Trump's Greenland Shakedown: When Threatening Your Mates Becomes Foreign Policy.
Or: How Trump Learned to Stop Worrying and Threatened to Invade Denmark.
(Image - Free Press Journal)
Right, let’s talk about Donald Trump threatening to invade Greenland, because apparently 2026 wasn’t mental enough already.
You’re Denmark. You’ve been NATO allies with America for eighty years. You let them run a massive military base on your territory. You’ve cooperated on defence, intelligence, the lot. You’re doing everything a good ally does.
Then your mate’s president starts publicly threatening to seize your territory by force whilst simultaneously calling you militarily incompetent on telly.
This isn’t diplomacy. This is a protection racket with a PowerPoint presentation.
The Bit Where Trump Says He Doesn’t Want What He Obviously Wants.
Trump keeps insisting: “We need Greenland for national security, not for minerals.”
Right. And I go to Greggs for the atmosphere, not the sausage rolls.
Greenland contains 39 of the 50 minerals deemed critical to U.S. national security. Its rare earth reserves nearly equal America’s entire domestic supply. Estimated value? Between $2.7 trillion and $4.4 trillion.
China currently controls roughly 90% of global processed rare earths - the stuff you need for everything from fighter jets to mobile phones. In April 2025, China announced export restrictions on heavy rare earths, demonstrating they can choke off Western tech and defence industries whenever it suits them.
So Greenland’s deposits could break that monopoly. Fair enough, sounds strategic.
Except here’s the kicker: Greenland’s mining sector is currently strangled by red tape, environmental regulations, and indigenous opposition. The island lacks basic infrastructure - no roads or railways outside the cities. Takes an average of 10 years from discovery to production. In 2021, Greenland passed a law limiting uranium in mined resources, effectively killing a major rare earth project.
So Trump wants to seize a territory to access resources that the territory’s government has actively restricted, requiring massive infrastructure investment in some of the harshest conditions on Earth, to break a Chinese monopoly that America could address by simply developing its own domestic processing.
Is it practical? No.
Is it logical? No.
What’s the likely outcome? Diplomatic catastrophe for zero gain.
The Strategic Position America Already Has.
America already controls Greenland’s strategic assets.
Since 1951, the Defence of Greenland Agreement lets America maintain Pituffik Space Base - critical for missile warning and surveillance. The base monitors the GIUK Gap, tracking Russian naval movements between the Arctic and North Atlantic.
Denmark’s announced a $1.2 billion defence investment in Greenland specifically for U.S. and NATO needs. Greenland’s 2024 security strategy explicitly acknowledges the territory “plays a key role in the defence of the United States.”
So what would seizure accomplish that cooperation doesn’t already provide? The only “threat” to American military access is America threatening to seize Greenland, thereby destroying the cooperative relationship that grants that access.
It’s like burning down your neighbour’s house to prevent them possibly not letting you use their garage anymore.
The Pattern: Only Beating Up Smaller Kids.
Trump’s expansionist targets: Greenland (NATO ally), Panama Canal (sovereign nation), Canada (”jokes” about the 51st state whilst threatening tariffs), Venezuela (actual military operation).
Notice the pattern? Every single target is weaker than the United States.
This isn’t “America First.” This is the geopolitical equivalent of a bouncer only threatening people in wheelchairs.
If a Labour PM threatened to invade Ireland for “strategic reasons,” would you call it strong leadership? Or deranged posturing from someone who’s confused threats with strategy?
The answer reveals whether you’re thinking or just cheering for your team.
What Denmark and Greenland Actually Said.
Danish PM: “Stop the threats against a historically close ally.”
Greenland PM: “No more pressure. No more hints. No more fantasies about annexation.”
Translation: “Are you having a laugh?”
European leaders rallied behind Denmark. NATO’s Secretary General conspicuously avoided comment, presumably trying to work out how to manage an alliance where the largest member is threatening to invade the second-smallest.
If Trump actually seized Greenland, he’d either invoke NATO Article 5 against himself, or destroy NATO by proving the alliance is meaningless when America fancies your territory. It’s shooting yourself in the foot to prove guns work.
Meanwhile, Greenlanders are looking at America’s treatment of Puerto Rico and thinking, “Hard pass, mate.” All five parties in Greenland’s parliament have rejected U.S. annexation. When Trump Jr. visited, the government refused to meet him.
Trump supporters love citing the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska Purchase as precedent. Except those were negotiated sales between willing parties. France needed cash. Russia wanted to prevent British seizure. No military threats, no occupation, no democratic populations saying “absolutely not.”
Trump’s proposing forced acquisition of territory from an ally whose population actively opposes it. That’s not “following precedent” - it’s Russia seizing Crimea.
The Three Questions: Final Answer.
Is it practical? No. Greenland lacks infrastructure, opposes annexation, and would require decades of investment in one of Earth’s harshest environments.
Is it logical? No. America already has military access through treaty. Resource development would be easier through partnership. Every stated goal is better achieved through existing arrangements.
What’s the likely outcome? NATO credibility damaged. Arctic cooperation poisoned. European strategic autonomy accelerated. Chinese influence strengthened. Maximum damage for zero gain.
The Bit Where I Tell You What This Actually Reveals.
This is what happens when you elect someone who views international relations as property deals. Trump doesn’t understand that American power flows from alliance structures, not just military capability.
Threatening to seize an ally’s territory doesn’t demonstrate strength - it demonstrates you don’t understand what makes you strong. It’s like a bodybuilder wrecking his gym because he thinks muscles alone equal power, whilst ignoring that he needs the gym’s equipment to maintain those muscles.
The anarch position sees this clearly: This is stupid policy supported by people who’ve replaced thinking with team loyalty.
And that’s more dangerous than any Chinese rare earth monopoly.
John Langley is an independent blogger and satirical commentator operating thealmightygob.com, and specialising in institutional dysfunction analysis through pattern recognition and brutal honesty.
If you enjoyed this deconstruction of geopolitical incompetence, consider the terrifying possibility that the people making these decisions have access to nuclear weapons. Sleep tight.