Global & US Headlines
Trump’s January 12 threat to seize Greenland triggers NATO crisis talks
On 12 Jan 2026, President Trump publicly vowed the U.S. would obtain Greenland “one way or the other,” forcing NATO allies into emergency negotiations on an Arctic defense plan to avert a rupture of the alliance.
Focusing Facts
- Speaking aboard Air Force One on 12 Jan 2026, Trump said: “If we don’t take Greenland, Russia or China will… one way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland.”
- The same day, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz confirmed NATO is drafting an “Arctic Sentry” mission for Greenland and that Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul is in Washington for talks with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
- Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned on 11 Jan 2026 that a U.S. invasion of Greenland “would spell the end of NATO,” invoking EU treaty Article 42.7 for collective defense.
Context
Great-power grabs of remote frontiers have precedent: the 1867 U.S. purchase of Alaska, Norway’s 1925 claim to Svalbard, or Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea—all moments when hard power chased resources and sea lanes. Trump’s blunt threat reprises 19th-century gunboat real-estate deals in a 21st-century alliance system that was built precisely to end them. The episode spotlights two long arcs: (1) the Arctic’s transition from frozen moat to contested arena as melting ice unlocks minerals and shipping routes, and (2) the erosion of post-1945 norms against territorial conquest that even nuclear-armed democracies once upheld. Whether the crisis fizzles or fractures NATO, it signals that the century-old pattern of states redefining borders for strategic commodities—be it oil in the Middle East after 1919 or lithium in the Andes today—has reached the High North. In 2126 historians may view this week less as a Greenland spat than as an inflection point when climate change, resource nationalism and great-power rivalry finally converged, testing the durability of the oldest military alliance still standing.
Perspectives
Left leaning media
Left leaning media — Frame Trump’s threats to annex Greenland as recklessly illegal and certain to destroy NATO, highlighting Democratic and European voices who warn the move would put the U.S. at war with its allies. By foregrounding worst-case scenarios and Democratic critiques, the coverage maximizes alarm over Trump while paying scant attention to the strategic debate he raises, a familiar editorial stance that portrays the president as uniquely dangerous.
Center-right transatlantic policy press
Center-right transatlantic policy press — Accepts that the Arctic poses real security challenges and argues the issue should be solved inside NATO, presenting Trump’s concerns as at least partly valid while urging a negotiated, alliance-based fix. This framing downplays the legality question and portrays European accommodation as sensible statecraft, reflecting an establishment instinct to preserve NATO cohesion even if that means soft-pedalling Washington’s coercive rhetoric.
Right leaning media and Trump-friendly outlets
Right leaning media and Trump-friendly outlets — Echo Trump’s assertion that the United States must take Greenland—by purchase or force—to prevent Russian or Chinese encroachment, casting control of the island as an urgent matter of national security. By repeating presidential talking points about looming Russian and Chinese ‘takeovers’ without scrutiny, the coverage amplifies threat inflation that justifies U.S. expansion and sidelines Greenland’s own right to decide its future.