Galen Drouke (3:10)

In the Danish Kingdom.

Galen Drouke (3:11)

She also said an attack would end NATO. A group of European leaders signed on to another statement saying, quote, greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland and them only to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.

Galen Drouke (3:26)

End quote.

Galen Drouke (3:27)

Denmark has a population of 6 million with about 6,16,000 active military personnel.

Galen Drouke (3:33)

The U.S. military, for its part, has 1.3 million active personnel.

Galen Drouke (3:37)

Denmark is also a longtime U.S. ally. They were one of only four European countries that invaded Iraq alongside the U.S. so today I wanted to get a perspective from inside the Danish national security community. Joining me today is professor in the Department of Strategy and War Studies at the Royal Defense College in Copenhagen, Peter Vigo Jakobson.

Galen Drouke (3:59)

Peter, welcome to the podcast.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (4:01)

Thank you very much. Pleasure to be here.

Galen Drouke (4:03)

So I outlined some of the recent threats, but this is a year or more in the making at this point.

Galen Drouke (4:11)

How seriously do you take these threats? And I'll say, like, it feels a.

Galen Drouke (4:15)

Little bit silly to be talking about this or doing a. A serious interview on it, but maybe at this point it's warranted. I don't know. You tell me.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (4:24)

If you look at the reaction from Europe, that's also sort of the reaction that you get that on the one hand, it is really, really hard to take seriously. And why is that so? Well, it's not just because we have been allies for a long time, but the US Effectively took military control over the island of Greenland during World War II, and they did so in agreement with the Danish ambassador to the US at the time. So the US was looking after Greenland during World War II, while Denmark was occupied by Germany. And then after World War II, we sort of politely told the Americans, thank you very much for looking after our island, but now you can go home. And the Americans at that point told us, well, Denmark, you have two options. You can either sell Greenland to us, or you can give us the military bases that we need. And that was the agreement that we then made with the Americans. So they have a base agreement that was later on renegotiated and also now is involving the government in Greenland. And what that treaty says is that the US can do whatever it wants militarily in Greenland if it needs additional military bases, in addition to the Petrovic space base that you have up there already, where there's a very important radar sitting, then you can just phone Copenhagen and Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, and say, hey, we would like another base. And then we are obliged to give it to you. So that's why we think it's a little bit weird that you want to take control of something that you've been controlling militarily since World War II. And then there's, of course, another aspect to the story, and that's the US President's interest in rare earth minerals. Greenland has a very large deposit of that, but the Greenlandic government, and they actually own what's. That's not Danish property that has been handed over to the people of Greenland, so they're in control of that. So if Trump is interested in, you know, getting any concessions and what have you over there, all he has to do is to ask the Greenlanders to talk about this. And that's why we think it's a little bit weird that he wants to take control and invade when all he has to do is to make a phone call.

Galen Drouke (6:34)

When it comes to these actual threats inside Denmark, within Danish politics. And for you, yourself, as an expert in Danish national security and national security more broadly, do you take the threat.

Galen Drouke (6:47)

Of American annexation of Greenland seriously?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (6:50)

Well, I think it's so weird that it actually is hard to take serious in the sense that why on earth would you want to do that when you can just have it without firing a shot or sending a single plane or a single ship? And that must also seem a little bit strange to the American people, that you want to take over something that you're already controlling. And the fact that you need control, I can understand that. It's also true when Trump is saying that Denmark cannot defend Greenland from Russia and China.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (7:25)

No, of course not. That's why we entered NATO in 1949, which is an alliance that the US.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (7:31)

Is the key member of.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (7:33)

And that's why we gave the US.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (7:34)

The base agreement, so that they could do whatever they needed to do militarily in Greenland, because, no, we are a.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (7:41)

Tiny country, as you outlined, and we haven't been able to fight great power since Great Britain burned Copenhagen and took our navy in the early 1800s. And then we tried to fight Prussia in 1864 and lost a third of our territory. Not a terribly good move on our part. Then we were again taken by Germany in World War II. And after that, we decided that it was a bad idea to fight great powers. And that's the reason why we have entered this alliance with the United States.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (8:11)

And also given them the keys militarily.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (8:14)

To Greenland, and therefore, it is a little bit hard to understand why on earth they want to invade us. So in a sense, you know, of course, we take the concern and the demands made by the Trump administration extremely serious. And it is very worrying that you have to hear this from a longtime ally. But on the other hand, it's really weird to understand why they're making these threats.

Galen Drouke (8:37)

There was a report in the Atlantic titled Is Greenland Next? In which they outline this scenario. They say, quote, danish officials think they.

Galen Drouke (8:47)

Know how Donald Trump might seize Greenland. In a late night Truth Social post, the President announces that the Danish territory is now an American protectorate because neither Denmark nor its European allies possess the.

