How the U.S. could 'lose the 21st century' over Greenland

President Trump says he wants to "take" Greenland. If he does, he will be effectively attacking Denmark, a NATO ally. How Trump's imperialism could destroy one of America's oldest and most important alliances.

Charles Kupchan, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Professor of international affairs at Georgetown University.

James Baker, director of the Syracuse Institute for Security Policy and Law.

Magnus Lund Nielsen, politics journalist at Euractiv.

The version of our broadcast available at the top of this page and via podcast apps is a condensed version of the full show. You can listen to the full, unedited broadcast here:

Part I

MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI: About six years ago when President Donald Trump first mentioned his desire to take control of Greenland, it seemed to many, just another amusing moment of Trump being Trump. Trump being Trump has come to this, the President this week saying he will have Greenland, whether "they like it or not."

DONALD TRUMP: I would like to make a deal the easy way. But if we don't do it the easy way, we're gonna do it the hard way.

CHAKRABARTI: Greenland is an autonomous territory of Denmark, a NATO member state and Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said this week they will not be a U.S. pawn. That remark, drawing a casual admission of ignorance and a threat from the U.S. President.

We are now facing a geopolitical crisis, and if we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark.

That's their problem. I disagree with him. I don't know who he is, don't know anything about him, but that's gonna be a big problem for him.

CHAKRABARTI: Trump being Trump has brought extraordinary pushback from some Republicans. Like North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, who on the Senate floor, tore into White House Deputy Chief of Stephen Miller this week.

THOM TILLIS: And it has to start with an interview that I saw with one of the president's senior policy advisors, Stephen Miller, on CNN a couple of nights ago. Mr. Miller said that --

STEPHEN MILLER: The real question is by what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? The United States is the power of NATO. For the United States to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend NATO and NATO interest. Obviously, Greenland should be part of the United States.

TILLIS: Folks, amateur hour is over. You don't speak on behalf of this U.S. Senator or the Congress. You can say it may be the position of the President of the United States that Greenland should be a part of the United States, but it's not the position of this government, and I'm sick of stupid.

CHAKRABARTI: Senator Tillis is not running for reelection.

It has come to a U.S., Greenland, Denmark meeting today that European analyst Noah Reddington calls quote, the most important in Greenland's history.

All people in Denmark are really afraid, really concerned, also in Greenland that tomorrow the Danish and the Greenlandian government will be presented for an ultimatum.

This is a take it or leave it. And also, that they will be completely thrown under the bus by JD Vance and insulted and humiliated.

CHAKRABARTI: Insults. Humiliation, the presumption that one man equals the entirety of the United States government. It seems that critics of a half-decade ago were right. The Greenland obsession is in fact Trump being Trump.

Very dangerously so. Now it's worth taking a moment to remember the backstory here because President Trump has always been transparent about why he wants Greenland. Back in 2019 in Trump's first administration, Ronald S. Lauder aired to the Estée Lauder cosmetics fortune, who had known Mr. Trump since college, first talk to the president about the sparsely populated Arctic Island. Quote: A friend of mine, a really experienced businessman, thinks we can get Greenland. Trump told his national security advisor. Quote, What do you think?

That was the first moment. Then came this revelation about the pivotal role played by the Mercator projection map of the world.

'I love maps.' President Trump said to Peter Baker of the New York Times and Susan Glasser of the New Yorker magazine, he went on and said, quote: 'And I always said, look at the size of this. It's massive. That should be part of the United States.' End quote. So at the heart of the brewing crisis between the United States and the NATO alliance it has been part of for 75 years is Trump being Trump. Not Trump the president, but Trump, the real estate player.

He has never backed down from that truth, not even, again, to the New York Times in a very recently released interview.

TRUMP: Really it is, to me, it’s ownership. Ownership is very important.

DAVID E. SANGER: Why is ownership important here?

TRUMP: Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document, that you can have a base.

SANGER: So you’re going to ask them to buy it?

