Wednesday, January 07, 2026

France and UK confirm boots on the ground after ceasefire in Ukraine


By Jorge Liboreiro
Published on 

The security guarantees for Ukraine envisioned by the "Coalition of the Willing" and the United States include a high-tech mechanism to monitor a ceasefire, a multinational force led by France and the UK, and a legally binding obligation to assist Kyiv in case of a future Russian attack.

France and the United Kingdom have confirmed their intention to deploy their soldiers on Ukrainian soil after an eventual ceasefire as part of a broader package of security guarantees for Kyiv to avoid a repeat of Russia's full-scale invasion in the future.

The commitment was signed in a formal declaration by French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the end of a meeting of the "Coalition of the Willing" in Paris on Tuesday.

"I can say that following a ceasefire, the UK and France will establish military hubs across Ukraine and build protected facilities for weapons and military equipment to support Ukraine's defensive needs," Starmer said at the conclusion.

Macron said the multinational force would be deployed "away from the contact line" in the air, sea and land to provide the necessary "reassurance" so that Russia does not attack Ukraine again. Turkey, he said, would join in the operation with maritime support.

"The security guarantees are the key to ensuring that a peace agreement can never mean the surrender of Ukraine or a new threat to Ukraine," Macron said.

The guarantees discussed on Tuesday by allies would also involve a high-tech mechanism to monitor a ceasefire led by the United States and a legally binding obligation to assist Ukraine in the event of a renewed Russian attack.

The obligation, which appears to be modelled after NATO's Article 5 of collective defence, could mean military aid, but also logistical, economic and diplomatic.

Critically, it would require a ratification by national parliaments, a step that could prove difficult to pass in countries where support for Ukraine is fraying. In the case of the United States, it would go through the US Congress for approval.

It remains unclear how much each member of the coalition would contribute, both in the multinational force and the Article 5-like obligation.

After Tuesday's meeting, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said his country's contribution would require the consent of the Bundestag and limited the deployment of military troops to countries neighbouring Ukraine.

But Merz also said: "We fundamentally don't rule anything out."

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez announced he would launch talks with the main parties to discuss Spain's contribution, which, he said, could have a troops component.

"There's an open door for 2026 to become the year when the war ends. This is very good news," Sánchez said. "Europe never wanted this war."

'Huge step forward'

Tuesday's gathering saw leaders from almost 30 Western countries, alongside representatives from Turkey, Australia, Japan and New Zealand, come together.

The US delegation was led by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the two chief negotiators appointed by President Donald Trump, marking the first time they attended the format in person. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was originally planned to attend, but the recent events in Venezuela prompted a change in his schedule.

"President Trump's mandate is that he wants peace in Ukraine, and we're determined on his behalf to do everything possible," Witkoff said.

Also present in Paris were European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Council António Costa, High Representative Kaja Kallas and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. Alexus Grynkewich, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), who is the highest military authority in NATO, participated in the meeting too.

"We collectively stand by Ukraine, and a safe, secure prosperous future lies ahead," von der Leyen said, calling the meeting a "strong display of unity".

Leaders sought to flesh out and clarify the security guarantees structured along five main pillars: the US-led verification mechanism, military support for the Ukrainian army, the multinational force led by France and the UK, the legally binding obligation to assist in the event of a new attack and long-term defence cooperation with Ukraine.

The obligation to assist Ukraine was first pitched after a meeting in Berlin last month, where it drew comparisons with Article 5 of collective defence, the core foundation of the transatlantic alliance, even if leaders did not use that term publicly.

For Kyiv, a credible deterrent is an indispensable condition to abandon its constitutionally enshrined aspiration to join NATO, which Moscow firmly opposes and Washington does not support under President Donald Trump

Still, the path for an Article 5-like guarantee is riddled with questions.

European governments would have to convince their parliaments, many of which are paralysed by political deadlock, to agree to an exceptionally consequential commitment.

The obligation to assist Ukraine in case of an attack would rely on a mechanism to monitor an eventual cessation of hostilities. This mechanism, envisioned as a system of high-tech sensors across the contact line, would be of critical importance because it would serve to verify potential breaches and allocate responsibility.

If allies were to conclude that Russia is to blame, the Article 5-like assistance would come into play. Triggering the provision would ultimately be a political, not automatic, decision, according to European officials briefed on the discussions.

Zelenskyy hailed Tuesday's meeting as a "huge step forward" but noted the efforts were still not enough. "It will be enough when the war in Ukraine will end," he said.

At this stage, Russia has not given indications that it is willing to compromise on a peace deal and end the war, maintaining the pace of drone and missile strikes against Ukrainian cities, killing scores of civilians and infrastructure.

"We can only get to a peace deal if Putin is ready to make compromises, "Starmer said. "For all Russia’s words, Putin is not showing he's ready for peace."


Ukraine’s Allies Pledge ‘Robust’ Security

Guarantees After Russian War Ends –

Analysis



January 7, 2026 
 RFE RL
By Rikard Jozwiak

Officials from more than 30 Western countries — the so-called Coalition of the Willing — have agreed ensure “politically and legally binding guarantees” for Ukraine once a peace agreement to end the war with Russia is reached.

With Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, along Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, US President Donald Trump’s chief negotiators at the table during the January 6 talks in Paris, the coalition agreed that Kyiv’s “ability to defend itself is critically important” to ensure the security of both Ukraine and Europe.

“We confirmed that ensuring the sovereignty and lasting security of Ukraine shall be an integral part of a peace agreement, and that any settlement will have to be backed up by robust security guarantees for Ukraine,” a statement issued after the meeting said.

“Both the Coalition partners and the United States will play a vital and closely coordinated role in the provision of these security guarantees,” it added.

The meeting was called amid an intense flurry of diplomacy to fine tune a peace proposal aimed at ending Europe’s largest and deadliest conflict since World War II.

The statement is the most defined wording the allies have given on military pledges to secure Ukrainians after any peace deal is reached with Moscow.

It says support for Ukraine by the allies would include a US-led cease-fire monitoring and verification mechanism, support for Ukraine’s armed forces, a multinational force for Ukraine, and “binding commitments to support Ukraine in the case of a future armed attack by Russia in order to restore peace.”

“We are talking about strong security guarantees,” French President Emmanuel Macron told reporters after the meeting.

“These security guarantees are a key that a peace agreement cannot mean a Ukrainian surrender.”

European officials have told RFE/RL that there is “a renewed sense of urgency” after a meeting over the weekend of national-security advisers and a gathering of military planners on January 5.

The statement gives no specifics on troops for any multinational force but some officials have said the number that is floating around in various European capitals is that the force will consist of 15,000-20,000 troops, while others hope the level will be closer to 30,000 working under the motto “safe sea, sky and land.”

The bulk of the troops will come from France and the United Kingdom, which would lead the land and air component, while Turkey has indicated it would be in charge of securing transport lanes in the Black Sea.

“Following a ceasefire UK and France will establish military hubs across Ukraine,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

“We can only get to a peace if [Russian President Vladimir] Putin makes compromises and we have to be frank for all Russia’s words Putin has shown he is not ready for peace,” he added without giving further details on the plan.
Unresolved Questions

While the outlines of a Western presence in Ukraine are taking shape, there are still several question marks to sort out, including the rules of engagement and US security guarantees.

“We are largely finished with the security protocol so that the Ukrainian people know that peace comes it will last,” Witkoff said, adding further meetings with the Ukrainian delegation would follow.

