Former US Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns Talks Push for Greenland

Summary

Bloomberg Talks

Episode: Former US Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns Talks Push for Greenland
Date: January 8, 2026
Host: Bloomberg News Team
Guest: Nicholas Burns – Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO and China; Professor, Harvard Kennedy School

---

Overview

This episode explores President Trump's controversial push regarding Greenland—ranging from military threats to speculation about natural resource interests. Nicholas Burns, leveraging his extensive diplomatic experience, discusses the strategic importance of Greenland, the shockwaves the U.S. administration’s position has sent through NATO, and the broader implications for U.S.-Europe relations and great power competition in the Arctic. The conversation blends geopolitical insight with an urgent call for traditional alliance diplomacy over unilateral threats.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. US Rhetoric and NATO Stability

• Potential End of NATO: Burns emphasizes the unprecedented gravity of American officials discussing military action against Denmark, a NATO ally, over Greenland.
  • “Certainly an attack by the United States against Denmark over Greenland would end NATO as we know it. It’s been unthinkable since NATO was created in 1949 that the United States or any other NATO country would attack a fellow member.” – Burns [00:41]
• Multiple high-ranking U.S. officials have publicly floated “force on the table,” shocking allies.
  • “You can imagine how that’s gone down in Denmark and in Europe... We just have to treat that ally respectfully.” – Burns [01:42]

2. The Danish Position and Alternative Paths

• Denmark welcomes greater American military and economic presence in Greenland without threats or coercion.
  • “The Danish prime minister... welcomes a further, bigger American military presence on Greenland. They welcome the Danes American private investment or government investment in rare earth mining.” – Burns [01:29]
• Diplomacy over confrontation: Upcoming high-level meetings in Washington could ease tensions.

3. Strategic Importance of Greenland

• Burns provides the military context: proximity to Russia, the growing ambitions of China in the Arctic, and the importance of maintaining NATO cohesion.
  • “Greenland is strategically important. If you think about Greenland’s geographic position vis a vis the Russian Federation... and China’s ambitions as they call themselves a near Arctic power.” – Burns [03:14]
• Stresses building military presence “with assistance of Denmark”—not through division.

4. Resource Motives and Legal Boundaries

• Speculation: Is the U.S. interested in Greenland’s resources for itself?
  • “That would be larceny. That would be highway robbery. It’s unthinkable that the United States would want to live in a world where there are no rules and that, in fact, we try to exploit the resources of NATO members against their will.” – Burns [05:46]
• Contrasts Venezuela (no alliance, illegitimate government) with Denmark (longstanding ally, sovereign).

5. Great Power Competition in the Arctic

• Russia seeks dominance in the Arctic; China increases presence as a “near Arctic power.”
  • “Certainly the Russians are acting and planning that they want to be the dominant power in the Arctic. And obviously we need to counter that... The Chinese are a different case. They’re not an Arctic power. But they believe they are.” – Burns [07:23]
• American strength comes from working with allies, not unilaterally:
  • “We are always stronger working with our treaty allies to contain Russian and Chinese power than trying to do it on our own.” – Burns [08:35]

6. China’s Leverage and Latin American Dynamics

• China’s influence in South America outweighs the United States—cause for strategic concern.
  • “The Chinese want to continue to be the major trade partner of South America... Our aim should be much stronger American investment... to counteract what I think is a very negative dynamic.” – Burns [09:21]
• Chinese legal maneuvers and economic retaliation are possible tools.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• End of Alliance Warning:
  “An attack by the United States against Denmark over Greenland would end NATO as we know it.”
  — Nicholas Burns [00:41]

• Respect for Alliances:
  “We can get what we want without these really colossal threats, colossally ignorant threats against a NATO ally.”
  — Nicholas Burns [01:38]

• On Resource Grabs:
  “That would be larceny. That would be highway robbery.”
  — Nicholas Burns [05:46]

• Importance of Diplomacy:
  “The best way to do that is not to dissolve NATO and break NATO apart by an American military invasion, but to go back to Greenland, what the Danes establish a much stronger American military presence.”
  — Nicholas Burns [04:21]