KATIE ROGERS: Psychologically important to you or to the United States?

TRUMP: Psychologically important for me. Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I’ve been right about everything.

CHAKRABARTI: Psychologically important for me. Now, I promise today we will talk about the actual strategic importance of Greenland for the United States and for NATO as a whole. We'll also talk about the minerals, billions of dollars of worth in Greenland's soil.

But I want to start with this question. What is Donald Trumpism now regarding Greenland, how would you describe it?

So we're going to start today with Charles Kupchan. He's a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University. Professor Kupchan, welcome to On Point.

CHARLES KUPCHAN: Good to be with you, Meghna.

CHAKRABARTI: Now, over the past week, it seems that President Trump has been pretty clear that he believes the only way to achieve U.S. security vis-a-vis Russia and China in the Arctic is to own Greenland. No Alliance can provide that. No multilateral agreements, just ownership. What would you call that?

KUPCHAN: I wouldn't look for coherence in Donald Trump's foreign policy because it's not there. I think there are a lot of impulses and a lot of instincts, but not a clear strategic vision. But if I step back from the day to day, and say, where would I locate Trump and what he's doing in American history, I would put him firmly in the middle of the 19th century.

I wouldn't look for coherence in Donald Trump's foreign policy because it's not there.

Charles Kupchan

This is, in many respects, a president who believes in manifest destiny. You just said that Trump has said it's massive. That should be part of the United States. That sounds a lot like James Polk, who annexed Texas and then triggered a war with Mexico that led to about half of Mexico becoming part of the United States.

It reminds me of the purchase of Alaska after the Civil War when William Seward, the Secretary of State, then said, Hey, maybe we should get Greenland. And Greenland's pretty big. It's not as big as it looks like on a map. It's about one quarter of the size of the contiguous United States, the 48.

So it would be a big addition to American territory, and I think you're hearing a real estate developer speak. Its location, it's big. He wants to be able to say, at the end of his presidency, I have immeasurably expanded the territory of the United States. And there are strategic issues in play, which we'll talk about. The importance of missile defense, the minerals, the question of what we call the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap, which is an important naval choke point.

But I think in the end of the day, this really is about an impulse, an instinct, manifest destiny than it is about a clear strategic imperative.

CHAKRABARTI: Respectfully. Professor Kupchan, I have heard not just you, but many interviews in media over the past couple of weeks. I've even done it here on this show, using terms like manifest destiny, annexation, take control of, et cetera.

Is not what we were actually talking about here, this is what manifest destiny was in the 19th century, American imperialism. Now in a Trumpian form. I mean because let me clarify. Empires in the past have used the same reasoning for our defense, for our security, for the resources in other countries.

They have literally expanded things that we call empires. How is this any different?

KUPCHAN: In the 19th century, imperialism was okay. And in fact, the United States generally resisted it, but engaged in its own acts of imperial conquest, Mexico, and then in 1898, picked a war with Spain and took control of Cuba.

And Puerto Rico and the Philippines and Guam and the Wake Islands. And there was a reaction, there was an anti-imperial movement that emerged after the Spanish American War. And since then, the United States has been on the side of self-determination. But right now, I would have to say we are in an unknown space.

If the United States were to use coercion to take control of Greenland, it would be an act of imperial aggression not any different from what Russia is doing in Ukraine. We just don't know what Trump has in mind. But that is why this issue of the potential American acquisition of Greenland is of such import. Because this would not just be a Trumpian break with what we call liberal internationalism, and the American led post-World War II order.

It would be such a breach of trust and such a breach of American norms and law that there's no question in my mind that it would shatter NATO and America's relationship with allies all around the world.

CHAKRABARTI: So it would take that line of some kind of physical aggression launched by President Trump for you to feel confident in calling this an imperial expansion.

