President Donald Trump has linked his desire to own Greenland with the development of his nascent missile defense shield, Golden Dome. Except that he doesn’t need to seize the Danish territory to accomplish his goal. Golden Dome, Trump’s pricey vision to protect the U.S., is a multi-layered defense shield intended to block projectiles heading toward the country. The president announced a $175 billion, three-year plan last year, although gave few details about how the administration would fund it. “The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security,” Trump said Wednesday in a Truth Social post. “It is vital for the Golden Dome we are building.” But the country already has the access it needs in Greenland to host interceptors that could knock down enemy missiles. And the U.S. has other locations it could place similar defense systems — think New York or Canada — if many of the interceptors are even based on land, instead of space as envisioned. “The right way for the U.S. to engage with an ally to improve our homeland defense — whether through additional radars, communication antennas or even interceptor sites — is to engage collaboratively with that ally,” said a former defense official. “If strengthening homeland defense is the actual goal, this administration is off to a truly terrible start.” Here are three reasons why Golden Dome has little to do with Trump’s desire to take Greenland: HE COULD HAVE JUST ASKED DENMARK The U.S. military’s presence in Greenland centers on Pituffik Space Base, which operates under a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark that grants the U.S. regular access to the island. The base is a key outpost for detecting threats from the Arctic, although it doesn’t host any interceptor systems. If the Pentagon wanted to station interceptors or more sensors on the island, the U.S. could simply work with Denmark to do so, according to the former official and a defense expert. Greenland has been part of the U.S. homeland missile defense and space surveillance network for decades and it would continue that role under Golden Dome, said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “We already have unfettered access to what we need for Golden Dome in Greenland, but the president talks as if he’s not aware of that,” Harrison said. “His statements about Greenland are detached from reality.” The White House, when asked for comment, pointed to Trump’s post. HE COULD CHOOSE SOMEWHERE ELSE — THAT THE U.S. OWNS Greenland could prove a good location for ground-based interceptors that block missiles launching from Russia and the Middle East towards the U.S. But the U.S. has other options for interceptor locations, and none would necessitate taking another country (a seizure that could threaten to destroy the NATO alliance). The Pentagon has examined potential locations for interceptor sites and Fort Drum, an Army base in upstate New York, has routinely survived deep dive analysis by the Missile Defense Agency, said the former defense official, who, like others interviewed, was granted anonymity to speak about internal discussions. “Compared to Fort Drum, Greenland does not appear to be a better location for such interceptors,” the person said. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Ala.) has also said his state could play a “critical role” in housing interceptors. MUCH OF THE DEFENSE SHIELD IS SUPPOSED TO BE BASED IN SPACE Trump’s assertion about needing Greenland for Golden Dome also raises questions about what the multibillion-dollar architecture will actually look like. The Pentagon has largely avoided discussing the price tag publicly. And officials originally envisioned most of it located above the Earth. A key part of Golden Dome is space-based interceptors — weapons orbiting the planet that can shoot down incoming missiles. But moving missile defense systems to space would require fewer ground-based systems, negating the importance of acquiring more land for the effort. “If Golden Dome’s sensor network and defenses are primarily space-based — as per the current plan — Greenland might still be of value,” said a former defense official. “But less so than it would be for terrestrial architecture.”

