Battle Lines — "Trump wants to conquer Greenland. This is how Europe can stop him"
Host: Roland Oliphant (The Telegraph)
Guest: Rachel Elihu (Director General, RUSI)
Date: January 16, 2026
Episode Overview
This Battle Lines episode grapples with the shock announcement of President Trump’s renewed push to “conquer” or annex Greenland, raising existential questions for European security, NATO’s survival, and the future of transatlantic relations. Host Roland Oliphant talks with Rachel Elihu, head of the renowned defense think tank RUSI, for on-the-ground insight into US motives, European strategy, the fate of NATO, and how Denmark, Greenland, and larger European players might resist this American pressure—amid wider global turmoil in Iran, Venezuela, and Ukraine.
Key Topics & Insights
The Shock of Trump’s Greenland Gambit
[03:08]
- Roland Oliphant sets the stage: early 2026 opens with “commando raids in Venezuela, protests in Iran, and…a US annexation of Greenland” being discussed.
- Rachel Elihu’s credentials: American, with backgrounds in NATO (US delegation), Pentagon, MOD; sees herself as transatlantic, with UK appreciation.
“It’s frankly remarkable that the US then came in with that same position, that desire to get or conquer or own Greenland.”
— Rachel Elihu [06:36]
Danish and Greenlandic Defiance
[04:47—06:36]
- Danish and Greenlandic officials went to Washington, confronting Trump’s administration directly instead of ignoring the threat.
- Premiers of Denmark and Greenland made a forceful, united statement: Greenland chooses Denmark, NATO, and the EU—rejecting US claims.
- For now, it's a “stalemate” or “agreement to disagree,” says Rachel, but this public defiance is itself significant.
US Motives: Security, Resources—or Just Prestige?
[07:06—11:31]
- US officials claim (in vague, classified terms) that Greenland is critical for reasons only America can address.
- Rachel debunks the security rationale:
- Minimal Russian or Chinese military presence near Greenland.
- Denmark recently committed $13.7 billion to Arctic security, with robust NATO, bilateral (1951 US-Denmark) agreements, and an existing US base on Greenland.
- Economic rationale (rare earths): US companies have standing offers to work with Greenland/Denmark, but haven't engaged.
- Rachel’s conclusion: “It’s really not based on any real security or economic requirements… It’s a prestige thing. Trump looks at the map…wants to leave a legacy.” [10:56-11:31]
European (and NATO) Responses: Symbolism and Limits
[11:40—13:19]
- France and the UK sending diplomats and small military contingents to Greenland as symbolic “signals.”
- Rachel’s take: Even modest European deployments matter—Europe must follow through and avoid empty gestures.
“I think it’s important, even if it’s just…a handful of forces… It’s an important signal to the US.”
— Rachel Elihu [12:05]
Existential Crisis — What If America Invades Greenland?
[13:19—18:38]
- Rachel doubts the US would actually annex Greenland by force: bipartisan Congressional opposition, public disapproval, deep economic ties.
- Hypothetically, such an action would “end NATO”—the alliance lacks provisions for one member attacking another.
- The real danger: if forced, Europe would scramble to replace NATO with a “European version” offering mutual defense.
- The EU’s Article 42.7 could become a new security backstop.
- Economic countermeasures could be a real lever; the EU is “a formidable economic power”—sanctions, trade restrictions, etc.
“NATO would be gone because the alliance doesn’t really have a provision for what you do if one ally attacks another.”
— Rachel Elihu quoting Danish PM Frederiksen [13:19]
The Big Picture — Declining US Multilateralism & Europe Adapting
[18:38—22:19]
- Rachel connects Greenland with wider US behavior: pulling back from global commitments, prioritizing unilateral interests over alliances.
- This abrupt US pivot leaves allies scrambling—countries “can’t simply walk away” but are diversifying ties and hedging for the future.
The United Kingdom’s Balancing Act
[22:20—23:58]
- The UK, post-Brexit, is uniquely vulnerable but so far successfully playing “translator” and mediator with Trump’s US.
- However, London must be wary—American interests could shift suddenly, and past wins (cooperation in tech, defense) could prove illusory if US leverage is asserted.
“If we really face what we know about the interest-driven foreign and economic policy of the current US Administration, that could change at any time.”