“The president [Donald Trump] strongly stands behind security protocols. The president does not back down on commitments. We will be there for the Ukrainians to get there for the final peace.”

Peace talks have intensified since November, when Trump pressed Zelenskyy to accept a 28-point peace proposal that many saw as heavily favoring Russia.

Ukraine and its European allies — led by Britain, France, and Germany — scrambled to develop a counterproposal, eventually putting forward a 20-point plan that took in more of Kyiv’s interests, especially on security guarantees and territorial integrity.
Thorny Issues

Ukraine’s chief negotiator Rustem Umerov recently asserted that “most of the positions — 90 percent of the peace plan — have already been agreed, work continues on the details.”

These details include the thorny issue of territorial concessions with Ukraine pushing the line of contact to be frozen or for the entire Donbas region to become a demilitarized zone.

“We want to be ready so when diplomacy reaches peace we can place the forces of the coalition,” Zelenskyy said.

“We need to work on the question of territory. Ukraine needs missiles because every day notwithstanding the diplomacy the Russian strikes continue.”

Another issue is the ownership of the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant with Kyiv dismissing the idea of Ukraine and Russia running it together, preferring that the United States steps in to sell energy from it to Moscow instead.

Few in Brussels, however, are thinking that Russia would agree on any of these issues with the assessment that the Kremlin still feels it is winning on the battlefield.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said several times in recent weeks that Moscow will achieve the goals of what it calls its “special military operation” either by agreement or force.

With that in mind, the EU is separately preparing a fresh round of sanctions, the 20th since the full-scale invasion nearly four years ago, which is likely to be presented to its member states for approval later in January.Rikard Jozwiak is the Europe editor for RFE/RL in Prague, focusing on coverage of the European Union and NATO. He previously worked as RFE/RL’s Brussels correspondent, covering numerous international summits, European elections, and international court rulings. He has reported from most European capitals, as well as Central Asia.

Is Havana next? After Maduro's removal, Cuba loses an ally and fears economic disaster

Workers fly the Cuban flag at half-mast in Havana, Cuba, Monday, Jan. 5, 2026, in memory of Cubans who died two days before in Caracas, Venezuela.
Copyright AP Photo
By Sandor Zsiros
Published on 


The Cuban leadership has lost a critical economic ally in Nicolás Maduro, and likely US oil embargo could deepen the island's economic crisis. But according to an expert, it is unlikely to bring people to the streets.

Over the weekend, Cuban authorities announced that 32 Cuban nationals had been killed in the US's raid on the Venezuelan capital, Caracas. They were serving as bodyguards to President Nicolás Maduro in the military compound from which US special forces seized him.

Besides Venezuela itself, Cuba has been hit harder than any other country by Maduro's removal. Havana lost a key political ally and a pillar of its already troubled economy, and statements from the Trump administration in the raid's aftermath made it clear that along with Colombia and Greenland, the US could soon target Cuba as well.

The presence of the Cuban military in Venezuela was just one example of the close cooperation between the two nations.

"Venezuela was Havana’s single most important political ally ever since Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro struck up their intimate friendship in the early 2000s," Bert Hoffmann, a political scientist at the German Institute of Global and Area Studies, told Euronews.

As a presidential candidate in 1999, Chávez met with the leader of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro, in Havana, and the two governments' alliance has only deepened in the subsequent decades. Maduro was educated in Cuba and has positioned himself as the guardian of Chávez's revolutionary leftist project; he has maintained close ties with Havana ever since coming to power

Cuban officials hold key positions in Venezuela's intelligence apparatus, and Havana has sent Caracas doctors and health care personnel in exchange for political support and cheap oil. Over the last several months, Venezuela shipped around 35,000 barrels daily to Cuba at a heavily subsidised price – and as Hoffmann told Euronews, Venezuelan oil deliveries are still the island’s crucial lifeline.

"Over the last months, Venezuelan oil still made up 70% of Cuba’s total oil imports, with Mexico and Russia sharing the rest," he said. The fear in Havana is that the US could soon try to topple the Cuban regime without direct intervention by cutting it off from Venezuelan oil altogether.

Demise by decoupling

"While Washington will be wary of military action with 'boots on the ground, the navy ships along the Venezuelan coastline can enforce an oil embargo at little cost," Hoffann said. "And whatever the new Caracas leadership’s negotiating power is, continued support for Cuba will hardly be its top priority."

While Cuba could seek alternative supplies from Russia, Iran, or Arab countries, helping out Havana directly would make any new supplier a potential target of US reprisals. And even if Havana is able to find some alternative source of oil, the already precarious living conditions Cubans are experiencing are set to decline further.

Cuba is already experiencing its deepest economic crisis in recent history. The country's economy has shrunk by around 4% in the last years, with a contraction of 1.5% in 2025 alone. With inflation over 20%, food, medicines, and fuel shortages are widespread.

"Economically, Cuba now also pays a heavy price for having concentrated all investment on tourism, an industry for which the dire situation of crisis and political uncertainty is toxic," Hoffmann said.

Meanwhile, removing, undermining or at least isolating Cuba's communist regime one way or another has been an American priority since the Cuban Revolution in 1959, and for the Trump administration, the dire situation and Maduro's forceful departure mean a window of opportunity for regime change.

“Cuba looks like it’s ready to fall. I don’t know if they’re going to hold out,” Trump said on Sunday on board Air Force One.

What next?

Yet according to Hoffmann, despite the events in Venezuela, the leadership in Havana has so far shown no sign of disintegration.

"The fear of what is to come after an eventual regime collapse is a powerful glue for elite cohesion," he said. "They will closely watch how the post-Maduro elite survive the storm, or whether they will be hanged from the streetlamps."

According to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was raised in Miami by Cuban exile parents, the Cuban elite should not be complacent.

“If I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned at least a little bit," he told NBC News over the weekend, though he refused to talk about US plans for Cuba in any detail.

One potential scenario is a complete naval blockade, for which the Cuban army is already prepared – and in Hoffman's view, this would not bring the Cuban people to the streets.

"Even if living conditions become ever more precarious, this does not necessarily translate into rebellion," he said. "Mobilising collective action not only requires shared discontent but also the belief that protest may lead to change."

The military action against Maduro could in fact demobilise everyday Cubans, not motivate them.

"If its message is that it is up to the military to shoot it out and for the governments to negotiate their deals, for ordinary people, this is no time to take to the streets, but to duck and cover."


Image


 

NVIDIA and Universal Music Group join forces to develop 'responsible AI' for music

NVIDIA and Universal Music Group announced a strategic partnership to develop 'responsible AI' for the music industry.
Copyright Canva

By Anca Ulea
Published on 

Described as an "antidote to AI slop," the strategic partnership will expand NVIDIA's AI music models and develop new AI-powered music creation tools with direct input from artists.

Artificial intelligence (AI) could make it easier to find your next favourite song.

That's the mission of a new partnership announced on Tuesday, between AI company NVIDIA and the world's largest music rights company, Universal Music Group (UMG).

The two industry giants announced they are joining forces to develop "responsible AI for music discovery, creation, and engagement," according to a press release.

The collaboration will tap into UMG's catalogue of over 3 million recorded songs to expand NVIDIA's AI model Music Flamingo, a large audio–language model that allows the AI system to listen to, interpret and reason about music.

"We're entering an era where a music catalogue can be explored like an intelligent universe – conversational, contextual, and genuinely interactive," Richard Kerris, NVIDIA's vice president of media said in a statement.