Denmark and Greenland “still have a fundamental disagreement” with the U.S. over President Donald Trump’s desire to control the Arctic territory, Denmark’s foreign minister said Wednesday. Lars Løkke Rasmussen and his Greenland counterpart Vivian Motzfeldt finally had their chance to try to turn down the temperature at the White House after more than a year of aggressive internet trolling, statements and demands from the U.S. Their conversation did little to dissuade Trump and his team from their hold on Greenland. “We didn’t manage to change the American position,” Rasmussen said. “It’s clear that the president has this wish of conquering over Greenland. We made it very very clear that this is not in the interest of the Kingdom.” Rasmussen and Motzfeldt took pains to describe the session as respectful, but their frustration that their longtime ally would not cooperate was clear. “It is of course very emotional for all of us,” Rasmussen said. The U.S., Denmark and Greenland agreed in the meeting to convene high-level working groups to see if they could find a way forward, but Rasmussen said he was unsure whether it would be possible. Demands that would violate Denmark and Greenland’s sovereignty are “totally unacceptable,” he said. Denmark has contributed $15 billion to Arctic security over the past two years and has pressed the U.S. and other NATO countries to do more through the alliance, Rasmussen added. Denmark announced earlier Wednesday that it would beef up its security presence in Greenland, which has been under Danish control for nearly 300 years. The officials noted much of what Trump and his team continue to say about Greenland is untrue, including Trump’s often repeated claim that Greenland is crawling with Russian and Chinese warships. Rasmussen said there has not been a Chinese warship in the Arctic for a decade. Those statements and Trump’s threatening tone do not yield a constructive dialogue, Rasmussen said. “It is not easy to think innovatively about solutions when you wake up every morning to different threats,” he said. On Wednesday morning, Trump posted on Truth Social that the United States needed to acquire Greenland for his Golden Dome missile defense project, his latest rationale. “NATO should be leading the way for us to get it,” Trump wrote. “IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.”

Two new polls released Wednesday show that most voters do not want the U.S. to take military action against Iran and think President Donald Trump is overstepping abroad. A Quinnipiac University poll of registered voters found that 70 percent oppose U.S. military involvement in Iran, even if protesters there are killed while demonstrating against the Iranian government, compared to 18 percent who support military action. Opposition was mostly along party lines, with 79 percent of Democrats and 80 percent of independents opposing military involvement. Republicans were more supportive, with a majority — 53 percent — saying the U.S. should not get involved. The poll also found that 70 percent of voters think the president should receive congressional approval first before taking military action. Trump did not receive congressional approval prior to capturing Maduro, prompting criticism from both Democrat and Republican lawmakers. Five GOP senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Todd Young of Indiana and Josh Hawley of Missouri, joined Democratic lawmakers to advance legislation forcing Trump to obtain Congress’ approval before taking any further military steps in Venezuela. Trump scolded the senators in a post on Truth Social, saying Republicans should be “ashamed” of them and they should “never be elected to office again” as the vote “greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security.” Voters were less supportive of other aggressive foreign policy moves by the Trump administration to expand U.S. influence abroad. Trump argued that the push for U.S. control over Greenland was for national security purposes and to benefit NATO. Regardless, 86 percent opposed using military force to take over Greenland, and 55 percent opposed buying it. The results mirror growing resistance among voters against U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts amid a slew of executive efforts. A separate poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that a growing number of Americans want the U.S. to take a “less active role” in global affairs. Following the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, the poll revealed that 56 percent of Americans think Trump has “gone too far” in using military power abroad, and 45 percent say they want the country to be less involved in solving global problems — up from 33 percent in September 2025. Despite broad skepticism of foreign military action, many Americans still seem optimistic about the effects of U.S. intervention in Venezuela. About half of adults think Maduro’s capture and military action in Venezuela will be “mostly a good thing” for halting the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S., and 44 percent believe it will benefit the people of Venezuela more than harm them. The Quinnipiac University poll was conducted from Jan. 8 to Jan. 12, 2025, by phone and surveyed 1,133 self-identified registered voters. The AP-NORC poll was conducted from Jan. 8 to Jan. 11, 2025, and surveyed 1,097 by web and 106 by phone.

