What Trump Is Really Up to With His Greenland Conquest

0:00What the hell is going on with President Trump and his obsession to acquire Greenland by quote any means necessary. Is he serious about this, even if it means the end of the NATO alliance? Today, we get the view from Europe. This country was stone cold dead. Good day from Newsweek's Brooklyn Bureau here in freezing New York City, where I am stuck at home today just because somebody else is using our studio. But you can see my beautiful living room here. And also, if you're watching us on YouTube, you can also probably see the eye injury that I alluded to in the newsletter this morning, which I sneezed and somehow popped a blood vessel in my right eye.

0:36I don't know how that happened. I guess that's just something that sort of happens as you get older. But I feel like Emmanuel Macron, who, as you can see here, showed up to Davos looking like Stevie Wonder with his own eye issues. So I probably should have put on my aviators like the French president. But anyway, let's talk Greenland. It's often said that you should take Donald Trump seriously, but not literally. But here we are one year exactly into his second term. And I think he's all been telling us that we need to be taking him both seriously and literally, at least when it comes to some of these geopolitical machinations that he's been working on.

1:09Over the Martin Luther King Day weekend here in the United States, the president opened a new front in this simmering transatlantic crisis over the fate of Greenland, and it is now a crisis. Remember, Greenland is mostly ice. It has a population of about 60 ,000 people that could fit in one NFL stadium, and there'd be plenty of room left over. But nonetheless, last President Trump has decided that this is a strategic priority for the United States. Part of this so-called Don Roe Doctrine that we've been talking about, in which the U.S. is to project hemispheric dominance from Greenland all the way down, I suppose, to the Drake Passage at the tip of Latin America.

1:43So in the span of about 48 hours over the weekend, when most of us were curled up at home watching football, Trump told the Norwegian prime minister that he wants to own Greenland, at least in part, because he didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize. He then said he would place new escalating tariffs on EU countries that oppose his decision to do this, with the EU now considering deploying their own so-called trade bazooka against America. So basically we are starting a new trade war, another trade war, just what the American people said they did not want when they hired President Trump for a second time to ostensibly lower prices.

2:16This is a bizarre moment in geopolitics. There's really no other way to say it. Greenland is not happening in a vacuum either. It is part and parcel with what's happening in Venezuela. It hangs over the meeting at Davos that's happening this week and where President Trump is expected to be speaking on Wednesday. It's probably just as much about China as it is about Europe. But speaking of Europe, I wanted to bring on somebody who could help us kind of make sense about what's really going on here. So today I have with me Ashok Swain, who is a professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University in Sweden.

2:50Dr. Swain, thank you so much for joining us. And it is a hell of a time to be teaching peace and conflict dynamics. Yeah, it has been for some time. It's nothing new, but I think it's getting more and more acute these days, this issue. So, Dr. Swain, give me the bird's eye view on all of this from your position in Europe. What are people saying? What are the academics saying? What are people on the street saying? Are they taking the president's threats to acquire Greenland by force seriously? It was not taken seriously when he brought it up in his first term, around in the end of the first term.

3:27It was also not taken very seriously when he started this, even before his inauguration, this discussion. And Trump Jr. came to visit Greenland with all this kind of, you know, with the Trump aircraft. But I think it's now that Europe is very, very serious that Trump is serious. And I think they are also not only serious, they are also scared, to be honest, because this is something which this kind of crisis, which is anticipated here, though Europe hasn't seen that kind of crisis within the Western alliance, at least in the last 75 years. So I think there's something which is happening now in a very, very big way.

4:21The question comes in, I think, Europe should have seen this much before, that this is coming. But I think the idea that, or like in the rest of the world, thinks that President Trump, what he says probably doesn't mean it. And I think that's what really kept Europe not taking it seriously. And Europe was actually much more interested also looking at Ukraine, how the position, President Trump's position will be vis-a-vis Russian President Putin. And I think that's what was the major concern for some time. And that's why the Greenland issue was kept, you know, was never brought up before. So this is the thing that's confusing to me about somebody who has covered Trump for a long time.