Galen Drouke (8:58)

Military force to prevent the United States.

Galen Drouke (9:00)

From taking the island. And they are powerless to resist Trump's dubious claim. And as the leading member of NATO.

Galen Drouke (9:06)

Claims the sovereign territory of another state, the alliance is paralyzed.

Galen Drouke (9:10)

Arguing that possession is 9/10 of the law, Trump simply declares that Greenland now.

Galen Drouke (9:15)

Belongs to the United States.

Galen Drouke (9:17)

So invasion is one thing.

Galen Drouke (9:18)

This is a sort of weirder in between scenario. What do you make of it?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (9:24)

I still think it's weird because at the end of the day, then the US Also have to take responsibility for running Greenland. They have to take over the welfare of the Greenlanders, because the reason why Greenland is not an independent country, like Iceland, for instance, is the fact that they can't pay their own bills. In a sense, they are very much dependent on economic support from Denmark. And they also, they don't have a navy. So it's the Danish navy that patrols the waters around Greenland, checks whether anyone is stealing our fish and so on and so forth. Helping out American cruise ships with American tourists that run into trouble. That is also something that's taken care of by the Danish navy. I mean, so we're basically, you know, we're running the place. We're making sure that the native population has a high level of welfare and so on and so forth. And if the US Wants to take over that bill, they can, of course, do that, but then they will also have to pay for all that that's currently paid for by Denmark. So at the moment, the US has all the basis it wants. It has no cost in running the territory, no cost in looking after the population and doing all the sort of things that are janitor normally you do for a building. So what Trump now wants to do is to take over that bill without gaining any benefits. Now, I'm not sure that really makes a lot of sense. And that's why we're sort of Struggling with it.

Galen Drouke (10:42)

Well, yeah, clearly you find it weird, and I think a lot of folks do. But maybe let's engage with it from, from a different perspective then, right? You have the United States saying, we're responsible for protecting Greenland if Russia were to decide to take it over or invade it anyway. So as the Arctic becomes a new area for national security concerns, this is an American responsibility.

Galen Drouke (11:11)

So does it make sense for the.

Galen Drouke (11:13)

United States to outlay all of these costs to protect an island that ultimately still belongs to Denmark, and also if they were to, quote, unquote, take it over, then they would be able to, you know, have access to their mineral rights.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (11:29)

But what I'm trying to tell you is that you could have that anyway without having to pay for all the other bills. So again, it doesn't really make any sense. And if you follow that logic through to its logical conclusion, that means that the US should occupy all of NATO's territory, basically. And again, I have not heard that proposed. But if that's the argument that because this piece of land cannot defend itself, then that would apply for all the small countries in NATO, then they should also take over Denmark proper, the entire Scandinavia, and so on and so forth. Because just next to, on the northern tip of Finland, Sweden and Norway, which are now all part of NATO, there you have the Kola Peninsula. That is where you have the largest collection of modern Russian warships. And that's also where the Russia has all the submarines that are capable of, you know, carrying nuclear weapons and attacking the United States. And that is, of course, a direct military threat to national security in the US and that's also part of the reason why Greenland is so important to the US because there's a radar that is supposed to give you warning in an event of a Russian nuclear attack on the US So by that logic, you should also take over Norway, Sweden and Finland. But that's not being proposed for some reason, even though that the Kola Peninsula, that is really what should worry the U.S. so again, if you apply that logic, it still does not make sense because then you should take over over a lot of countryside that he's not really proposing to take over.

Galen Drouke (13:04)

Who knows, maybe. Maybe it could be next. We're just waiting until next week. They'll turn towards Norway or Sweden.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (13:10)

That's right, right, right. You never know.

Galen Drouke (13:13)

Okay, so let's maybe get to the meat of what's going on and how folks are reacting and the logistics. So how is this affecting politics within Denmark?

Galen Drouke (13:24)

How is the public reacting?

Galen Drouke (13:26)

How are politicians reacting? I mean, has this changed day to day politics in the country?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (13:33)

