GD POLITICS Podcast: "How Denmark Sees Trump’s Greenland Threats"

Host: Galen Drouke
Guest: Prof. Peter Viggo Jakobsen (Royal Defense College, Copenhagen)
Date: January 8, 2026

Overview

In this episode, Galen Drouke explores the political and security dynamics surrounding President Trump’s renewed threats to annex Greenland, a Danish territory. Featuring insights from Peter Viggo Jakobsen, a leading Danish national security expert, the conversation dissects Denmark’s historical relationship with the U.S., NATO’s changing landscape, the role of Greenland in global strategy, and the repercussions of U.S. unpredictability.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Unprecedented Threat Perception: U.S. vs. Russia

• Opening question: Which poses a bigger threat to Denmark today—Russia or the United States?
• Jakobsen’s answer is unequivocal:

  "United States, by far." (00:20)
  He elaborates that without U.S. engagement in NATO, Denmark would be “home alone,” vulnerable to Russian aggression. The current American posture, especially with Trump’s threats, has made the U.S. the primary concern for Danish and European security, a perspective he never expected to adopt.

2. Greenland’s Strategic Significance & U.S. Military Presence

• Greenland’s Background: Largest island, semi-autonomous, 56,000 population, under Danish sovereignty since the 1700s.

• U.S. military has maintained bases since WWII (in exchange for not annexing Greenland). The U.S. effectively controls necessary military operations without sovereignty, "so it’s weird to want to ‘take' what you already have” (04:24, 06:50).

• Current Treaty:

  "The US can do whatever it wants militarily in Greenland... we are obliged to give [bases] to you." (04:24)

3. The Trump Administration’s Approach: Negotiation or Real Threat?

• Mixed Messages: Trump's administration talks about military options and annexation, invoking security interests and rare earth minerals.

• Incredulity and Concern:

  "Why on earth would you want to do that when you can just have it without firing a shot?" (06:50)

  • The guest highlights that U.S. control is already comprehensive regarding security, but full sovereignty would saddle America with the high costs Denmark currently covers (09:24).

4. Logistical and Political Realities of Greenland

• Economics: Greenland is heavily subsidized by Denmark—not economically self-sufficient.

• Greenlandic independence is popular in theory, but impossible in practice due to reliance on Danish subsidies and lack of military capability (16:32).

  "So independence is something that they can aspire to, but it's not possible in the real world for geopolitical reasons." (17:58)

5. Danish and European Political Responses

• National Unity: Trump’s threats have managed to unify Denmark, Greenland, and other European nations in rare solidarity (13:33).

• Broad Consensus: Across nearly all parties, the annexation idea is "completely unacceptable" (13:33).

• European Reluctance to Escalate:

  "We are extremely dependent on the US for its continuous support to Ukraine... you don't really want to pick a fight with Trump." (26:34)

• Change in Security Relationship: There is disbelief that a U.S. President would even consider military threats against an ally (25:19).

6. NATO, Free-Riding, and Trump’s Leverage

• European Underspending on Defense:

  "...the Europeans have been free riding and ... been way too slow to react." (28:51)

• Trump’s Achievement: He pushed for an agreement where Europeans spend 5% of GDP on defense (29:16), but further pressure could "kill the alliance."

  "If he goes all the way ... that would actually be the start of the end of NATO." (29:48)

7. Trump’s Strategy: Rational Game or Vanity Project?

• Art of the Deal:

  "His negotiation tactic is to start out with maximum pressure in order to get the best possible deal ... if that's what he's doing, he's likely to succeed. But if he goes all the way ... is it because he also wants his face off Mount Rushmore or what's going on?" (35:38)

• Speculation abounds: Is Trump's goal genuine security, minerals, or political theater? (34:49, 35:38)

8. Military Indicators & Real Security Situation in the Arctic

• No Increased U.S. Military Activity in Greenland: Despite rhetoric, there’s been no build-up. The military value of Greenland is low unless Russia or China make improbable advances soon (39:53).
• Russia/China Threat Level: Current Russian military activity centers on their own territory and waterways, not Greenland. China is not present and isn’t expected to be for at least 5–10 years (40:19).
• Trump's Fears About Chinese Investment: Already resolved—Chinese firms have been excluded (43:50).

9. Greenland’s Economic Resources – The Myth of a Mineral Bonanza

• Rare Earth Deposits: Large, but currently not economically viable to extract (44:49).

  "If Trump thinks that he can go up there and make a killing, he's badly informed, because he would have to pay someone... otherwise it would not be worth their while." (44:49)

10. Venezuela Parallels, Distraction Theories, and the Political Optics

• Running Countries by X (Twitter): Jakobsen expresses skepticism that Trump’s interventions (e.g., in Venezuela) are sustainable and draws a parallel to Greenland:

  "Where is the big win if you make Greenland a part of the US tomorrow? What do you gain?" (47:16)

• Is this all distraction from domestic scandals? Jakobsen sees merit in talking about it as a cautionary tale, emphasizing the potential for mutual loss (48:52).

11. Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• On the Shift in Threat Perception:

  "It's really strange having to sit here now in this podcast and say that, yes, the U.S. is actually a greater threat ... than Russia currently is. And a year ago, I would not have imagined that I would ever say that." (00:20, 50:09)

• On Public Unity:

  "He has brought us together and that is actually quite an achievement because there was really a lot of tension ... and then Trump comes along … and all of a sudden the Greenlanders are more … so afraid of the US that we are now almost friends again." (13:33)

• On U.S.-European Relations:

  "If you're thinking just a little bit more ahead than three years ... then you realize that it's not in the best interest of the United States. Trump may not care, but an American should care if you really want to try and have a shot at remaining number one." (32:43)

• On Churchill and Hope:

  "Churchill said you can count on the Americans to always do the right thing in the end. And I hope certainly that also happens this time around..." (51:26)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 00:20: U.S. now seen as Denmark's biggest threat
• 04:24: U.S. control of Greenland since WWII; existing treaties
• 06:50: Why annexation seems irrational to Danes
• 09:24: The economic burden of ruling Greenland
• 13:33: Danish & European unity in opposing U.S. demands
• 16:32: Desire vs. reality of Greenlandic independence
• 25:19: European reluctance to confront the U.S. over Greenland
• 29:16: Trump pushes Europe to increase defense spending
• 32:43: Trump’s short-term thinking and potential global consequences
• 35:38: Trump's negotiation and potential vanity motivations
• 39:53: Actual vs. perceived military threat in the Arctic
• 44:49: The myth of profitable mining in Greenland
• 47:16: Parallels with Venezuela; questioning the rationale for annexation
• 51:26: Hope for continued U.S.-Europe alliance cooperation

Tone & Language

The episode blends dry Nordic pragmatism and meticulous analysis with wry humor (see the recurring "it's weird" refrain and references to dog sledge logistics). Jakobsen delivers plainspoken, clear-eyed perspectives on global politics and security, underscoring both the absurdity and the gravity of the situation.

Summary

For listeners seeking to understand why Denmark sees the U.S. as its primary security concern in 2026, this episode offers a comprehensive, insider view. It debunks myths about Greenland’s value, explains local and global politics, and underscores how erratic U.S. policy is reshaping alliances, threat perceptions, and the future of NATO itself. Even amidst absurdity, the conversation is both sobering and laced with hope that reason—and alliances—will endure.