5:13You know, I understand that this is sort of how he negotiates. Right. He takes these maximalist positions. Right. I'm going to take Greenland by any means necessary. I'm not going to rule that military force. I don't think anybody believes we're actually going to go to war over Greenland, at least. Then again, who knows these days. Right. But I think that that's that that's the maximalist position. He's trying to work out a deal. But but in the process, he is really fraying this alliance, the NATO alliance. as you mentioned. And what's odd to me is he's had some actual successes in reinvigorating this, even though he loves to talk about how weak the Europeans are.

5:48He is the one who got member states to increase their defense spending up to, I think, we're at 5%, or at least that's the hope now. And now he's threatening to unravel all of it over this. So I guess my question to you is, is there some sort of, you know, 4D chess move that's happening here where we're trying, Trump is using his sort of like, you know, bully pulpit and just being a bully outright to get NATO or the Europeans to do something we want them to do. They're already reengaging in the Arctic, right? Yes, I think that Trump has really shown the Europeans that you cannot really go on believing that all the time your protections will come from the United States and you will not put your resources in increasing your military expenditure or putting up a proper military force.

6:39And I think it's not new, as you can see, probably in 2001, after the 9-11, in one year, the amount of military budget the President Bush increased that year, that was more than the total budget. The increase only was the more than the total budget, military budget of UK, France and Germany put together. And so this has been always the situation. If you look at it, the highest military budget of the United States, which is 800 to 900 billion all the time, whereas 200 billion to China and then Russia, the India, then come Saudis and the rest, then Europe comes afterwards. So I think it has been what President Trump has done after his, you know, kind of threat or threat of keeping, you know, America great again, but America alone, that kind of policy, which has pushed Europe to increase military budget.

7:47That's many countries, those who have already increased. A country which recently joined, which is Sweden, has promised to increase its military budget in quite a big, big way. I mean, also, you know, taking political costs, the political leadership, taking the political cost of cutting down the many other expenditures which have been there before. So I think this is what's going on. So the NATO has, or at least European commitment to the NATO, has increased and thanks to particularly Trump waking them up. There is also in the Arctic has been an issue for some time. I mean, it's not new issue.

8:27I remember in 2009, 20, just before the COVID, the last meeting I had in UK, organized by UK foreign ministry, as well as the prime minister's office on the Arctic security. So Arctic has become a major security concern of the northern European countries. They have been, this is something which has been going on in their mind. So there is a number of factors, number of ways they have tried to increase their defense investment in this part of the world, in the Arctic circle. So I think that is going on. But you know, The Trump, when he talks about it, if that he stops there, then I understand that he's probably pushing the countries or the particularly European countries also on the Denmark particular to invest more in the military defense in the Greenland.

9:28And the Greenland, of course, America has withdrawn from many of the past commitments. So then Europe probably will come up. But what we saw in Venezuela, that is some things which doesn't really make it feel that Trump really goes into some kind of threats only because he takes actions. And he has taken action on Venezuela, which is going against the international law and the norms which Europeans think that will be. And then also in Iran's situation, we saw there is a sudden interest of Trump and his administration that how to get engaged in Iran. But then it was finally he or at least it is not backed out completely.

10:13But the way we thought the world was expecting something going to happen, because he had already threatened that he will be taking actions on Iran. But then the Iran situation got settled. So these are the very confusing pictures. In the case of Ukraine, he has moved from one side to another side, depending on the time, at the time, his relationship with Putin or Zelensky. So given that, it is very difficult to understand what President Trump is going to do in Greenland. But the way that consistently he has been talking about Greenland and he has been threatening the European, and the kind of words have been used, the kind of letters have been now put on social media or to the public, the personal letters.

11:05It seems, and the language coming from the White House, he's a deputy chief of staff, he's a vice president, as well as others in the administration. It seems like he's very, very serious to do something spectacular on the Greenland. I guess the question is then, so if we take, let's just take military force off the table because I don't, that would just, that would be, I don't even know. Like if we were to actually invade, nuke, I don't know. Like that's a whole nother podcast, needless to say. So let's pretend like that's off the table. So we're operating in a place where Trump wants to make a deal with Denmark so that we can control some aspect of Greenland.

