Category: Uncategorized

Donald Trump wants to take Greenland – and the White House has confirmed that all options are on the table, including the use of force.

While a military operation is just one of a range of economic and political options being considered, since it would be an attack by one Nato member on another, such a move would represent a nightmare scenario for the Nato alliance, and likely an existential one.

Trump has repeatedly said that Greenland is vital to US national security, claiming without evidence that it is “covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place”.

With the expertise of US, British and Danish experts, we consider the various options the president may be looking at, and the possible justification for each one.

Defence analysts say that a lightning operation to take Greenland could be done relatively easily, but the fallout would be monumental.

While geographically massive, Greenland’s population is only around 58,000, about a third of which is concentrated in Nuuk, the capital, with the bulk of the rest living on its western coast.

The territory does not have its own military and Denmark is responsible for its defence, but it has limited air and naval assets in place to cover such a huge territory.

Large swathes of it are policed only by Sirius Patrol, a Danish special operations unit that relies primarily on dog sleds.

Denmark has, however, significantly upped defence spending in the Arctic and North Atlantic regions, including Greenland, in the past year.

Its vast size, small population and lack of military would make it a ripe target for the US, which already has more than 100 military personnel permanently stationed at the Pituffik facility in Greenland’s north-western tip.

That facility could in theory serve as a logistical base for future operations.

The base has existed since World War Two, when US troops deployed to the island to establish military and radio stations after the Nazis occupied Denmark during the conflict.

Hans Tito Hansen, a Danish security expert and CEO of Risk Intelligence, outlined how a US operation to take Greenland could take place.

According to Hansen, the Alaska-based 11th Airborne Division – which includes two Arctic brigades capable of parachute or helicopter-borne missions – would be the “primary capability” in any invasion, “supported by Air Force and naval assets”.

His assessment was echoed by Justin Crump, a British Army Reserve Officer who heads the risk and intelligence company Sibylline.

“The US has overwhelming naval power and it has the ability to lift pretty large numbers of troops,” he said. “You could easily fly in enough troops to have one for every few members of the population in a single lift.”

Crump added this option would be ruthless, but also potentially bloodless with little resistance likely to be offered.

In the US, however, several former officials and defence analysts said a military operation is extremely unlikely, given its far-reaching implications for US-European alliances.

“That would clearly be against all international law,” said Mick Mulroy, a former Marine, CIA paramilitary officer and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. “Not only are they no threat to the US, they are a treaty ally.”

If the White House began moving towards a military option, Mulroy said he believed it would meet resistance from lawmakers who could use the War Powers Act, which is designed to limit the president’s ability to make war without Congressional approval, to pre-empt it.

“I don’t think there would be any support in Congress to destroy the Nato alliance,” he said.

The US has deep pockets, but Greenland is not for sale according to both Nuuk and Copenhagen.

Citing a lawmaker and a source familiar with the discussions, CBS – the BBC’s US news partner – has reported that Secretary of State Marco Rubio told members of Congress that a purchase is the administration’s preferred option, striking a different tone from the White House.

But even if Greenland wanted to be sold, such a transaction would be highly complicated.

Any funds would have to be appropriated by Congress, and acquiring Greenland by treaty would require support from two-thirds of the Senate – which experts say would be difficult to secure.

The European Union would also have to sign off on the deal.

While Trump could theoretically try to strike a deal unilaterally without involving Greenland or Congress, experts believe that is extremely unlikely.

Professor Monica Hakimi, an international law expert at Columbia University, said that “one could imagine a situation” in which Denmark, the US and Greenland agree to terms for the transfer of the territory.

“[But] for it to be completely consistent with international law, such a treaty would probably also have to involve Greenlandic participation for their own self-determination,” she added.

It is unclear how much purchasing the island could cost. This could complicate things for Trump, who campaigned on an “America First” platform.

The prospect of billions or even trillions of US tax dollars being spent on an ice-capped island could land very badly with his MAGA base.

Crump believes that a failure to successfully purchase the island, however, could make a military option more attractive to Trump – particularly in an administration buoyed by the recent successful operation to arrest Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela.

“He’ll say, ‘well, we’re just going to take it’,” Crump said of the US president.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who will meet Danish officials next week to discuss Greenland, has said Trump is “not the first US president that has examined or looked at how could we acquire” the territory.

