Eliot A. Cohen: “European leaders are in a dither, understandably but inexcusably, about Donald Trump’s threats to take Greenland by force, and to use tariffs to slap around anyone who objects: understandably, because no previous president would ever have acted this way; inexcusably, because a clear if unpalatable solution lies right before them.
“If European countries were to permanently deploy, say, 5,000 soldiers armed with surface-to-air and anti-ship missiles to Greenland, keeping them there with orders to fight invading American soldiers to the last round of ammunition, Trump would not order the paratroops and the Marines to assault that frozen wasteland—too many body bags. If they were willing to put comparable economic sanctions in place—denying American companies access to Europe’s economy, still collectively the world’s third largest—he would back down from those threats as well. Such policies go against the grain of a continent that is, to use the word popularized by the British military historian Michael Howard, debellated, but that’s the world they are in.
“The Greenland episode, disgraceful and shameful as it is, should be seen in the context of Trump’s other foreign-policy escapades—the capturing of Nicolás Maduro; the bombing of the Iranian nuclear program; the attempt to rebuild and reorient war-shattered Gaza; the on-again, off-again relationships with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky; the tariff bazookas that get downgraded to squirt guns with China. Erratic as the president sounds, the Trumpian worldview is comprehensible and even, in some respects, predictable …
“Trump’s domestic political gift is the feral instinct for weakness that characterizes most authoritarians. That instinct is shakier in international affairs, but it shapes the way in which he views the world. With an image of American industrial and military power that is rooted in the world of several generations ago, he has enormous confidence in American strength and therefore assumes that bullying is preferable to negotiation, unless you are up against someone who is as tough as you, even if less muscle-bound.
“He knows what he hates in foreign affairs—the mealymouthed multilateralism of the Biden administration, its catering to deadbeat allies, and its weakness in fleeing Afghanistan. He likewise despises the caterwauling about liberal values and democracy and the long-term military commitments of the George W. Bush administration. Indeed, although he cannot get over Joe Biden—Trump’s insecurities and grievances about the 2020 election and the various prosecutions he has faced between then and now prohibit it—from a foreign-policy point of view, he is at least as anti–George W. Bush as he is anti-Biden. And he despises the reverence for deliberate decision making, consultation with experts, and the willingness to engage in the conventional diplomacy that characterizes both. He views talk of international leadership, much less its practice, as claptrap.
“Above all, he has three principal instruments in foreign policy: tariffs and kindred economic sanctions, brief bombing campaigns, and commando raids. He has no tolerance for bloody battles, which is why he will not authorize an Arctic amphibious campaign that faces real opposition. If he is going to negotiate, he will use friends such as Steven Witkoff and family members such as Jared Kushner, who might have an eye for lucrative deals that will enrich the United States and privileged relatives and friends. Nothing wrong with greed-driven foreign policy, in his view.”
Thank you for the article but it doesn’t really explain why Trump is obsessed with Greenland at all. I definitely do not understand it.
scientificmethid on
I don’t think many people are actually seek to understand it.
It’s easier to say he’s dumb, arrogant, petty, or corrupt, which I won’t even say isn’t true. But when you say that, and only that, it doesn’t provide anyone with the information needed to stop him. Whether it is true or not, it is lazy and unhelpful.
When people say any or all of those are the sole reason for his actions, I roll my eyes and write them off as unserious.
ilovedikdik on
The reason is because Thiel, Altman and the other psycho-STEM-bro techno-barons want to acquire Lebensraum to build a libertarian settler colony there. Hundreds of billions have been invested. Greenland is a real estate bonanza.
Forget about the natives. (See also: Manifest Destiny; Trail of Tears; Spanish conquistadors)
11timesover on
NATO exists to protect each other. If Trump was actually concerned about our security, in case Greenland is invaded, NATO is who he is supposed to go to for those concerns. Not threaten to take over Greenland, carte blanche. He is doing this to destroy NATO. Not only that, he is hellbent on invading other countries for their natural resources. There’s no difference between him and Putin. In fact they are besties. Trump is a madman, chosen by the American people to lead our country. We need a full scale revolution if the GOP doesnt get their shit together and remove him from office now! He is destroying our country and our standing in the world. He is a threat to our very existence.