Not really. I mean, there is a Nationalist party in Greenland. They are out of political influence. They had a fairly okay election when there was election in the spring of last year. But all the other parties in the Greenlandic parliament, they got together and they made a coalition government, meaning that the Nationalist party that wants to be independent as quickly as possible, that they are out of power. So members of that party in Iraq is still arguing that, you know, they hope that Margroubia next week when he has a meeting with representatives from Denmark and Greenland, that he'll propose to buy Greenland and offer the Greenlandic population a really great deal so that they get more money from the US Than they get from Denmark. So they're in favor of that. But apart from that, what I would call sort of radical fringe that is by no means representative of the views in Greenland. Certainly if you look at all the opinion polls that we have then, as you stated, a clear majority wanting to be able to decide their own future within the, you know, the realm of the possible. So in that sense, there's basically broad agreement in Denmark and also in Greenland that the pressure we are now experiencing from the US and this demand that the US can simply buy Greenland and take over Greenland without taking into consideration the views of the Greenlandic people, that that is completely unacceptable. And we've also managed to get basically every European country, including the UK who's usually really close to the US and also were one of the few European powers that did not make noises about the raid in Venezuela. They were also clearly saying, this is simply a bridge too far, please stop this. And Trump, of course, immediately ignored it and said he couldn't care less about the Europeans, but basically he's managed to unify not just the Danes and the Greenlanders, but also the Europeans in saying hello, this is really too weird. So in that sense, he has brought us together and that is actually quite an achievement because there was really, there was a lot of tension between Denmark and Greenland prior to the re entry of Donald Trump into the White House. They were really not happy about a lot of things. And we were accused in Denmark of committing genocide and what have you. And then Trump comes along and he starts making his threats and all this, and all of a sudden the Greenlanders are more. Are so afraid of the US that we are now almost friends again. So in that sense, he has also pushed the kingdom together, which is quite an achievement that I would not have imagined before he joined the White House again.

Galen Drouke (16:02)

Can we talk about the relationship between Denmark and Greenland for a second. What is the general view about the possibility of Greenlandic independence down the line in both Denmark and Greenland? Because in that poll that I cited where 85% of Greenlanders did not want to become part of the United States, a similar percentage also said that they wanted independence from Denmark.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (16:32)

Yes, that's. That's correct. That's correct. The problem that they face in Greenland is that they can't pay their own bills. And there's no way in the foreseeable future, even if they start mining their minerals and what have you, that they will be able to get, generate the revenue that will enable them to say goodbye to Denmark and do without the subsidies that they get every year. So they would very much like to become independent of Denmark, but they will also very much like to continue to have the level of welfare that they've enjoyed that they're used to and which is generally higher than the welfare that you would find in the States. So in that sense, yes, they would like to be independent, but they would also like to maintain the level of welfare that they're used to, and that is simply not possible. So either the US will have to pay their bills or Denmark will have to pay their bills. So in a sense that they cannot really become really independent ever. And you can say it's a bit the same with Iceland. It's an independent country. They're a member of the UN and so forth, but they don't have any armed forces. So they have a big military base, Keflavik, where the US military is residing. So effectively, they are also controlled militarily by the us and that is also something that Greenland can never get away from. They can have Denmark in there paying their bills, but US controlling it militarily.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (17:58)

And what they can opt for instead.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (18:00)

Is to get some sort of association with the US or become a state or whatever kind of arrangement. They can negotiate with the Americans, but they can never become a fully independent country in that sense. So independence is something that they can aspire to, but it's not possible in the real world for geopolitical reasons, which is also why the US has been present on the island since World War II, and they're not about to leave.

Galen Drouke (18:25)

Yeah, and in fact, in that poll as well, more than half of Greenlanders, 55%, said that Denmark should continue to be responsible for supporting the island after independence, which is the, I guess, the tension that you're describing, because otherwise they.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (18:40)

Cannot pay their bills. And we've sort of told them well.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (18:44)

If you want to be independent, you. You need to pay your own bills.

Galen Drouke (18:49)

What are the politics of Greenland within Denmark?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (18:54)

Greenland is now responsible for running a lot of their own affairs.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (19:01)

They also own the land.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (19:02)

So if you want to do a mineral deal with Greenland, you cannot call Copenhagen, because it all belongs to Greenland. So any deal you want to make.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (19:09)

With respect to minerals, you have to.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (19:11)

Talk to the Greenlanders about. So they are in charge of something. In some areas, they are actually independent, but in others, Denmark is still in control. Control.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (19:20)

And that, for instance, applies to foreign.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (19:22)

Affairs and defense, because Greenland does not.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (19:25)

Have any competencies there. And that is a source of tension.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (19:28)

Because Greenland want to be able to.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (19:30)

Have a say in anything related to foreign affairs or defense, but they don't have any capability. So they want Denmark to pay for the defense forces, to pay for the surveillance and all these things, but they still want a say in how it's done. And that, of course, create some tension with Denmark, because since we are, you know, running it and paying for it, we also think that we have a say in how these money is spent and how much should be spent on it and how should be used and so on and so forth. So there is some tension there.

Galen Drouke (20:00)

I guess the question is, do Danish people feel strongly that Greenland belongs to the Danish kingdom now?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (20:08)

They do.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (20:10)

It's probably not something that we thought a lot about until Trump wanted to take it away from us. So there was an outrage when he proposed during his first presidential period that he wanted to buy Greenland. And that, of course, turned into a crisis because the prime minister, which was also at the time, called the idea absurd that you could just sort of buy Greenland. And, of course, that made Trump very angry. He called her a nasty woman, and he canceled an official visit to Denmark. But that was sort of, you know, all straightened out and ok, and then we went on with that. But then now it has reappeared again. But as soon as a foreign power comes and wants to take part of your country, then you sort of, you know, circle the wagons and everybody sort of say, hey, come on, that's not on. And we can't have that. It's a bit like the Falklands. The UK had almost forgotten that they had this tiny island off Argentina, and then on Argentina attacked the island and occupied it back in 82 or whenever it was. All of a sudden, it became really, really important to the British. So you have sort of the same reaction to the overtures made by Trump.