• Power of Partnership:
  “We are always stronger working with our treaty allies to contain Russian and Chinese power than trying to do it on our own or in this case, threatening the use of military force.”
  — Nicholas Burns [08:35]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [00:41] – Risk to NATO if US-Denmark military confrontation over Greenland occurs
• [01:29] – Denmark’s openness to stronger US presence and resource investment
• [03:14] – Greenland’s military significance versus Russia and China
• [05:46] – Ethical and legal boundaries for US actions in Greenland
• [07:23] – Summary of Arctic power dynamics and US strategy
• [08:35] – Value of alliance-based approaches
• [09:21] – China’s ascendancy in Latin America and related US strategic concerns

---

Tone & Structure

Burns’ tone is measured but urgent, advocating strongly for diplomacy over threats, emphasizing alliance obligations, and outright rejecting notions of aggressive resource grabs. He aligns US security interests with respectful partnership and multilateral cooperation, warning of the catastrophic consequences of military escalation with an ally.

---

This episode is essential listening for anyone interested in NATO cohesion, US foreign policy, the resurgence of great power competition in the Arctic, and the fragility of long-standing alliances under current geopolitical strains.

Transcript

[Nicholas Burns]

Bloomberg Audio Studios Podcasts Radio News let's.

[Interviewer 1]

Get more on President Trump's push for Greenland. Joining us now is Nicholas Burns, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO. He's also a former U.S. ambassador To China and a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School. And Nicholas, there is no one else we'd want to talk with you about this subject because of your vast amount of experience with Naito. Specifically after this happened, after the latest pronouncements from the president, the Danish prime minister said that an attack on Greenland would spell the end of the Naito alliance. Just how under tension and how at risk is this alliance at the moment?

[Nicholas Burns]

Well, certainly an attack by the United States against Denmark over Greenland would end Naito as we know it. It's been unthinkable since NATO was created in 1949 that the United States or any other NATO country would attack a fellow member. We've been busy trying to, of course, contain Soviet power and now President Putin's power in Europe. That's the FOC of NATO. And to get back to what was said, Secretary Rubio said when he was asked yesterday in the context of Greenland, is force on the table? And he said, well, he didn't point to force, but he said the president reserves the right to use force if necessary. Caroline Levitt, the president's spokesperson, said the evening before force was on the table on Greenland. Now, I actually agree with your correspondent. I think the probability of an American attack on Greenland is not high. But the fact that the president, president and the secretary of state and the spokesperson have all said it is on the table, you can imagine how that's gone down in Denmark and in Europe. And so I think the critical point is this. The United States does not need to invade Greenland or to even seek to purchase Greenland from Denmark to get what President Trump has said he wants to have. The Danish prime minister has said throughout this year that she welcomes a further, bigger American military presence on Greenland. They welcome the Danes American private investment or government investment in rare earth mining and mining for other critical materials. So we can get what we want without these really colossal threats, colossally ignorant threats against a NATO ally. We just have to treat that ally respectfully. And I think in that respect, it is positive that Secretary Rubio is going to meet the Danish foreign minister next week in Washington. Much better for them to discuss this privately than this continued war of words started by the administration in Washington.

[Interviewer 2]

Professor, we are also hearing, and we reported yesterday, that Danish and Greenlandic officials will be meeting with Secretary Rubio next week as well. I am wondering what do you think, I mean, with your vast experience in this, this meeting, is this, is this the kind of thing that gives comfort to Naito's officials? Is this the kind of thing that gives comfort to the markets or is the potential for more chaos ahead?

[Nicholas Burns]

I just can't imagine a decision by the President of the United States to invade Greenland and to initially, in essence, you know, cause an act of war against a NATO ally. So I do think that's low probability. And you know, the thing here is that Greenland is strategically important. If you think about Greenland's geographic position vis a vis the Russian Federation and where much of the Russian military assets are, which is in the western part in Murmansk and other places of the Russian Federation, think about China's ambitions as they call themselves a near Arctic power. The administration is right, as President Biden said as well, that Greenland is very important strategically. We're going to be much better positioned to get what we want and to build up American military power in Greenland if we work through our ally Denmark and with the other northern members of the NATO alliance. We are all like minded. We want to contain Russian power. We want to keep China out of this hemisphere strategically and prevent the Chinese from building up their power. And the best way to do that is not to dissolve NATO and break NATO apart by an American military invasion, but to go back to Greenland, what the Danes establish a much stronger American military presence.