11:48What would that deal actually look like? Because my understanding is that there were there. There's been at least two treaties, one in the 50s and then one about 20 years ago. That basically gives us rights to do essentially whatever we want militarily on the island. We had a bunch of bases there during the Cold War. We abandoned them after the Berlin Wall fell because we thought this is just not a good use of our resources now that we don't have the Soviets to worry about at least. So if it's not about defense, what could it be about? Is it possible that it's about the natural resources, oil and more importantly, the critical – these rare earth minerals that Greenland has, although they're buried under this giant sheet of ice.

12:27So it's not like they'd be very easy for us to get if we even could get them, right? Yeah, it's a very good question. I mean, what actually Trump really wants? Because there are different voices from Trump and his associates are putting up why Greenland is important in the Trump scheme of things for the United States. You are absolutely right. In the 1951 treaty, the U.S. and Denmark, which gives a complete right to the U.S. even now to, you know, put any military base anywhere in Greenland. And they have a military base, which is also the northernmost deep sea harbor, which is there. At least more than 100 U.S.

13:13troops are always present. And they had 13 military bases during Cold War time. And neither Denmark told them to withdraw. It was actually the U.S. preference to get them to remove that because of the priorities in other places. And U.S. can now put the defense infrastructure wherever, whenever, whatever place it wants to in Greenland. So I don't think that's the reason which is making this kind of call from President Trump as the administration. I think the reason most likely because of the minerals, the oil, the gold, the zinc, the critical minerals, whatever we are talking about. But if you look at this, I think these minerals are most likely there.

14:06It's one of the most inhospitable conditions they are there, these minerals. how they will be getting exploited, how they will come to the different agencies who will try to exploit them. We saw that didn't work very well in the Venezuela case, not yet at least. But I think there are lots of uncertainties there. But also the thing is that the Greenland, which is part of Denmark, Denmark has not really exploited these mineral resources. and if you look at the money which is of course Greenland has been given a home rule there have been a lot of autonomy so Denmark only looks at the defense as well as the foreign policy side but the Greenland also gets at least for each person in Greenland they get$1 ,000 dollar American dollar of money or assistance or support from Denmark every month.

15:13So almost$12 ,000 per year one Greenlander gets. And these are some things which we need to realize that despite the Greenland has these resources, huge amount of resources, hopefully. They're not a self-sustaining economy. Yeah, it's not a self-sustaining economy. And we don't know how long it will take to make it sustained and to get the profit out of it. Or the companies will probably come in and there will be this kind of investment in this kind of inhospitable weather. Probably will take a long period of time and we know what kind of political situation will be. And the Greenland also, they want independence.

15:55They have been asking for independence for a long time. Of course, when the situation comes that whether they want to be with Denmark or U.S., they prefer to be with Denmark. But their first preference is to be getting the freedom or running their own country. So I think these are all challenges in there. I'm not sure what exactly coming up to his mind, President Trump's mind, that why he's so much interested into this. It doesn't bring out an immediate gain for neither for the United States nor for the American companies, if they want to invest. But I think it probably he is expecting some political dividends he will get in the United States because he will be the first president in the, you know, in before, after the century, probably to expand the territory of the United States.

16:54Well, so it's funny you say that because I'm warming up to the idea that that's actually what this is about, right, and that Trump is sort of flailing at home. His polling is not good here, right? Americans are not buying what this administration is selling mostly. So presidents often in their second term sort of like look overseas to solidify their legacies. And Trump's a real estate guy. So it's not hard for him to imagine, you know, him saying, look, if I can be the president who, you know, made the largest land acquisition in American history, you know, that's a notch in my belt. Putting aside that nobody in America has – this is not something that Americans care about at all.

17:35I mean, you know, there was this Reuters poll this month that showed that 4 percent of Americans supported military action in Greenland, right? I mean it's hard to get anything, find anything in this country that polls at 4 percent. This is just not something that is a priority for Americans. So I think that if you were going to make a – if you were going to give Trump the benefit of the doubt here and try and create sort of like a doctrine that maybe he doesn't even know yet, it would be to me the rare earth stuff. It would be saying, look, there are all of these minerals under this ice. I don't know how we're going to get them, right?