Galen Drouke (21:20)

I don't usually quote Bjork on this podcast, but of course, she's an Icelandic artist who wrote a post in some ways equating Denmark and the US saying that they're both colonial powers and that whether it's denmark or the U.S. greenland should. Should be free or independent or what have you. And I'm curious if that's a view on the left within Denmark. Is there a sort of anti colonialist part of Danish politics that doesn't want to control Greenland?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (21:51)

I don't get a sense that. Not even on the left. I mean, I don't know. If you get outside Parliament, perhaps you can find the odd person out there. But if you're looking at the political parties represented in Parliament, I have not seen anyone who has gone out saying that, no, no, we should have nothing to do with Greenland. I think the general view is that if they want to become independent, that's fine with us, but then we don't want to continue to pay for the upkeep and pay for all the things that we're doing up there. So in that sense. But of course that is sort of a tension because I hear where Bjerg is coming from. But I would just remind her that. Hey, hello. She's actually occupied too by the Americans. They may not realize it, but you cannot just tell the US to pack up and leave Keflavik. The US actually did pack up and leave Keflavik. And then in 2016, when they realized they needed it again, do you think it was up to the Icelandic government to decide whether they wanted to invite the Americans back in or not? Of course not. Then you just knew that, okay, they want Keflavik back, so we better give them Keflavik back. That's the kind of independence that Iceland can have. But then the difference is that the Icelandic people are more or less capable of running their own economy and paying for their own bills. Greenland is not capable of doing that. And that means that they would also have to accept that the US or Denmark pays their bills. And with that also comes certain demands.

Galen Drouke (23:21)

So if Greenlanders wanted to be part of the us, would Denmark just be okay with that?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (23:28)

No, of course. I think that if you look at it from a purely legal perspective, we could actually veto it. But in the real world there's no way that would happen. If a majority of the Greenlanders had voted in the last general election for the Independence Party, Nalarak and Nalarak had then cut a deal with the US then we would not have done anything to oppose it. So if a majority of the Greenlanders and The Greenlandic government next week, after having had a meeting with Rubio, is okay with an American buyout. That means that they could then simply initiate a legal secession process. And I'm sure that that would not be prevented by Copenhagen politically, because that would be against all our principles, norms and what have you. We've always had the position that if you really want to become independent, that's fine, but then you are on your own economically. And that has also been the argument made to the Faroe Islands that have a. A similar situation to Greenland. But unlike Greenland, the Faroe Islands actually could, if they wanted to, economically, they could go on their own. But then they would also get a phone call from the US saying, hey, that's fine, you want to be an independent state, but just remember, we're the only ones who are allowed to come near you with warships and what have you. And it would be a really bad idea if you invited in the Russians or the Chinese. So essentially they would then get the same sort of deal as Iceland.

Galen Drouke (24:58)

Have I mentioned the statement that the various leaders of European nations signed onto this statement? You know, I guess it's strong as far as these kinds of statements go, but the European response has been pretty muted throughout this entire process. Why?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (25:19)

Well, that's. It's obvious why. First of all, they also think it's extremely strange that the US which has been an ally with the European countries and many countries, many European countries, have supplied troops for Iraq, Afghanistan and what have you, they find it strange that the U.S. you know, treats its allies in this way. Because if you are a political scientist, you know, you may be familiar with a term called the security community. And what characterizes a security community is a collection of states that no longer even thinks about using force against each other. And that's, for instance, what has happened within the EU and Europe before World War II. Germany, France and the UK was fighting all the time that gave us two world wars, and they were regarding each other as enemies. Today, they view each other as friends. And even when they get into, you know, disagreements about refugees or what have you, they don't even consider starting up fighting each other. And we thought we had the same relationship with the United States. It was simply beyond our belief that a US President would ever utter a military threat against another member of NATO. And that's what's now happening, and that's.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (26:32)

Why it's so unreal.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (26:34)

So it's sort of. But they can't be serious because we don't do that to one another. So that's part of the reason why it is so muted. But the other is, of course, a question of raw power politics. We are extremely dependent on the US for its continuous support to the Ukraine because if the US does not continue to supply targeting and intelligence information and continues to allow the Europeans to buy American weapons and send them to Ukraine, then Russia might actually win the war. And therefore you don't want to get into a standoff with Trump because he.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (27:11)

