“We absolutely need Greenland.” The words of Donald Trump, pronounced in an interview with The Atlantic in the aftermath of the military operation in Venezuela which led to the capture of President Maduro, have reignited a diplomatic crisis that risks undermining the very foundations of the international order. And this time, the target is not an authoritarian South American regime, but a territory of Denmark, a historic NATO ally and partner of the European Union.
The kidnapping that changes everything
Before analyzing the threats against Copenhagen, it is necessary to clarify a crucial point from a legal point of view: what the United States carried out against Maduro is not an arrest according to the terms of international law, but a kidnapping. The distinction is not just semantic. Customary international law grants sitting heads of state absolute personal immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of other states, one of the pillars of international order. Operation “Absolute Resolve”, ordered by Trump, saw American special forces storm into Caracas, capture Maduro and his wife, and transfer them to a Brooklyn prison without any international warrant.
The international community reacted firmly. Russia and China defined the operation as an unacceptable violation of the sovereignty of an independent state, while the European Union recalled that the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Washington’s message, however, is unequivocal: when American national interests require it, the sovereignty of others becomes a negotiable concept.
From Venezuela to Greenland: a disturbing parallel
It is in this context that Trump’s words on Greenland take on new weight. In the same hours of the interview in which he threatened Venezuelan vice president Delcy Rodriguez, the tycoon declared that the United States needs the Arctic island for security reasons, describing it as «surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships.” The temporal coincidence is not coincidental.
Even more significant was the post published by Katie Miller, wife of Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s most influential advisors. The podcaster shared an image of Greenland covered by the American flag with the words “Soon!” on X, a few hours after the operation in Venezuela. A message that reached 17 million views and which triggered the immediate reaction of the Danish authorities.
The Danish ambassador to Washington, Jesper Moeller Soerensen, responded by reiterating that full respect for the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark is expected. A diplomatic stance that barely hides Copenhagen’s concern: If the United States was able to seize the president of a sovereign state without significant consequences, what stops it from forcibly taking territory it considers strategic?
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen strongly urged the United States to end threats against a historically close ally. In a statement that had the tone of an ultimatum, Frederiksen clarified: «It makes absolutely no sense to talk about the need for the United States to annex Greenland. The United States has no right to annex any of the three Commonwealth countries».
The Danish Prime Minister also recalled that the Kingdom of Denmark is part of NATO and is covered by the Alliance’s security guarantee, and that a defense agreement already exists which guarantees the United States broad access to Greenland. A reminder of alliances that sounds like a warning: an attack on Greenland would be an attack on a NATO member, with all the consequences of the case. Also Greenlandic Prime Minister Orla Joelsen called Trump’s request disrespectful, reiterating that the country is not for sale and that its future does not depend on social media or the declarations of other states. Greenland has enjoyed extensive internal autonomy since 1979, while remaining under Danish sovereignty with regards to defense and foreign policy.
The reasons for Trump’s obsession
Why is Trump so obsessed with Greenland? The official reasons speak of national security and strategic positioning in the Arctic. But behind the geopolitical rhetoric lie economic interests of colossal proportions.
Greenland’s subsoil hosts significant deposits of critical raw materials, including rare earths, graphite, nickel, lithium and zinc, as well as deposits of uranium, gold, diamonds and rubies. The rare earths present in Greenland could be extracted for an annual amount of 60 thousand tons, equal to 30% of the world’s needs. These are essential chemical elements for the production of permanent magnets, rechargeable batteries, wind turbines, advanced defense systems and the entire modern technological industry.
Currently, the United States is forced to import approximately 80% of its rare earth needs, predominantly from China. Control of Greenland would allow Washington to free itself from this strategic dependence on Beijing, just as the rivalry between the two superpowers intensifies. According to the US Geological Survey, 13% of the world’s oil and 30% of gas resources could be found underground on the Arctic island.
But there is also a crucial military dimension. As shipping traffic in the Arctic Ocean increases due to melting ice, Greenland will become a key player in managing new trade routes. Whoever controls Greenland controls access to the Arctic, with all that this entails in terms of military and commercial power projection.
