Trump’s Greenland rhetoric is strategic malpractice

Rear Adm. Tom Jurkowsky, USN (Ret.)

The Baltimore Sun

Jan. 25, 2026

President Donald Trump’s recent appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, came with the world on edge. He arrived after having made threats to take over Greenland and charge punitive tariffs to countries not supportive of his plan to take over the island. The Wall Street Journal characterized his arrival in Davos as his swinging a wrecking ball that threatened the international world order.

Fortunately, Trump backed off on his threats to invade Greenland and said he and European leaders reached an agreement with NATO on a framework and would not be imposing planned tariffs on European allies. The threats had caused global market meltdowns. Trump’s threats did not need to happen. They were needless and senseless. Quite simply, they were strategic malpractice.

Did he need to post an image of himself lecturing European leaders in front of a map in which Greenland, Venezuela and Canada are draped with the U.S. flag? Trump’s words and actions leading up to Davos caused many allies and friends to question whether Trump’s America had lost its way.

The facts are that Greenland is an autonomous territory within the kingdom of Denmark, embedded in NATO and protected by international law. The Defense of Greenland Agreement was signed in 1951. It’s the cornerstone of the security relationship between the U.S. and the Kingdom of Denmark. The agreement formalized a long-standing military presence that began during World War II.

The agreement provides the U.S. with extensive rights and freedom of action regarding any military infrastructure — without requiring the U.S. to own the territory. It places Greenland within the NATO defense network, treating an attack on Greenland as an attack on all NATO members. This relationship has lasted for nearly 80 years

Danish political leaders, like many U.S. political leaders, have been baffled by Trump’s efforts to “take” the island, given that both Greenland and Denmark have said the U.S. can have sweeping military and economic access to the country. One member of the Danish parliament said Trump shouldn’t be worried about security of the island because NATO and the U.S. can open as many military bases on Greenland as they like. There is simply no need for Greenland to be American.

The U.S. already has a facility in northern Greenland that operates as an early warning system.

How much damage has Trump done to our European relationships? How deep is the rift that Trump has caused? That remains to be seen at this point. Clearly, recovering from Trump’s mean-spirited rhetoric will not be easy. Our leaders and diplomats have work to do. One measure of the damage can be seen in the words of some of our adversaries.

Sergei Lavrov, Vladimir Putin’s foreign minister, said the NATO alliance is in “deep crisis,” never imagining a scenario in which one member of the alliance would attack another. John Foreman, a former U.K. defense attaché in Moscow and Kyiv, told the Wall Street Journal that “Russia must be sitting back thinking Christmas just keeps coming.”

“Collapse of the transatlantic union. Finally — something actually worth discussing in Davos,” said another Russian diplomat in a post on X.

Giving credit where credit is due, Trump is correct when he says Greenland is strategically important. In fact, its strategic significance has grown dramatically in recent years. In late 2024, China and Russia agreed to form a strategic partnership in the Arctic for economic development, exploitation of mineral resources, increased use of the Northern Sea Route and military cooperation against the West.

As a result, Russia and China have conducted joint training exercises and patrols by each of their coast guards. The U.S. ambassador at large for the Arctic warned just over a year ago about the “frequency and complexity” of cooperation between Russia and China in the region.

Writing in the New Atlanticist last year, Jeppe Kofod, a former Danish minister of foreign affairs, said that with Russia’s increased militarization of the region and Beijing’s growing regional ambitions, security concerns have heightened.

“Russia’s military activities include ballistic missile submarines, reopening Arctic airstrips and enhancing aviation capabilities, while China seeks access to Arctic trade routes, resources and scientific opportunities,” said Kofod.

China now calls itself a “near-Arctic state.”

Last year, Chinese research submarines traveled for the first time thousands of feet below the Arctic ice. The Wall Street Journal called it a feat with chilling military and commercial implications for America and its allies. Additionally, Chinese military and research vessels have operated around Alaska’s Arctic waters in unprecedented numbers.

So where do we go from here? President Trump needs to realize the only solution to the situation is diplomacy, perhaps as he conducted in Davos. Not name-calling, not threats to attack Greenland and not increasing tariffs on our friends and allies for supporting Denmark and Greenland. To continue as he has with harsh rhetoric simply appeases Putin and Xi Jinping.

Up until now, Trump’s advisers have not served him well. They should have reminded him about the 1951 agreement that basically gave us free rein in Greenland to begin with. Now, all he has done is create chaos, angst and distrust of our country.

What Trump wants is mineral access and military bases in Greenland. This could have been accomplished long ago if Trump had done what is normal for presidents. Former ambassador to NATO and China Nicholas Burns says: “And that’s respecting Denmark, working with them diplomatically on the basis the Danes have suggested: We are sovereign, but we welcome American investment and military presence.”

Tom Jurkowsky is a retired rear admiral in the U.S. Navy who served on active duty for 31 years. He is the author of the book “The Secret Sauce for Organizational Success: Communications and Leadership on the Same Page.” He served on the Anne Arundel Community College faculty as an adjunct instructor, where he lectured on current affairs.