Category: Uncategorized

  • Why does Trump want Greenland, and what could it mean for Nato?

    Why does Trump want Greenland, and what could it mean for Nato?


    ‘We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security,’ Trump says

    US President Donald Trump has repeatedly said the US should take over Greenland, arguing that it would benefit his nation’s security.

    His demands have been rejected by the island’s leaders and by Nato member Denmark, of which Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory.

    Where is Greenland and why does it matter to Trump?

    Greenland – the world’s largest island which is not a continent – is located in the Arctic.

    It is also the most sparsely populated territory. About 56,000 people live there, mostly indigenous Inuit people.

    About 80% of its territory is covered by ice, meaning most people live on the south-western coast around the capital, Nuuk.

    Greenland’s economy is mainly based on fishing, and it receives large subsidies from the Danish government.

    Map showing the location of Greenland and the capital Nuuk, relatively to Denmark, Canada and the United States. Also labelled is the US capital Washington

    But in recent years, there has been increased interest in Greenland’s natural resources, including mining for rare earth minerals, uranium and iron. These may become more accessible as global warming leads to the melting of the massive ice sheet that covers the island.

    Valuable mineral resources have been a key focus of Trump elsewhere in the world, including in his dealings with Ukraine.

    However, the US president has said: “We need Greenland for national security, not minerals.”

    He has also said that “Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place”.

    What has Trump said about the US controlling Greenland?

    Trump repeated previous calls for the US to take over Greenland following the US military raid on Venezuela, during which its president Nicolás Maduro and his wife were seized and removed to New York.

    The island’s Prime Minister Jens Frederik Nielsen responded by saying “that’s enough now”, describing the idea of US control as a “fantasy”.

    But Trump and his allies went on to reiterate their threats. The president said he was “very serious” about his plans, adding that Greenland was important for European as well as American security.

    One of his top aides, Stephen Miller, said “nobody’s going to fight the US over the future of Greenland”. He argued that seizing the territory would benefit Nato, the Western military alliance to which both the US and Denmark belong.

    He said: The US is the power of Nato. For the US to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend Nato and Nato interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the US.”

    Watch: Trump’s appointment of Greenland envoy sparks fresh row with Denmark

    In 2019, during his first presidential term, Trump offered to buy the island but was told it was not for sale.

    He revived his interest after returning to the White House in January 2025, and has not ruled out the use of force.

    There have also been controversial high level visits to Greenland. Vice-President JD Vance travelled there in March and gave a speech accusing Denmark of failing to invest enough to protect the territory.

    A fresh row about US intentions was sparked in late 2025 when Trump appointed a special envoy to Greenland, Jeff Landry, who has openly spoken about making the island a part of the US.

    What have Denmark and other Nato allies said?

    Trump’s stance has shocked Denmark, which has traditionally enjoyed close relations with Washington, according to BBC diplomatic correspondent James Landale.

    Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that any effort to take over Greenland would spell the end of Nato.

    His UK counterpart Sir Keir Starmer, another Nato leader, was asked whether he would say “hands off Greenland” to Trump. He answered: “Yes.”

    Starmer signed a statement alongside the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and Denmark, which said: “Greenland belongs to its people, and only Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters concerning their relations.”

    Why does Denmark control Greenland?

    Though a part of the continent of North America, Greenland has been controlled by Denmark – nearly 3,000km (1,860 miles) away – for about 300 years.

    But the US security interest in Greenland also dates back a long way, and two American administrations before Trump made failed efforts to acquire it.

    The island was governed as a colony until the mid-20th Century. For much of this time, it remained isolated and poor.

    After Nazi Germany occupied mainland Denmark during World War Two, the US invaded the island, establishing military and radio stations.

    After the war, American forces remained in Greenland. Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base, has been operated by the US ever since.

    In 1951, a defence agreement with Denmark granted the US a significant role in the defence of the territory, including the right to build and maintain military bases.

    In 1953, the island was made part of the Kingdom of Denmark and Greenlanders became Danish citizens.

    In 1979, a referendum on home rule gave Greenland control of most policies within the territory, with Denmark retaining control over foreign affairs and defence.

    Greenland is home to Danish military bases as well as American ones.

