Category World News

We should have come out of the holiday season in Sweden jolly, rested and ready for a happy new year. But we didn’t. We should have finished the previous year with a sense of love and togetherness. But we didn’t. Everything bad has reached new levels and may well go even further.

We finished 2025, a year full of racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, with the right-wing Sweden Democrats still dominating the political discourse, Greta Thunberg being maligned for her political activism, and the government cutting 10 billion kronor ($1.09bn) in development aid.

Just in time for the holidays, a Quran with bullet holes was hung on the Central Mosque’s fence in Stockholm, while an Iranian couple – both assistant nurses who had worked for a decade in Swedish hospitals – and their children were slated for deportation to Tehran.

In the new year, we are facing an election where the toxic political rhetoric about expelling criminals and others who do not “behave” and “adapt” will likely determine the outcome.

What comes next in Sweden deeply worries me.

As a Bosnian Swede, I want both my countries to be the best they can be. I want them to be great again, to use this charged phrase, because I do not think they are that great now. Yes, I look at both with some nostalgia because I remember what they were in different periods of my life.

I want Bosnia to be free from the nationalist poison and be a proper democratic state like Sweden. I want Sweden to regain its spirit of empathy that once upon a time made it accept thousands of us Bosnians during its worst economic crisis. Sweden did very well, and we Bosnians are said to be the best-integrated and most successful minority.

Today, we no longer have people like the Swedish priest who jumped on a plane and delivered aid at Sarajevo airport during the violent siege of the Bosnian capital.

Land, unload, escape. A quick in and out amid shelling. I cannot imagine anyone taking such a risk today.

What is worse, we have developed a resistance to empathy, and we look upon anyone who tries to make a difference as a weird outlier.

Back then, countries refused to defend the Bosnians and let us defend ourselves. Nowadays, they help perpetrators.

I remember a different Sweden.

During the first two years of the war, I met a comic book collector in Banja Luka whose daughter had escaped to Sweden. He showed me a letter she sent him through the Red Cross. It was wintertime, and she was describing this place called Vargarda as a pristine Nordic landscape, so beautiful and innocent.

It would be my fate to come to the same refugee camp in 1993. I was excited – I was going to a place where I knew there would be a lot of comic books.

Shortly after our arrival, we were transferred to this military building in Uddevalla, where it felt like the constant wind blew straight through my mind. We were closed off but had some contact with Swedish high-school students. I tried to learn Swedish, but since we didn’t know if we’d stay, we had no Swedish classes yet.

I didn’t experience much Swedishness in the camp. It was just us Bosnians with PTSD, a mix of people from all parts of Bosnia, and it felt like we were from different cultures entirely. Same people, total strangers.

I had cousins – also refugees – who were stationed in Trollhattan. One winter day, before a transfer to Mullsjo, I decided to visit them. It snowed a lot, and the only shoes I had were fake Converse sneakers with holes in the soles. I arrived in this cosy little town with an address in hand. It turned out to be a P O Box. Boy, did I feel like a stupid little refugee lost in the beautiful streets of Trollhattan.

I was cold, so I went into a record store. The place smelled amazing. The most exotic smell I’d ever smelled. I didn’t expect that in Sweden. In Bosnia, we’re not exactly famous for exotic spices. We like things plain and simple. It was in Sweden I’d learn about the world.

The man who worked in the store saw I was cold and gave me mulled wine with Christmas spices, which I’d later learn was called glogg. It was hot and strong, and it blew my mind. This is the Proustian moment I will probably remember until I die. I couldn’t speak any Swedish, but somehow I communicated that I was looking for the refugee camp. The man showed me where to go.

I found the buildings and saw some Bosnians who told me how to find my cousins. They had already started integrating, probably because they were fewer and lived closer to the Swedes.

During my stay, my cousin made tiny cinnamon buns, which she froze. Her daughter and I would steal those and eat them frozen, while watching Married…with Children on Swedish TV. In a few days, I fell in love with glogg and cinnamon buns.

In the refugee camp in Mullsjo, in the Swedish Bible belt, I trained judo in a local club, the music of Nordman blasting in the background. Small place, nice people, with some standard prejudice about Muslims, but still driven by a sense of decency. I was always taken care of.

There was one Swedish guy who worked in the camp who was always looking for bad things to say about us. Once, when I complained about an electricity bill being too high, the guy said we immigrants were just using the system and should learn to respect the law. Go figure.

People like him were few back then. Now there are so many. Companies that did not want to give us jobs because we didn’t speak Swedish well were also few back then. Now there are many.