KUPCHAN: Let's see what happens. If there is a negotiation, if Trump makes an offer, like it's a piece of real estate, and in the end of the day the offer is accepted, which I don't expect, that's different. In the end of the day, if we see a coercive annexation, whether it be economic coercion, military coercion, i.e., the annexation of a territory that Greenlanders don't want, that Danes don't want, that Europeans don't want.

We are in a very dangerous place.

CHAKRABARTI: I agree with you. I just don't understand the hesitation amongst analysts, people in Washington, experts, to just call this what it is. I don't understand how Trump right now sending people to Greenland and to Denmark, saying, basically, let's cut a deal ... and if not, something else might happen. How is that not already economic coercion? That's the quote that we played from the president right at the top of the show.

KUPCHAN: That is what I would call coercive diplomacy. And right now, it is in my mind below the bar of an unadorned act of imperialism. We're not there yet, but I do think that one of the reasons that you've got high level officials from Greenland and Denmark in the United States today, in the White House, talking to Vice President Vance and Vice President Rubio is that they understand the import of what happens to global politics if Trump goes down this road without the consent of the people of Greenland in Denmark.

Part II

CHAKRABARTI:  So let's go to Magnus Lund Nielsen, who joins us now from Brussels in Belgium. He's a politics journalist at Euractiv. Magnus, welcome to On Point.

MAGNUS LUND NIELSEN:  Hi, Meghna. Thank you for having me.

CHAKRABARTI: So first and foremost, in terms of the European media that I've been reading over the past few weeks, we played actually some of the quotes at the top of the show.

It seems pretty clearly that, well, Greenland's Prime Minister and leaders in Denmark have said no, they do not want Greenland to become part of the United States. True?

NIELSEN:  Exactly. And I think the ups were upped yesterday when in Copenhagen, the Greenland premier's stood next to the Danish Prime Minister and said, if we have to choose here and now, we choose Denmark, we choose the Danish realm, we choose NATO, and we choose the EU.

CHAKRABARTI: And so therefore, I guess the next question is, we have to theorize a little bit because we don't know yet what's happening in the meeting. But President Trump himself up until extremely recently has said he would prefer to make a deal, okay? And that, if not a deal, then we'll see what happens.

He has not taken military action off the table, but theorize with me, is there any possible deal you could imagine that Greenlanders and Danes would agree to.

NIELSEN: It's a very difficult question because frankly, all of the things that he so wants he already can have. As you already covered in your very put together coverage I just listened to.

If it's military presence, he can have it per the defense agreement of 1951. If it's a better foothold in the still aspiring growing Greenland mining industry, the Greenlanders are very open for business. It is a question of just say the word.

And so frankly I'm also sitting here in Brussels right now, frantically refreshing different web pages to see what comes out of this meeting now in Washington where the Danish and the Greenland foreign ministers are meeting with JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Because what can they indeed offer them? I think what we've talked about and what has also been rumored in media is that the U.S. might come up with some kind of Free Association agreement.

And interesting maybe for you to know is that has also been a conversation in Greenlandic politics for quite some time. And it also was before Trump came into office.

CHAKRABARTI: Clarify Free Association, meaning what?

NIELSEN: Yeah, fair point. Free Association is a way for it's born out of the aftermath of Second World War where the United States, sorry, not United States.

United Nations got together and agreed on let's get rid of all the colonies. And essentially what they came up with was three different ways for former mainly European empires to get rid of their colonies was to either absorb the former colonies into their own countries, to make them wholly independent, as happened in much of Africa, or finally make them in a sort of a Free Association agreement.

You have that currently with U.S. relationship to Palau, Micronesia or the New Zealand's relationship to the Cook Islands. And something like that have been on the table before, but I just want to emphasize here that any talk of this, of the U.S. offering a Free Association agreement with the Greenlanders and the Greenlanders possibly opting for that solution.

Any chance of that has diminished drastically. Mainly is my analysis by way of the way the U.S. current administration has approached this issue. Because had they shown up and said, We know that you guys are having a rough time with the Danes. There are plenty of stuff in Dane-Greenland history that's terrible.