[Interviewer 3]

What if, what the President wants, I'm sure that he wants to maintain military dominance over certainly China and Russia as well. But what if he also wants to mine Greenland's natural resources and so that we can keep them for ourselves and that we do not have to share them with other NAITO members? I mean, is that potentially why he wants Greenland, so they can have the earth there?

[Nicholas Burns]

Well, the President hasn't been, at least in my judgment that that's specific. So I don't want to put words in his mouth, but look, but he.

[Interviewer 3]

Does seem to want the oil in Venezuela. That seems to be, the oil seems to be at least partially a driver in Venezuela. And now we know after he has arrested the illegitimate or not president of Venezuela, he has now said that they're going to give us 50 million barrels of oil.

[Nicholas Burns]

Well, the two situations are very different. Maduro was illegitimate. Venezuela is not a military ally of the United States. Denmark is. Denmark has been with us since the First World War, by the way. And the United States said during the First World War and we repeated that when NATO was created, we respect Danish sovereignty in Greenland. The Danes have been there for more than 300 years. That is not our property. So if anyone in the administration is thinking that the real reason for this is to mine rare earths and other minerals and oil and gas in Greenland and take it all from ourselves, well, that would be. That would be larceny. That would be highway robbery. It's unthinkable that the United States would want to live in a world where there are no rules and that, in fact, we, we try to exploit the resources of NATO members against their will. Now, this is a hypothetical conversation. I'm not saying you asked the question. I'm not saying that the Trump administration wants to do this. I can't believe that many members, if any at all, of the United States Senate would support that. So that's hypothetical. What's real is that we used to have 17 military bases in Greenland and now we have one. So if we want to have additional military bases, that can happen with the assistance of Denmark, and that's by far the better route for the United States to take here.

[Interviewer 2]

Ambassador, to go back to your point on, on the national security part here, Right. So part of this is the Western Hemisphere national security strategy. A number of people we've talked to discussed this around Greenland and Venezuela, kind of in some ways being connected. But you did mention the heightened activity within the Arctic Circle, Chinese ships, Russian ships. Can you maybe spell out, because there's a lot of sensible people who say, oh, this is an overreaction. Do you see that as heightened activity to the point where the United States does have to start paying attention to it in a way that it probably hasn't in the previous decades?

[Nicholas Burns]

Well, certainly the Russians are acting and planning that they want to be the dominant power in the Arctic. And obviously we need to counter that. And President Obama, President George W. Bush, President Obama and President Biden, as well as President Trump in his first term, all acted on that, that we're in the Arctic Council. We've been working with our Arctic allies now, Finland and Sweden and Denmark and Canada, to try to counteract what the Russians are doing. The Chinese are a different case. They're not an Arctic power. They used to tell me that we're a near Arctic power. I say, well, look at the map. You're not an Arctic power. But they believe they are. They're working with, with the Russians. And if you think about the fact that there's going to be this northern passage through the Arctic, at least in the summer months, that is consequential commercially, both for a business, but also for energy flows. And so we do face a challenge in the Arctic. Greenland is strategically important. President Trump is not wrong about that. But there's a way to go about this, and that's to work through allies. And frankly, I should tell you, both as ambassador to Naito and also as ambassador to China, we are always stronger working with our treaty allies to contain Russian and Chinese power than trying to do it on our own or in this case, threatening the use of military force. It just doesn't make sense for us to do that.

[Interviewer 1]

Hey, Ambassador, just quickly here, what happens with China next? They certainly, as you point out, have lost two face in this whole thing, given their close partnership to Venezuela. We've had Peter Scheer from Academy saying that they have an army of lawyers that they might deploy. They also have the cudgel of rare earth materials. What levers can they pull to try to turn this around in just a.

[Nicholas Burns]

Minute here, Professor, I think the Chinese have law has law have lost face, certainly, because Venezuela was, in effect, a client state in many ways of China. And China could do nothing to Prevent what the U.S. military did last weekend. Second, the Chinese want to continue to be the major trade partner of South America, and that's a really unfortunate reality for the United States. Twenty years ago, America was a leading trade partner with nearly everybody. Now China is. So I think strategically our aim should be much stronger American investment, private investment and government activity in South America and Central America to counteract what I think is a very negative dynamic. And that is China's more influential than we are, unfortunately, economically. So that's the route that President Biden was trying to take, and I hope it's the route that President Trump will take.