Denmark and allied countries said Wednesday they will increase their military presence in Greenland as part of expanded exercises, amid intensifying pressure from Washington over the Arctic island’s sovereignty. “Security in the Arctic is of crucial importance to the Kingdom and our Arctic allies, and it is therefore important that we, in close cooperation with allies, further strengthen our ability to operate in the region,” said Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen. “The Danish Defense Forces, together with several Arctic and European allies, will explore in the coming weeks how an increased presence and exercise activity in the Arctic can be implemented.” In a statement, Denmark’s defense ministry said additional Danish aircraft, naval assets and troops will be deployed in and around Greenland starting immediately as part of expanded training and exercise activity. The effort will include “receiving allied forces, operating fighter jets and carrying out maritime security tasks,” the ministry said. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said on X that Swedish officers are arriving in Greenland as part of a multinational allied group to help prepare upcoming phases of Denmark’s Operation Arctic Endurance exercise, following a request from Copenhagen. A European diplomat said that troops from the Netherlands, Canada and Germany were also taking part. The diplomat and another official with first-hand knowledge said France was also involved. Defense ministries in other countries did not immediately respond to requests for comment. So far, the deployment remains intergovernmental and has not been formally approved by NATO, according to two people familiar with the matter. “The goal is to show that Denmark and key allies can increase their presence in the Arctic region,” said a third person briefed on the plans, demonstrating their “ability to operate under the unique Arctic conditions and thereby strengthen the alliance’s footprint in the Arctic, benefiting both European and transatlantic security.” The announcement landed the same day U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with the Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers in Washington, following days of rising transatlantic tensions over President Donald Trump’s bid to take over the strategic island. Trump escalated the dispute earlier Wednesday in a Truth Social post, declaring that “the United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security,” calling it “vital” for his planned “Golden Dome” missile defense system.  He also insisted that seizing Greenland would not destroy NATO, despite warnings from Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen that such a move would end the Atlantic alliance. “Militarily, without the vast power of the United States … NATO would not be an effective force or deterrent — Not even close!” Trump posted. “They know that, and so do I. NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES.” Denmark and Greenland have repeatedly rejected any suggestion of a transfer of sovereignty, stressing that Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark and that its future is for Greenlanders alone to decide. Greenland’s government said it is working closely with Copenhagen to ensure local involvement and transparency, with Denmark’s Arctic Command tasked with keeping the population informed. “If we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark,” Jens-Frederik Nielsen, Greenland’s prime minister, said at a press conference Tuesday. In response, Trump said, “That’s their problem. I disagree with him. I don’t know who he is. Don’t know anything about him, but that’s going to be a big problem for him.”

The U.S. has ordered the evacuation of some personnel from its largest base in the Middle East as President Donald Trump weighs strikes against the Islamist regime in Iran. The move echoes similar actions last year in the run-up to the joint U.S.-Israeli air and missile strikes on Iranian nuclear program sites. But a U.S. defense official cautioned this evacuation was a precautionary step as Tehran struggles with mass anti-government protests with security officials killing numerous protesters. The shift of some forces from Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar comes after Trump told Iranians on Tuesday that “help is on its way,” and warned Americans in Iran they should think about evacuating the country. A former U.S. official familiar with the situation said aircraft had also been moved. The current and former officials were granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive national security issue. Reuters first reported the evacuation. The Qatari government said in a statement Wednesday that the evacuations from Al Udeid “are being undertaken in response to the current regional tensions.” The Pentagon stations about 10,000 U.S. troops at the sprawling Al Udeid, along with smaller bases in the region in Iraq, Syria and Jordan. The base has its own air defenses, which were put to the test in June when Iran attacked it with ballistic missiles. But one Patriot missile interceptor that was sent there before the attack has since been shipped back to South Korea.

Croatian President Zoran Milanović has slammed France for selling Zagreb secondhand fighter jets while providing its rival Serbia with a brand-new fleet. “We look like fools,” he raged last week, “because the French sell new Rafales to the Serbs and used ones to us.” Zagreb finalized a government-to-government deal with Paris in 2021 to modernize its air force by purchasing a dozen Rafale fighters valued at €999 million. The final aircraft, which were procured from France’s own stocks, were delivered last April, replacing Croatia’s outdated Soviet-era MiG-21 fleet. In August 2024, Serbia signed a deal to buy 12 Rafale jets from French manufacturer Dassault Aviation fresh from the factory. That transaction has enraged the Croatian president. Croatia fought Serbia in the 1990s in the bloody wars that followed Yugoslavia’s disintegration. While relations between the two countries have improved dramatically since then, non-NATO Serbia’s close ties with Moscow are a worry to Zagreb, which joined the Atlantic alliance in 2009 and the EU in 2013. Serbia’s own EU candidacy has largely stalled, with Belgrade ditching a Western Balkans summit in Brussels last month. Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos called on Serbia in November to “urgently reverse the backsliding on freedom of expression.” French Europe Deputy Minister Benjamin Haddad, who was in Zagreb on Monday to discuss defense cooperation, defended the Serbia contract, saying Croatia should be pleased Belgrade was “gradually freeing itself from dependence on Russia and strengthening its ties with Western countries.” But Milanović hit back that the deal was “implemented behind Croatia’s back and to the detriment of Croatia’s national interests,” and showed “that every country takes care of its own interests, including profits, first and foremost.” The left-wing president added that the Croatian government, led by center-right Prime Minister Andrej Plenković, had erred by not confirming “whether France would sell the same or even more advanced aircraft models to one of our neighboring countries outside NATO.” DOMESTIC SQUABBLES Croatian officials are split over whether the president was right to react the way he did. One Croatian diplomat told POLITICO that Milanović had a point and that France was wrong to sell the newer jets to Serbia after fobbing off Croatia with an older model. But a second Croatian official said the deal was a good one for Zagreb and noted that the Croatian government had signed a letter of intent in December with Paris to upgrade its Rafale jets to the latest F4 standard. “From France’s point of view, the signing of the letter of intent on December 8 in France by the minister [Catherine Vautrin] and her Croatian counterpart aims to support the partner in modernizing its Rafale fleet to the highest standard currently in service in France,” an official from the French armed forces ministry echoed. “The defense relationship with Croatia is dynamic and not set in stone in 2021.” Croatia’s defense ministry said Milanović’s remarks “show elementary ignorance of how the international arms trade works.” “Great powers — the United States of America, France, the United Kingdom, Russia, China — have been selling the same or similar weapons to countries that are in tense and even openly antagonistic relations for decades,” the ministry added. “The USA is simultaneously arming Israel and Egypt, Russia [is arming] India and Pakistan, while the West is simultaneously arming Greece and Turkey. This is the rule, not the exception.” In Croatia, the president is also the commander-in-chief of the military but shares jurisdiction over defense policy with the government, which is responsible for the budget and the day-to-day management of the armed forces. Milanović and Plenković are often at odds, a third Croatian official said, arguing the president was using the issue to hammer his political rival. DIRT-CHEAP FIGHTER JETS France has looked to strengthen defense ties with Croatia, which spends over 2 percent of its GDP on defense and is transitioning its Soviet-era military stocks to Western arms. Some of those purchases are coming from France. Plenković was in Paris in December to sign a separate deal with KNDS France for 18 Caesar self-propelled howitzers and 15 Serval armored vehicles, with the equipment to be purchased with the EU’s loans-for-weapons SAFE money.  In the original fighter jet deal, Croatia bought airplanes that were being used by the French air force, meaning they were cheaper than new stock and were available quickly. At the time the decision was criticized in Paris by parliamentarians arguing France was weakening its own air force to seal export contracts. Serbia, meanwhile, reportedly paid €2.7 billion for the same number of jets, which are expected to be delivered as of 2028. China and Russia provide the vast majority of Belgrade’s weapons, with France a distant third.

PARIS — Kyiv and its European allies are eyeing the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos next week as a key venue for Donald Trump to throw his weight behind American commitments on a peace plan for Ukraine. Trump’s presence at the elite business and political event, along with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is seen as a prime opportunity to get the U.S. president to personally endorse U.S. commitments discussed during a high-level meeting in Paris last week, most critically on what America can offer to deter Russia from further attacks. Two senior European officials said the big hope was that Trump could commit to those U.S.-backed security guarantees for Ukraine at the Swiss meeting, but two others said the target could be Trump’s endorsement of a lower-level economic pact on postwar recovery. In either case, the goal is to lock in engagement from Washington. French President Emmanuel Macron, who has been leading European efforts to hash out a security guarantee plan jointly with the U.K.’s Keir Starmer, will be attending the global event, according to three officials, joining a flock of European leaders. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will attend along with leaders from Germany, Spain, Belgium, Finland, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland and Serbia. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte will also join. Starmer’s attendance is not yet confirmed, but he would be expected to travel if hopes of clinching a deal are rising, according a U.K. official not authorized to speak publicly. He would go alongside his National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell, seen as one of the most trusted links between the U.S. and Europe in negotiations. Zelenskyy said Monday he had instructed his negotiating team to “finalize and submit for consideration at the highest level the document on the United States’ security guarantees for Ukraine.” “We are negotiating with President Trump’s representatives about the meeting schedules — our documents are largely ready for signing. We expect that the Davos format this year will be quite effective precisely in terms of our relations with partners and our recovery from Russian strikes,” he added in a separate statement out the same day. The meeting of the so-called Coalition of the Willing in Paris last Tuesday was followed by several bilateral meetings at diplomatic level, according to two diplomats, including with U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff and Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Both men’s show of support at the Paris meeting was interpreted as an encouraging sign of U.S. commitment, even if an explicit promise from Washington on a Ukraine backstop was scrapped from the leaders’ final joint statement. Esther Webber reported from London. Veronika Melkozerova reported from Kyiv and Zoya Sheftalovich reported from Brussels.