    Reuters A general view of snow-covered houses in Nuuk, the Greenlandic capitalReuters

    A new settlement was established near the present-day capital, Nuuk, after Danish colonisation in the 18th Century

    What do the people of Greenland think?

    In response to Trump’s threats early in 2026, Greenland Prime Minister Nielsen said: “No more pressure. No more insinuations. No more fantasies of annexation.

    “We are open to dialogue. We are open to discussions. But this must happen through the proper channels and with respect for international law.”

    When BBC correspondent Fergal Keane visited the island in 2025, he heard one phrase again and again: “Greenland belongs to Greenlanders. So, Trump can visit but that’s it.”

    The issue took centre stage during the territory’s general election that year.

    Watch: Residents react to Trump’s interest in Greenland

    Polling suggests that most Greenlanders back independence from Denmark, but that an overwhelming majority of them also reject the idea of becoming part of the US.

    When Trump first raised the idea of buying Greenland in 2019, many locals said they were opposed to the proposal.

    “This is a very dangerous idea,” said Dines Mikaelsen, a tour operator.

    “He’s treating us like a good he can purchase,” said Aleqa Hammond, Greenland’s first female prime minister.



    Source link

  • Zelensky replaces Ukraine’s powerful security service leadership

    Zelensky replaces Ukraine’s powerful security service leadership


    President Volodymyr Zelensky has reshuffled the leadership of Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU), replacing influential Vasyl Malyuk and nominating Maj-Gen Yevhenii Khmara as acting head.

    The SBU is primarily concerned with internal security and counter-intelligence and, since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, it has also played a prominent role in assassinations and sabotage attacks deep inside Russia.

    Malyuk, who had run the SBU since 2022, gained a reputation for overseeing successful operations against Russia and for purging the SBU from alleged Russian double agents.

    The latest reshuffles are the latest in a long series made by Zelensky since the start of the war.

    Malyuk’s name is known across Ukraine. After all, last June he co-ordinated the daring “Spider Web” attack, which saw more than 100 Ukrainian drones struck air bases deep inside Russian territory. Khmara, his replacement, was also involved in the preparation of that operation.

    So it did not come as a surprise that Malyuk’s dismissal earlier this week was widely criticised within Ukraine, including by several high-profile military commanders. The impression that the decision made by President Zelensky was short-sighted was cemented by reports that Malyuk had initially refused to step down voluntarily.

    Although he has been dismissed from the position of SBU chief, he has been asked to continue leading special operations against Russia. Ukraine needed more “asymmetric operations against Russian forces”, Zelensky said, adding that Malyuk was “best at this”.

    Khmara’s appointment has gone some way in quelling fears about the SBU’s future effectiveness. But former SBU operative Ivan Stupak argues his reputation – though solid – is limited to a certain sphere and that it is unclear whether he will be able to translate his experience to running the wider SBU.

    Stupak also believes that Malyuk’s dismissal is connected with the appointment of former spy chief Kyrylo Budanov as Zelensky’s new chief of staff.

    “Malyuk and Budanov are at loggerheads,” he told the BBC, implying that Budanov had heavily influenced Zelensky’s decision and that Khmara would now be “in the hands” of Budanov.

    Other analysts disagree. Oleksandr Notevskyi, political analyst for Ukrainian media outlet Grunt, praised Khmara’s appointment, pointing out his successes in heading Alpha, one of the top elite divisions of the SBU: “He’s young, he’s experienced, he is one of the authors of the Spider Web operation.”

    In a statement, the SBU described Khmara as a decorated and “experienced special-purpose officer” who was involved in liberating the Kyiv region in 2022 and fighting the Russians in the occupied region of Donetsk.

    Khmara’s appointment will need to be confirmed by the Ukrainian parliament, which may yet reject it. Other options are on the table, Notevskyi said.

    After nearly four years of war, Ukraine is struggling to push back Russian forces in the conventional way – on the battlefield and along the long front line in the east of the country. It has had more success targeting oil fields, weapons factories and – as in the case of the Spider Web attack – air bases and valuable aircraft.

    At this particular juncture of the war with Moscow, Notevskyi argued, “whoever leads the security service should be someone who is specialised in eliminating Russia’s military capacities on the territory of Russia”.