Image
NVIDIA founder and CEO Jensen Huang speaks at a news conference in Las Vegas, 5 January, 2026 AP Photo

NVIDIA's Music Flamingo processes full-length tracks of up to 15 minutes with "unprecedented precision, capturing harmony, structure, timbre, lyrics and cultural context," according to the company.

With more data to train on, Music Flamingo will be able to help fans discover new songs based on "emotional narrative and cultural resonance," going beyond traditional search categories like genre or tempo. The system will also deepen its own knowledge of music, learning to interpret it more like humans do.

According to the company, this will make it easier for emerging artists to find fans who will connect with their sound. Artists will also be able to analyse, describe, and share their music with more depth on Music Flamingo.

"By extending NVIDIA's Music Flamingo with UMG’s unmatched catalog and creative ecosystem, we're going to change how fans discover, understand and engage with music on a global scale," Kerris said. "And we'll do it the right way: responsibly, with safeguards that protect artists’ work, ensure attribution and respect copyright."

The partnership will also develop new AI-driven music creation tools for artists. To guarantee artists are the ones reaping the benefits of these tools, NVIDIA and UMG said they will create a dedicated artist incubator.

The companies said the incubator will invite artists, songwriters, and producers to help design and test the new AI-powered tools, promising to serve as an "antidote to generic, 'AI slop' outputs."

It isn't the first time UMG and NVIDIA have teamed up – UMG's Music & Advanced Machine Learning Lab (MAML) previously trained its models using NVIDIA's AI infrastructure.

 

Sound the horn! Rare Iron Age battle trumpet found among hoard in Norfolk

With the shield bosses and boar standard excavated from the block, the carnyx, trumpet, is revealed.
Copyright Credit: Norfolk Museum Service

By Tokunbo Salako
Published on 

An extraordinary collection of Iron Age objects has been unearthed in West Norfolk. The hoard of metal objects was found during a routine archaeological excavation by Pre-Construct Archaeology as part of the standard planning process for residential properties.

A remarkable collection of Iron Age artifacts has been unearthed in West Norfolk, shedding new light on ancient British culture.

The hoard, discovered during a routine archaeological excavation by Pre-Construct Archaeology, includes a near-complete Iron Age battle trumpet, known as a carnyx, and parts of another.

These animal-headed bronze instruments were used by Celtic tribes across Europe to inspire warriors in battle and fascinated the Romans, who frequently depicted them as war trophies. The hoard also includes a sheet-bronze boar's head, originally from a military standard, five shield bosses, and an iron object of unknown origin.

Image
The carnyx is one of only three known examples from Britain and one of the most complete found in Europe. Credit: Norfolk Museum Service

Conservation efforts

According to Dr. Fraser Hunter, Iron Age and Roman curator at National Museums Scotland, this rare find will add enormously to our understanding of the period: "The full research and conservation of these incredibly fragile remains will reshape our view of sound and music in the Iron Age."

"The carnyces and the boar-headed standard are styles well known on the continent and remind us that communities in Britain were well-connected to a wider European world at this time," he added.

Image
The boar standard ready to be lifted from the block Credit: Norfolk Museum Service

Following the discovery, the objects were carefully lifted within a block of soil from the site, and initial scanning took place to reveal their position. Conservation experts at Norfolk Museums Service then removed each object for preliminary examination. The items are in a fragile condition and require extensive stabilization work before detailed research can begin.

"This find is a powerful reminder of Norfolk's Iron Age past, which still retains its capacity to fascinate the British public," said Dr. Tim Pestell, Senior Curator of Archaeology for Norfolk Museums Service. "The Norfolk Carnyx Hoard will provide archaeologists with an unparalleled opportunity to investigate a number of rare objects and ultimately, to tell the story of how these came to be buried in the county two thousand years ago."

As the find consists of two or more base metal prehistoric items from the same find, it has been reported to the coroner as potential treasure under the terms of the Treasure Act 1996. The case currently rests with the coroner, who will determine its legal status in early 2026. This decision will inform the next steps for the hoard’s future.

Historic England is working with Pre-Construct Archaeology, Norfolk Museums Service and the National Museum of Scotland to coordinate research and conservation. Where the objects will be housed long-term is yet to be determined.

 

Italy and France seek exemption on fertilisers from EU's carbon border tax

	Jerome Delay
Copyright Jerome Delay/Copyright 2025 The AP. All rights reserved.

By Marta Pacheco & Vincenzo Genovese
Published on 

France and Italy are calling on the European Commission to exempt carbon tariffs on imported fertilisers from the bloc's carbon border tax, which came into force on January 1. They argue that the measure will help preserve European competitiveness for local farmers.

France and Italy are calling on the European Commission to exempt fertilisers from the bloc's carbon border tax, which requires EU importers to pay for the pollution caused by products entering the EU, according to two documents seen by Euronews.

French and Italian officials are concerned that the country's agricultural sector will be exposed to a "significant increase" in the cost of fertilisers imported into the EU, with the French estimating prices to rise by around 25% due to the new taxes.

"Such a postponement would ease tensions in the crop farming sector and give economic operators time to restore the satisfactory fertilizer supply conditions for the 2026 crop year," said a letter sent by the French seen by Euronews.

Fertilisers are essential in agriculture for replenishing soil nutrients, like nitrogen, to boost crop yields and ensure food security, despite their environmental challenges.

However, the vast amount of energy required to manufacture these chemicals will ultimately be reflected in the EU's carbon border tax

The EU's carbon border tax, the Carbon Border Mechanism Adjustment (CBAM), currently covers nitrogen fertilisers, such as ammonia, compound and mineral fertilisers, and other fertilisers with significant emissions from production processes.

While France backs the levy as a whole, dubbing it a "fundamental tool" for strengthening carbon pricing and ensuring fair competition with third countries, Paris expressed concerns that the law will inevitably increase costs for already struggling farmers facing weak crop prices and higher fertiliser import costs, namely from Russia.

Algeria, Belarus, China, Egypt and the United States are some of the most prominent countries that sell fertilisers to the EU. Fertilisers from Belarus and Russia were hit by EU tariffs last summer.

These would operate under such regime even if the Franco-Italian proposal is applied, the Italian minister Lollobrigida said.

More measures to support European farmers

A second letter, signed by the Italian agriculture ministry urges the Commission to consider further parallel measures to benefit farmers "in the immediate future".

This could be achieved by scrapping duties on fertilisers imported from third countries, the Italian minister said.

"The alarming market situation suggests that a suspensive clause on CBAM effects for fertilisers should be activated as soon as possible," reads the Italian letter addressed to Commissioner for Agriculture Christophe Hansen.

Fertilisers Europe, a Brussels-based trade association, said the entry into force of the financial mechanism under CBAM would bring "high financial uncertainties" for EU fertiliser blenders and importers, preventing them from placing further fertiliser orders.

"With 50% of EU fertiliser supplies sourced from third countries and current stocks covering only around 60% of next year’s needs, this uncertainty threatens the trade of fertilisers and continuity of fertiliser availability for European farmers," Fertilisers Europe said in a statement.

EU agriculture ministers meet in Brussels

EU ministers will meet in Brussels on Wednesday to discuss a possible CBAM exemption, as European governments debate ways to approve the controversial Mercosur trade deal with Latin American countries, including Brazil, which would see duties come down across the board but also open the European single market to South American goods.