Frankly, Danes have been treating Greenlanders, historically, not particularly well. But have they shown up and told that story rather than saying we are going to try and buy you. There might have been a chance of some sort of window of opportunity for the Greenland opting for a Free Association agreement with the U.S. But that's off the table now as I see it.

There might have been a chance of some sort of window of opportunity for the Greenland opting for a Free Association agreement with the U.S. But that's off the table now as I see it.

Magnus Lund Nielsen

CHAKRABARTI: Yeah, buy you or just take you. Because as the president has said several times and very recent, said he wants to take Greenland, not just because he loves the concept of ownership, but he doesn't want Russia or China to have it or to have access to it. So nowhere in this conversation is a perspective from the White House about what may be good for Greenlanders.

Charles Kupchan, I'd like to bring you back in here because I do, Magnus has helped us and you did earlier, open the door into talking a little bit more about the history of the United States interest in Greenland. And by the way, before I do that, just to clarify on Compacts of Free Association, Magnus, you mentioned, for example, the ones that the U.S. has with the Marshall Islands or Micronesia.

And more specifically, what that means is, those nations are independent, but they grant the U.S. Defense Authority and access in exchange for money services and interestingly, Visa free entry for their citizens to work or live in the U.S. And it's because, the U.S. grants that because of the strategic interests that they have in the Pacific or that it has in the Pacific.

Very interesting. Now, Charles Kupchan, you had mentioned earlier about this long-term view that the United States has actually had about Greenland. The president himself mentioned that way back in 2019, in his first administration. Here's what he told reporters outside the White House after canceling a visit to Denmark, because even back then, the Danish Prime Minister had refused to sell Greenland.

TRUMP: This is something that's been discussed for many years. Harry Truman had the idea of Greenland. I had the idea. Other people have had the idea, it goes back into the early 1900s, but Harry Truman very strongly thought it was a good idea. I think it's a good idea, because Denmark is losing $700 million a year with it.

It doesn't do them any good, but all they had to do is say, no. We'd rather not do that, or we'd rather not talk about it. Don't say what an absurd idea that is.

CHAKRABARTI: President Trump back in 2019. Professor Kupchan, tell me why you think, what aspects of this long interest the U.S. has had in Greenland are most important to understand what's happening now?

KUPCHAN: I think that there is an inescapable logic to Trump's perspective on expansion and on Greenland, and it goes back to the founding of the Republic. In the sense that the United States, when it was consisted of just 13 colonies, eyed the Pacific Coast, wanted to continue to expand, repeatedly tried to invade and annex Canada, took big chunks of Mexico, thought about annexing various islands in the Pacific and in the Caribbean.

So this has been a through line in American history, and in many respects, the United States made good on that impulse, right? Making it to the Pacific Coast, getting Alaska. And then with the war of 1898, taking over lots of territories, but that then confronted the United States with a question that in some ways never been settled.

And that is, what do we do with territories that belong to the United States, but they're not part of the union? What's their status? And this, I think, comes to this whole question of Free Association that Magnus was talking about, but here I completely agree with him. That when Trump holds a gun to the heads of Greenlanders and to Danish government, the last thing they're going to do is back down and look for compromises like Free Association or some other fix to this problem.

So I get what Trump is doing, right? He's looking at a map. He's a real estate developer. It's big, it's close. It extends into the Atlantic. But it's the 21st century. Imperialism is long dead. If the United States were to engage in a military act to take over Greenland, all bets are off. It really would be a historical breakpoint of huge proportions.

If the United States were to engage in a military act to take over Greenland, all bets are off. It really would be a historical breakpoint of huge proportions.

Charles Kupchan

CHAKRABARTI: Magnus Nielsen, how are the people of Denmark looking at this? And Greenland of course, looking at this moment, it sounds like from the things that leaders have been saying, that we are at the precipice, if not already fallen over the precipice of broken trust, period between Denmark and the U.S.

