Sten Rynning: "Denmark knows that Trump's intentions in Greenland are very serious."

BarcelonaUS President Donald Trump has spent the last week issuing threats left and right. The White House's insistence on taking control of Greenland, even by force, puts Europe and NATO in an unprecedented and uncertain position. We spoke with Danish political scientist Sten Rynning, author of the book BORN. From Cold War to Ukraine, in history of the world's most powerful alliance [NATO. From the Cold War to Ukraine, a history of the world's most powerful alliance].

How is this renewed threat from Trump being experienced in Denmark? The government seems more worried than a year ago, when Trump once again raised the option of buying the island.

— At the beginning of 2025, there was a phone conversation between Trump and Mette Frederiksen [The Danish prime minister] went very badly. Since then, the government has known that this matter is serious and could become even more so. They chose a strategy of remaining discreet, not starting a public fight with Trump, and waiting for him to become involved in other matters and not go after Greenland. But now he's back, and the government has stepped up its level of explicit statements. The prime minister has warned that if the US were to do Anything that violated Denmark's sovereignty would be the end of everything, that is, the end of NATO and the Western order. The government is now seeking negotiations at the level of foreign ministers, because negotiations between the prime minister and the president would not be productive.

What do you think Denmark and Greenland could offer the U.S.?

— Denmark is already investing heavily in Greenland's defense capabilities, including the P-8 Poseidon surveillance aircraft; it will purchase three more from the United States for submarine detection. They could grant the United States greater access to Greenland, although under the current treaty, they can do virtually anything. Perhaps more money could also be invested in mineral extraction to counter China's monopoly on rare earth minerals. All of this is eminently feasible, but discussing taking control of Greenland in terms of its sovereignty is a completely different matter.

How do you assess the EU's response?

— I think the key is that The major countries have positioned themselves alongside Denmark To say that enough is enough, although they have said it politely. The last thing Spain, Germany, France, or Denmark want is a public fight with Trump, because he would win. He is more ruthless, more unhinged than the European leaders, and therefore they want to send signals in a polite but firm manner, and then conduct diplomacy behind the scenes.

Is there a real threat of the US launching a military operation in Greenland? And what could Denmark do if that happened?

— A US military takeover of Greenland is highly unlikely. Negotiating, political, and economic pressure is probable. But if they were to take action, they could occupy Greenland in a day or two, and Denmark would be powerless to resist. The other allies would also be helpless. The US has far superior military equipment than its allies, making it easy for them to do so. However, at what cost? If this happens, it will be the end of NATO: one alliance member attacking another. And Europeans will have to consider how to defend themselves against Russia, which will undoubtedly seize the opportunity to challenge Europe. It would also entail a high cost for the US because Europe is a major market and a significant investor in the US.

Do you think Russia is already applauding that situation?

— Without a doubt. Strategic disagreement within NATO has always benefited Russia or the Soviet Union. NATO's main political game has always been that, no matter what, at the end of the day, we must agree. Agreement is deterrence. If NATO's purpose is to deter Russia, it must agree. And this is a perfect example of very deep disagreement, and Russia must be applauding and waiting to see how far this goes. Because the further it goes, the greater the opportunity for Russia.

Even without a military intervention in Greenland, do you think that US pressure could still lead to a NATO split?

— Yes. There could be a scenario where the United States pressures Denmark so much to hand over Greenland that they make life unbearable for them, and Denmark is forced to consider it. Let's say they start punishing us economically, going after large Danish companies like Novo Nordisk, Maersk, Ørsted... Denmark will be forced to consider what on earth to do, and if they end up being forced to give in and sign an agreement along the lines of, "In five years we'll see one thing within which we'll see Greenland," everyone will be in NATO's shoes. And even if NATO survives, Russia will put it to the test: can this weakened NATO respond if we enter Narva, in Estonia, saying we're there to protect the Russian minority? Probably not, and this could be the end of NATO. So, in that case, it would really depend on Russia whether NATO survives or not, and this is not a good scenario.

What do you think of Mark Rutte's stance as NATO Secretary General? Because he's been very quiet lately.

— If he's working behind the scenes, if he's busy calling US senators or representatives to remind them what the NATO Treaty says, then it's good that he's keeping quiet. If he's not doing anything, that's not good. I hope he's doing his homework.

Do Russia and China really pose a threat to US security in Greenland?

— China's presence in Greenland is very limited. But it's clear that China and Russia are investing in their capabilities in the Arctic in general. And increasing surveillance and defense capabilities is a collective interest of NATO, and Greenland is part of that. Therefore, this is a collective interest of NATO. Trump is right when he says it's a security issue, but he's wrong when he says it's only a US issue and that they must control Greenland to have security.

Could this whole situation have consequences for relations between Denmark and Greenland? In recent days, some critical voices from Nuuk have accused Danish politicians of neocolonialism.

— Next week, when Marco Rubio meets with the Danish Foreign Minister, Greenland's Foreign Minister will also be present. Copenhagen is very clear that it must work very closely with Nuuk. Formally, the treaty signed between Greenland and Denmark grants the island many powers and gives Greenlanders the right to decide on their independence. Greenland has not been a colony for 75 years. However, the political reality is that some Greenlanders see Denmark as a colonizer, and a majority would like Greenland to eventually become independent. There is no doubt that the United States will use Greenlandic public opinion to its advantage.

If Trump were to offer a much larger sum of money than Denmark currently provides to Greenland, could there be a change in Greenland's position?

— I don't think the Greenlanders can be bought. Public opinion is very much against the US taking over the island. There's a lot of pro-independence sentiment, and they're very proud to be Greenlanders. I don't think they'll sell out; they want respect. And I think Denmark has an advantage, since the US isn't very respectful of Greenland, so I think Copenhagen will do a lot to be respectful.