On January 6, the Commission announced access to €45 billion of funding under the next Common Agricultural Policy budget as soon as 2028 to appease farmers.

France has been rallying support from member states to back its exemption proposal on fertilizers, according to two EU officials.

"We are looking at the French proposal," one EU diplomat told Euronews.

 Taking over Greenland, a long-standing US obsession


ANALYSIS

Days after US forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in Caracas, US President Donald Trump suggested that other regions of the world could be on Washington’s radar, including Greenland. Ever since his first term, the billionaire has repeatedly expressed interest in the mineral-rich Danish autonomous territory in the Arctic – a focus that predates Trump’s presidency.


Issued on: 07/01/2026 
By:
Stéphanie TROUILLARD/
Romain HOUEIX/
Sébastian SEIBT

Image
President Donald Trump has reiterated his wish to bring Greenland under US control. © France Medias Monde graphic studio

US President Donald Trump is considering "several options" to acquire Greenlandincluding "using the military", his spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday, stoking further concern in Europe over the future of the Arctic island.

In a joint statementFranceGermanyItalyPolandSpain and the UK voiced support for Denmark against Trump’s claims over the semi-autonomous territory. "Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland," the European leaders said, stressing that Denmark is a NATO member like the United States and is bound to Washington by a defence agreement.

The statement followed new threats from Trump. Speaking to The Atlantic last week, the US president said it was up to observers to judge what the special forces operation in Venezuela – which led to the ouster of Nicolas Maduro and his wife – might mean for Greenland. “They are going to view it themselves. I really don’t know,” he added.

WATCH MOREHow far will Trump go: Is Greenland next?

“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it,” Trump insisted, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday evening. “We’ll take care of Greenland in about two months … let’s talk about Greenland in 20 days,” he added.

Trump’s renewed focus on the Arctic has sparked debate in Washington and abroad. Senior US officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, told lawmakers that the administration would prefer to negotiate a purchase with Denmark rather than resort to force, though the option of military involvement has not been ruled out.

Image
© France 24
02:02


Trump had already expressed a desire to annex Greenland, a vast Arctic island home to some 57,000 people, during his first term. In August 2019, he told reporters he wanted to buy the territory from Denmark, calling it "essentially a real estate deal", following reports by The Wall Street Journal on his interest in the island.
A land long sought after

The Danish province has been coveted for centuries. From the 10th century, Scandinavians began colonising the land, discovered in 982 by the Viking Erik the Red and previously inhabited by Indigenous peoples. Until the early 18th century, Norway and Denmark contested its sovereignty. In 1814, when the two kingdoms separated, Greenland remained under Danish control under the Treaty of Kiel.

Greenland, breaking the silence: The scandal of Denmark's forced contraception campaign

Meanwhile, the United States claimed Greenland as part of its sphere of influence. Under President James Monroe’s 1824 doctrine, Washington warned European powers against interfering in the affairs of the "Americas". “From a US perspective, Greenland is North American,” Mikaa Blugeon-Mered, a geopolitics researcher specialising in Arctic regions, told FRANCE 24.

A few decades later, the United States sought to annex Greenland. In 1867, it tried to acquire the island as part of a purchase including Iceland, but Denmark rejected the offer. The US instead acquired Alaska from Russia for $7 million.
From one war to another

During World War I, Copenhagen and Washington resumed talks. In 1917, the United States purchased the Virgin Islands (formerly known as the Danish West Indies) from Denmark for $25 million to secure the Panama Canal, while recognising Danish sovereignty over Greenland.

During Denmark’s occupation by Nazi Germany, the United States invoked the Monroe Doctrine after losing contact with Greenland, which opposed any European expansion in the Americas. In April 1941, Washington signed a defence agreement with Denmark’s ambassador in the US, despite instructions from his government-in-exile. The deal allowed American troops to be stationed on Greenland, effectively turning the island into a US protectorate. Several bases were established, including Thule Air Base, now known as Pituffik.

The scramble for Greenland: Can Danish dependency resist Trump pressure?

After World War II, President Harry Truman proposed buying the island in 1946 for $100 million, but Denmark refused.

During the Cold War, Greenland proved strategically vital once again. The two countries signed a new agreement allowing the United States to strengthen its Thule base, which became a genuine US military enclave. "If there had been an exchange of intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at the United States, they would have passed over the Arctic. That’s why they created this base, which still exists today. It is their first line of defence," said Blugeon-Mered, author of Les mondes polaires.

Politics, strategy and resources


With this long history in mind, Blugeon-Mered said he was not surprised by the US president’s recent remarks. "Trump's 2019 proposal to buy Greenland attracted a lot of attention. Journalists called me, dismissing it as absurd, though it really isn’t. The issue involves political, strategic and resource stakes," he said.

With climate change and melting ice, Greenland now sits along newly accessible shipping routes that could shorten global trade routes. In January 2025, Trump expressed concern about Chinese and Russian activity in the Arctic region.

“You don’t even need binoculars. You look outside, you have Chinese ships all over the place. You have Russian ships all over the place. We’re not letting that happen,” Trump said.

The territory, covering two million square kilometres and 85 percent ice, also contains vast mineral reserves, including rare earths – essential for smartphones, computers and electric vehicles – as well as untapped oil.

"According to the US Geological Survey, Greenland could hold hydrocarbon reserves equivalent to around 31 billion barrels of oil, roughly 15 percent of Saudi Arabia’s reserves," Blugeon-Mered said.

Image
© France 24
06:50


Accessing these resources, however, is expected to be difficult. "All foreign companies that have attempted to locate commercially viable or exploitable deposits have come up empty," the researcher added.

For Blugeon-Mered, "this geo-economic battle is becoming a geopolitical one". He added: “When China takes an interest in Greenland, it is mainly for resources; when Russia does, it is primarily about strategic chokepoints. And when the Americans or Europeans are involved, all of these factors come into play.”

Faced with such ambitions, Greenland has consistently insisted it is not for sale and wants to determine its own future. In January 2025, a poll published in the Danish and Greenlandic press found that 85 percent of Greenlanders opposed annexation by the United States, while only 6 percent were in favour.

This article has been translated from the original in French.


US military ‘always an option’ to secure Greenland, says Donald Trump


President Donald Trump is exploring ways for the United States to take control of Greenland, with military force “always an option", the White House said on Tuesday, raising tensions with NATO ally Denmark.


Issued on: 07/01/2026 
By: FRANCE 24
Video by: Fraser JACKSON

Image
A man walks as Danish flag flutters next to Hans Egede Statue in Nuuk, Greenland on March 9, 2025. © Marko Djurica, Reuters
03:02



President Donald Trump is exploring how to take control of Greenland and using the US military is "always an option", the White House said Tuesday, further upping tensions with NATO ally Denmark.

Washington's stark warning came despite Greenland and Denmark both calling for a speedy meeting with the United States to clear up "misunderstandings".

The US military intervention in Venezuela has reignited Trump's designs on the autonomous Danish territory in the Arctic, which has untapped rare earth deposits and could be a vital player as melting polar ice opens up new shipping routes.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that "acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States", to deter adversaries like Russia and China.

"The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilising the US military is always an option at the commander in chief's disposal," she said in a statement to AFP.


Image
© France 24
03:02



Trump's renewed claims over self-governing Greenland have stoked concerns in Europe that the transatlantic alliance with the United States could be about to fracture.

