greenland over to one of its close chums than see the USA protected.

    Yet Greenland is rich, very rich, but doesn’t have the money or resources to extract that wealth. I dont think past the motivational bluster the US has much interest in taking on Greenland, but I do think that if Greenland was independent the US would bolster its defences in return for helping them extract the wealth they are sitting of.

    Back to the US haters, they are so caught up in their religion of hate that don’t see the picture. The USA has been used and abused for some time, others want it to be the Worlds Policeman, they want the US to protect them then they expect to earn their wealth from the US on terms that put themselves first and foremost. Last time Trump, was President he was led a merry dance by those that just wanted to talk, then talk some more. All delaying tactics. This time he has done the running he has changed the dynamics, the USA comes first the rest that want to be pals should pull their weight and then everything will be hunky dory.

    Reply
    1. Ian B
      January 10, 2026

      This time last year the EU was crying that POTUS was being unfair and unkind. The EU had been imposing a 400% greater tariff on goods entering the EU from the US than EU goods entering the US. When the US equalled their tariffs to the EU, the EU screamed it was unfair and threatened retaliation. But how can you retaliate for something made equal.

      The next one up and the one on the horizon and moving in fast is the so-called International Law, as there is no such thing as International Law, as there is no World Government, no World Order as such, the USA has started to disassemble and distance themselves from all those entities and individuals that preach such nonsense.

      Reply
      1. Ian B
        January 10, 2026

        writing the above, and up pops the BBC with this:
        Now, the new US National Security Strategy (NSS), published in December, signals that, for the White House, that shared endeavour has ended; that much of what the world has taken for granted about America’s role is over.

        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c041n3ng03no.amp

        Reply
  24. Stred
    January 10, 2026

    The Chinese have offered to build a port and rare earth mine using Chinese labour. They already have secured most of rare earth resources as these are necessary for electronic manufacturing and advanced chips. Taiwan has 75% of advanced chip production and the US is arranging for Taiwanese companies to transfer production. They will need the largest rare earth reserves outside China which are in Greenland. The Inuit are sitting on a fortune.

    Reply
    1. Lynn Atkinson
      January 10, 2026

      Rare earths are not rare, just the technology to extract them is rare.
      That is not the reason the west needs to secure Greenland.

      Reply
  25. herebefore
    January 10, 2026

    Don’t know why we’re even discussing Greenlands future – Greenland is their homeland and no business of anyone else – the people who are a mix of Viking and Iniut have bern there for a long time against all the odds and deserve to be respected and left in peace. Certainly they don’t deserve these threats coming from an unhinged alien oddity. It’s time now for world leaders to stand up and call a halt to this madness otherwise there’s a great chance of a Anchloss/ Sudentland repeat.

    Reply
  26. Paul Wooldridge
    January 10, 2026

    The USA already have an air base and significant military presence and involvement in Greenland.There is no threat to Greenland from a take over by Russia while the USA are involved.
    There is no need therefore for the USA to own Greenland unless there are alternative reasons for doing so such as securing the minerals/oil.This of course is the real reason for the Trump administration’s involvement.
    If Trump takes Greenland then why not take Ukraine where they also have a military presence; They don’t need to buy Ukraine as they’ve already done a deal on the rare mineral deposits;Why not buy the Chagos Islands from the UK where they also have a large military presence.
    Yes we need to look ahead and protect NATO territory from Russia and China but if the USA continues with unnecessary approaches to buy other Countries they will sweep up ownership of a lot of the rare minerals and oil opportunities around the World including Venezuela which will put them in a far too strong and dominant position.

    Reply
    1. Peter Gardner
      January 10, 2026

      “no need therefore for the USA to own Greenland “. Apart from reducing Western dependence on China for critical minerals, I wouldn’t trust the EU/Denmark to make the right calls on defence. the EU collectively is busily undermining NATO at every opportunity and cutting the US out of EU defence projects. We would all be much more secure with Greenland in US hands.

      Reply
      1. Hat man
        January 10, 2026

        Here’s an update for you, Peter:
        https://thediplomat.com/2025/04/greenland-eyes-china-amid-denmark-us-tensions-but-chinese-investors-wont-rush-in/
        The logistics of where America is, versus where China is, make Greenland much more viable for US exploitation, whatever the Greenlanders want. That’s why everybody online is talking about China and Russia). Projection as usual.

        Reply
  27. Sue Doughty
    January 10, 2026

    USA has a vast base there, now reduced to only 200 personnel. If this were about security Trump would have beefed that up. No, he’s after mineral rights and subjugating the Inuits who live there.

    Reply
    1. R.Grange
      January 10, 2026

      You nailed it.