NIELSEN: Yeah. Maybe one perspective that you particularly maybe don't hear much about in U.S. media is that this is having already enormous impact on the daily lives of Greenlanders. I'm a Dane myself but I have family in Greenland and as soon as yesterday night I was in touch with people.

This is having already enormous impact on the daily lives of Greenlanders.

Magnus Lund Nielsen

I was in touch with people in Nuuk, and the stories that I've heard at this point are frankly a bit heartbreaking. We heard about a young woman who is going back to her studies in Copenhagen and frankly was crying, saying goodbye to her mom because she's not certain that she's going to come back.

Nuuk, that is the Nuuk that she recognizes and that she grew up in. Obviously being the capital of Greenland. So this is not only a question of the strategic posture and how Danes, diplomats both in Atlantic and Danish government are fed up with the Americans.

These are also having very direct impacts on the daily lives of the people living in the world's biggest island.

CHAKRABARTI: Charles Kupchan, I'm going to bring in another guest, so I've got to let you go, but Charles Kupchan, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Thank you so much for being with us professor.

CHARLES KUPCHAN: My pleasure. Bye-bye.

CHAKRABARTI: Okay Magnus, you said how much this is already having an impact on Greenlanders. We actually have an On Point listener. His name is Thomas. He also lives in Brussels where you are at the moment. And Thomas told us that as an American in Europe, he actually thinks European leaders have prepared their citizens for the potential of a crisis, meaning a post NATO world.

And here's what he says.

THOMAS: When Europeans hear Donald Trump talking about invading Greenland, abandoning Ukraine, shredding NATO, they realize what the future will bring as costs and violence and threats to their own societies. Our governments and the European Commission have told every European that they need to go and get emergency kits.

For when the power is out, for when the ATMs are blocked, and when the grocery stores are shut, we have to have two weeks of food. And when I tell this to my American friends, they are shocked. What are these European governments doing? And I tell them, they know what is coming if the United States does not wake up to the potential social costs of abandoning your allies.

That's On Point listener Thomas in Brussels. Joining us now is James Baker. He's the director of the Syracuse University Institute for Security Policy and Law. He's also a judge on the Data Protection Review Court and previously on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Professor Baker, welcome to On Point.

JAMES BAKER: Thank you very much.

CHAKRABARTI: First question to you is the same one that I started off with Professor Kupchan, and if this is important for me to understand.

Because I think as a nation, we need to be willing to call what's happening what it is. And I get people have different definitions of it, but I think we have to do that in order to understand what the potential outcomes, implications or impacts could be.

Do you think that President Trump is behaving in an imperial manner when he talks about wanting to take Greenland.

BAKER: Thank you for the question. I'm going to step back one step and try and put this in a broader perspective before addressing your question. First of all, how extraordinary is it that we're having a conversation about one NATO country, the U.S., threatening another NATO country. You can talk about whether it's a threat, coercion, or imperialism, but it's one NATO country threatening another country.

NATO was established as a defensive alliance to address threats and aggression from the Soviet Union. NATO is critical to U.S. security. The Arctic Circle and the Arctic is critical to U.S. security. So this is an issue not just about Greenland. This is an issue about U.S. security, NATO and Arctic Security. Denmark and Greenland both play a critical role with respect to both.

Indeed, Denmark and Greenland have been very close NATO allies, and as our guests have reflected, we've had bases base in Greenland throughout the Cold War. Denmark per capita was second only to the United States in the number of casualties it took in Iraq and Afghanistan. So Greenland and Denmark, they've been close NATO allies and friends of U.S. Security.

CHAKRABARTI: Yes. May I jump in here, professor, just for a second. Because you're making an extraordinarily important point. The only time Article 5 has been invoked in NATO's history was by the United States following the attacks of 9/11. And Denmark was among the NATO nations that sent its soldiers to Afghanistan to help defend the United States. That's the point you're making. It's so important. And the reason why I keep asking about Empire, it's not to just drive home a point, but we're talking about a worldview here.