Earlier, Greenland and Denmark said they had asked to meet US Secretary of State Marco Rubio quickly to discuss the issue.

"It has so far not been possible," Greenland's Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt wrote on social media, "despite the fact that the Greenlandic and Danish governments have requested a meeting at the ministerial level throughout 2025."

Denmark's Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said meeting Rubio should resolve "certain misunderstandings".

Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen again insisted that the island was not for sale and only Greenlanders should decide its future.

His comments came after Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain joined Denmark in saying that they would defend the "universal principles" of "sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders".

"For this support, I wish to express my deepest gratitude," Nielsen wrote on social media.

Washington already has a military base in Greenland, which is home to some 57,000 people.

Trump hinted on Sunday that a decision on Greenland may come "in about two months", once the situation in Venezuela, where US forces seized President Nicolas Maduro on Saturday, has stabilised.

'Broken record'

The European leaders' joint statement called Arctic security "critical" for international and transatlantic security.

Denmark, including Greenland, was part of NATO, it added, urging a collective approach to security in the polar region.

The statement was signed by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez.

"Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland," the statement said.

But Macron and Starmer both sought to play down the issue as they attended Ukraine peace talks in Paris alongside Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner.

"I cannot imagine a scenario in which the United States of America would be placed in a position to violate Danish sovereignty," Macron said.

Starmer said he had made his position "clear" in the joint statement – although he did not restate that position in front of the cameras.

Trump has been floating the idea of annexing Greenland since his first term.

"It's like a broken record," Marc Jacobsen, a specialist in security, politics and diplomacy in the Arctic at the Royal Danish Defence College, told AFP.

Trump has claimed that Denmark cannot ensure the security of Greenland, saying it had bought just one dog sled recently.

But Copenhagen has invested heavily in security, allocating some 90 billion kroner ($14 billion) in the last year.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)



France working with allies on plan should US move to take over Greenland

France is working with ‍partners on a plan ​over how to respond should the United States act on its threat to take over Greenland, ⁠as Europe seeks to address US President Donald Trump's ambitions in the region. Denmark and Greenland say they are seeking a meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.



Issued on: 07/01/2026 - RFI

Image
Danish forces participate in military exercises with hundreds of troops from several European Nato members in Kangerlussuaq, Greenland, 17 September, 2025. 
AP - Ebrahim Noroozi


The White House said on Tuesday that Trump was discussing options for acquiring Greenland, ​including potential use of the US military, in a revival of his ambition to control the strategic island, despite European objections.

Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot ‍said the subject would be raised at a meeting with the foreign ministers of Germany and Poland later on Wednesday.

"We want ​to take action, but we want to do so together with our European partners," ​he said on France Inter radio on Wednesday morning.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and his Greenlandic counterpart, Vivian Motzfeldt, have requested the meeting with Rubio in the near future, according to a statement posted Tuesday to Greenland's government website. Previous requests for a sit-down were not successful, the statement said.

However, Barrot suggested a US military operation had been ruled out by a ‌top US official.

"I myself was on the phone yesterday with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (...) who confirmed that this was not the approach taken ... he ‍ruled out the possibility of an invasion (of Greenland)," he said.



Trump renews Greenland ambitions


Trump has in recent days repeated that he wants to gain control of Greenland – an idea first voiced in 2019 during his first presidency. He has argued it is key for the US military and ‍that Denmark has not done enough to protect it.

A US military seizure of Greenland from a longtime ally, Denmark, would send shock waves through the ​Nato alliance and deepen the divide between Trump and European leaders.

Leaders from major European powers and Canada have rallied behind Greenland, saying the Arctic island belongs to its people.

A US military operation over the weekend that seized the leader of Venezuela had already rekindled concerns that Greenland might face a similar scenario. It has repeatedly said it does not want to be part of the United States.

'That's enough': Greenland PM reacts to Trump threats

The world's largest island but with a population of just 57,000 people, Greenland is not an independent member of NATO but is covered by Denmark's ‍membership of the Western alliance.

Mette Frederiksen, the Danish prime minister, warned on Monday that any US attack on a NATO ally would be the end of both the military alliance and "post-second world war security“.

Strategically located between Europe and North America, the US has an early warning air base in northwestern Greenland.

The island's mineral wealth also aligns with Washington's ambition to reduce reliance on China.

(with newswires)


Trump plots to buy Greenland as NATO ally Denmark seethes

Washington (United States) (AFP) – US President Donald Trump is considering making an offer to buy Greenland, the White House said Wednesday, despite the island's people and controlling power Denmark making clear they are not interested.


Issued on: 07/01/2026 - FRANCE24

Image
US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio speak to reporters after they briefed senators © Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP/File

Trump has repeatedly refused to rule out force to seize the strategic Arctic island, prompting shock and anger from Denmark and other longstanding European allies of the United States.

After a request from Copenhagen, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he would soon hold discussions with Danish representatives.

"I'll be meeting with them next week. We'll have those conversations with them then," Rubio told reporters.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump and his national security team have "actively discussed" the option of buying Greenland.


"His team is currently talking about what a potential purchase would look like," she told reporters.

Leavitt reiterated that Trump believed it was in the US interest to acquire sparsely populated Greenland, whose size is around that of the largest US state of Alaska.

"He views it in the best interest of the United States to deter Russian and Chinese aggression in the Arctic region. And so that's why his team is currently talking about what a potential purchase would look like," Leavitt said.

Neither Leavitt nor Rubio ruled out the use of force. But Leavitt said, "The president's first option, always, has been diplomacy."

House Speaker Mike Johnson, speaking as Rubio and Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth briefed lawmakers, also downplayed the potential for a US attack.

"I don't think anybody's talking about using military force in Greenland. They're looking at diplomatic channels," Johnson said.

Johnson, however, has acknowledged he had no prior notice when Trump on Saturday ordered a deadly attack on Venezuela, in which US forces removed the president, Nicolas Maduro.

The at least tactical success of the operation has appeared to embolden Trump, who has since mused publicly about US intervention in Greenland, Cuba, Iran, Mexico and Colombia.
'Stay focused on real threats'

Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican who is retiring, criticized Trump's threats in a joint statement with Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"When Denmark and Greenland make it clear that Greenland is not for sale, the United States must honor its treaty obligations and respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark," they said in a joint statement.

"We must stay focused on the real threats before us and work with our allies, not against them, to advance our shared security."

Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has repeatedly insisted that the island is not for sale and that only its 57,000 people should decide its future.

Denmark holds sovereignty over Greenland, which has semi-autonomous status.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned Monday: "If the United States decides to military attack another NATO country, then everything would stop -- that includes NATO and therefore post-World War II security."

Denmark is a founding member of NATO and has been a steadfast US ally, including controversially sending troops to support the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.

Trump, in sharp contrast to previous US presidents, has criticized NATO, seeing it not as an instrument of US power but as smaller countries freeloading off US security.

"We will always be there for NATO, even if they won't be there for us," Trump wrote Wednesday on his Truth Social platform.

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul put a brave face on Trump's language on NATO and Greenland.

"I have no doubt whatsoever that we will remain closely united and that this alliance will remain exactly what it has always been -- the most effective defense alliance," he said.

© 2026 AFP


Denmark and Greenland seek talks with Rubio over US interest in taking the island


By Gavin Blackburn
Published on 

Greenland sits off the northeastern coast of Canada, with more than two-thirds of its territory lying within the Arctic Circle making its location crucial to the defence of North America since World War II.

