[🇺🇸] Greenland Annexation.

Saif · Thursday at 8:25 PM

Trump announces Greenland 'framework', backing off force and tariffs

US President Donald Trump backed down Wednesday on threats to seize Greenland by force from ally Denmark, announcing a vague deal aimed at ensuring security of the Arctic territory. Trump cast his retreat -- also lifting the promise of sanctions against European nations that spoke out against...

en.prothomalo.com

Trump announces Greenland 'framework', backing off force and tariffs

AFP Davos, Switzerland
Published: 22 Jan 2026, 09: 52

US President Donald Trump looks on as he leaves the congress centre during the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos on January 21, 2026. The World Economic Forum takes place in Davos from January 19 to 23 January, 2026 AFP

US President Donald Trump backed down Wednesday on threats to seize Greenland by force from ally Denmark, announcing a vague deal aimed at ensuring security of the Arctic territory.

Trump cast his retreat -- also lifting the promise of sanctions against European nations that spoke out against the threats to Denmark -- as a win, saying the deal gives Washington "everything we wanted".

The agreement, he told reporters at the World Economic Forum in Davos, was negotiated with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and would last "forever".

"I think it puts everybody in a really good position, especially as it pertains to security, and minerals and everything else," Trump said, hours after a speech in which he appeared to remove the threat of force to seize Greenland.

However, there was no sign that Trump had succeeded in his repeated vow to make Greenland part of the United States.

When asked if Denmark would continue to control the territory, Rutte said the subject of Greenland's sovereignty "did not come up" in his talks with Trump.

Speaking to Fox News' "Special Report with Bret Baier," Rutte gave few details of what the new status for Greenland might be, only saying that NATO would continue to work for securing the Arctic region from adversaries such as Russia or China.

The NATO chief meanwhile told AFP that "there's still a lot of work to be done".

Trump said in a social media post that he would be scrapping tariffs of up to 25 percent threatened against Denmark and other European allies that have sent troops to Greenland in solidarity, including Britain, France and Germany.

NATO spokesperson Allison Hart said that Denmark, Greenland, and the United States will negotiate on "ensuring that Russia and China never gain a foothold -- economically or militarily -- in Greenland" -- a key stated concern of Trump.

Some relief in Europe, markets

Global markets that had been rattled by the rift and the threat of tariffs saw relief, with Wall Street's key indices climbing.

Trump's threats had triggered one of the biggest transatlantic crises in decades, with warnings that he could single-handedly destroy NATO through aggression against a fellow member.

His apparent turnaround brought guarded relief in Denmark, long a steadfast US ally, where Trump's bellicose language has triggered shock and feelings of betrayal.

"Trump said that he will pause the trade war, he says, 'I will not attack Greenland'. These are positive messages," Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen told Danish public television DR.

Lokke had flown last week to Washington and met Vice President JD Vance, only to say afterward that the United States had not budged on seeking to control Greenland.

But Aaja Chenmitz, one of two Greenlandic lawmakers in the Danish parliament, questioned why NATO would have a voice on the island's mineral wealth.

"NATO in no case has the right to negotiate on anything without us, Greenland. Nothing about us without us," she posted.

In Nuuk, where authorities started handing out brochures on how to live through a crisis, 65-year-old pensioner Lis Steenholdt said that Greenland and Denmark had been firm that the island is not for sale.

"You have to believe the system. That's the only option we have right now," Steenholdt said.

Facing down Trump

Trump has repeatedly said that the United States, the key force in NATO, deserves Greenland as it would be forced to defend the island against Russia or China, although neither country holds any claim to the island.

Addressing Davos for the first time in six years, Trump called Denmark "ungrateful" but appeared to take the threat of military action off the table.

"I don't want to use force. I won't use force. All the United States is asking for is a place called Greenland," Trump said.

Trump, 79, repeatedly referred to Greenland as Iceland in his speech.

Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney won a standing ovation at Davos on Tuesday when he warned of a "rupture" in the global order long championed by Washington. French President Emmanuel Macron for his part said Europe would not be bullied.