Empires of the past have largely issued alliances, except if they're alliances in trying to attain even more territory. That's what we're seeing here with President Trump. I believe he's completely just, he is not ignoring, he doesn't care about the potential implications to NATO  when people have very clearly said, this could be the end of NATO.

And I just wanted to clarify that because I think it tells us where this possibly could go. Can you imagine a world with a totally broken or even just defunct NATO alliance?

BAKER: Unfortunately, I didn't think that, but unfortunately, I now have to imagine that world, the person you quoted from Brussels was imagining that world. I think it's so important for our audience to understand that the issue on the table is not just about Greenland. It's about U.S. national security.

And U.S. National Security is intrinsically tied to NATO security, and Arctic security. I think there are four interests that are in play here, and I'll let the audience figure out which one is preeminent with President Trump, but I'll give you a hint which one is preeminent with me. The first interest is, of course, security and Arctic security.

Two thirds of Russia's nuclear submarines are stationed in the Kola Peninsula up north. They have to travel past Greenland and past Svalbard, which is the Arctic part of Norway to get to the North Atlantic.

Part III

CHAKRABARTI: Professor Baker, I wanted to hear more about sort of the four strategic or the four most important reasons about the United States involvement in Greenland. But forgive me for asking you, I'm just keeping my eye on the clock here. And for the sake of time let's go through those four in as succinctly as we can.

BAKER: Very smart to tell a professor and judge to shorten it up. So why might the U.S. be interested in Greenland? First answer, because of its relationship to Arctic security and its relationship to NATO security. Here's an example of that. Icebreakers are critical to security. How many does the United States have?

It has two, perhaps three depending on how you count. How many does Russia have to use in the Arctic for economic and military reasons? 57. That would be known as a breaker gap during the Cold War. But with NATO and with NATO's breakers, we move up to 45. And by the way, they're better breakers.

But so that's how important NATO is to arctic security. So number two --

CHAKRABARTI: And with, by the way with climate change and the Arctic ice, the Arctic ice winter ice no longer being consistently, completely frozen over, that's actually made transiting naval transits through that part of I guess the polar oceans even easier and therefore even more sensitive security wise.

So it's odd that climate change is actually playing a role here, but it's brought a lot of attention back to that region for people who hadn't been thinking about it before. But so, number three, in terms of the reasons that you were having.

BAKER: Number two is economic. It's the minerals and rare earth minerals.

And here climate change is playing a role as well. Climate change will make it easier to get at those minerals and rare earth minerals. The third reason which is the reason that Charles was talking about and you've been addressing, is just the notion of more territory and the emotional connection President Trump seems to feel for acquiring more territory. And then the fourth reason, which I think gets overlooked in this discussion, is the rights in self-determination of Greenlanders. The key word in Free Association is free. And we can't lose sight of the fact that's one of the core four interests at stake in this discussion.

CHAKRABARTI: Magnus Lund Nielsen, let me turn back to you here because you had said earlier and rightly that Denmark hasn't always treated Greenlanders well. That should be acknowledged, but the other three reasons that Professor Baker just gave, territory, Arctic security, NATO security, and economic, Denmark has the exact same interests in Greenland, does it not?

NIELSEN: Yeah. But it's a whole different equation, right? Because for better or for worse, Danish people and Greenlanders have been mixing blood for the better part of 300 years now. And so there's a deeply ingrained, also frankly, a cultural exchange that goes beyond just mere economic or territorial questions.

CHAKRABARTI: Professor Baker all of these reasons that you gave, isn't, I mean by virtue of Denmark and then Greenland being part of NATO, President Trump says the United States could defend Greenland better and defend Greenland's strategic importance better than anybody else. But NATO's perfectly capable of doing that too.

If Greenland were attacked, Article 5, I presume, would be invoked again, and NATO would act, would it not?