Denmark and Greenland are seeking a meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio after the Trump administration doubled down on its intention to take over the strategic Arctic island.

Tensions escalated after the White House said on Tuesday that the "US military is always an option."

President Donald Trump has argued that the US needs to control the world's largest island to ensure its own security in the face of rising threats from China and Russia in the Arctic.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned earlier this week that a US takeover of Greenland would amount to the end of NATO.

"The Nordics do not lightly make statements like this," Maria Martisiute, a defence analyst at the European Policy Centre think tank, said on Wednesday.

"But it is Trump, whose very bombastic language bordering on direct threats and intimidation, is threatening the fact to another ally by saying 'I will control or annex the territory.'"

Image
US President Donald Trump speaks to House Republican lawmakers during their annual policy retreat in Washington, 6 January, 2026 AP Phot

The leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom joined Frederiksen in a statement on Tuesday reaffirming that the mineral-rich island "belongs to its people."

Their statement defended the sovereignty of Greenland, which is a self-governing territory of Denmark and part of NATO.

The US military operation in Venezuela last weekend has heightened fears across Europe and Trump and his advisers in recent days have reiterated a desire to take over the island, which guards the Arctic and North Atlantic approaches to North America.

"It's so strategic right now," Trump told reporters on Sunday.

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and his Greenland counterpart, Vivian Motzfeldt, have requested a meeting with Rubio in the near future, according to a statement posted Tuesday to Greenland's government website on Wednesday.

Previous requests for a sit-down were not successful, the statement said.

'This is America now'

Thomas Crosbie, an associate professor of military operations at the Royal Danish Defence College, said an American takeover would not improve upon Washington's current security strategy.

"The United States will gain no advantage if its flag is flying in Nuuk versus the Greenlandic flag," he said.

"There's no benefits to them because they already enjoy all of the advantages they want. If there's any specific security access that they want to improve American security, they'll be given it as a matter of course, as a trusted ally. So this has nothing to do with improving national security for the United States."

Image
Danish military forces participate in an exercise with hundreds of troops from several European NATO members in Kangerlussuaq, 17 September, 2025 AP Photo

Denmark's parliament approved a bill last June to allow US military bases on Danish soil. It widened a previous military agreement, made in 2023 with the Biden administration, where US troops had broad access to Danish airbases.

Rasmussen, in a response to lawmakers’ questions, wrote over the summer that Denmark would be able to terminate the agreement if the US tries to annex all or part of Greenland.

But in the event of a military action, the US Department of Defence currently operates the remote Pituffik Space Base, in northwestern Greenland, and the troops there could be mobilised.

Crosbie said he believes the US would not seek to hurt the local population or engage with Danish troops.

"They don't need to bring any firepower. They don't to bring anybody," Crosbie said on Wednesday.

"They could just direct the military personnel currently there to drive to the centre of Nuuk and just say, 'This is America now,' right? And that would lead to the same response as if they flew in 500 or 1,000 people."

'Greenland is not for sale'

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said he spoke by phone with Rubio on Tuesday, who dismissed the idea of a Venezuela-style operation in Greenland.

Image
Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen at the Prime Minister's Office in Copenhagen, 16 September, 2025 AP Photo

"In the United States, there is massive support for the country belonging to NATO – a membership that, from one day to the next, would be compromised by…any form of aggressiveness toward another member of NATO," Barrot told France Inter radio on Wednesday.

Asked if he has a plan in case Trump does claim Greenland, Barrot said he would not engage in "fiction diplomacy."

Rubio to meet Danish officials next week over US interest in Greenland

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Wednesday he will meet with Danish officials next week amid rising fears that Washington plans to seize the world's largest island by force.


Issued on: 07/01/2026 
By: FRANCE 24


Image
An aircraft carrying US businessman Donald Trump Jr. arrives in Nuuk, Greenland on January 7, 2025. © Emil Stach, AFP

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he plans to meet with Danish officials next week after the Trump administration doubled down on its intention to take over Greenland, the strategic Arctic island that is a self-governing territory of Denmark.

President Donald Trump has argued that the US needs to control the world’s largest island to ensure its own security in the face of rising threats from China and Russia in the Arctic, and the White House has refused to rule out using military force to acquire the territory.

Rubio told a select group of lawmakers that it was the administration’s intention to eventually purchase Greenland, as opposed to using military force.

The remarks, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, were made in a classified briefing Monday evening on Capitol Hill, according to a person with knowledge of his comments who was granted anonymity because it was a private discussion.

On Wednesday, Rubio told reporters that Trump has been talking about acquiring Greenland since his first term.

“That’s always been the president’s intent from the very beginning,” Rubio said. “He’s not the first US president that has examined or looked at how we could acquire Greenland.”

READ MORETaking over Greenland, a long-standing US obsession

Tensions with NATO members escalated after the White House said Tuesday that the “US military is always an option”.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned earlier this week that a US takeover would amount to the end of NATO.

Rubio did not directly answer a question about whether the Trump administration is willing to risk the NATO alliance by potentially moving ahead with a military option regarding Greenland.

“I’m not here to talk about Denmark or military intervention, I’ll be meeting with them next week, we’ll have those conversations with them then, but I don’t have anything further to add to that," Rubio said, telling reporters that every president retains the option to address national security threats to the United States through military means.

Image
© France 24
01:46

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and his Greenland counterpart, Vivian Motzfeldt, have requested a meeting with Rubio in the near future, according to a statement posted Tuesday to Greenland's government website. Previous requests for a sit-down were not successful, the statement said.

The leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom joined Frederiksen in a statement Tuesday reaffirming that the mineral-rich island, which guards the Arctic and North Atlantic approaches to North America, “belongs to its people”.

Denmark’s parliament approved a bill last June to allow US military bases on Danish soil. It widened a previous military agreement, made in 2023 with the Biden administration, where US troops had broad access to Danish airbases in the Scandinavian country.

Rasmussen, in a response to lawmakers’ questions, wrote over the summer that Denmark would be able to terminate the agreement if the US tries to annex all or part of Greenland.

But in the event of a military action, the US Department of Defense currently operates the remote Pituffik Space Base, in northwestern Greenland, and the troops there could be mobilised.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said he spoke by phone Tuesday with Rubio, who dismissed the idea of a Venezuela-style operation in Greenland.

“In the United States, there is massive support for the country belonging to NATO – a membership that, from one day to the next, would be compromised by … any form of aggressiveness toward another member of NATO,” Barrot told France Inter radio on Wednesday.

Asked if he has a plan in case Trump does claim Greenland, Barrot said he would not engage in “fiction diplomacy”.

 

How Ukraine is shaping the European response to Trump's threats against Greenland

Emmanuel Macron hosted Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Paris.
Copyright Yoan Valat/AP

By Jorge Liboreiro
Published on 

As Europeans seek to defend Greenland against Donald Trump's annexation threats, the fear of losing US support for ending Russia's war on Ukraine makes for a delicate balancing act.

For the past year, staying in Donald Trump's good graces has become a top priority for European leaders, who have gone the extra mile to appease the mercurial US president, rein in his most radical impulses and keep him firmly engaged in what is their be-all and end-all: Russia's war on Ukraine.

Though Europe is by far the largest donor to Kyiv, nobody on the continent is under the illusion that the invasion can be resisted without US-made weapons and come to an eventual end without Washington at the negotiating table.

In practice, the strategic calculus has translated into painful sacrifices, most notably the punitive tariffs that Trump forced Europeans to endure.

