Trump's Greenland Gambit: The Day NATO Died

 Over the past 12 months, U.S. Vice President JD Vance has repeatedly issued verbal criticisms and veiled threats toward Greenland and Denmark. This week, his boss, Donald Trump, unleashed his inner psychopath, claiming that Denmark has not been able to keep the people of Greenland safe from alleged aggressive incursions by Russia and China.

 President Donald Trump amplified all of Vance’s terrible messages and took them a step further, declaring, “We need Greenland for national security - we have to have it.”

 The United States is increasingly sounding and acting like 1930s Germany - or frankly, the Soviet Union - with this expansionist rhetoric directed at a sovereign NATO ally. Polls in Greenland show overwhelming opposition, with around 85% against a U.S. takeover, and yet the United States continues to speak of justifications related to some vague "security" or "protection" for territorial grabs.

 Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen summoned the U.S. ambassador, calling the comments "totally unacceptable" and insisting on respect for Denmark's territorial integrity. Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen and Danish leaders issued joint statements affirming that "Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders" and "we decide our own future." Premier of Greenland Orla Joelsen said, “The President of the United States once again expressed a desire to take over Greenland. With such statements, our country is reduced to a question of security and power. That is not how we see ourselves, and it is not how Greenland can or should be spoken about.”

 Fox News commentator Jesse Watters said in March 2025, “We don't need friends,” and “If we have to burn down a few bridges with Denmark to take Greenland, we’re big boys. We dropped A-Bombs on Japan, and now they are our ally… America is not handcuffed by history.”

 Applying Watters' twisted logic to a sovereign NATO partner screams "end of NATO." Article 5 exists so allies defend each other, not so the most powerful one threatens to "take" territory from another under "security" pretexts while invoking atomic warfare as a flex. 

 The United States is sounding like Denmark is an enemy to be bombed or subjugated into compliance. It sounds like the language Putin uses when talking about Ukraine or when China talks about Taiwan. The entire NATO alliance is on the verge of collapse. Why would any country (Canada, Norway, Germany, etc.) trust collective defense when the leader of the largest partner openly entertains burning bridges with fellow members over expansionism?

 Let's drop the sugarcoating, the "strategic angle" as some noble or unassailable justification. The push to "have" Greenland is fundamentally about power, resources, and control by a dangerous mobster, not some selfless defense of the free world. What does this say about the millions of people cheering this on - what does it say about the normalization of aggression against a democratic ally? It looks and sounds pretty fucking ugly when you strip away the national security bullshit.

 Canada - and indeed all Canadians - must quickly recognize that the United States is no longer a legitimate strategic ally. On behalf of Canada and all Canadian citizens everywhere, we express our solidarity with Greenland and Denmark. Today is the day that the NATO we knew formally died. Today, we are all Greenlanders and Danes. We must speak out against the aggression proposed by Trump, Vance, and their supporters. Canada’s political leaders must speak with one united voice.

Canada should also immediately begin planning its own domestic defence nuclear weapons program to ensure that no one can accuse us of failing to secure the country or its borders properly. One clear path forward is to seriously examine the development of a Canadian nuclear program.

 Any discussion of a Canadian nuclear deterrent must also be honest about the legal, diplomatic, and ethical consequences such a decision would entail. Canada is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and pursuing a weapons program would require either withdrawal or a fundamental renegotiation of our commitments - moves that would carry real diplomatic costs and provoke international backlash. There are also profound ethical considerations surrounding nuclear weapons, their catastrophic humanitarian impact, and the moral burden of deterrence itself. But avoiding this conversation entirely does not make those realities disappear; it merely leaves Canada dependent on guarantees that are now openly questioned. If the global order is shifting toward raw power politics, then serious nations must at least be willing to weigh the full costs of deterrence rather than pretending the old assumptions still hold.

 Canada possesses world-class uranium reserves in Saskatchewan, a foundational input for nuclear technology. Leveraging that advantage would strengthen deterrence, restore strategic credibility, and provide a realistic pathway to meeting - or exceeding - a 5% of GDP defense-spending target.

 Building genuine military and scientific strength is not optional if sovereignty is to mean anything in the decades ahead. In an era of shifting alliances and intensifying competition for resources, Canada must prioritize defense capability alongside technological innovation. Beyond security, such an initiative would supercharge domestic research and academia, attract top global talent, and anchor cutting-edge programs firmly on Canadian soil.

 A robust military posture paired with advanced scientific capacity would allow Canada to safeguard its water, critical minerals, energy assets, both hydroelectric and fossil alike plus the Canadian Arctic. It would allow us to secure our borders, protect national interests, and assert independence on the global stage. That is how borders remain intact and how nations elevate their standing.

 Imagining new lifelines for Canada stretching across the American wreckage. A partnership with the European Union, a bold pivot to the east - shared intelligence and security gathering satellites launched through the European Space Agency, orbiting high above this fractured world we once were so sure about. As Henry Kissinger once observed, "It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal." Canada’s military and security intelligence apparatus must accept this new reality and adapt to the possibility of the United States becoming an adversary.

 The hard lessons from Ukraine, Taiwan, and now Greenland and Denmark are ones no responsible Canadian can ignore.