BAKER: Absolutely it would. And of course, if Greenland were attacked and presumably, we're talking about China or Russia and not the United States. The United States has its base there. And as far as I can tell, and I've heard no argument, effective argument the other way. Denmark and Greenland have been always cooperative and open to U.S. national security needs in Greenland.

Let's go back again. The issue with NATO is not just defending Greenland, right? It's defending the Arctic and it's defending the whole of the North American Treaty organization area of operations. This is about a war we don't want to fight in Europe. If Russia moves past Ukraine and takes Moldova and takes the Baltics, that's what the Europeans are worried about.

If the United States either backs out a NATO or destroys NATO with its actions in and around Greenland.

CHAKRABARTI: It is remarkable, as you said a moment ago, that we're at a point where we're talking about the United States just destroying NATO. Magnus in Greenland, in Denmark. We actually heard what the Danish leaders say If the US takes Greenland by force, it would be the end of NATO. Full stop.

Are European leaders right now thinking about preparing for that possible future, and if so, how?

NIELSEN: Actually, the thing actually, while we were on air, now I published an article on Denmark today sending more troops or advanced troops to prepare for a larger deployment of Danish and potentially also more European troops in Greenland.

And there's a lot of different things to unpack here. One thing I should say is that we also just found out that in a closed door meeting with von der Leyen, the European Commission president told lawmakers that she hopes for EU to become a military powerhouse.

And so just to go back to the question I think Professor Baker mentioned earlier about whether there would be a NATO without the U.S. The Europeans are already preparing for that reality very much today. And I think one point I just want to emphasize here.

The fact that Danes are putting boots on the ground in Greenland more than they already had is not because I think you hold any illusions that you will be able to withstand. And sorry, but it sounds wild to say these words on air, but it's not because you hold any illusions that you would be able to withstand a U.S. attack on Greenland soil, but it's about sending a message to Washington that you risk putting American soldiers in harm's way by attacking Greenland and extension as Baker said, attacking a NATO ally.

CHAKRABARTI: Professor Baker, I'd like you to be honest with me about your assessment of Donald Trump's actual understanding of the importance of the NATO alliance to the United States. Because on the one hand, in recent days, he said very clearly and multiple times he wants to, quote, take Greenland because he doesn't want Russia or China to have it, right?

He said, even, we don't want Russia or China to be in our backyard. Those were his words. But if a consequence of the U.S., quote, taking Greenland is the dissolution of NATO, isn't Vladimir Putin the biggest winner here? Because that would fulfill his dreams. Regarding his long-term, dislike is too weak a word, of NATO.

BAKER: Thank you. We are doing Russia and China's work by our actions toward Greenland. If we undermine NATO or destroy NATO, the winners will be China and Russia. If I were advising the president, and I think you're quite right, it's not clear, I don't sense in the president's talking points, carefully staffed NSE processed talking points with pros and cons.

We are doing Russia and China's work by our actions toward Greenland.

James Baker

If I were advising the president and doing my pros and cons, I'd recommend, be the president that secures American security in the 21st century, not the president that reverts to the 19th century and grabs more territory. 21st century security depends on a strong NATO alliance to resist Russian aggression, hybrid and kinetic in Europe and Chinese and Russian aggression in the Arctic.

The only way or the best way to accomplish that is through the NATO alliance. If I go to war in the Arctic, I want the 11th Airborne Division. But you can bet I also want the Finnish and Norwegian Winter Warriors. They are among the best.

CHAKRABARTI: Professor Baker, you said a carefully vetted or NSC processed set of information being put before the president, so that's the National Security Council.

You're saying that typically there is a process in place for intelligence, analysis, et cetera, to go through the National Security Council and therefore to present the president with the best options or best information, if even at times that means guiding the president in the opposite direction he would wish to go.

Is that process just not happening? Is that what you're saying here, with Donald Trump, that he's really just being given carte blanche?

BAKER: I cannot detect that process. It is the normative process going back to the creation of the National Security Council in 1947. And one can debate when the modern process began, but it has been the consistent process of Republican and democratic presidents up until President Trump.

