Trump Threatens to Take Greenland ‘the Hard Way’

Trump Threatens to Take Greenland ‘the Hard Way’

Trump threatens to take Greenland 'the hard way' and poses a policy question: how much money are you thinking of giving the Greenlanders to potentially get on board with the US?

I'm not talking about money for Greenland yet. I can discuss that, but right now we're going to take action regarding Greenland, whether they like it or not.

Oh, because if we don't do that, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we're not going to have Russia or China as neighbors. Okay? I'd like to make a deal,

You know, the easy way. But if we don't do it the easy way, we'll do it anyway.

The hard way. And I'm a guy. And by the way, I'm a Denmark fan too. I have to tell you, and I am and you know, they've been very good to me.

Oh, I'm a big fan. But you know, the fact that they had a boat land 500 years ago doesn't mean they own the land.

Of course, we had a lot of boats there too. But we need it because if you look outside Greenland now, there are Russian destroyers.

Chinese destroyers and big ones; Russian submarines everywhere. We are not going to have Russia or China take over Greenland. And if we don't, that's what they are going to do.

So, we are going to do something with Greenland, either the latter way or the more difficult way. Please go ahead. Madam, on Greenland, Mr. President,

Why is it important for you to own it when you have a military presence there that you can affect security, because when we own it,

We defend it. You don't defend a lease the same way. You have to own it. Oh and you know, with a nation, look what happened with Obama with that terrible deal.

That they did with Iran. It was a short-term deal. It was like a nine-year deal. The countries should own it. And uh, your defense. You don't defend a lease.

And we're going to have to defend Greenland. If we don't, China or Russia will. That's not going to happen. We're not happy, and I like China.

I like Russia. I love the Chinese people. I love the Russian people. I get along very well

with President Putin, but I'm very disappointed with him.

I get along very well with President Xi. I'm going to China in April, but I don't want them as neighbors in Greenland. Not going to happen.

And by the way, NATO had to realize that I'm for NATO. I saved NATO. If it wasn't for me, you wouldn't have NATO now.

But we will not allow Russia or China to take over Greenland. And if we don't, this is what's going to happen.

Poland warns US threat to seize Greenland risks dividing NATO | REUTERS

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said on Friday that he was worried about NATO pressure over a US threat to annex Greenland. Yes, I am very concerned about the Greenland issue.

And I am also very concerned about events in the US and everything that is causing ideological and political tensions within NATO and within the US itself.

The White House has said that the US is considering several options for acquiring Greenland, including the use of military force.

Poland sees the US and NATO as crucial to its security in the face of an increasingly aggressive Russia. And policymakers in Warsaw fear that divisions in the alliance could embolden Moscow.

A US military takeover of Greenland from Denmark, along with this one, would send shockwaves through the NATO alliance and deepen divisions between US President Donald Trump and European leaders.

But Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said on Friday that she did not think that would happen. I don’t believe in the assumption that the United States would launch a military operation to gain control of Greenland,

I would not support this option explicitly. I have already written about it, but I am sure that it would not benefit anyone. I think it would not benefit the United States either.

To be clear, Maloney said that a strong NATO presence in the Arctic would help to alleviate American concerns about rival powers gaining influence in the region.

and reduce pressure for Washington to take unilateral action. The US State Department said that Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke on Friday with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutten and discussed the importance of Arctic security for all NATO allies.

Trump invading Greenland would be a 'crisis' for NATO

Venezuela is one thing. What you're saying is, I mean, we've heard this before, but in the last 24 hours, statements from some people connected to the Trump administration regarding Greenland.

Well, I think the voices you're hearing from the administration are really confirming that Donald Trump is a president who believes in spheres of influence rather than the rule of law. And that was pretty public in his national security strategy that was published recently.

A big part of it, the first part of it, was talking about.

Your idea of ​​the Western Hemisphere and the definition of the Western Hemisphere is South America, Central America, the Caribbean,

Greenland and Canada. It's not right where you know you can think, and you know the national security strategy is really filled with this sense that we have spheres of influence.

And you may have heard people now relaunching the Monroe Doctrine, which was the 19th-century doctrine of the United States that said to Europe

That you would stay out of our backyard at that time, and now your people would stay out of it. I think that's the Don Rowe doctrine. So I think

That's what we have in this president of the United States. Not a man who believes in a rules-based system, but a man who believes in spheres of influence

Where the powerful control that sphere. Uh, that's why he probably thinks so much about President Putin. That's encouraging for President Xi Jinping, and he left us in Europe,

The United Kingdom is in the middle. Oh, and you know the countries that have benefited from the rules-based system and are probably scratching their heads right now about what to do next, and we'll talk about Ukraine in a second

And let's talk about the implications of that on Greenland itself, I mean, I don't want to play this too much, but I mean, what do you think if Greenland were actually given a response? Obviously, it's effectively Danish territory and in essence then.

A kind of part of NATO, I mean to suggest something that then NATO would be dissolved. Well, that would be a very serious crisis for NATO because in NATO, we basically respect each other.

We respect each other's sovereignty. It's a treaty of nation-states, and within that, an ally is invading or taking away or annexing the sovereign state of another country in anything that we don't believe in.

Remember that what Putin is threatening are the values ​​of NATO. Don't mind our military capabilities. That's basically what we stand for as an alliance.

And this alliance was formed in 1948 after the war. And what we shouldn't forget is that the West, as we know it, in 1945, rejected the idea of ​​spheres of influence in military power.

Which we rejected from Hitler. and the Cold War became a kind of battle of influence between the Soviet efforts with communism and ideology

And we base our ideology on that, as long as we are free and sovereign and democratic with the rule of law, that's what it is for all of us.

And that has benefited the United States. It's not just that it's negative for the United States, you know, it's enriched itself globally through trade.

So, we have So on Ukraine, you know, there's an argument, I think you and others are convinced, that it would, you know, kind of encourage.

Putin's actions in Ukraine. But does it really change the game in the sense that I mean, Vladimir Putin has clearly been convinced for quite some time.

That this kind of Ukraine is his god, and what President Trump does in Latin America is not really.

Change that basic ideology, well, I think we're in the most powerful country on Earth that effectively aligns itself with this kind of ideology.

That legality doesn't matter. Sovereignty doesn't matter that you're the biggest, you know, you're the biggest playground.

It doesn't matter. But haven't the Russians thought that for years? I mean, they'll point it out, and they've done it for the last decade anyway.

So, for example, for the US action in Iraq, they would say that the US never followed international law. That was an argument.

They would consider.

Well, I think what we have seen so far is Russia holding up the NATO border. They have never really entered NATO.

We have recently seen drone strikes in Poland and provocations and sub-threat activity, like we have seen in the UK, being used to target Karma properties.

And set warehouses on fire. So we have certainly seen a bit of that, but basically, the Russians have been wary of NATO militarily.

They did not want to take us on directly. But if the biggest supporter of NATO, the one that currently provides 70 percent of NATO's capabilities, decides

That he is no longer for it, or is not actually going to be motivated by this kind of breach of the alliance. That is too much.

Important because that leavesPutin open, and Greenland is reallyimportant because Greenland isabsolutely at the sort of fulcrum between the Western Hemisphere.

Yeah, and also Europe. And whatdoes Putin want more than anything? Whatdoes he want, going way back to his KGBtimes? He wants a schism between one side of the Atlantic and the other.