    Last week, Zelensky announced significant changes to his top team. Mykhailo Fedorov was nominated as new defence minister, while foreign intelligence chief Oleh Ivashchenko replaced Budanov.

    Many of Zelensky’s reshuffles have been criticised by commentators as damaging to the country at a time of crisis.

    Using a football analogy, Stupak argued that Zelensky was like a manager going to the substitute bench for replacements. “But his bench is quite short, and he’s running out of people to use again and again,” he said.

    Additional reporting by Volodymyr Lozhko and Anastasiia Levchenko



    Source link

  • Trump claims US oil firms could be ‘up and running’ in Venezuela within 18 months

    Trump claims US oil firms could be ‘up and running’ in Venezuela within 18 months


    Getty Images President Donald Trump confirms a US military operation in Venezuela during a press conference on 3 JanuaryGetty Images

    President Donald Trump says the US oil industry could be “up and running” with increased operations in Venezuela within 18 months, after a surprise military operation removed President Nicolás Maduro from power.

    Trump told NBC News that “a tremendous amount of money will have to be spent, and the oil companies will spend it, and the oil companies will spend it, and then they’ll get reimbursed by us or through revenue”.

    Representatives from major US petroleum companies planned to meet the Trump administration later this week, BBC’s partner CBS News reported.

    Analysts previously told the BBC it could take tens of billions of dollars, and potentially a decade, to restore Venezuela’s former output.

    Trump’s remarks came days after he said the US would “run” Venezuela after the ousting of Maduro – who has now been brought to the US to face criminal charges.

    Speaking to NBC about his 18-month timeframe, Trump speculated that oil production could ramp up “in less time than that, but it’ll be a lot of money”.

    He has been explicit about his ambitions for American petroleum companies to scale up their operations in the country.

    “Having a Venezuela that’s an oil producer is good for the United States because it keeps the price of oil down,” Trump added.

    The analysts who previously spoke to the BBC were sceptical that Trump’s plans would have a major impact on the global supply – and therefore price – of oil. They suggested that firms would look for reassurance that a stable government was in place, and even when they did invest, their projects would not deliver for years.

    Trump has claimed in recent days that American oil companies can fix Venezuela’s oil infrastructure.

    The country has an estimated 303bn barrels, the world’s largest proven reserve – but its oil production has been in decline since the early 2000s.

    The Trump administration sees significant potential for its own energy prospects in Venezuela’s reserves.

    Increasing the country’s production of oil would be expensive for US firms. Additionally, Venezuelan oil is heavy and more difficult to refine. There is only one US firm, Chevron, currently working in the country.

    Asked for comment about Trump’s plans for US oil production in Venezuela, Chevron spokesman Bill Turenne said the company “remains focused on the safety and wellbeing of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets”.

    “We continue to operate in full compliance with all relevant laws and regulations,” Turenne added.

    ConocoPhillips, a major US oil company that no longer has a presence in Venezuela, “is monitoring developments in Venezuela and their potential implications for global energy supply and stability”, said spokesman Dennis Nuss.

    “It would be premature to speculate on any future business activities or investments,” Nuss said.

    A third company, Exxon did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    While justifying the seizure of Maduro from Caracas, Trump also claimed that Venezuela “unilaterally seized and stole American oil”.

    Vice President JD Vance echoed those claims on X after Maduro was taken, writing that “Venezuela expropriated American oil property and until recently used that stolen property to get rich and fund their narcoterrorist activities”.

    The reality is more complex.

    US oil companies have a long history in Venezuela, extracting oil under licence agreements.

    Venezuela nationalised its oil industry in 1976 and in 2007, President Hugo Chavez exerted more state control over the remaining foreign-owned assets of US oil firms operating in the country.

    In 2019, a World Bank tribunal ordered Venezuela to pay $8.7 billion to ConocoPhillips in compensation for this 2007 move.

    That sum has not been paid by Venezuela, so at least one US oil company has outstanding compensation which is owed to it.

    But BBC Verify’s Ben Chu said the claim Venezuela has “stolen” American oil is too simplistic, as experts said the oil itself was never actually owned by anyone except Venezuela.

    Watch: BBC Verify examines claims Venezuela “stole” US oil



    Source link