Might just say, okay, then I'm terminating.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (27:13)

My, my support to Ukraine. I might withdraw from NATO, so on and so forth. So the European countries are extremely dependent on the US Militarily and also in terms of keeping Ukraine in the fight. And for that reason, you don't really want to pick a fight with Trump because he's already once terminated all the military support, Ukraine, push intelligence support and what have you.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (27:38)

And what was the result?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (27:40)

Russia immediately retook all of its courts province.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (27:43)

So we don't want that to happen.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (27:45)

At a stage where Ukraine is really vulnerable. So that is, of course, probably the key reason why the Europeans are not speaking out. And again, we didn't actually think that the meeting between Trump and Zelensky last.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (27:59)

Spring was great television, even though Trump thought so. And we would prefer not to have.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (28:04)

Similar episodes of great television.

Galen Drouke (28:07)

We're getting into the topic of the challenge of Europe in many ways outsourcing its security to the US Particularly since the Cold War, but during as well. Yeah. Now, critics in America say that it's been unfair to American taxpayers that they foot the bill while Europeans enjoy public benefits that Americans often say they wish they had. And then critics in Europe say that it puts Europe in the position of being basically an American vassal state because it can't actually defend itself when push comes to shove, which has been sort of mentioned many times, that if the United States actually wanted Greenland, it could just take it. How is this tension playing out in Danish and European politics right now?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (28:51)

I don't think anyone that knows anything about military security would dispute that the Europeans have been free riding and that they've been way too slow to react.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (29:01)

To the reassertion of the Russian threat.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (29:04)

We should clearly have started doing more in 2014.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (29:07)

And we also made an agreement inside.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (29:10)

NATO to work towards spending 2% of GDP on defense.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (29:14)

And did we do that?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (29:16)

No.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (29:16)

Did Denmark do that?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (29:18)

No. We actually continue to cut our defense spending.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (29:21)

But what Trump actually managed, and I think that was quite an impressive achievement, he actually managed to persuade Kiol the Europeans into agree to spending 5% of GDP on defense, 3.5% on actual military spending, and 1.5% on militarily related critical infrastructure, building, harbors, airstrips, what have you.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (29:46)

That you can also use for military use.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (29:48)

And that agreement was made in the summer of this year. The Europeans also agreed to pay for all US Weapon deliveries to Ukraine. And the Europeans also agreed to spend a ton on A lot of these, 1, 3.5% on weapons bought in the United States. So even though I would definitely agree that we've been free riding for too long, and then Trump is the first president who's actually been able to get the Europeans to pay, of course, he's got a lot of help from Putin because of the invasion of Ukraine since 22. But the combination of Trump and Putin has actually created this deal that was made in the summer of last year. So you could argue that Trump has actually succeeded in reversing this tendency. And that is also one of the reasons why I'm somewhat puzzled that he now wants to put so much pressure on the Europeans. I would be the first to admit that unless the US Administration does not keep up the pressure on its NATO allies to actually deliver on what they have now promised, there's no way in a very hot place that they would ever do so. So I certainly understand that why the Trump administration is pushing, but I think that what they're doing on Greenland is probably a bridge too far, because if they really go ahead and do this and take it over militarily, then that would actually be the start of the end of NATO, because the Europeans are not capable of leaving tomorrow. But you can be sure that they would start immediately to redouble their efforts to reduce the dependency on the US So that they, as quickly as humanly possible, would put themselves in a position where they would be able to defend themselves with either very little or no assistance from the US and if that were to happen, US Would lose all the leverage that it currently has over Europe. And I actually think that the best outcome, not only for Europe, but also for the US Would be for a more balanced relationship, whether Europeans are actually capable of defending themselves conventionally. And then in a crisis, if the US could still have a nuclear umbrella over Europe, so we wouldn't have to start spending a ton of money on nuclear capabilities that the US Already have, then you could get a situation that was mutually beneficial. Could we get there without Trump pushing very hard? Probably not. But if he pushes too hard, he's likely to kill the alliance in the process. And I don't think that's in the U.S. best interest in the longer term.

Galen Drouke (32:27)

Do you think you can't see inside his brain, but do you think Trump cares? Because this was also the argument from the Danish prime minister, Meta Friedrichsen, who said, if you annex Greenland, that's the end of NATO. But does Trump care?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (32:43)

