Trump Advisor Claims US Right to Seize Greenland by Force
Stephen Miller asserts the US right to take Greenland by force. What does this mean for NATO, resources, and European sovereignty?
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Greenland: Empire Strikes Back as NATO Wobbles
When Stephen Miller, Trump's advisor, stated that the United States has the right to take Greenland by force, he didn't just make a bluster; he triggered an existential crisis for the Atlantic Alliance. The statement, reported by The New York Times in January 2026, sparked a debate exposing how fragile the rules-based international order is when the strongest player decides to ignore it.
Greenland is no ordinary territory. It belongs to the Kingdom of Denmark, a founding member of NATO. If Washington were to act on this threat, it would be the first time one Alliance member invades another. Article 5 of NATO, invoked after 9/11, would effectively be dead. And Europe, already watching its security architecture crumble, would have to decide whether to respond with cohesion or surrender.
The Resource Factor: Why Greenland Is Worth a Crisis
Behind the imperial rhetoric lies strategic calculation. Greenland holds vast reserves of rare minerals, uranium, oil, and gas, coveted by the energy transition and military industry. While China controls most of the rare earth supply chain, the US seeks to secure its own sources. The discussion noted that Europe also needs these minerals, but its environmental laws block extraction. "Europe will end up with nothing and become second-world," summarized a recurring analysis.
The irony is that Denmark had previously shown willingness to sell sovereignty: in 1917, it sold the Virgin Islands to the US. But the context now is different. Greenland is not a Danish colony; it is an autonomous territory with a predominantly Inuit population that rejects industrial exploitation. Comparisons to Spain selling Florida to the US in 1819 also appeared in the debate: a payment promise never fulfilled.
European Paralysis: Between NATO and Irrelevance
If Europe reacted with dignity, options would include a military alliance with China, nationalization of US assets, and freezing the assets of the Trumpist clique. But, as lamented in the analysis, "we are governed by traitors" who prefer submission. The reality is that no European country has the military capacity to oppose the US alone. France is the only relevant nuclear power, but its army is no match. Germany lacks operational forces. The UK is Washington's unconditional ally.
NATO, if one member invades another, would be voided by default. Some suggested renaming Greenland to "Disneylandia" to bypass Article 5. Others recalled that the UN died in Gaza. The pessimistic consensus: the law of the strongest is back, and Europe is unprepared.
What If Denmark Sells?
One line of thought argues that Denmark will eventually sell Greenland rather than suffer a humiliating military defeat. After all, it did so before. But then Greenlanders, who want nothing to do with Western civilization, would become US citizens, with all cultural and social consequences. The suicide rate is already very high. Trump would have to conduct a silent genocide to convince them, and Denmark would have an excuse to defend them.
The debate reaches no conclusion. The EU has called emergency meetings, but without an army or political will, Greenland's future will be decided in Washington, not Brussels. The lingering question: will this be the beginning of the end of NATO as we know it?
Related Forum Discussions
When Stephen Miller, Trump's advisor, stated that the United States has the right to take Greenland by force, he didn't just make a bluster; he triggered an existential crisis for the Atlantic Alliance. The statement, reported by The New York Times in January 2026, sparked a debate exposing how fragile the rules-based international order is when the strongest player decides to ignore it.
Greenland is no ordinary territory. It belongs to the Kingdom of Denmark, a founding member of NATO. If Washington were to act on this threat, it would be the first time one Alliance member invades another. Article 5 of NATO, invoked after 9/11, would effectively be dead. And Europe, already watching its security architecture crumble, would have to decide whether to respond with cohesion or surrender.
The Resource Factor: Why Greenland Is Worth a Crisis
Behind the imperial rhetoric lies strategic calculation. Greenland holds vast reserves of rare minerals, uranium, oil, and gas, coveted by the energy transition and military industry. While China controls most of the rare earth supply chain, the US seeks to secure its own sources. The discussion noted that Europe also needs these minerals, but its environmental laws block extraction. "Europe will end up with nothing and become second-world," summarized a recurring analysis.
The irony is that Denmark had previously shown willingness to sell sovereignty: in 1917, it sold the Virgin Islands to the US. But the context now is different. Greenland is not a Danish colony; it is an autonomous territory with a predominantly Inuit population that rejects industrial exploitation. Comparisons to Spain selling Florida to the US in 1819 also appeared in the debate: a payment promise never fulfilled.
European Paralysis: Between NATO and Irrelevance
If Europe reacted with dignity, options would include a military alliance with China, nationalization of US assets, and freezing the assets of the Trumpist clique. But, as lamented in the analysis, "we are governed by traitors" who prefer submission. The reality is that no European country has the military capacity to oppose the US alone. France is the only relevant nuclear power, but its army is no match. Germany lacks operational forces. The UK is Washington's unconditional ally.
NATO, if one member invades another, would be voided by default. Some suggested renaming Greenland to "Disneylandia" to bypass Article 5. Others recalled that the UN died in Gaza. The pessimistic consensus: the law of the strongest is back, and Europe is unprepared.
What If Denmark Sells?
One line of thought argues that Denmark will eventually sell Greenland rather than suffer a humiliating military defeat. After all, it did so before. But then Greenlanders, who want nothing to do with Western civilization, would become US citizens, with all cultural and social consequences. The suicide rate is already very high. Trump would have to conduct a silent genocide to convince them, and Denmark would have an excuse to defend them.
The debate reaches no conclusion. The EU has called emergency meetings, but without an army or political will, Greenland's future will be decided in Washington, not Brussels. The lingering question: will this be the beginning of the end of NATO as we know it?
Related Forum Discussions
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (131 replies).
More summaries
-
Trump Signals End of International Law: Might Makes Right
Trump asserts international law is void without enforcement. Tariffs, Greenland, and Hormuz rewrite global rules.
-
Trump's 1941 Map Targets Iceland, Azores, Canaries After Greenland
Trump shares a 1941 US security map listing Greenland, Iceland, Azores, Canary Islands and Cape Verde as strategic zones.
-
Electric Car Fire in Garage Forces Building Reinforcement
A rental electric vehicle caught fire in a garage, destroying an adjacent car. Residents stayed in shelters while the building required emergency structural reinforcement.
-
Church Fire in Granada: One Arrested, Hate Crime Debate
A man was arrested after setting fire to a church in El Pozuelo de Albuñol, Spain. Reports of decapitated figures remain unconfirmed.
-
Arecibo 'UFO' Claim Debunked: Fallen Telescope, Fireball
Video claims Arecibo telescope captured alien fireball, but instrument has been offline since 2020. Evidence collapses.
-
Spain's Pension Spending Outweighs Housing Investment
Is Spain’s spending on pensions and subsidies sustainable? We analyze the economic impact and housing investment in this forum debate.