The operation in Venezuela revealed a new doctrine of the Trump administration, which we could call “Rubio doctrine” named after the Secretary of State who theorized it. According to Washington, the 2024 Venezuelan elections are illegitimate, so Maduro is no longer a legitimate head of state and personal immunity lapses. It is a move that turns a question of international law into an internal American criminal procedure. This precedent is very dangerous. If the United States can unilaterally decide who is a legitimate head of state and who is not, and act militarily accordingly, every principle of national sovereignty becomes waste paper. And if they can do it in Venezuela, why not in Greenland? Sure, Denmark is a NATO ally, but Trump has already demonstrated several times that he views traditional alliances as negotiable bonds rather than sacred commitments.
The former president has in fact appointed Jeff Landry, governor of Louisiana, as special envoy for Greenland. Landry said he hoped the island would become part of the United States, much to the indignation of the Danish Foreign Minister.. This is no longer speculation or provocation: the Trump administration is building a diplomatic and political structure aimed at annexation.
The Greenlandic crisis presents the European Union with a crucial test. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that territorial integrity and sovereignty are fundamental principles of international law, essential for the EU and for nations around the world. France also reiterated its support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Denmark and Greenland.
But declarations of solidarity, however important, may not be enough if Washington decides to move from words to actions. Europe would find itself in an untenable position: having to choose between its main strategic ally and the defense of the fundamental principles on which the international order is based. The risk of conflict within NATO has never been more real since the end of the Cold War. All Arctic states except Russia are now members of NATO, a fact that should ensure stability and cooperation. But if one member of the Alliance threatens the territorial integrity of another, the entire Western security architecture falters.
The deafening silence of the international community
What is striking in the escalation of recent weeks is the relative silence of the international community. Maduro’s kidnapping resulted in formal condemnations, but no real consequences. The UN Security Council, paralyzed by the American veto, cannot intervene. International organizations limit themselves to expressing “concern” and calling for respect for international law, while Trump proceeds undaunted with his expansionist agenda.
The American president has also made his vision explicit. Trump ironically claimed that Copenhagen would improve the island’s security by adding “a dog sled,” deriding Danish efforts and claiming that only Washington can ensure adequate defense. He also argued that Europe needs the United States to control Greenland, a reconstruction of reality that no European leader has endorsed. History teaches that great powers rarely give up territories considered strategic unless forced by force or unsustainable political costs. Trump previously attempted to buy Greenland in 2019, offering unspecified sums, and was angered by Danish refusal. Now, back in the White House with an even more aggressive program and with the Venezuelan precedent behind him, his threats have a different weight.
The US administration is testing the limits of what it can do without incurring significant consequences. It kidnapped a foreign president on its sovereign territory and, after some circumstantial condemnation, the international community moved on. It has repeatedly threatened the territorial integrity of a NATO ally and, here too, the reactions have been mainly verbal.
A possible scenario
A possible scenario could develop in several phases. First, Washington could intensify economic and diplomatic pressure, using the leverage of rare earths and investments. The United States could offer Greenland a privileged partnership, bypassing Denmark and leveraging Greenlanders’ desire for independence. If this were not enough, influence operations, such as those reported in summer 2025, could be mounted to guide local public opinion.
In the event of resistance, Washington could invoke a threat to American national security – perhaps the establishment of real or perceived Chinese or Russian bases – to justify a “preventive” intervention. The Venezuelan precedent provides the model: the legitimacy of sovereign authority is denied (in this case, the Danish right to govern Greenlandic foreign policy), it is proclaimed to be acting in the interests of the local population and international security, and a military operation presented as “liberation” is proceeded with. AND fantasy politics? Until January 3, 2026, even the seizure of a foreign president in his presidential palace would have seemed fantasy politics. Now it’s reality.
The next few weeks will be decisive. Trump announced that he will talk more about Greenland “in 20 days”, hinting that he has significant moves planned. Denmark responded by summoning the American ambassador and stepping up investment in Arctic security. Europe observes, divided between Atlantic loyalty and the defense of its own principles.
What will happen with Greenland transcends the fate of an Arctic island. THEAt stake is the maintenance of the rules-based international orderrespect for national sovereignty, the validity of alliances. If an American president can seize a foreign head of state and threaten annexation of allied territory without real consequences, then we have entered a new era: one in which power, not law, decides who is right.
The international community must choose. Either he finds the courage to put concrete limits on American unilateralism, or he helplessly witnesses the return of the law of the strongest. A law which, as history teaches, never leads to peace, but only to new tragedies. And this time, the theater of these tragedies could be much closer to us than we imagine.