I don't know whether Trump cares, but if I was a shareholder in the US Weapon industry, I would definitely care because we are talking billions and billions of dollars, and we are also talking about future leverage. If you look at the new national security strategy that's been put out by the Trump administration, it's clear that they see China as a peer competitor, as a challenge that they need to contain if they want to stay the number one and most powerful nation on Earth. I don't think that they can succeed in achieving that objective without cooperating with their allies in Europe and also with their allies in Asia. And I haven't said anything about the Asian allies. But if you were sitting in Japan and seeing Trump treat Denmark and the other European allies the way he is, would you then think that Trump would come and help you out? In the event of a Chinese attack, you have to bear in mind that Russia is a shadow of the former Soviet Union. U.S. military officers usually call it a tank station with nuclear weapons. China is not a tank station with nuclear weapons. That's a military threat that is likely in the not too distant future to be on a par with the US Military. So it's a much more formidable threat. So if you are Japan, would you really think that the US Will come and help you out? If you're seeing the way that the Europeans are treated in Europe, and they have a much stronger defense treaty with the US Than Japan actually has. And that's, of course, the same worry that they have in South Korea, in Taiwan, in New Zealand and Australia. So I think that the US Is not only risking destroying its alliance in Europe, it may also destroy its alliances in Asia. And for that reason, if you are thinking just a little bit more ahead than three years, and I know that after three years Trump is likely to have another job, then you certainly 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.

Galen Drouke (34:49)

Yeah, I think plenty of leaders around the world, people within the United States, politicians perhaps on both sides of the aisle, journalists, are trying to figure out what Trump's goal is exactly here. Right. In Venezuela, it was, you know, the export of narcotics but then it was sort of the oil, right now it's the security concerns in Greenland, but it's also mineral rights. There's, there's some echo of neoconservatism getting rid of authoritarian dictators. There's mentions of the Monroe Doctrine. You know, he started off as an anti interventionist president. Talking about America first. From your perspective, as somebody who tries to figure out national security strategy, how have you discerned what Trump's goal is like? What do you think he wants?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (35:38)

Well, if you read his Art of the Deal, you know that his negotiation tactic is to start out with maximum pressure in order to get the best possible deal. And again, with my NATO example from before, where he ended up getting 5% as the agreement at the Hague summit, that was an example of that pressure tactic working to perfection. If that's the same thing he's attempting in Greenland, trying to get Denmark to invest more in surveillance and in other stuff that the US Navy would rather not spend its time and resources on, and also to try and get a very, very good deal with respect to minerals from Greenland, then I can sort of understand what he's doing. And if that's his objective, he's probably likely to succeed. But if he goes all the way, is it then because he also wants his face off Mount Rushmore or what's going on? And that's where you get into murky waters and where it gets really hard to understand. Because if you are applying a normal rational choice, cost benefit analysis, then it makes absolutely no sense what he's doing, because he could get a very good deal without taking over and planting the US Flag on the island up there. But that appears to be what he's aiming at. But whether that's just bluffing and trying to drive a hard bargain, that's what it's really hard to say, to tell until we see the end game and we are still not there.

Galen Drouke (37:06)

What events are you looking at to try to discern how this is going to play out? I mean, we're all talking this about this right now because of Venezuela and the renewed direct threats. But there have been different things going on in the background with visits to Greenland and a special envoy to Greenland.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (37:23)

I mean, what's ha.

Galen Drouke (37:24)

What are you paying attention to to try to figure out what's going on as opposed to, you know, maybe just whatever Stephen Miller is saying on CNN or whatever quips Trump makes on Air Force One?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (37:37)

Well, of course, we're looking at how he's moving his military assets around. And for instance, it has really created quite a stir today that people were starting to notice that the US Is moving a lot of planes from the States to the UK A lot of transport planes, a lot of ghost riders and what have you. And I've sort of been getting calls and texts all day from journalists. Have you seen the military build up in the uk what is the US up to? Has it something to do with Greenland? So, of course military indicators are important, but that's the thing. The US Is not doing anything on Greenland. When the first Trump administration was in power, they were talking about Greenland and the Arctic being the new arena of great power politics and the area competition, blah, blah, blah. Great. So we all expected the US to build up its military presence in Greenland in response to the Russian buildup, and absolutely nothing happened. And still nothing has happened. So Trump is joking that we've only added one dog sledge up there. That is not exactly true, but it's a funny joke. The US has not even added a dog sledge, and they don't even have a functioning icebreaker. So we're sort of. Okay. If it's so important, why aren't you doing anything about it? So, of course, one indication would be to actually look at what's happening militarily. But if you start looking into the US Military machine, you realize that you're under a lot of pressure. You're simply not capable of keeping up with your commitments both in Europe. And even if you withdraw from that and pull it all to Asia, you'd probably still be in trouble. Which is also why quite a few of commentators have been out saying it's really not that great that Trump is becoming so interested in all these hit and run operations when he should be investing in building up our stock of Tomahawk missiles and preparing for a long, great power conflict, because you're nowhere capable of doing that anymore. So, in a sense, that's of course, the first indicator you would always look at. But again, it's not a very meaningful indicator in respect to Greenland, because it's very easy to take over Greenland because there's hardly any military there.