Trump attacked both leaders, mocking Macron for wearing sunglasses at Davos, which the French president said was because of an eye condition.

Saif · 2026-01-23T20:38:53-0500

More Europeans see Trump as ‘enemy’ than ‘friend’

A half of Europeans surveyed in seven EU countries view US president Donald Trump as an ‘enemy of Europe’, according to a poll published Friday.

www.newagebd.net

More Europeans see Trump as ‘enemy’ than ‘friend’
Agence France-Presse . Paris, France 23 January, 2026, 23:32

A half of Europeans surveyed in seven EU countries view US president Donald Trump as an ‘enemy of Europe’, according to a poll published Friday.

Fifty-one per cent view Trump as an ‘enemy of Europe’, while just eight per cent consider him to be a ‘friend of Europe’, according to the survey of more than 1,000 people in each of France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Denmark and Poland.

Some 39 per cent think he is ‘neither one nor the other’, it said, after polling participants between January 13 and 19, following Trump’s threats to seize the Danish autonomous territory of Greenland.

Danes were among those who most considered Trump to be an ‘enemy’, with 58 per cent of those polled believing this.

Across all seven nations, 44 per cent said Trump ‘behaves like a dictator’, while another 44 per cent think he has ‘authoritarian tendencies’.

Just 10 per cent consider that ‘he respects democratic principles’.

Europe has struggled to set red lines as its once-close American ally has turned hostile under Trump, even threatening its sovereignty.

While Trump this week backed down on seizing mineral-rich Greenland by force, European countries say they remain vigilant for any next move from the US leader.

Trump on Wednesday said Europe was ‘not heading in the right direction’.

A US national security strategy released in December by Trump’s administration said migration was threatening Europe with ‘civilisational erasure’, and called for ‘cultivating resistance’ among right-wing parties.

Saif · 2026-01-24T20:15:08-0500

Greenland and the return of empire politics

The international order built after World War II rests on one hard rule: states may not threaten or use force to take territory.

www.thedailystar.net

Greenland and the return of empire politics

By Khan Khalid Adnan

US President Donald Trump holds a bilateral meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland on January 21, 2026. PHOTO: REUTERS

The international order built after World War II rests on one hard rule: states may not threaten or use force to take territory. Article 2(4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter was written to make conquest illegitimate, not just unpopular. The UN’s Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations later reaffirmed that borders are not to be changed by coercion. Thus, when a great power signals that sovereignty is negotiable, smaller states should read it as a systemic warning, not colourful rhetoric.

In early January, President Donald Trump revived and escalated his push for the United States to take Greenland. On January 10, he said the US would act on Greenland “whether they like it or not,” adding that it could be done “the easy way” or “the hard way.” That was not bargaining, but more so a threat to change borders using pressure.

A new development now complicates the picture further. At the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 21, Trump said he would not use force to acquire Greenland and spoke of a “framework” for an Arctic and Greenland arrangement being discussed with Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte. The next day, Denmark’s prime minister reiterated that Arctic security can be discussed, but only “with respect for our territorial integrity,” and Greenlandic parliamentarian Aaja Chemnitz stressed that nothing can be negotiated without Greenland’s participation. Meanwhile, it is reported that the emerging idea is not a sovereignty transfer, but an update to existing defence arrangements, alongside Arctic security and raw materials cooperation.

Developments since Davos underline why wording matters. Trump has since touted the understanding as giving the US “total access” to Greenland, even as Denmark and Greenland maintain that sovereignty is not negotiable and key details remain uncertain. Denmark and Nato are discussing how the whole alliance should step up Arctic security, including talks to revise the 1951 agreement governing US military presence on the island. If the framework is to be off-ramp rather than a precedent, it should be negotiated transparently with Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, at the table, and it should explicitly reaffirm sovereignty while focusing on defined defence tasks, basing rights, and funding.