"It's not only about the trade. It's about security. It is about Ukraine. It is about current geopolitical volatility," Maroš Šefčovič, the European Commissioner for Trade, said in June as he defended the trade deal that imposed a sweeping 15% tariff on EU goods.

The same thinking is now being replicated in the saga over Greenland's future.

As the White House ramps up its threats to seize the vast semi-autonomous island, including, if necessary, by military force, Europeans are walking an impossibly thin line between their moral imperative to defend Denmark's territorial integrity and their deep-rooted fear of risking Trump's wrath.

The precarity of the situation was laid bare at this week's meeting of the "Coalition of the Willing" in Paris, which French President Emmanuel Macron convened to advance the work on security guarantees for Ukraine.

The high-profile gathering was notable because of the first-ever in-person participation of Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the chief negotiators appointed by Trump.

At the end of the meeting, Macron hailed the "operational convergence" achieved between Europe and the US regarding peace in Ukraine. By his side, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was equally sanguine, speaking of "excellent progress".

But it did not take long for the elephant in the room to make an appearance.

Hard pivot

The first journalist who took the floor asked Macron whether Europe could "still trust" America in light of the threats against Greenland. In response, the French president quickly highlighted the US's participation in the security guarantees.

"I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of that commitment," Macron said. "As a signatory of the UN charter and a member of NATO, the United States is here as an ally of Europe, and it is, as such, that it has worked alongside us in recent weeks."

Starmer was also put on the spot when a reporter asked him about the value of drafting security guarantees for a country at war "on the very day" that Washington was openly talking about seizing land from a political ally.

Image
The Coalition of the Willing met in Paris. Ludovic Marin/AP

Like Macron, Starmer chose to look at the bright side of things.

"The relationship between the UK and the US is one of our closest relationships, particularly on issues of defence, security and intelligence," the British premier said. "And we work with the US 24/7 on those issues."

Starmer briefly referred to a statement published earlier on Tuesday by the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the UK and Denmark in defence of Greenland.

The statement obliquely reminded the US to uphold "the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders" enshrined in the UN Charter – precisely the same tenets that Moscow is violating at large in Ukraine.

The text did not contain any explicit condemnation of the goal to forcefully annex Greenland and did not spell out any potential European retaliation.

"Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland," its closing paragraph read.

Conspicuous silence

The lack of censure was reminiscent of the European response to the US operation that just a few days earlier removed Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela.

Besides Spain, which broke ranks to denounce the intervention as a blatant breach of international law, Europeans were conspicuously silent on legal matters. Rather than condemn, they focused on Venezuela's democratic transition.

Privately, officials and diplomats concede that picking up a fight with Trump over Maduro's removal, a hostile dictator, would have been counterproductive and irresponsible in the midst of the work to advance security guarantees for Ukraine.

The walking-on-eggs approach, however, is doomed to fail when it comes to Greenland, a territory that belongs to a member of both the EU and NATO.

Image
Donald Trump wishes to annex Greenland. Associated Press.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that the entire security architecture forged at the end of World War II, which allies have repeatedly invoked to stand up to the Kremlin's neo-imperialism, would collapse overnight in the event of an annexation. The worry is that trying to stay in Trump's good graces at all costs might come at an unthinkable price.

"Europeans are clearly in a 'double-bind': Since they are in desperate need of US support in Ukraine, their responses to US actions – whether on Venezuela or Trump threatening Denmark to annex Greenland – are weak or even muted," said Markus Ziener, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund.

"Europeans are afraid that criticising Trump could provide a pretext for the US president to conclude a peace deal at Ukraine's and Europe's expense. Is this creating a credibility gap on the part of the EU? Of course. But confronted with a purely transactional US president, there seems to be no other way."


Trump aide Miller says no one would fight US over future of Greenland


By Kieran Guilbert
Published on 

European leaders defend Greenland's sovereignty after US presidential aide Stephen Miller ramps up Trump threat to annex autonomous Danish territory.

One of US President Donald Trump's senior aides has ramped up Washington's threat to take over Greenland, stating on Monday that no one would militarily challenge the United States over the future of the autonomous Danish territory.

In an interview with CNN, Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller said it was Washington's "formal position ... that Greenland should be part of the US".

His comments followed the US president's renewed call for the strategic, mineral-rich Arctic island to come under Washington's control in the aftermath of the weekend military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of Nicolás Maduro.

Miller questioned Denmark's right to "control" Greenland, which is a part of its kingdom.

"The real question is what right does Denmark have to assert control over Greenland? What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is their basis of having Greenland as a colony of Denmark?" Miller said during the interview with CNN on Monday afternoon.

Image
FILE: United States Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller reacts on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Sunday, Oct. 26, 2025. Mark Schiefelbein/Copyright 2025 The AP. All rights reserved.
Image

The top Trump aide also said the US "is the power of NATO. For the US to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the US."

When asked if the US would rule out the use of force to annex Greenland, Miller said there was "no need to even think or talk about" a military operation in the Arctic island.

"Nobody is going to fight the US militarily over the future of Greenland," he said.

Miller is widely seen as the architect of several of Trump's policies, steering the president on his hardline immigration stance and domestic agenda.

EU leaders defend Greenland

Meanwhile, leaders of six European nations — Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the UK — issued a joint statement on Tuesday defending Greenland's sovereignty.

"Greenland belongs to its people," said the statement, which was later backed by Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof.

"It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland."

On Sunday, Trump doubled down on his claim that Greenland should become part of the US, despite calls by the Danish and Greenlandic leaders to stop "threatening" the territory.

"Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place," Trump said while aboard Air Force One en route to Washington. "We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it."

In response to those comments, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said that a US takeover of Greenland would amount to the end of the NATO military alliance.

Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen also issued a statement in which he urged Trump to abandon his "fantasies about annexation" and accused Washington of "completely and utterly unacceptable" rhetoric. "Enough is enough," he said.

Greenland has been under Danish control since the early 18th century but gained home rule in 1979, although Copenhagen continues to oversee its foreign and security poli

The island holds vast mineral wealth, including rare earths, crucial for advanced technologies.


US Envoy Says Trump Supports Independent Greenland, Downplays Fears Of Annexation


By Magnus Lund Nielsen

(EurActiv) — An independent Greenland with close economic ties to the United States would serve Washington’s interests and need not be coordinated with European allies, the newly appointed US envoy to Greenland Jeff Landry said on Tuesday.

The remarks come as US President Donald Trump steps up rhetoric on Greenland, arguing the US “needs Greenland for defence”. On Monday, Trump’s deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller questioned Denmark’s sovereignty over the island, an autonomous territory within the Danish realm.

However, Landry – who is also governor of Louisiana – sought to dial down concerns about annexation, saying he wanted to engage directly with Greenlanders.

“The president supports an independent Greenland with economic ties and trade opportunities for the United States,” he told CNBC on Tuesday.


US officials are widely reported to be considering a Compact of Free Association with Greenland – an arrangement Washington has with Pacific island states such as Palau and Micronesia – The Economist reported this week.

Asked on Tuesday whether the US would take Greenland by force, an idea Trump has previously floated, Landry urged caution.

“No, I don’t think so,” he said. “I can’t wait to have discussions with Greenlanders.”

Landry – who has yet to visit Greenland in his new capacity – also framed the issue as an opportunity for the US, praising Trump’s revival of the Monroe Doctrine. While Greenland is part of the Danish realm, it is geographically part of North America and closer to New York than Copenhagen.