Galen Drouke (39:53)

I want to nail down just the two things that we've sort of been talking around during this conversation, which is security threats and the minerals. So just to be clear, when we say security threats in the Arctic, what specifically are we talking about? How are things changing compared with previously? What, what are the threats? And what kinds of security forces would the United States or anybody want on Greenland?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (40:19)

Well, I think it's quite telling that the US has not done anything to beef up its military presence on Greenland since the end of the Cold War. And in my estimation, and also the estimation of the Pentagon, if you look at their own military strategy for the Arctic, then it's because there's no military threat. Russia is building up its military forces on its territory because it has a dream about controlling. The ice is melting, the Arctic Ocean is opening up. And if you want to get quickly from Asia to Europe, the quickest route of doing that with a commercial ship is along the Russian coast, instead of going the other way around, either through the Suez Canal or South of Africa. So you can actually save some time. And, of course, the Russians are hoping that as the ice opens up, then they can make a lot of money by piloting ships along their northern seaboard to Europe. So they've seen that as a money machine. For that reason, they've sort of beefed up their military presence all along that long frontier. And, of course, the fact that the ice is moving away is also making Russia vulnerable from US Aggression from that angle, which has never historically been possible before. So there's a sense of gain for the Russians, but also a sense of vulnerability that had driven them to enhance their military presence. But they've also established an airstrip on Franz Josef Land from where they could actually attack the Petrofique radar, which is important for the US because that's how you figure out whether the Russians are firing nuclear missiles at you. So that's, of course, the reason why it has gotten the attention of the Americans. But so far, there has not really been any sort of Russian buildup or activity around Greenland. There's a lot going on in the Norwegian Sea and the Barents Sea, and the US Navy is also more present there. Again, so you've had sort of an arms race or a buildup up of tensions in that area, but nothing has happened around Greenland, so there's no Russian threat. And this nonsense that Trump keeps talking about with all the Russian ships and all the Chinese ships, that does actually not exist. But there is, of course, in the longer term, a risk that China will eventually be able to project military power into the Arctic Ocean as the ice melts and as China builds up its naval capability. And it's also possible, as Russia becomes weaker as a result of the Ukraine war, that China will begin to demand bases, military bases in the Arctic part of Russia, that would then enable China to sail warships and operate submarines in the Arctic Ocean and also close to Greenland, much quicker than we anticipate at the moment, at the moment, it's the estimation of the Danish military intelligence that China will be able to operate warships and submarines in the Arctic Ocean in five to 10 years. So that's, of course, a concern that the US needs to think about. And that has, up until now, been a problem that the US has been signaling that they wanted to address in coordination and cooperation with the NATO allies. But if they don't want to do that in coordination and cooperation with the NATO allies, they need to do it by themselves. And there you could see Greenland coming into play. But Greenland is still, if you look at a map, a bit too far to the side. So it's not obvious that Greenland would be such a great spot for doing that. And then there's been a lot of talk about Chinese economic investments and mining interest in Greenland. But Harvard University put out a report last year basically showing that that was true 10 years ago, but it's not true anymore because the first Trump administration actually fixed that. They basically told Denmark that China should not be allowed to do anything in terms of mineral explanations or acquiring land and what have you in Greenland. And Denmark saw to it that that didn't happen. So Trump has effectively gotten rid of the Chinese economic challenge with respect to Greenland. They have some interest in Iceland, but there's nothing left in Greenland. So for the time being, there really is no threat.

Galen Drouke (44:40)

What minerals specifically is the United States potentially interested in, and are there barriers right now to getting them?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (44:49)

I'm not an expert on all the minerals, but it is true that they have a large deposit of a variety of these rare earth minerals that China has a world monopoly on with respect to refining them and actually preparing them for industrial use. The problem with Greenland is that there are these minerals up there, but they are not economically viable to actually extract at the moment. Ten years ago, there was a lot of stuff going on. There was a lot of firms that then went up there to look for oil, to look for gas, and to look for various things that could be explored on land. And they all gave up making money out of it because it was simply not economically viable. So if you wanted to go to Greenland to get their minerals generals, now you'd need heavy government subsidies, because otherwise you'd not be able to make any money. So if Trump thinks that he can go up there and make a killing, he's badly informed, because he would have to pay someone, he would have to pay firms to go up there and do it, because otherwise it would not be worth their while. Now, it may look different in 20 years, thanks to global warming that would remove a lot of the ice and make it easier to get to. But in the next couple of decades, I haven't seen any business case that suggests that that would be worthwhile. But from a strategic perspective, it is, of course, vital for the Americans to make sure that Russia and China never lays its hands on them. But again, you could get that guarantee by making a deal with Greenland.