BRUSSELS — The European Commission on Wednesday unveiled a €90 billion loan to Ukraine aimed at saving it from financial collapse as it continues to battle Russia while aid from the U.S. dries up. About one-third of the cash will be used for normal budget expenditures and the rest will go to defense — although countries still need to formally agree to what extent Ukraine can use the money to buy weapons from outside the EU. A Commission proposal gives EU defense firms preferential treatment but allows Ukraine to buy foreign weapons if they aren’t immediately available in Europe. While the loan is interest-free for Ukraine, it is forecast to cost EU taxpayers between €3 billion and €4 billion a year in borrowing costs from 2028. The EU had to resort to the loan after an earlier effort to use sanctioned Russian frozen assets ran into opposition from Belgium. The race is now on for EU lawmakers to agree on a final legal text that’ll pave the way for disbursements in April, when Ukraine’s war chest runs out. Meetings between EU treasury and defense officials are already planned for Friday. The European Parliament could fast-track the loan as early as next week. The financing package is also crucial for unlocking additional loans to Ukraine from the International Monetary Fund. The Washington-based Fund wants to ensure Kyiv’s finances aren’t overstretched, as the war enters its fifth year next month. The €90 billion will be paid out over the next two years, as Moscow shows no sign of slowing down its offensive on Ukraine despite U.S.-led efforts to agree on a ceasefire. “Russia shows no sign of abating, no sign of remorse, no sign of seeking peace,” Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters after presenting the proposal. “We all want peace for Ukraine, and for that, Ukraine must be in a position of strength.” When EU leaders agreed on the loan, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called the deal an “unprecedented decision, and it will also have an impact on the peace negotiations.” Adding to the pressure on the EU, the U.S. under President Donald Trump has halted new military and financial aid to Ukraine, leaving it up to Europe to ensure Kyiv can continue fighting. Once the legal text is agreed, the EU will raise joint debt to finance the initiative, although the governments in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia said they will not participate in the funding drive.  The conditions on military spending are splitting EU countries. Paris is demanding strict rules to prevent money from flowing to U.S. weapons manufacturers, while Germany and other Northern European countries want to give Ukraine greater flexibility on how to spend the cash, pointing out that some key systems needed by Ukraine aren’t manufactured in Europe. MEETING HALFWAY The Commission has put forward a compromise proposal — seen by POLITICO. It gives preferential treatment to defense companies based in the EU, Ukraine and neighboring countries, including Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, but doesn’t rule out purchases from abroad. To keep the Northern European capitals happy, the Commission’s proposal allows Ukraine to buy specialized weapons produced outside the EU if they are vital for Kyiv’s defense against Russian forces. These include the U.S. Patriot long-range missile and air defense systems. The rules could be bent further in cases “where there is an urgent need for a given defense product” that can’t be delivered quickly from within Europe. Weapons aren’t considered European if more than 35 percent of their parts come from outside the continent, according to the draft. That’s in line with previous EU defense-financing initiatives, such as the €150 billion SAFE loans-for-weapons program. Two other legal texts are included in the legislative package. One proposes using the upper borrowing limit in the current budget to guarantee the loan. The other is designed to tweak the Ukraine Facility, a 2023 initiative that governs the bloc’s long-term financial support to Kyiv. The Commission will also create a new money pot to cover the borrowing costs before the new EU budget enters into force in 2028. RUSSIAN COLLATERAL Ukraine only has to repay the €90 billion loan if it receives post-war reparations from Russia — an unlikely scenario. If this doesn’t happen, the EU has left the door open to tapping frozen Russian state assets across the bloc to pay itself back. Belgium’s steadfast opposition to leveraging the frozen assets, most of which are based in the Brussels-based financial depository Euroclear, promises to make that negotiation difficult. However, the Commission can indefinitely roll over its debt by issuing eurobonds until it finds the necessary means to pay off the loan. The goal is to ensure Ukraine isn’t left holding the bill. “The Union reserves its right to use the cash balances from immobilized Russian assets held in the EU to repay the Ukraine Support Loan,” Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis said alongside von der Leyen. “Supporting Ukraine is a litmus test for Europe. The outcome of Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine will determine Europe’s future.” Jacopo Barigazzi contributed to this report from Brussels.