In my twenties, I moved to Stockholm, got married, and started working as a carer for an old Swedish man in a wheelchair. I was next to him for 11 years. He taught me how to have compassion and empathy and how to adore the sweet buns called “semlor”.

I respect the National Semla Day because of him. I developed a good relationship with his sister, whom we would often meet at IKEA for weekend breakfasts.

Eventually, breakfast at IKEA every Saturday became a tradition for my family, too. It was a place where you could see all kinds of people waiting impatiently outside for it to open so they could run in and grab a cheap breakfast: Two buns, some slices of cucumber, chicken breast, and cheese, and of course, unlimited coffee. That was the best coffee in town.

After a few months, we got to know the faces of many regulars, like the old Greek couple who were somehow always first in line, and if they were not, they were not happy. Or the old Arab who’d always sit alone by the window facing the motorway. Or all the young Swedish couples who’d explain things to their small children way too loudly.

With time, breakfast at IKEA started to change. It gradually turned into a brunch – a huge feast – but then they got stingier, and there was less on offer. Prices went up just as our kids grew.

At some point, breakfast at IKEA lost the sense of what it was supposed to be. It lost its identity in trying to be commercial; it was no longer about the diversity of families it attracted. And somehow, we lost that tradition.

I love change. And I hate it. Like everyone, I suppose. I love the fact that Sweden has come to offer a much richer culture, and I hate that it has grown increasingly colder towards “the other”. People like Greta now stand out and cause wonder.

I long for that glogg I tasted as a young refugee just as much as I long for those strong hearts and minds like that priest who delivered goods to Muslims under fire.

Maybe by the time I have grandchildren, things will change. I will go back to our family tradition of breakfast IKEA, one that will be richer and yet very much the same old, same old.

Since taking the White House in January last year, President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that he wants to annex Greenland “very badly,” with a range of options on the table, including a military attack.

Amid opposition from Greenlandic lawmakers, Trump doubled down on Friday, threatening that the United States is “going to do something [there] whether they like it or not”.

“If we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland. And we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbour,” Trump said at a meeting with oil and gas executives at the White House.

“I would like to make a deal, you know, the easy way. But if we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way,” he added.

Since the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro last week from Caracas in a military operation, Trump and his officials have upped the ante against the Greenlandic capital, Nuuk.

So, what are the ways that US President Trump could take control of Greenland, a territory of Denmark?

Is Trump considering paying out Greenlanders?

Paying out to Greenland’s nearly 56,000-strong population is an option that White House officials have been reportedly discussing.

Located mostly within the Arctic Circle, Greenland is the world’s largest island, with 80 percent of its land covered by glaciers. Nuuk, the capital, is the most populated area, home to about one-third of the population.

Trump’s officials have discussed sending payments to Greenlanders – ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per person – according to a Reuters report, in a bid to convince them to secede from Denmark and potentially join Washington.

Greenland is formally a part of Denmark, with its own elected government and rules over most of its internal affairs, including control over natural resources and governance. Copenhagen still handles foreign policy, defence and Greenland’s finances.

But since 2009, Greenland has the right to secede if its population votes for independence in a referendum. In theory, payouts to Greenland residents could be an attempt to influence their vote.

Trump shared his ambitions of annexing Greenland during his first term as well, terming it “essentially a large real estate deal.”

If the US government were to pay $100,000 to each Greenland resident, the total bill for this effort would amount to about $5.6bn.

Can the US ‘buy’ Greenland?

Earlier this week, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt confirmed to reporters on Wednesday that Trump’s officials are “actively” discussing a potential offer to buy the Danish territory.

During a briefing on Monday with lawmakers from both chambers of Congress, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told them that Trump would prefer to buy Greenland rather than invade it. Rubio is scheduled to hold talks with Danish leaders next week.

Both Nuuk and Copenhagen have repeatedly insisted that the island “is not for sale”.

There are few modern historical precedents to compare Trump’s threats with Greenland, much like the abduction of Maduro on his orders.

The US purchased Louisiana from France in 1803 for $15m and Alaska from Russia in 1867 for $7.2m. However, both France and Russia were willing sellers — unlike Denmark and Greenland today.

Washington has also purchased territory from Denmark in the past. In 1917, the US, under President Woodrow Wilson, bought the Danish West Indies for $25m during World War I, later renaming them the United States Virgin Islands.

Can Trump really just pay off his way?

While Greenlanders have been open to departing from Denmark, the population has repeatedly refused to be a part of the US. Nearly 85 percent of the population rejects the idea, according to a 2025 poll commissioned by the Danish paper Berlingske.