18:11But we need to make sure that China doesn't. So that so we are going to position ourselves so that that can't happen. And then we'll figure out, you know, how we're going to get them or how, you know, how they're going to get out of the ground and refined at a later date. I think that would sort of be my my best case scenario. But let me ask you something else, Dr. Swain, because you brought this up. Greenland. Why hasn't Greenland just declared independence? You said you've said that they've, you know, they've wanted to for a long time. You know, I know that they would obviously rather be with Denmark than the U.S.

18:40At least that's what the polling shows. Why haven't they just said, you know, we're going to declare a dependent? Is it because they don't have a self-sustaining economy and they need, you know, somebody who's able to sort of give them welfare? I mean, there is, of course, there has been a, you know, movement for the freedom or the movement, you know, independence movement has been there. It's not that, and there is a huge support for that. But of course, the practical reasons, they have realized that they are getting a lot of social benefits by being with Denmark. They have given almost all the police's independence to carry out at the domestic site.

19:24They do have their own prime ministers, their own government. And the kind of resources they generate in Greenland, they are all spent in Greenland. Moreover, they get$600 million every year from the Denmark. And so I think, and the Denmark has been, in many sense, the Denmark has been treated. I mean, okay, if you look at it, it's a colony or it should be, you know, one of the last colonies of Europe still there. It should not be there. Greenland should be for the Greenlanders. But Greenlanders have seen there, practically, they have seen that this has worked for their benefit to a large extent.

20:13I mean, that's not always, I think. But I think it's somehow, it might be at this point, if the situation becomes subsided or somehow they find a diplomatic solution, My apprehension or not apprehension, but my thinking is that the freedom movement in Greenland probably will pick up because they will realize that it is probably their security is not safe being with Denmark rather being an independent state. because the similar kind of situations also occur. Like there is an Iceland in that area. There are other countries, those who are there. I mean, Iceland is there, also the Arctic, the similar type of rare earth minerals and all these things are there.

21:06So why U.S. President Trump is interested in Greenland? So I think this is because it has been part of also Denmark. So that's why there has been a history of Denmark selling Ireland or U.S. version. an island was sold in 1917 to US. So I think probably he has got this idea of buying an island from Denmark again. So I think, but being an independent country, it will be probably difficult for another country to directly take it over, probably put a regime of your own choice, but just assimilating that country will be very difficult. Right. I mean, that's sort of the irony of this is that if, you know, if the end game here, I said Greenland actually declares independence because they're just like, I don't, you know, We're just being pawns in this sort of like great powers game.

21:53But then again, there's only 60 ,000 of them, right? That's a big island to defend with 60 ,000 people. So it's hard to see how that would work. But let me – I want you to dispel with some myths here because you're sort of – I'm seeing the White House try and sort of like manufacture consent for this Greenland thing. It's not really working. Like I just said, nobody's really buying it. But one of the points that they've been making from J.D. Vance to Trump to Carolyn Leavitt at the White House is, you know, China and Russia are there, right? They're already – they're maybe not – they're not about to invade, but they've got subs.

22:27They're poking around. They're kicking the tires. And we need to, you know, get them out of our sphere of influence as part of the so-called Don Roe Doctrine. Is that true about China and Russia? You see, the thing is that the Trump administration doesn't accept the climate change is taking place, doesn't accept there has been the melting of ice. But at the same time, they are saying that the new routes are being opened up in that area. Arctic is melting as well as the Greenland is melting, which is true. I mean, that's right. So the kind of thing in one way, you will don't accept the climate change.

23:04but another thing that you are accepting that this is happening. And that's what is happening here. And if you look at the military bases, of course, U.S. has, as we have been talking about, from Greenland out of 13 bases, there are only one there. Denmark has two bases, small ones, one in Nuk and another one in the southwest, Porto Greenland. There have been some of the bases also in Canada, six or seven, but they are very limited and many are unmanned. They have also, the U.S. in the Arctic is more in the Alaska side, and Alaska, there have been some bases also U.S. has it. Then Norway had some bases because Norway has the land border in this case with the Russians.

