What the US needs in Greenland is access. The US already had that and any additional access could have been negotiated for without threatening war.
Countries like Denmark and the US have already agreed to not solve differences between them with force. The US breaking that by threatening war to take territory from Denmark is a huge violation that damages American soft power.
Trump claimed that Denmark has a weak claim to Greenland because all they did is send some boats there and the US did this too. This is false or misleading because the Danes colonized Greenland before the US existed. It also further violates norms and damages relations with many countries because the US is breaking agreements it has made in the past where it acknowledged Danish control over Greenland.
Other countries know that if the US uses force, or the threat of force, to steal territory from Denmark, the US may do it to them.
The US has claimed that because Greenland can’t defend itself, the US has the right to take it. Under that logic, any stronger country can conquer many weaker countries because a lot of weak countries cannot defend themselves against stronger countries, and having that territory would give the stronger country a more forward defense against other strong countries.
For a long time, the US has dealt with this problem by having weaker countries band together in some sort of treaty organization so that they can help each other defend against a strong country and not need to invade each other for the sake of defending themselves against the bigger country.
Russia and China are not a short term threat to Greenland. Getting to Greenland with a large force would be very hard and require supply chains by US, and European territory. The US didn’t seem to see Greenland as a short term concern because the US voluntarily pulled out most of its troops and equipment and kept most of them gone.
The US also already had commercial access to Greenland, and could negotiate for mining without threatening war.
Using hard power is expensive, unreliable, and often only working while you are still willing and able to use it. Soft power can create more long run influence.
The Trump administration and Republican Congressmen have been dismissive of American allies to the point of being offensively insulting and lying about these countries and their people.
Trump is just as aggressive toward good allies as bad allies. Targeting good allies who have been good and loyal, makes those countries less likely to support you in the future.
The European allies are democracies, and the European peoples do not like Trump threatening to use military force to steal territory from a European country. This will not help get pro-American leaders elected in European countries.
“Washington already has tremendous access to Greenland under past agreements with Denmark; U.S. troops already operate in Greenland and Washington can send more. Trump’s demand that Denmark grant the territory to the U.S. is a body blow to U.S. relations with its European allies. It also hurts NATO, a military alliance that includes the U.S. and Denmark — and which would defend Greenland should an adversarial power threaten it.”
Is Trump pushing the world toward a realist Westphalian order with less emphasis on permanent alliances and international organizations, or is he really moving us to a royalist system where global actions are less based on countries and more based on personal, familial, and buddy enrichment and aggrandizement.
Greenland is less about the defense of the US and minerals, which the US could do in Greenland without threats of war because Greenland, through Denmark, is a US ally, and instead about Trump making himself look great by adding territory to the US and making his friends with business interests rich. Ronald Lauder, a billionaire with business interests in Greenland, suggested Trump take Greenland back in 2018. Similarly, refineries that benefit from the Venezuela attack include Trump megadonors. Trump raised tariffs on India after Modi said Trump didn’t play an important role in creating peace between India and Pakistan. So this action was more about Trump’s status and aggrandizement than realist and economic strategy for the benefit of the United States.
“In an interview with Fox Business, he said, “We’re getting everything we wanted — total security, total access to everything.”
Yet all of that was available to Trump from the start, without the drama that sent the NATO alliance barreling toward an internal crisis, a Danish official told NBC News on Thursday.
The only nonnegotiable point for Denmark was that Greenland shouldn’t be absorbed by the U.S., the person added.
“We can discuss increased military presence and more troops. You name it, basically, you can have it” under existing treaties, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
…
his Greenland gambit clawed away some of the trust that underpins a successful alliance, said diplomats, government officials and foreign policy experts.”
“”I DOUBT NATO WOULD BE THERE FOR US IF WE REALLY NEEDED THEM,” Trump blasted on Truth Social, while insisting the U.S. would still defend alliance members. “We will always be there for NATO, even if they won’t be there for us.”
Under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, NATO’s collective defense clause, an attack on one member of the alliance is considered an attack on all. The provision has been formally invoked only once — in response to al-Qaida’s 9/11 terror attack against the U.S.”
“In recent months Russia has flown fighter jets into Estonian airspace and sent dozens of drones deep into Polish and Romanian territory. Its ally Belarus has repeatedly brought Lithuanian air traffic to a standstill by allowing giant balloons to cross its borders. And last week, Moscow’s top envoy Sergey Lavrov issued a veiled threat to Finland to exit NATO.”