Meanwhile, another poll, by YouGov, shows that only 7 percent of Americans support the idea of a US military invasion of the territory.

Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist and a professor at Columbia University, told Al Jazeera, “The White House wants to buy out Greenlanders, not to pay for what Greenland is worth, which is way beyond what the US would ever pay.”

“Trump thinks he can buy Greenland on the cheap, not for what it’s worth to Denmark or Europe,” he said. “This attempt to negotiate directly with the Greenlanders is an affront and threat to Danish and European sovereignty.”

Denmark and the European Union “should make clear that Trump should stop this abuse of European sovereignty,” said Sachs. “Greenland should not be for sale or capture by the US.”

Sachs added that the EU needs to assess “[Greenland’s] enormous value as a geostrategic region in the Arctic, filled with resources, vital for Europe’s military security.” And, he added, “certainly not a plaything of the United States and its new emperor”.

Denmark and the US were among the 12 founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949 to provide collective security against Soviet expansion.

“Europe should tell the US imperialists to go away,” Sachs said. “[Today] Europe is far more likely to be invaded from the West (US) than from the East,” the economist told Al Jazeera.

Has the US tried to buy Greenland earlier?

Yes, on more than one occasion.

The first such proposal surfaced in 1867 under Secretary of State William Seward, during discussions to successfully purchase Alaska. By 1868, he was reportedly prepared to offer $5.5m in gold to acquire both Greenland and Iceland.

In 1910, a three-way land swap was discussed that would involve the US acquiring Greenland in exchange for giving Denmark parts of the US-held Philippines, and the return of Northern Schleswig from Germany back to Denmark was proposed.

A more formal attempt was made in 1946, immediately following World War II. Recognising Greenland’s critical role in monitoring Soviet movements, President Harry Truman’s administration offered Denmark $100m in gold for the island.

But Denmark flatly rejected the idea.

Can the US attack Greenland?

While political analysts say that a US attack to annex Greenland would be a direct violation of the NATO treaty, the White House has said that using military force to acquire Greenland is among the options.

Denmark, a NATO ally, has also said that any such attack would end the military alliance.

“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark isn’t going to be able to do it,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Sunday. “It’s so strategic.”

Greenland is one of the world’s most sparsely populated, geographically vast regions.

But through a 1951 agreement with Denmark, the US military already has a significant presence on the island.

The US military is stationed at the Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base, in the northwestern corner of Greenland, and the 1951 pact allows Washington to set up additional “defence areas” on the island.

The Thule base supports missile warning, missile defence, space surveillance missions, and satellite command and control.

Nearly 650 personnel are stationed at the base, including US Air Force and Space Force members, with Canadian, Danish and Greenlandic civilian contractors. Under the 1951 deal, Danish laws and taxation don’t apply to American personnel on the base.

Denmark also has a military presence in Greenland, headquartered in Nuuk, where its main tasks are surveillance and search and rescue operations, and the “assertion of sovereignty and military defense of Greenland and the Faroe Islands”, according to Danish Defence.

But the US forces at Thule are comfortably stronger than the Danish military presence on the island. Many analysts believe that if the US were to use these troops to try to occupy Greenland, they could do so without much military resistance or bloodshed.

Trump told reporters on Sunday that “Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place”. Both global powers have a presence in the Arctic Circle; however, there is no evidence of their ships anywhere near Greenland.

Is there another option for the US?

As Trump’s officials mull plans to annex Greenland, there have reportedly been discussions in the White House on entering into a type of agreement that defines a unique structure of sovereignty-sharing.

Reuters reported that officials have discussed putting together a Compact of Free Association, an international agreement between the US and three independent, sovereign Pacific island nations: the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Palau.

The political arrangement grants the US responsibility for defence and security in exchange for economic assistance. The precise details of COFA agreements vary depending on the signatory.

For a COFA agreement, in theory, Greenland would need to separate from Denmark.

Asked why the Trump administration had previously said it was not ruling out using military force to acquire Greenland, Leavitt replied that all options were always on the table, but Trump’s “first option always has been diplomacy”.

Why does Trump want Greenland badly?

Trump has cited national security as his motivation for wanting to take Greenland.

For the US, Greenland offers the shortest route from North America to Europe. The US has expressed interest in expanding its military presence in Greenland by placing radars in the waters connecting Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom. These waters are a gateway for Russian and Chinese vessels, which Washington aims to track.

But Greenland is also home to mineral riches, including rare earths. According to a 2023 survey, 25 of 34 minerals deemed “critical raw materials” by the European Commission were found in Greenland. Scientists believe the island could also have significant oil and gas reserves.