Galen Drouke (46:26)

How closely are you watching what's happening in Venezuela and what are your thoughts on how it's playing out?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (46:33)

I think it's very interesting to see whether you can actually run a country by issuing statements on X, because that appears to be Trump's game plan. He's gone in, he's picked up the president and his wife, and now he's telling the vice president, hey, now, you need to do what you're told or bad things will happen. Good luck with running a country in that way. So I don't think that's going to work. And if he has to make the next move to actually put boots on.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (47:06)

The ground, I don't think he's going.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (47:07)

To do it, because that would really be stupid and go against anything that he promised his electorate. So, again, it's an interesting experiment, but.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (47:16)

I'm not sure it's going to work.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (47:17)

In the longer term. But of course I see it. I can see why Trump thinks that he bumped the Iranians a bit and.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (47:25)

Now they're playing ball. Now he don't want to talk about.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (47:28)

Whether you actually destroyed their nuclear capability.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (47:31)

And their enriched uranium and so forth and so on, and all logic suggests that that probably did not happen, that he didn't really make a big difference to their capability to actually build a bomb. But that's beside the point, because in Trump's books, that was a huge success, the Houthis were a huge success, and now Venezuela is a huge success. So I can see why Trump and his supporters think that he, by just making military threats and making quick action, can generate quick results. I just find it hard to see how he intends to make that play out with respect to Greenland, because where is the big win if you make Greenland a part of the US tomorrow? What do you gain? As far as I can tell, you're not gaining anything because there are no minerals to be mined for a profit right away. And now you have to pay for the upkeep. You have to look after the Greenland population. You also have to run the dog sledge yourself. You can see if you can find anyone who can actually figure out how to do that I'm not sure the Canadians will help you out with that. So you're getting a lot of cost and no gain, and there's no big, clear win. So in that sense, it doesn't really fit that modus operandi. And that's also why he's so fed up with the Ukraine war, because it didn't give him a quick win in 24 hours or even in a year. And it's not going to give him a win anytime soon, either.

Galen Drouke (48:52)

Some people might argue that this is all a distraction from domestic challenges facing the president and that even giving this airtime on this podcast would be falling into an attention trap set by President Trump. This is very close to home for you. What do you make of that argument? Was this conversation worth having?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (49:13)

Well, I think it is. It is worth having to the extent that if it did happen, we would all be losers. The Russians and the Chinese would be laughing their head off, but the US Would lose big time, and so would the Europeans and the Greenlanders and Denmark, and there would be no winners except for the US Opponents. So in that sense, I'm sort of hoping that, you know, sense will prevail and that this will pass and then we'll go back to business as as usual, with the exception that you can be damn sure that Denmark will invest more and do whatever the Americans want us to do in Greenland.

Galen Drouke (49:48)

I, like many Americans with a Netflix account, watched Borgon, which is a Danish political drama, and in the final season of Russia Invades Greenland. Given the conversation we're having, which is a bigger threat for Denmark today, Russia or the United States?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (50:09)

United States by far, in the sense that even if they do not take Greenland, if they terminate the NATO alliance, we are at home alone and we have very, very little time to get organized to prevent the Russians from attacking us again. So in a sense, Trump is amplifying the Russian threat. If the Americans stay engaged within NATO, Russia is not really a military problem. But if the US Were to withdraw from the alliance and also do this stuff in Greenland, then of course, the US Is the main concern and the major threat. And it's really weird for someone to say who's been working with the US military since the 90s. I've been to Afghanistan with US forces, I've attended MIT. So in that sense, my entire professional life has been formed in close cooperation and association with the US So it's really strange having to sit here now in this podcast and say that, yes, the US Is actually a greater threat to the realm of Kingdom but also European security than Russia currently is. And a year ago I would not have imagined that I would ever say that.

Galen Drouke (51:17)

That's quite the statement, you know, I guess. Is there anything else you want to say on the matter before I let you go tonight?

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (51:26)

I'll just like to end on a happier note saying that if you remember what Churchill said, he said that you could count on the Americans to also always do the right thing in the end. And I hope certainly that also happens this time around because I think that we would very much like to continue to have a cooperative relationship with the United States and continue to regard them as an ally. And we are well aware in Europe that we need to step up and pay more and do more to make the alliance more equitable and more balanced. But we are actually doing what we can to do that right now, even if we didn't do that 12 months ago.

Galen Drouke (51:59)

All right, Peter, thank you so much for joining me today.

Peter Viggo Jakobsen (52:01)

That was a pleasure.

Galen Drouke (52:02)

My name is Galen Drooch. Remember to become a subscriber to this podcast@gdpolitics.com and wherever you get your podcasts. Paid subscribers get about twice the number of episodes. You can also join our paid subscriber chat and pass along questions for us to discuss on the show and you ensure that we can keep making this podcast. Also, be a friend of the POD and go give us a five star star rating wherever you listen, maybe even.

Galen Drouke (52:23)

Tell a friend about us. Thanks for listening and we will see you soon.