Podcast Summary
Podcast: Les Clés (RTBF)
Episode: Et après le Venezuela, le Groenland ? (3/4)
Date: January 6, 2026
Host: Arnaud Ruyssen
Notable Contributors:
- Hervé Baudu – spécialiste des enjeux maritimes polaires
- Otilia Ferré – correspondante Scandinavie
- Sarah Poussey – journaliste RTBF
- Maxime Prévost – ministre belge des Affaires étrangères
1. Overview – Main Theme
This episode explores whether the United States, having just intervened in Venezuela, could soon turn its eyes to Greenland. The host, Arnaud Ruyssen, unpacks Donald Trump’s renewed public threats to annex Greenland, examines the strategic and economic interests at stake, and surveys reactions from Greenlanders themselves, the Danish government, and European allies.
2. Key Discussion Points and Insights
a. Trump’s Renewed Claims on Greenland
- Immediately after the U.S. intervention in Venezuela, Donald Trump reignites the idea of annexing Greenland, citing U.S. national security and criticizing Danish defense measures as insufficient.
- Quote:
“Le Greenland, on va s'en occuper dans environ deux mois... Nous avons besoin du Groenland pour notre sécurité nationale.”
– Donald Trump [01:20]
b. Greenland’s Geopolitical and Historical Context
- Greenland: over 2 million km², population ~56,000.
- Historically a Norse colony, later absorbed by Denmark, not Norway, post-Napoleonic wars. Since 1953, a self-governing territory within the Danish realm.
- U.S. interest isn't new: President Truman offered to buy Greenland in 1946 for $100 million in gold.
c. Strategic Versus Economic Value
- Expert Opinion (Hervé Baudu):
- The real value is more economic than strategic.
- Strategically, claims about Russian and Chinese encirclement are exaggerated; only one U.S. base (Pitoufik) remains as an early-warning radar.
- Quote:
“Sur le plan stratégique... il n'y a pas de péril en la demeure... Je pense que l'intérêt est beaucoup plus économique que stratégique.”
– Hervé Baudu [07:49] - Danish defense investments (e.g., F-35 jets) serve NATO interests but are mocked by Trump.
- Economically, the interest lies in untapped resources: rare earths, uranium, potentially water (ice). Resource extraction is highly challenging and expensive.
- Quote:
“Avec le réchauffement climatique... la ressource la plus importante, éventuellement monnayable du Groenland, c'est sa calotte glaciaire, c'est l'eau.”
– Hervé Baudu [11:56]
- Quote:
d. The Greenlandic Perspective
- Otilia Ferré describes overwhelming Greenlander opposition to U.S. annexation; population seeks emancipation from Danish colonial legacy, not subordination to a new power.
- Inuit culture is closely tied to environmental protection and tradition.
- Resource exploitation divides opinion: risk of "resource curse" versus hope for economic autonomy and eventual independence.
- Quote:
“Quand j'étais au Groenland... 100% des Groenlandais à qui j'ai parlé m'ont dit ne surtout pas vouloir devenir américain.”
– Otilia Ferré [14:24] - Ongoing trauma from Danish colonial abuses (e.g., mass sterilizations, forced adoptions) fuels the push for independence.
e. Danish and European Response
- Firm Danish opposition to U.S. annexation, with the Prime Minister describing it as “absolument absurde”.
- Denmark warns U.S. actions could rupture NATO and threaten postwar European security architecture.
- Quote:
“Une attaque de ce genre signifierait la fin de tout, c'est-à-dire de l'OTAN telle qu'on la connaît depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale.”
– Host citing Danish PM [20:04] - European unity: Joint statement (Macron, Meloni, Scholz, etc.) defends Greenland’s sovereignty; only Belgium did not sign but later declared firm solidarity.
- Quote:
“Le Groenland appartient à son peuple, et les seuls à pouvoir décider des affaires danoises et groenlandaises sont le Danemark et le Groenland.”
– Sarah Poussey summarizing European communiqué [21:45]
f. Possible Scenarios and Future Speculation
- Direct military annexation by the U.S. seen as unlikely, but cannot be dismissed.
- Treaty of free association model suggested as a “soft” alternative: U.S. could act as protector (like Micronesia/Marshall Islands), offering fast-tracked independence from Denmark while maintaining U.S. influence.
- Quote:
“Il existe des notions d’accompagner un pays comme le traité de libre association... une espèce de protectorat, un peu de tutelle…”
– Unnamed expert/analyst [24:09] - This solution could appeal to Greenlandic aspirations while sidelining Denmark and the EU.
3. Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments
-
Donald Trump’s direct pronouncement:
“Nous avons besoin du Groenland... le Danemark est incapable de le faire, je peux vous le dire. Ils ont ajouté un traîneau à chiens...”
[01:20] -
On Denmark’s response:
“La première ministre danoise a qualifié l’idée d’une prise de contrôle par Washington d’absolument absurde...”
– Otilia Ferré [19:36] -
On Greenlanders’ identity:
“Ils ne se considèrent pas du tout comme Danois aujourd’hui. Vraiment, ils sont Groenlandais et rien d’autre.”
– Otilia Ferré [17:46] -
Maxime Prévost (Belgium):
“Il ne peut pas être envisagé ni toléré qu’il y ait la moindre violation de l’intégrité territoriale d’un pays européen.”
[22:37]
4. Timestamps for Important Segments
- 00:54 – Framing the episode’s main question: Is Greenland Trump’s next target?
- 01:20 – Trump’s comments on U.S. intentions toward Greenland.
- 05:19 – Introduction of Hervé Baudu; strategic/economic analysis.
- 10:04 – Transition from military to economic motives (rare earths, uranium, and water).
- 14:24 – Otilia Ferré on Greenlandic public sentiment and political aspirations.
- 17:46 – The Greenlandic push for identity and historical grievances with Denmark.
- 19:36 – Danish official stance and fears for NATO.
- 21:15 – European common front.
- 22:37 – Belgian position articulated.
- 23:50 – Possible scenarios (military, treaty/association, independence with U.S. protectorate).
- 25:32 – Explanation of “free association” as a potential path.
5. Conclusion & Main Takeaways
- Trump’s rhetoric on Greenland is both populist (aimed at U.S. voters in an election context) and constructed on a mix of questionable strategic concerns and substantial economic interests.
- Real annexation seems improbable, but diplomatic maneuvering (possibly via “free association”) to detach Greenland from Denmark and the EU is a live option.
- Greenlanders seek independence but are wary of exchanging one foreign patron for another; identity and environmental stewardship shape their position.
- Denmark and Europe are unified in their opposition, highlighting the importance of Arctic sovereignty and alliance cohesion.
For Further Listening: This is episode 3 in a 4-part series on U.S. foreign interventions and geopolitics; upcoming episodes will delve deeper into related themes.