He has referred to President Harry Truman, who in 1946 floated the idea of paying Denmark $100 million in gold to buy Greenland.

Opinion polls suggest a majority of Greenlanders want independence from Denmark.

But the polls also indicate they do not want to become part of the US.

Nonetheless, America could ratchet up efforts to win the favour of islanders by short-term financial incentives or the prospect of future economic benefits.

Already, US media reports have suggested that US intelligence agencies have stepped up surveillance on Greenland’s independence movement, making efforts to identify figures who would back the administration’s goals.

Imran Bayouni, a geostrategy expert with the Atlantic Council in Washington DC and former policy adviser to the defence department, told the BBC that an “influence campaign” is much more likely than any military action.

This campaign, he explained, could help nudge Greenland towards independence.

“Then, after Greenland declares independence, you could have the US government to be a partner,” he said. “The cost of military action is way too high.”

These kinds of partnerships are not without precedent.

The US, for example, has struck a similar deal with the Pacific nations of Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands – all independent countries that give the US access to defence rights.

In return, citizens of these three nations get the opportunity to live and work in the US.

But this may not satisfy Trump, who already has the power to bring as many troops as he wants to Greenland under existing agreements.

And an arrangement of that nature would not offer the US ownership rights to Greenland’s vast mineral reserves that are buried deep beneath the Arctic ice.

Hansen, the Danish analyst, argued that any campaign to “have” Greenland – short of military action – would be unsuccessful as long as the population of Greenland opposes the idea.

For now, no political parties in the island are campaigning to become part of the US.

“It is more likely that Greenland again becomes a member of the European Union,” he said.

“Also, the current US administration has three years left, while the people of Greenland perhaps have a horizon of 1,000 years.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says European allies have not given him sound guarantees that they will protect his country in the case of a new Russian agreession.

“I am asking this very question to all our partners and I have not received a clear, unambiguous answer yet,” he told reporters on Wednesday.

His comments come a day after the UK and France signed a declaration of intent on deploying troops in Ukraine if a peace deal to end the war with Russia is agreed.

But full security guarantees have not been agreed. The US, which has been leading efforts to end the invasion, reportedly did not sign such a pledge at talks in Paris on Tuesday.

After the Paris talks, which included some 30 countries that form the so-called Coalition of the Willing, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said the UK and France would “establish military hubs across Ukraine” to deter future invasion, while French President Emmanuel Macron later said thousands of troops may be deployed.

Allies proposed that the US would take the lead in monitoring a truce. But the key issue of territorial concessions that Ukraine is being asked to grant to Russia as part of the peace proposals are still being discussed.

Moscow has not yet commented on the announcement made in the French capital.

Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, and Moscow currently controls about 20% of Ukrainian territory.

Sir Keir described the joint statement as “a vital part of our commitment to stand with Ukraine for the long-term”.

He added: “It paves the way for the legal framework under which British, French and partner forces could operate on Ukrainian soil, securing Ukraine’s skies and seas, and regenerating Ukraine’s armed forces for the future.”

Zelensky hailed that agreement as a “huge step forward”.

A day later, however, he appeared less optimistic.

“I see the will, the political will, and that the partners are ready, and the partners are ready to give us strong sanctions, strong security guarantees,” he said when asked if European countries would defend Ukraine.

“But as long as we don’t have such security guarantees – legally binding, supported by parliaments, supported by the United States Congress – this question cannot be answered. And even if they do, you still have to rely primarily on your own strength.”

The Paris talks were also notable owing to the presence of US President Donald Trump’s peace envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.

Witkoff said the allies “largely finished” their work on agreeing security protocols.

Last week, Zelensky said a peace deal was “90% ready”.

Territorial concessions and security guarantees have been at the forefront of unresolved issues for negotiators.

Putin has repeatedly warned that Ukrainian troops must withdraw from all of Ukraine’s eastern Donbas or Russia will seize it, rejecting any compromise over how to end the war.

Zelensky has so far ruled out ceding any territory, but has suggested that Ukraine could withdraw its troops to an agreed point – but only if Russia did the same.

Moscow currently controls about 75% of the Donetsk region, and some 99% of the neighbouring Luhansk. The two regions form the industrial Donbas region.