      Reply
  28. Norm
    January 10, 2026

    Have to say that the US and President Trump has proved to be a big disappointment to me because at the time of the Brexit vote and thereafter I was fully convinced that a trade agreement with the US was on the cards and was the answer – unfortunately things havn’t work out as I hoped and now I am left wondering if we made a mistake somewhere?

    Reply
    1. mancunius
      January 10, 2026

      No, we made no mistake, it was May who stubbornly made the mistake of refusing to engage with Trump over a trade and cooperation agreement with the US, which he himself fully backed at the time.When it became clear to him the May wanted to chain the UK to the Brussels doorscraper, he lost interest.

      Reply
      1. Mickey Taking
        January 10, 2026

        exactly….she has a lot to answer for.

        Reply
    2. Lynn Atkinson
      January 10, 2026

      We made a mistake and it was electing Starmer who is anti-British and anti-American.

      Reply
      1. Mickey Taking
        January 10, 2026

        his ‘anti’ list would get into multiple pages.

        Reply
  29. mancunius
    January 10, 2026

    Greenlanders may be reluctant to allow mineral and fossil fuel exploitation for environmental and sovereignty reasons.
    Only because they don’t pay for their existence, or for their woke politics and economics. They are hugely subsidised by their colonial freeholder, Denmark, and complacent about their own defence.
    The practical ‘right’ to ‘sovereignty’ of a scarcely-populated, heavily-subsidised and lightly-defended landmass of 56,000 people is hedged by realistic risks of occupation. The US is right to note this, in my view. Putin and Xi certainly have.
    The ‘Should’ world of liberal preconceptions is dissolving faster than any ice, understandably so.

    Reply
  30. Peter Gardner
    January 10, 2026

    Trump’s approach to Greenalnd is open, honest and well intentioned and in the interests of the West as a whole, which is dependent on China for resources particularly for Green Energy.. Contrast with the German led EU approach to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As the invasion loomed Germany refused to send any armaments, only blankets and helmets. Then 3 days after the invasion in his darkest hour as Russian troops advanced on Kiev, Zelensky was blackmailed: German armaments in exchange for EU Sovereignty oif UKraine so that the EU could gain control of Ukraine’s vast reserves of critical minerals. Its lithium and rare earths alone were valued at up to US$13 trillion. Von Der Leyen, in charge since Ukraine’s subjugation to foreign rule by Brussels is considered a certainty, has declared that post war reconstruction will be directed towards EU Green Energy and, of course, energiewende. Plans are being advanced in detail by the EU.
    Nobody minds about this imperial imposition but now they are up in arms about an honest aappraoch by America to Greenland that advnatages Greenalnd, America and all or Europe. and reduces dependence on China. Surely that is a good thing, non?
    As for Denmark, as Sir john points out Greenland was a colony of Norway until transferred to Denmark in 1814. denmark has bought and sold territory almost as much as Trump in his real estate business:
    Danish West Indies sold to the US in 1916.
    Danish Virgin Islands sold to the US in 1917.
    Denmark’s holdings in India sold to Britain in 1845.
    The Danish Gold Coast sold to Britain in 1850.
    Denmark is in the EU which is an anti-democratic and weak entity within NATO and which is actively undermining NATO by developing European defence organisations that cut out the US. Greenland is on the front line of military and nuclear defence of the US against Russia (great circle routes from Russia go through Greenland and Canada). It is far too important strategically to be left in the hands of an EU state.
    So the EU should be in agreement with Trump that the entire West would be more secure if Greenland were in the hands of the US, not Denmark and the EU. But of course the thrust of the EU is to replace the USA as the West’s dominant power so it opposes Trump.
    Also, Trump has pointed out the EU’s appalling weakness by allowing Islamism to propagate not merely unchecked but protected and encouraged in Europe and the error has been repeated evenr more egregiouly by Britain.
    And the EU, as every Brit would know, is never shy of acting out of spite.

    Reply
    1. R.Grange
      January 10, 2026

      You need to catch up, Peter. Russia now has the Oreshnik long-range missile, against which NATO has no defence. If one of them flies over Greenland on its way to, say, the Pentagon, it hits the target. There’s nothing a US base in Greenland could do about it.

      The best thing the US could do now is ratchet back the escalation, and genuinely let Trump win a peace prize.

      Reply
  31. Keith from Leeds
    January 10, 2026

    Surely if the King of the deal wants Greenland, he should negotiate to defend them from any aggressor, in return for access to their minerals and rare earths.
    He still does not know how the Venezuelan situation will work out, so he has enough on his plate.

    Reply
    1. Peter
      January 10, 2026

      KfL,

      Trump has gone neocon-lite. Topple the existing man, but no boots of the ground.

      We will see how that pans out. Unfortunately Exxon have stated that Venezuela is ‘uninvestable'(sic). They have lost billions there previously and don’t wish to do so again.

      Venezuela has lots of private armies – collectivos- that control things. So taking over will not be simple.