I don’t know what I’m talking about. There is no Republican party anymore, only the Trump party. Even the RNC is run now by Trump family and stooges.
So, in essence, the whole GOP is a serious threat to our country’s survival as a democratic NATO ally.
Udontunderstand1916 on
I believe there are three main reasons:
– Nothing seems to make it happier than putting his name on things. After taking Greenland, it would become Trumpland within 2 years.
– the natural resources and positioning in a warming ocean
– perhaps most importantly, it’s a distraction from the epstein files.
s1nbad_the_sailor on
I think of it maybe a little differently from the top comments. I don’t think it’s as much a military need as it is being able to control trade routes.
The US currently controls the narrative when it comes to the western nations. But, at what cost? Massive NATO spending. The US pays to play. And even then sees countries in Europe making trade deals with china when the US would very much like them not to. Yes, in case of a war or a Taiwan invasion Europe will help but not in any meaningful manner. USA learnt that in Afghanistan. I think the trade routes that get impacted the most by a Greenland acquisition are the ones that go from east Asia to Europe. Which if america controls then instead of goodwill they have more leverage over Europe than just we’ll protect you from Russia (which EU doesn’t really need anymore seeing how Russia is struggling in Ukraine) On top of this acquiring Greenland gives Americans freedom to mine when/if needed. This would not be as easy if the US wanted to sit down and do deals with the Greenlanders or Danes. And there’s always a risk of it being free for all to bid and china could vid for ports/mines. Then you’re back running the race.
There’s very few downsides to acquiring Greenland apart from not being able to sleep at night. You get massive negotiating leverage, defense capabilities and natural resources. All at the cost of temporarily upsetting some leaders who were signing deals with the Chinese on a growing scale anyway. Acquiring Greenland is not a trump idea either. It’s been in discussions (albiet quietly) since 1946 under Harry Truman.
7 Comments
Eliot A. Cohen: “European leaders are in a dither, understandably but inexcusably, about Donald Trump’s threats to take Greenland by force, and to use tariffs to slap around anyone who objects: understandably, because no previous president would ever have acted this way; inexcusably, because a clear if unpalatable solution lies right before them.
“If European countries were to permanently deploy, say, 5,000 soldiers armed with surface-to-air and anti-ship missiles to Greenland, keeping them there with orders to fight invading American soldiers to the last round of ammunition, Trump would not order the paratroops and the Marines to assault that frozen wasteland—too many body bags. If they were willing to put comparable economic sanctions in place—denying American companies access to Europe’s economy, still collectively the world’s third largest—he would back down from those threats as well. Such policies go against the grain of a continent that is, to use the word popularized by the British military historian Michael Howard, debellated, but that’s the world they are in.
“The Greenland episode, disgraceful and shameful as it is, should be seen in the context of Trump’s other foreign-policy escapades—the capturing of Nicolás Maduro; the bombing of the Iranian nuclear program; the attempt to rebuild and reorient war-shattered Gaza; the on-again, off-again relationships with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky; the tariff bazookas that get downgraded to squirt guns with China. Erratic as the president sounds, the Trumpian worldview is comprehensible and even, in some respects, predictable …
“Trump’s domestic political gift is the feral instinct for weakness that characterizes most authoritarians. That instinct is shakier in international affairs, but it shapes the way in which he views the world. With an image of American industrial and military power that is rooted in the world of several generations ago, he has enormous confidence in American strength and therefore assumes that bullying is preferable to negotiation, unless you are up against someone who is as tough as you, even if less muscle-bound.
“He knows what he hates in foreign affairs—the mealymouthed multilateralism of the Biden administration, its catering to deadbeat allies, and its weakness in fleeing Afghanistan. He likewise despises the caterwauling about liberal values and democracy and the long-term military commitments of the George W. Bush administration. Indeed, although he cannot get over Joe Biden—Trump’s insecurities and grievances about the 2020 election and the various prosecutions he has faced between then and now prohibit it—from a foreign-policy point of view, he is at least as anti–George W. Bush as he is anti-Biden. And he despises the reverence for deliberate decision making, consultation with experts, and the willingness to engage in the conventional diplomacy that characterizes both. He views talk of international leadership, much less its practice, as claptrap.