It has been intensifying attacks against Ukrainian cities – particularly targeting energy infrastructure. Russia has also made slow progress in capturing more Ukrainian territory.

Ukraine has hit back at Russian targets with drones, albeit with more limited success.

The general in command of Venezuela’s presidential honour guard, Javier Marcano Tábata, has been sacked days after Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro was seized by US forces in a raid in Caracas and taken to New York to stand trial on narco-terrorism charges.

The presidential honour guard is the military force which provides the bodyguards tasked with protecting the head of state.

While the Venezuelan government has not yet provided a detailed breakdown of casualties, members of the guard are thought to be among the dozens of people killed in the US operation to seize Maduro.

The order to replace Gen Marcano Tábata was issued by the new interim president, Delcy Rodríguez.

Rodríguez was sworn in by the National Assembly, which is dominated by government loyalists, on Monday.

She served as Maduro’s vice-president and is considered to be a close ally of the jailed leader.

US President Donald Trump said in the news conference following Maduro’s seizure that the United States would “run” Venezuela and that the US was talking to Rodríguez.

He also threatened that Rodríguez would face a “fate worse than Maduro’s” if she did not comply with US demands, including those for oil, of which Venezuela has the world’s largest proven reserves.

On Tuesday, the US president said that Venezuela would be “turning over” up to 50 million barrels of oil to the US, but Venezuela’s interim government has yet to comment on that statement.

Rodríguez’s tone has been alternating between defiant and conciliatory since she was designated interim president by Venezuela’s Supreme Court.

She denounced the seizure of Maduro as an “illegal kidnapping” but has also said that her government had “invited the US government to work together on an agenda of co-operation”.

Her actions are being watched closely both inside and outside of Venezuela to gauge what course she may steer now that she is in charge of the country and for signs of any potential rifts in her government.

The sacking of Gen Marcano Tábata is one of the first changes to senior officials in her inner circle.

As well as being in charge of the presidential guard, Gen Marcano Tábata also led Venezuela’s military counterintelligence unit DGCIM.

The DGCIM has played a key role in the repression of people critical of the Maduro government, according to the United Nations.

A UN Independent Fact-Finding Mission found that the counterintelligence unit had committed myriad human rights violations since 2013.

It documented scores of cases in which those detained were subjected to “torture, sexual violence and/or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” in the DGCIM headquarters and a network of covert detention centres across the country

However, his sacking does not appear to be related to the repression carried out by the DGCIM under his helm as the man she has appointed to succeed him headed an intelligence service which faces similar accusations.

Gustavo González López was in charge of Venezuela’s national intelligence service, Sebin for many years.

The Sebin controls the notorious Helicoide prison in Caracas, where the UN documented abuses being carried out against “opposition politicians, journalists, protesters, and human rights defenders”.

Venezuelan analysts think that Gen Marcano Tábata’s dismissal is more likely to be related to the failure of the presidential honour guard to prevent the seizure of Maduro.

Cuba, a close ally of Venezuela which has long provided security and intelligence services to Maduro, said that 32 of its nationals had been killed in the US raid.

Many of them are thought to have been embedded in the presidential honour guard.

Venezuela’s military has said that 23 of its members, including five generals, were killed in the US strikes.

Some supporters of the government have said they felt “humiliated” by the way the US forces overpowered Venezuela’s defence systems and Maduro’s personal guard to seize the Venezuelan leader, who was later paraded before the cameras with his hands tied and in prison garb.

Replacing Marcano Tábata could be an attempt by the interim president to surround herself with people she trusts at a time when the threat of another US strike hangs over her.

President Trump said on Saturday that US forces had prepared a second wave of strikes but deemed it not necessary at the time.

However, he has repeatedly said that non-compliance would mean Rodríguez would “pay a very big price”.

She is not the only one in the interim government who could be targeted in a second strike.

Reuters news agency reports quoting unnamed sources said to be familiar with the matter that Venezuela’s hardline interior minister, Diosdado Cabello, had been told by the Trump administration to fall into line.

The US has long accused Cabello of participating in a “narco-conspiracy”, allegedly helping left-wing rebels ship cocaine to the US.

In January, the US state department increased its reward for information leading to his capture to $25m (£21m).