Greenland Today, Canada Tomorrow

Donald Trump is apparently a stranger to the famous military maxim—sometimes attributed to Napoleon—“Never reinforce failure.”

The American president’s latest gambit, announced in the usual way, on Truth Social, threatens to slap tariffs on a set of European countries who have deployed small military contingents to Greenland and refused to support his stated desire to take over the Arctic island, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.

The latest Trump threat is expressed at unusual length. It mixes grievance, chest thumping, and threats, in typical Trump style.

What’s the grievance? That Denmark (and all the countries of the European Union) have been subsidized by the United States. No American tariffs, no renumeration for US protection (it’s a racket after all). What’s Denmark ever done for Greenland? Nothing, other than deploying “two dogsleds.” Trump likes to make fun of the Danish Sirius Dog Sled Patrol, but it is actually an elite naval unit that conducts patrols in the forbidding northern and eastern coastal regions of Greenland. It also seems that Trump has paid little attention to major boosts in Danish defence spending in 2025, including additional Arctic patrol vessels and an increase of fifteen F-35 jets for the Danish air force.

What’s the chest thumping? That only the United States, under “PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP” (yes, CAPS) can “play in this game.” The game: stopping China and Russia from taking over Greenland. There are three things, minimum, wrong with this. First, great power competition isn’t a game. Second, and more importantly, neither Russia nor China has the military capacity or shows any intent to take over Greenland. Third, it’s an extraordinary rebuke to the concept of NATO collective security, but one we will hear more and more of, to the delight of, well, Russia and China.

What’s the threat? That the US will impose tariffs on eight European, NATO allies for the sin of “journeying” to Greenland for “purposes unknown,” as Trump writes. The countries are Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland. This odd circumlocution references the fact that all of these NATO partners have refuted Trump’s annexationist threats to take over Greenland and have sent very small military contingents to Greenland for the ostensible purpose of assessing what additional military defences Greenland might need for NATO collective security.

No one is talking about these contingents (the smallest is one person sent by Finland) as a deterrent to the unpredictable US commander in chief or, god forbid, as a trip wire, but that is what they are. The Danish Defence Ministry has confirmed the validity of a 1952 directive that requires Danish forces to fire back if engaged in combat.

The tariffs Trump threatens would begin at an across-the-board level of 10 percent (on top of existing European tariffs) starting on February 1. They will increase, on June 1, to 25 percent and will, according to Trump, “be due and payable until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.” Of course, the US deal-maker-in-chief is “open to negotiation” with the targeted countries “that have put so much at risk, despite all that we have done for them, including maximum protection, for so many decades.”

While there have been sporadic US attempts to acquire Greenland in the past, including a cash offer by President Harry S. Truman in 1946, annexationist attention has hardly been fixated on the island, despite what Trump claims. To add to the Trump imaginary about threats from Russia and China, the president insists that the US must have Greenland for the sake of the “Golden Dome” (“very brilliant, but highly complex”) missile defence system.

According to Trump, the Golden Dome can only work “at its maximum potential and efficiency, because of angles, metes, and bounds, if this Land [Green] is included in it.” Maybe he needs another briefing on this futuristic project; maybe he needs a briefing on the US–Denmark defence agreement that dates back to 1951. The US has downsized its military deployment to Greenland over the decades to a remarkable degree. The defence agreement, updated in 2004, essentially gives the US a free hand to expand its military presence on the island as it sees fit, including for missile defence purposes.

How have European leaders responded to Trump’s latest threat? Quickly, unanimously, and with outrage. French president Emmanuel Macron responded to Trump’s Truth Social with a lengthy social media post of his own. He wrote that “France is committed to the sovereignty and independence of nations, in Europe and elsewhere,” and that “it is also for this reason that we have decided to join the exercise decided by Denmark in Greenland. We stand by this decision, not least because it concerns security in the Arctic and the borders of Europe.”

The Swedish prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, chimed in, stating: “We will not allow ourselves to be blackmailed. Only Denmark and Greenland decide on issues concerning Denmark and Greenland. I will always stand up for my country, and for our allied neighbours.”

UK prime minister Keir Starmer, an identified member of the Trump whisperer club, was equally forthright in his language. He said that “applying tariffs on allies for pursuing the collective security of NATO allies is completely wrong. We will of course be pursuing this directly with the US administration.”

No intimidation—no blackmail; completely wrong. These are NATO allies addressing Trump directly.

You can be sure Trump won’t like it. It affords a great opportunity for the White House to reinforce failure and double down on the Greenland purchase.

• Greenland Is on the Brink. Canada Is Nowhere in Sight
• Trump Is Serious about Greenland. What Does Carney Do?
• The United States Has Gone Full Villain

What about Canada? Our leaders are abroad, basking in the temporary shine of a trade win with China, then off to Qatar to gain new investment deals, with the trip finishing up in Davos for the annual financial bigwigs conference (World Economic Forum). Secure comms can be a challenge during these whirlwind trips, and you can’t use your cellphone to talk about military deployments. Not an insurmountable challenge but a convenient excuse. My fear is that they were privately congratulating themselves on the genius of inaction over Greenland, as we are not in the firing line of Trump’s latest tariff threats.

According to the defence minister, David McGuinty’s, press secretary, Canada stands “shoulder to shoulder” with Denmark. Canadian media outlets are now reporting that the Department of National Defence has put together a military plan for deploying to Greenland and is waiting for political approval. But we may rue our delay, and it may increase nervousness in Ottawa about taking action now, in the face of more Trump tariff threats.

Okay, you might say—who cares about Greenland, really? Doesn’t Canada have bigger worries in facing Trump threats to our own economy and sovereignty? Why risk piling on even more Trumpian threats? Shouldn’t we just stay quiet, Arctic nation or no?

Sure, but if the whole idea of NATO collective security is “all for one and one for all,” we might just be creating a collective memory when it comes Canada’s time to ask for support in the face of Trump threats.

That time may come sooner than we imagine, if reports of a growing Trump concern about Canada’s security weaknesses in the Arctic prove true. Watch out for Truth Social claims of Russian and Chinese ships swarming about in Canada’s Arctic waters, derogatory mention of Canadian dog sled patrols (yes, we have them), and complaints about Canada not doing enough on missile defence. We could be in for Greenlandization.

Adapted from “Napoleon whispers to Trump” by Wesley Wark (Substack). Reprinted with permission of the author.