It ensures that the president is getting the best national security and national security legal advice, and then the president is free to apply his own views and arguments. But he would also do it in the context where someone, the NSC staff, the National Security advisor, the council itself, would be telling him the impact on NATO, the impact on Arctic security by his actions vis-a-vis Greenland.

I don't see that happening and it's hurting U.S. national security.

CHAKRABARTI: Magnus, let me ask you this. We're having this discussion with NATO still being in full effect. NATO leaders have been trying to walk a fine line in their public statements about President Trump and Greenland right now. But I wonder if, you know, from your and your colleagues' reportings, if behind closed doors the concept of a NATO with the United States is being a trustworthy and active player is already fading with NATO leaders themselves.

NIELSEN: But it is, it 100% is. But frankly, that does not only come down to the question of Greenland. It was also a very personal issue just from the get-go of Trump. Trump coming into office, obviously already back then, he talked about Greenland, but also just the way he behaved around Ukraine.

I think I'm sure that will probably see this as an upside and frankly it also is, but Europeans have woken up and smelled the coffee. And realize they need to, will need to look after Ukraine themselves. And so at this point it's the NATO as a sort of a collective of transatlantic alliance of both the Americans and the Europeans pooling their resources together.

I don't believe, and from the people I'm talking to here in Brussels, that's not how we've been thinking for a while now.

CHAKRABARTI: Yes. The point about this beginning with Ukraine or even prior to that is well taken. Professor Baker, Magnus said something important that many people definitely surrounding the presidents, some Republicans in Congress, though we are hearing more of them speak against Trumpian actions regarding Greenland now, but they don't mind if NATO dissolves.

They think it would be a better thing. Europe should take care of itself. The United States should take care of itself. What would the U.S. lose? Just clearly if there were no NATO.

BAKER: Oh my, where to begin. The U.S. would lose the 21st century is what it would lose. And why? Because it would lose the cooperation assistance bases and intelligence support throughout the NATO countries.

Bases in Norway and intelligence capacity in Norway that helps secure the Arctic and secure the sea routes in the Arctic. It might lead to, it would risk the North Atlantic. The Article 5 border in the Baltics. And America thought it could avoid European entanglements and war in Europe before, how did that work out?

It worked out with the First World War and the Second World War. We risk greater war if we pull out of NATO. And can I make a comment just about Congress here?

CHAKRABARTI: Yes, please.

BAKER: The Louisiana purchase, the purchase of Alaska, the acquisition of the Danish West Indies in 1916. Now the U.S. Virgin Islands.

They were all done pursuant to treaty and Senate ratification and pursuant to appropriations passed through both Houses of Congress and signed into law by the president. Congress is not, cannot be, in fact, legally cannot be a passive actor here. Congress needs to speak up on this issue and needs to speak up soon.

CHAKRABARTI: Magnus, I'm going to give you the last question because you said something earlier that I just want to touch on once again. That in terms of security, minerals, et cetera, right now with the status quo, Denmark and Greenland would welcome more military presence in Greenland. They would be partners in mining efforts.

President Trump could do everything he says he wants to do. Yes?

NIELSEN: 100%. 100%.

CHAKRABARTI: He said that he wants to quote-unquote own Greenland because it feels good to him. How do, how are Greenlanders feeling about that as being the driving motivation?

NIELSEN: I think one has to appreciate that Greenlanders, for the longest time, for a few decades now, have been trying to unravel them of Danish new colonialism.

And the aftermath of being a Danish colony for the better part of a few hundred years. And it is not to say that process is by any means done, but there are at least some also on the daily side of things, some soul searching. But now with the Americans showing up and it feels like we are starting over and frankly, it's a pity for them.

The first draft of this transcript was created by Descript, an AI transcription tool. An On Point producer then thoroughly reviewed, corrected, and reformatted the transcript before publication. The use of this AI tool creates the capacity to provide these transcripts.