Europe pushes back

Landry’s remarks came on the same day as eight European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, have urged Washington to respect the territorial integrity of Greenland and Denmark.

“I would like to express my deepest gratitude for this support,” Greenland’s home-rule leader Jens-Frederik Nielsen wrote on Facebook.

Asked whether US engagement with Greenland should involve European NATO allies, Landry deflected. “I think we should ask the Greenlanders,” he said.

“I think we should ask the Greenlanders,” Landry insisted.

He also rejected suggestions that the US overtures resemble Russia’s rhetoric on Ukraine.

“When has the United States engaged in imperialism? Never,” he said.

The US envoy argued that it is rather Europe that has done so in the past, which is how Denmark gained its foothold in Greenland in the first place.

Greenland gained expanded self-rule in 2009, transferring more powers from Copenhagen to Nuuk, though foreign policy remains largely under Danish control. Both Denmark and Greenland have since embraced the principle of “nothing about Greenland without Greenland”. Direct US–Greenland cooperation that sidelines Copenhagen could therefore clash with Danish law.

Greenland By Force: How A US Takeover Would Shatter NATO And Ignite Arctic Conflict – OpEd


January 7, 2026 
By Simon Hutagalung


The United States faces a significant military and strategic crisis due to its proposed acquisition of Greenland by force. The acquisition would create instability within NATO while making the Arctic region more militarised, and it would push American military resources to their limits, which could lead to a major conflict between great powers, thus damaging the U.S. ability to maintain its position as a worldwide security authority. The research evaluates military consequences which would result from this action by placing the analysis within the context of alliance relations and operational difficulties and worldwide security systems, and upholding the legal framework of the United Nations Charter and the North Atlantic Treaty.

A coercive acquisition would trigger an immediate conflict with Denmark, along with its sovereign territory of Greenland, and all NATO member states. The action would break Article 2(4) of the UN Charter because it bans any form of military force which threatens or attacks the sovereign territory of any nation. The United States would be considered a violator of international rules because it has traditionally protected the rules-based international order. The reversal would lead to worldwide disapproval, which would damage Washington’s reputation as a moral leader and might result in military clashes in the North Atlantic region.

The past demonstrates how dangerous it becomes when people perform such actions. The 2014 Russian seizure of Crimea established a precedent which showed that state violations of sovereignty would generate security problems which would lead to extended conflicts. The alliance took economic measures and enhanced its Eastern border protection while Russia built permanent military facilities throughout the Black Sea area. The 1982 Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands led to an expensive military conflict with the United Kingdom, which forced Argentina to maintain a permanent military presence on the islands while spending heavily on defence costs. The two situations show that forced land grabs create permanent military and political, and economic effects which surpass any expected strategic advantages.

The forced takeover of Greenland would harm NATO’s ability to preserve trust between its member nations. The North Atlantic Treaty contains Article 5, which requires member states to defend each other, but this provision would become ineffective when the United States faces an attack. The NATO allies would need to decide between taking action against Washington or giving up their commitment to collective defence. The alliance would experience a complete breakdown in both cases. The United States would lose international trust, which would result in reduced cooperation between nations for intelligence exchange and military training, and strategic development. The current security alliances between nations could transform because multiple countries which lose faith in U.S. actions will consider joining new defence partnerships with either the European Union or Russia, or China, which would create an unfavourable power dynamic for Washington.

The strategic location of Greenland serves as a crucial hub for all Arctic political operations. A coercive acquisition would trigger fast military expansion, which would expand across multiple surrounding countries. Russia would boost its Arctic military operations because it continues to expand its Arctic territory, while China would work to establish itself as a power that operates near the Arctic region. The United States could answer by building up its radar and missile defence capabilities throughout Greenland, but this action would create more diplomatic conflict and military competition. The Arctic region will face increasing competition for its newly accessible shipping routes because climate change has opened up these areas to navigation. The naval battles to control sea lanes would make strategic errors more likely, which would lead to an escalation of the conflict. The United States would start an unstable competition which would threaten the stability of a critical international area.


The military would face major operational and logistical challenges if it occupied Greenland. The process of securing the territory would require major military force deployments together with base construction and supply network development through the difficult Arctic environment. The extreme environmental conditions of extreme cold and ice and restricted infrastructure would create complex supply chain operations which need customised equipment and personnel training. The established requirements would redirect military resources away from different operational areas, which would lead to excessive strain on U.S. military units that currently operate across multiple international locations. The extended stay in Greenland would create an unaffordable situation, which would make it impossible to maintain military readiness in essential areas, including the Indo-Pacific region and the Middle East.

A coercive acquisition would create major security challenges which affect the entire world. The United States would experience a decline in its ability to deter because Washington would break its promise to support sovereignty and international law through its actions. International courts, together with sanctions programs, would impose legal penalties on the United States because they seek to hold U.S. military personnel and military operations accountable. The situation becomes dangerous because opposing nations could use this crisis to their advantage by having Russia and China establish themselves as protectors of international standards. The risk of great-power conflict would increase because the Arctic region would become a strategic area, which could lead nations to engage in military combat. The acquisition of Greenland would create more global instability than it would provide any security benefits to the United States.

The domestic effects of this situation would spread across all regions of the United States. The military faces potential civil-military conflicts because it needs to decide if it should follow orders which violate both military rules and ethical standards. The military will face two major challenges because service members will avoid participating in what they see as an unauthorised operation, which will harm both recruitment efforts and team morale. The congressional disagreement about this matter would create an obstacle which would block military budget approval and monitoring processes. The domestic strain would cause U.S. defence organisations to experience institutional failures, which would result in more national security risks.

The upcoming obstacles consist of various complex issues. The United States would become completely isolated because its foreign alliances would disappear, while security needs require multiple nations to work together. The Arctic region would become a new military competition area, which would require additional resources and personnel that the United States might not have enough to support. The operational challenges of military control during an occupation would exhaust all available military resources, which would reduce their capacity to defend other vital strategic locations. The domestic reaction against the United States would harm its internal power base because of political and military resistance from within the country. The problems demonstrate that the United States’ forced takeover of Greenland creates a major security risk which threatens both military capabilities and national defence strategies.

The forced takeover of Greenland would create instability within NATO while making the Arctic region more militarised, and it would push U.S. military resources to their limits and increase the chances of major power conflicts. The action would harm our national defence capabilities, while other nations would condemn us, and our military would become unable to operate as a unified force. The Constitution needs bipartisan leadership to protect its authority while preventing any actions which could result in permanent harm to national and international security.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own.

ReferencesMessmer, M. (2026, January 6). US intentions towards Greenland threaten NATO’s future. But European countries are not helpless. Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/01/us-intentions-towards-greenland-threaten-natos-future-european-countries-are-not-helpless Chatham House


U.S. Naval Institute. (2026, January). War in the Arctic? Proceedings – U.S. Naval Institute. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2026/january/war-arctic U.S. Naval Institute
Gronholt-Pedersen, J. (2026, January 6). 

European leaders rally behind Greenland in the face of renewed US threat. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/only-greenland-denmark-can-decide-their-future-european-leaders-say-joint-2026-01-06/ reuters.com

Simon Hutagalung
Simon Hutagalung is a retired diplomat from the Indonesian Foreign Ministry and received his master's degree in political science and comparative politics from the City University of New York. The opinions expressed in his articles are his own.