23:48So Norway has some bases. Nowadays, after Sweden and Finland, they joined the NATO, they don't have any foreign bases. or Americans don't have ISIS, but they are expanding their own defense system of how to protect them from the Russian intrusion into their territorial world. Iceland doesn't have an army, but Iceland also trying to, you know, being part of somehow in this structure, though it's not part of EU, but it's part of NATO. So I think there are overall agreement among these countries and in initiative by these countries that they should do something because they find the threats of Russia, particularly in China, together with Russia coming from that side.

24:32There are three different lines which are opening up because of the melting of the ice. One is close to the American side. One is close to the Russian side. Another one is crossing between Iceland and Greenland. Those are the things which are, but I think what has Russia has the 30 to 40 military bases in its northern part of this area. So Russia has a large presence and Russian presence goes back to Cold War period and they have sometimes died up, but they continue. But I think China wants to be a major player, not only China, even India and other countries in Asia they have, but China is a very significant player, wants to be in this.

25:13But China doesn't, neither has any military base And as Denmark's foreign minister mentioned, the Chinese are quite smart not yet to use those areas, sending their military vessels, because they are much more in keeping themselves in South China Sea and Indian Ocean and Pacific, rather than moving into the... I mean, China has a large naval force now, but it doesn't want to poke that one, that side. It is trying to do with the Russian side. So I think the future threats is possible and the countries, but the U.S. to do it, to stop China and Russia entering into that, it needs the support of all the northern European countries.

26:05You cannot do it alone. And given that you cannot really tell tomorrow that you need all Finland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and, you know, or Canada even now put in the map, all of them part of the United States. You need to work with your allies to keep your adversaries out. And I think all the allies are all agreed that there is a threat and they understand this threat. They are working on this threat. And as we discussed before, they are also investing their resources in the NATO, where a much larger amount is being spent on the military. So I think it's somehow the threats are real. But the idea of that Greenland has to be taken by the United States to make to stop that threat doesn't make any sense to me.

26:53No. And yeah, I guess we're going to we're going to sort of end where we started, which is just trying to make sense of what seems a little bit nonsensical. I mean, one of the ironies which you just pointed out is that, you know, you have an administration here in the United States that straight up does not believe in climate change, or at least that's their public position. And yet this is a climate change story above all else, right? Because you're talking about, as you said, sea lanes and routes, shipping routes and submarine routes that are going to open up because of the warming Arctic, you know, making these conversations, you know, sort of like – it's an interesting thing, right?

27:31Because obviously the administration is aware of this, but then publicly they're still saying like, oh, you know, climate change is a Chinese or a hoax or a democratic hoax or whatever he says. Let me ask you some sort of a crazy question, but this came up over the weekend. I was having dinner with somebody and he said, you know, what's stopping NATO from just kicking the United States out of the alliance on a temporary basis and saying, you know, look, we're not going to be harassed and picked on by our own ally. You know, we're not going to go to war with you. Obviously, the U.S. is militarily supreme, right?

28:03But we're going to say we're not doing this. We're not going to play ball with you guys under this president. We'll bring you back in when he's gone. I know that that will never happen, and there's a million reasons why. But tell me what your initial reaction to something like that would be. I mean, we have to accept the reality. The NATO cannot exist without the U.S. at present, or at least in a couple of decades minimum. Whatever amount of the money Europe puts in the military, it is not going to really give the same kind of military structure, military support without the U.S. That Trump knows very well, and that's what he is playing on.

28:45But I think it's also that Europe knows it. I mean, they understand it because I think this is not exactly. Of course, I understand during Cold War period that has been happening. But in the last 30, 35 years, when the Cold War ended in Europe, Europe did not really prepare itself of finding its own security structure without the US. And I think this is gradually they are being forced now to think about it. But look, it is very, you know, we all say European Union. The European Union is also going through serious crisis for the last 10 years, minimum after the migration crisis which came in. There is a lot of also the far-right parties are getting stronger, even in power in different countries.