      Meanwhile China and Russia look on and wonder when and where it will all go wrong for America again

      Reply
    2. Peter
      January 10, 2026

      KfL,

      Trump has gone neocon-lite. Topple the existing man, but no boots of the ground.

      We will see how that pans out. Unfortunately Exxon have stated that Venezuela is ‘uninvestable'(sic). They have lost billions there previously and don’t wish to do so again.

      Venezuela has lots of private armies – collectivos- that control things. So taking over will not be simple.

      Meanwhile China and Russia look on and wonder when and where it will all go wrong for America again.

      Reply
  32. Christine
    January 10, 2026

    Two-tier Starmer strikes again:

    Only Greenland and Denmark should decide the future of Greenland, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has told the BBC.

    V

    Keir Starmer’s government has faced criticism for not consulting the Chagossian people regarding the transfer of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, which many Chagossians oppose, claiming it undermines their rights and national security. Critics argue that the government should prioritise the self-determination of the Chagossians, who have a deep connection to the islands.

    Reply
  33. iain gill
    January 10, 2026

    wow all of the US government demolishing starmer today, Elon too. doing a far better job than the UK opposition politicians. so funny to watch. starmer is finished.

    Reply
  34. glen cullen
    January 10, 2026

    In other international news I saw, outside the London Iranian Embassy, protestors flying both the National flag of Iran (pre 1979) and the Israel Flag side by side….history today

    Reply
  35. iain gill
    January 10, 2026

    Someone has posted on X “One day, soon, Tehran will be more liberal than London”…

    Sad isn’t it

    Reply
    1. iain gill
      January 10, 2026

      someone else said “Tehran will be less Islamic than Bradford even sooner”…

      Reply
      1. glen cullen
        January 10, 2026

        Very true, I’ve been to Bradford

        Reply
      2. Mickey Taking
        January 10, 2026

        Tehran gets run with a set of rules. Bradford can be lawless.

        Reply
  36. Michael Saxton
    January 10, 2026

    Strategically, Trump is right about Greenland, however, his domineering rather tackles rhetoric ruffles the precious feathers of EU and UK leadership. Trump is well aware of the weakness of these leaders politically and militarily within NATO and especially concerning Greenland and Ukraine. Only America could defend Greenland and it’s in the interests of Greenlanders themselves to enhance this support including access to mineral deposits. Ice dominates Greenland, this vast territory has about 100 miles of roads, hence there’s zero road transport connectivity between main settlements. Air transport, both fixed and rotary supplies Greenland. Furthermore, it’s a brutal climate and terrain to work in as I know from personal experience. Mineral extraction would require huge logistical planning, geological research, support and financing. This would be way beyond the capabilities of EU and UK. The same rationale applies to military issues. Negotiation is the only way forward. Perhaps President Trump should reflect on the catastrophe that is now Ukraine and concentrate on diplomacy?

    Reply
  37. iain gill
    January 10, 2026

    the pre Islamic Republic flag has been hoisted over the Iranian embassy in London…

    Reply
    1. glen cullen
      January 10, 2026

      They could become the 2nd democracy in the middle-east

      Reply
  38. hefner
    January 10, 2026

    It is somehow sad to realise that some of those of who were most strongly calling for UK’s sovereignty at the time of Brexit are now telling the Greenlanders to go on with President Trump’s wishes. Said otherwise ‘Don’t scratch the varnish, all these ‘nationalists/sovereignists’ are just too happy to act as ‘slaves’ as soon as told’. ‘Jump!’ says the President. ‘How high?’ they just say.

    But the same ones usually telling us all about the Anglo-Saxons, the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, the beauties of the British Empire, the UK sacrifices during WW1 and WW2 cannot imagine that Greenlanders might not want to become Americans.
    Sad to see all these ‘collaborationists’.

    Also, in newsweek.com this week (07/01/2026) ‘Map shows how Greenland’s rare earth minerals compare to rest of world’ also shows that these rare earth minerals are available over most of the continents of the globe.
    Could it be that President Trump is not really telling the truth?

    Finally, something very interesting, a discussion between Paul Krugman and Phillips O’Brien, 10/01/2026 ‘Phillips O’Brien on Venezuela and more’. Well worth digging it if you can find it. That’s a rather

    different (and much more hopeful) take on recent ‘conflict zones’.

    Reply So which Brexiteers want Greenland to submit to US?

    Reply
  39. believeit
    January 10, 2026

    SJ If there is to be a referendum for the Greenland people then it should be about whether they want to be taken over by the US – with an answer Yes or No.

    Also – looking at the lineup of the US administration I can already see the cracks starting – the Secretar of state Rubio ‘the first diplomat’ as we call him will be the first to depart office- Mr Rubio has ambition far beyond the present Trump scene and has a reputation to think about – so it’ll probably happen before the mid terms

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.