“Above all, he has three principal instruments in foreign policy: tariffs and kindred economic sanctions, brief bombing campaigns, and commando raids. He has no tolerance for bloody battles, which is why he will not authorize an Arctic amphibious campaign that faces real opposition. If he is going to negotiate, he will use friends such as Steven Witkoff and family members such as Jared Kushner, who might have an eye for lucrative deals that will enrich the United States and privileged relatives and friends. Nothing wrong with greed-driven foreign policy, in his view.”
Read more: [https://theatln.tc/AxcaUMBD](https://theatln.tc/AxcaUMBD)
Thank you for the article but it doesn’t really explain why Trump is obsessed with Greenland at all. I definitely do not understand it.
I don’t think many people are actually seek to understand it.
It’s easier to say he’s dumb, arrogant, petty, or corrupt, which I won’t even say isn’t true. But when you say that, and only that, it doesn’t provide anyone with the information needed to stop him. Whether it is true or not, it is lazy and unhelpful.
When people say any or all of those are the sole reason for his actions, I roll my eyes and write them off as unserious.
The reason is because Thiel, Altman and the other psycho-STEM-bro techno-barons want to acquire Lebensraum to build a libertarian settler colony there. Hundreds of billions have been invested. Greenland is a real estate bonanza.
Guess who loves shady real estate deals?
https://newrepublic.com/article/205102/oligarchs-pushing-conquest-greenland-trump
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/greenland-freedom-city-rich-donors-push-trump-tech-hub-up-north-2025-04-10/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinadilicosa/2026/01/09/these-billionaires-bet-big-on-greenland-after-trump-took-interest/
Forget about the natives. (See also: Manifest Destiny; Trail of Tears; Spanish conquistadors)
NATO exists to protect each other. If Trump was actually concerned about our security, in case Greenland is invaded, NATO is who he is supposed to go to for those concerns. Not threaten to take over Greenland, carte blanche. He is doing this to destroy NATO. Not only that, he is hellbent on invading other countries for their natural resources. There’s no difference between him and Putin. In fact they are besties. Trump is a madman, chosen by the American people to lead our country. We need a full scale revolution if the GOP doesnt get their shit together and remove him from office now! He is destroying our country and our standing in the world. He is a threat to our very existence.
I don’t know what I’m talking about. There is no Republican party anymore, only the Trump party. Even the RNC is run now by Trump family and stooges.
So, in essence, the whole GOP is a serious threat to our country’s survival as a democratic NATO ally.
I believe there are three main reasons:
– Nothing seems to make it happier than putting his name on things. After taking Greenland, it would become Trumpland within 2 years.
– the natural resources and positioning in a warming ocean
– perhaps most importantly, it’s a distraction from the epstein files.
I think of it maybe a little differently from the top comments. I don’t think it’s as much a military need as it is being able to control trade routes.
The US currently controls the narrative when it comes to the western nations. But, at what cost? Massive NATO spending. The US pays to play. And even then sees countries in Europe making trade deals with china when the US would very much like them not to. Yes, in case of a war or a Taiwan invasion Europe will help but not in any meaningful manner. USA learnt that in Afghanistan. I think the trade routes that get impacted the most by a Greenland acquisition are the ones that go from east Asia to Europe. Which if america controls then instead of goodwill they have more leverage over Europe than just we’ll protect you from Russia (which EU doesn’t really need anymore seeing how Russia is struggling in Ukraine) On top of this acquiring Greenland gives Americans freedom to mine when/if needed. This would not be as easy if the US wanted to sit down and do deals with the Greenlanders or Danes. And there’s always a risk of it being free for all to bid and china could vid for ports/mines. Then you’re back running the race.
There’s very few downsides to acquiring Greenland apart from not being able to sleep at night. You get massive negotiating leverage, defense capabilities and natural resources. All at the cost of temporarily upsetting some leaders who were signing deals with the Chinese on a growing scale anyway. Acquiring Greenland is not a trump idea either. It’s been in discussions (albiet quietly) since 1946 under Harry Truman.