— Rachel Elihu [22:20]
Advice for Greenland/Denmark: Directness and US Outreach
[23:58—26:38]
- Rachel praises the Danes/Greenlanders for confronting the issue openly, standing up for European “way of life.”
- She warns that appealing to American bipartisan opposition and military/diplomatic ties is more effective than counting on international norms.
“The best break on President Trump's behavior: not all the international support…but bipartisan statements from the US Congress talking about how ridiculous this idea is.”
— Rachel Elihu [24:12]
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
-
On Trump's obsession with Greenland:
“The only reason I can think is…it’s been called an expansion of the Monroe Doctrine…if we use a really uncomfortable term, we could say it’s a desire for Lebensraum.”
— Rachel Elihu [10:56] -
On NATO’s fragility:
“NATO would be gone, because the alliance doesn’t really have a provision for what you do if one ally attacks another.”
— Rachel Elihu [13:19] -
On European adaptation:
“Even in this darkest scenario, I would expect that Europeans would find a path to recreate some sort of NATO and step up double time to create the military capabilities that create that strong deterrent effect.”
— Rachel Elihu [17:10] -
On the current American approach:
“The US has signaled that it is prepared to act unilaterally in its own interests, even to the detriment of those traditional allies and partners.”
— Rachel Elihu [02:20, also echoed at 19:20]
Other Crucial Segments
The Iran Crisis: Trump’s Calculated Restraint
[30:20—37:48]
- Roland describes Iranian frustration with US inaction (“keep protesting, help is on the way”) followed by no intervention.
- Rachel explains: Cautious restraint risks handing propaganda victories to the Iranian regime; strikes only make sense with a clear political outcome.
- US domestic troubles (inflation, weak poll numbers) also drive distraction and foreign adventurism.
“You do run the risk that you hand the Iranian regime a card whereby they can use the US as a scapegoat…so I think you’ve really got to be careful with the use of military strikes to political ends…”
— Rachel Elihu [31:53]
MAGA Base & US Political Dynamics
[37:48—41:03]
- Roland and Rachel probe how America’s traditional “isolationist strain,” once more prevalent among Republicans, has given way to a broader skepticism of foreign entanglements on both sides.
- MAGA’s backlash is just as much against neocon Republicans (“they seem to hate neocons more than Democrats” [40:25]), as against Democrats.
- Rachel warns that abandoning alliances diminishes US credibility and power: “Allies and partners are America’s sphere of influence.”
The American Social Divide
[41:03—43:37]
- Rachel reflects on her own experience as a Maryland native: the US has a gulf between cosmopolitan, internationally minded elites and broader society.
- She sees hope in younger leaders focused on bread-and-butter issues, transcending partisanship.
Structure & Flow
- The episode balances deep expert analysis, “what if” strategic hypotheticals, and grounded perspectives from both sides of the Atlantic.
- Rachel Elihu’s nuanced, direct, and pragmatic tone matches the high-stakes topic.
- The show closes with a quick pivot to US domestic divides and signs off on a reflective, slightly hopeful note.
Timestamps for Major Segments
| Timestamp | Topic | |-----------|------------------------------------------------------------| | 03:08 | Intro, Trump and Greenland, Rachel’s background | | 04:47 | Danish/Greenlandic response to Trump’s annexation push | | 07:06 | US “security” justifications — debunking the rationale | | 11:40 | European symbolic responses — France/UK in Greenland | | 13:19 | “End of NATO” hypothetical; alliance rupture scenarios | | 18:38 | Linking Greenland to global trends; US unilateralism | | 22:20 | UK’s unique post-Brexit foreign policy dilemmas | | 23:58 | Advice to Denmark/Greenland for dealing with Trump | | 30:20 | Iran: US restraint, domestic roots for foreign adventurism | | 37:48 | MAGA base and American foreign policy fatigue | | 41:03 | Rachel on American divides and the future |
Final Reflections
This episode provides a powerful, real-time snapshot of an international order under intense strain, where Trump’s dramatic Greenland gambit crystallizes wider questions of security, trust, and the value of alliances. Rachel Elihu’s analysis is incisive and accessible, reminding listeners of how quickly the unthinkable—a split in NATO, a radical US pivot—can become plausible. Most importantly, the episode conveys how directness, alliance-building, and adaptability remain Europe’s best tools for navigating these unpredictable times.