BRUSSELS — EU leaders are scrambling to come up with a deal on Greenland’s future that would allow Donald Trump to claim victory on the issue without destroying the alliance that underpins European security.  From proposals to using NATO to bolster Arctic security to giving the U.S. concessions on mineral extraction, the bloc’s leaders are leaning heavily toward conciliation over confrontation with Trump, three diplomats and an EU official told POLITICO. The race to come up with a plan follows the U.S. president’s renewed claims that his country “needs” the island territory — and won’t rule out getting it by force. “In the end, we have always come to a common conclusion” with Washington, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said after meeting U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, adding that their talks on the Arctic territory were “encouraging.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said he hopes “a mutually acceptable solution” will be found within NATO. The foreign ministers of Greenland and Denmark will meet U.S. Vice President JD Vance alongside Rubio at the White House on Wednesday. They are hoping for “an honest conversation with the administration,” according to another EU diplomat familiar with plans for the meeting. THE ART OF THE DEAL Asked to describe a possible endgame on Greenland, the first EU diplomat said it could be a deal that would give Trump a victory he could sell domestically, such as forcing European countries to invest more in Arctic security as well as a promise that the U.S. could profit from Greenland’s mineral wealth. Trump is primarily looking for a win on Greenland, the diplomat said. “If you can smartly repackage Arctic security, blend in critical minerals, put a big bow on top, there’s a chance” of getting Trump to sign on. “Past experience” — for example when EU allies pledged to spend 5 percent of GDP on defense — showed “this is always how things have gone.” On defense, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte laid the groundwork for a deal when on Monday he said countries in the alliance were discussing ways of bolstering Arctic security. While the shape of the “next steps” touted by Rutte remain to be defined, a ramped-up investment by European NATO members is one possibility that could fit with Trump’s desire to see Europe shoulder greater responsibility for its security. On mineral extraction, details are blurrier. But a deal that guarantees the U.S. a share of profits from extraction of critical raw materials is one possibility, said the EU official. For now, capacity to extract critical raw materials from Greenland is limited. Denmark has spent years seeking investment for long-term projects, with little luck as countries have preferred obtaining minerals at a much cheaper rate on global markets. The EU is planning to more than double its investment in Greenland in its next-long term budget — including funds oriented toward critical raw materials projects. This could be a hook for Trump to accept a co-investment deal. Yet, if Trump’s real aim is the island’s minerals, Danes have been offering the U.S the chance to invest in Greenland for years — an offer refused by American officials, several diplomats said. If Trump’s push on Greenland is about China and Russia, he could easily ask Copenhagen to increase the presence of U.S troops on the island, they also say. A third EU diplomat questioned whether Trump’s real aim was to get into the history books. Trump’s Make America Great Again slogan “has become a geographical concept; he wants to go down in history as the man who has made America ‘greater’ — in geographical terms,” they said. PRESERVING NATO Above all, governments are trying to avoid a military clash, the three diplomats and EU official said. A direct intervention by the U.S. on Greenland — a territory belonging to a member of the EU and NATO — would effectively spell the end of the postwar security order, leaders have warned.  “It would be an unprecedented situation in the history of NATO and any defense alliance,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said Tuesday, adding that Berlin is talking with Copenhagen about the options at Europe’s disposal if the U.S. launches a takeover. EU Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius and Danish Prime Minister Mette Fredriksen both said a military intervention would be the end of NATO. “Everything would stop,” Fredriksen said. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte laid the groundwork for a deal when on Monday he said countries in the alliance were discussing ways of bolstering Arctic security. | Paul Morigi/Getty Images “No provision [in the alliance’s 1949 founding treaty] envisions an attack on one NATO ally by another one,” said a NATO diplomat, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. It would mean “the end of the alliance,” they added. Trump said “it may be a choice” for the U.S. between pursuing his ambition to take control of Greenland and keeping the alliance intact. Preserving NATO remains the bloc’s top priority, the first EU diplomat said. While both privately and publicly officials have forcefully rejected the idea Europe might “give up” Greenland to the U.S., the comments underscore how desperate governments are to avoid a direct clash with Washington. “This is serious – and Europe is scared,” said a fourth EU diplomat involved in discussions in Brussels on how the bloc responds. A fifth described the moment as “seismic,” because it signaled that the U.S. was ready to rip up a hundred years of ironclad relations.  STILL REELING While European leaders are largely on the same page that a military conflict is unconscionable, how to reach a negotiated settlement is proving thornier. Until the U.S. military strike on Venezuela on Jan. 3, and Trump’s fresh claims the U.S. needs to “have” Greenland, the Europeans were very conspicuously not working on a plan to protect Greenland from Trump — because to do so might risk making the threat real. “It’s been something we’ve anticipated as a potential risk, but something that we can do very little about,” said Thomas Crosbie, a U.S. military expert at the Royal Danish Defense College, which provides training and education for the Danish defense force. “The idea has been that the more we focus on this, and the more we create preparations around resisting this, the more we make it likely to happen. So there’s been anxiety that [by planning for a U.S. invasion] we may accidentally encourage more interest in this, and, you know, kind of escalate,” Crosbie said. But the problem was that, having spent six years studiously avoiding making a plan to respond to Trump’s threats, Europe was left scrabbling for one. Europeans are now faced with figuring out what they have in their “toolbox” to respond to Washington, a former Danish MP aware of discussions said. “The normal rulebook doesn’t work anymore.” Officials consider it the biggest challenge to Europe since the Second World War and they’re not sure what to do.  “We know how we would react if Russia started to behave this way,” the fourth diplomat said. But with the U.S, “this is simply not something we are used to.” Victor Jack, Nette Nöstlinger, Chris Lunday, Zoya Sheftalovich and Seb Starcevic contributed reporting.

Arctic Caucus co-Chairs Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Angus King (I-Maine) will meet on Wednesday with Danish Ambassador Jesper Møller Sørensen to reaffirm their opposition to President Donald Trump’s effort to acquire Greenland. The closed-door meeting comes as Trump has floated the idea of obtaining Greenland “one way or another” — rhetoric that has drawn sharp rebukes from Copenhagen and Nuuk. The idea of taking over the Danish territory has met resistance from some senior Republicans and outright opposition from Democrats. Murkowski said she would support a war powers resolution to bar Trump from taking action to invade Greenland, if it were offered. A bipartisan group of House lawmakers has introduced like-minded legislation that covers any NATO ally. “There’s been a lot of talk about that, which, in fairness, is crazy,” Murkowski said in an interview, referring to speculation that Congress could eventually invoke war powers authorities in connection with Greenland. “Who would have ever thought you would say the word Greenland in the same sentence as war powers resolution?” The new legislation comes as Hill Democrats search for ways to keep the Trump administration from taking further military action in Venezuela. The Senate is poised to vote this week on a war powers resolution tied to Venezuela, though its path in the House remains unclear. Trump administration officials, meanwhile, are openly discussing options — including the use of force — to seize Greenland, a move that would trigger NATO’s mutual defense clause and risk shattering the alliance. “It’s easier,” Trump said Sunday, referring to buying the island. “But one way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland.” Murkowski said the goal of Wednesday’s meeting — with Møller Sørensen and other officials from Denmark and Greenland — is “a constructive dialogue” with Danish and Greenlandic officials and to underscore that Capitol Hill is not a bystander as Arctic tensions rise. “We here in this Congress actually have a role, have some input on whether or not it might be appropriate to take some of these actions that the president is suggesting,” she said. Murkowski said she will travel to Copenhagen later this week with a small bipartisan bicameral group to reinforce congressional concerns directly with Danish leaders.