A renunciation of force is welcome. But it does not erase earlier threats, and it does not satisfy the deeper question: can territorial ambition be pursued through intimidation instead of invasion?

In Davos, Trump framed Greenland as something the US “needs” and hinted that refusal from Greenland would carry consequences. If the goal is still to gain control, the method matters less than the message: borders can be bent to the will of the strong.

Greenland is not an ownerless prize on a map. It is a self-governing country within the Kingdom of Denmark. Under the 2009 Act on Greenland Self-Government, Greenland manages most of its own domestic affairs, while Copenhagen (Denmark’s capital) retains responsibility for foreign affairs, defence, and security policy. The Act recognises Greenlanders as a people with the right to self-determination, including the option of independence. “Acquisition” is therefore an error of category error and any legitimate change in status must happen through Greenlanders’ freely expressed choice and Denmark’s constitutional role.

This is why the most basic flaw in Washington’s posture has been political as much as it is legal. Greenland’s future cannot be negotiated over Greenlanders’ heads. Even a Nato-labelled package will look colonial if Nuuk is treated as a bystander. Chemnitz’s warning is not diplomatic theatre. It is the minimum standard for legitimacy: Greenland must be at the table as a political actor, not treated as a strategic surface. The strategic reasons behind the US’s interest in Greenland are real. Greenland hosts the Pituffik Space Base, central to missile early warning and space surveillance. The island also sits in the Greenland, Iceland, and UK corridor, which is essential for monitoring Russian naval movement in the North Atlantic. Plus, climate change is reshaping risk calculations in the Arctic and will continue to pull major powers northward.

But none of this justifies treating Greenland as an object to be possessed. Strategy is not a legal licence because Washington already has extensive access.

The 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement underpins US defence activity on the island and has been updated since. If deterrence and access are the goal, ownership is unnecessary. If the US wants wider radar coverage, larger runway capacity, or more logistics hubs, it can negotiate expanded arrangements transparently with Denmark and Greenland, and finance what it asks for.

Completing the big picture, Greenland’s rare earth and uranium prospects are often brought up in supply chain debates, even as local politics, environmental constraints, and infrastructure limits make extraction slow and contested. Offshore hydrocarbons add temptation. Yet, none of these call for annexation, but rather investment, regulation, and contracts under Greenlandic law and consent, with clear local benefits and high standards.

This is where the Nato crisis begins. Nato’s legitimacy rests on collective defence consistent with principles in the UN Charter. If one ally openly pressures another ally over territory, the alliance stops being collective defence and starts looking like coercion inside the club. Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen outlined the stakes when she warned that if the United States attacks a Nato country militarily, “everything stops.” The point was not to dramatise but to draw a line around the basic trust that holds alliances together.

Even without force, coercion can still corrode the system. The Friendly Relations declaration explicitly recalls the duty to refrain from military, political, or economic coercion aimed at another state’s territorial integrity or political independence. Tariff threats over Greenland or hinting that intra-alliance solidarity is conditional present the outward message that sovereignty is a bargaining chip.

The Davos “framework” can become an off-ramp if it replaces territorial theatre with a consent-based security package. That means three things. First, Denmark and Greenland must be free to say no without facing threats. Second, Greenland must be fully represented in any talks that concern its territory, basing, or resources. Third, any upgraded defence footprint should be paired with transparent economic and social investment that Greenlanders themselves prioritise, rather than a narrow extraction agenda.

For Bangladesh, this principle is not remote. Rules against coercive territorial changes act as a shield for every medium and small state. If Greenland can be pressured because it is strategically valuable, others can be pressured because they are “inconvenient.” The discussion on Greenland should therefore be taken as a warning and a test, not a precedent. Bangladesh has its own stake in a world where strategic access is negotiated, not imposed, and where economic pressure is not used to rewrite political realities. When great powers normalise the language of “need” over consent, small states pay the price first.

Barrister Khan Khalid Adnan is advocate at the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, fellow at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, and head of the chamber at Khan Saifur Rahman and Associates in Dhaka.