Global & US Headlines
UK & Germany Float NATO Greenland Mission After Trump’s Take-It-or-Take-It Threat
On 11 Jan 2026 London and Berlin confirmed they are drafting a joint NATO deployment to Greenland, scrambling European forces into the Arctic hours after President Trump publicly threatened to seize the island to block Russia and China.
Focusing Facts
- Reuters/Bloomberg: Britain, Germany and France opened formal staff-level talks on 11 Jan 2026 about stationing NATO troops, warships and aircraft in Greenland.
- Two days earlier, 9 Jan 2026, Trump said “we are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not,” adding military takeover “is always an option,” according to the White House.
- Bloomberg sources say Germany will submit a paper to the North Atlantic Council proposing a permanent Arctic defence mission at its next meeting (date slated for 22 Jan 2026).
Context
Great-power real-estate bids are not new: in 1867 the U.S. quietly bought Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million, and in 1946 it offered Denmark $100 million for Greenland; both deals hinged on securing northern approaches. The current flare-up echoes those moves but occurs under two 21st-century pressures: rapid Arctic ice melt opening mineral routes, and NATO’s post-Ukraine search for relevance beyond Europe. Europe’s decision to pre-position forces—without waiting for Washington—hints at the longer trend of EU states groping for strategic autonomy, much like Suez (1956) exposed limits of Anglo-French power vis-à-vis the U.S. Whether this moment matters a century from now depends on which norm prevails: self-determination for 57,000 Greenlanders or a return to 19th-century power politics where big states swap territory. If NATO can adapt to climate-driven frontiers without fracturing, future Arctic governance may resemble the Antarctic Treaty; if it cannot, Trump’s brinkmanship could be remembered as the spark that normalised territorial grabs in a warming, resource-hungry north.
Perspectives
Mainstream European media
Mainstream European media — Frame the Arctic talks as routine NATO coordination meant to deter Russia and China while cautioning that Trump’s threats to seize Greenland could fracture alliance unity. Leaning on official European statements, they highlight continental solidarity and minimize internal NATO frictions or Europe’s continued military dependence on the U.S.
Pro-Trump conservative commentators
Pro-Trump conservative commentators — Portray Trump’s public musings about ‘taking’ Greenland as a masterstroke that finally forces complacent European NATO members to strengthen their Arctic posture, giving the U.S. exactly what it wants. Reflexively praises Trump and ridicules European leaders, ignoring legal constraints and the diplomatic fallout his threats trigger.
Greenland independence advocates
Greenland independence advocates — Argue that the dispute proves it is time for Greenlanders themselves to decide their future and pursue full independence from Denmark and any great-power control. Nationalist optimism downplays Greenland’s economic reliance on Danish subsidies and the strategic leverage larger powers hold over the island.