Category World News

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.

Russia fired its hypersonic Oreshnik missile overnight at Ukraine, Moscow confirmed on Friday, striking a city barely miles away from the Ukrainian border with Poland, at a time when efforts to forge a peace deal are sputtering.

Some experts say that Moscow carried out this attack to intimidate Ukraine’s European and Western allies.

Here is a closer look at what happened, why the use of the Oreshnik is significant, and why all of this matters.

What happened?

The Russian military carried out the attack amid broader strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure and drone manufacturing sites in and around Kyiv.

It added that the assault was carried out in response to an alleged Ukrainian drone strike on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s residence in Novgorod in December 2025.

Kyiv has denied that Ukraine attacked Putin’s residence. United States President Donald Trump has also rejected the claim that such an attack took place.

According to Ukraine, the latest strikes killed four people and injured at least 22 in Kyiv.

Russia also hit critical infrastructure in Lviv with an unidentified ballistic missile travelling at about 13,000km/h (more than 8,000mph), according to Mayor Andriy Sadovyi and Ukraine’s Air Force, which said the exact type of missile was still being determined.

Where in Ukraine was the Oreshnik attack?

According to Russia, the strike in Lyiv was from the Oreshnik.

The western Ukrainian city of Lviv is about 550km (340 miles) away from the capital, Kyiv.

Lyiv is near the border with Poland, roughly 70km (45 miles) away.

What is the Oreshnik?

The Oreshnik is an intermediate-range ballistic missile — the word means hazel tree in Russian. The missile’s multiple warheads fall in streaks of light, apparently resembling the tree.

Hypersonic missiles travel at speeds of at least Mach 5 – five times the speed of sound – and can manoeuvre mid-flight, making them harder to track and intercept.

The Oreshnik is also a nuclear‑capable weapon, meaning it is designed to be able to carry a nuclear warhead, even if it is not always deployed with one.

The Oreshnik is believed to be a medium-range missile, with its use so far suggesting a range of about 1,000 to 1,600km (620 to 990 miles).

Russia has only fired the Oreshnik once before, in November 2024. Back then, Moscow said that it had attacked a Ukrainian military factory.

This attack came days after the US government led by former Democratic President Joe Biden authorised Ukraine to use US-supplied Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) to strike targets in Russia.

In 2024, the Pentagon said that the Oreshnik was based on the “RS-26 Rubezh” intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) first developed in 2008.

Putin has ⁠said that the intermediate-range Oreshnik missile is impossible to intercept because of speeds reportedly more than 10 times the speed of sound and that its destructive power is ‌comparable with that of a nuclear weapon, even when fitted with a conventional warhead.

On December 30, 2025, Russia deployed the Oreshnik system in Belarus in a move which could strengthen Moscow’s ability to target Europe in a potential future conflict.

Why was this attack particularly significant?

During the attack in November 2024, the Oreshnik missiles were equipped with dummy warheads as a test attack, according to Ukrainian sources, Reuters news agency reported.

Hence, the dummy warheads did limited damage to Ukraine back then.

If the missiles were equipped with explosives during the recent attack, it would mark the first time that Russia used the Oreshnik missiles to their full non-nuclear capacity while striking Ukraine.

Another reason why this attack is significant is the location of the target.

Back in November 2024, the missiles hit Dnipro, which is in east-central Ukraine and is not close to Ukraine’s borders with other countries.

However, this time, the missiles hit close to Poland, which is a member of NATO.

Kyiv has labelled the use of the weapon close to the European Union and NATO border a “grave threat” to European security.

“Such a strike close to [the] EU and NATO border is a grave threat to the security on the European continent and a test for the transatlantic community. We demand strong responses to Russia’s reckless actions,” Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha wrote on social media.

“Vladimir Putin is using this to communicate with the West, because he could undoubtedly achieve the same operational effects without this missile,” Cyrille Bret, a Russia expert at the Paris-based Montaigne Institute, told the AFP news agency.

A UK government spokeswoman said that, in a call on Friday, the leaders of United Kingdom, France and Germany condemned Russia’s use of the missile as “escalatory and unacceptable”.

Why does this matter?

The latest Russian attack comes as peace talks aimed at ending the war in Ukraine continue to stall. In February, the war will enter its fifth year.

The latest attack risks undermining those ceasefire negotiations, at a time when the two sides remain far apart on core issues such as territory.

Observers and analysts have previously told Al Jazeera that the issue of territorial concessions remains a major sticking point.

Trump’s 28-point peace plan for Ukraine, which he unveiled in November 2025, involved Ukraine ceding not only large amounts of land that Russia has occupied during nearly four years of war, but also some territory that Kyiv’s forces currently control. Zelenskyy has stated on numerous occasions that this is unacceptable to Ukraine.

Most analysts are sceptical that any progress has been made on this point and said the latest intensification in fighting will not, by itself, add to the already significant complications in talks.

“I don’t think there is anything to derail at this point,” Marina Miron, an analyst at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera in December 2025.

The peace process “is not going well due to disagreements on key issues between Ukraine and Russia”, she said.

Mikhail Alexseev, a professor of political science at San Diego State University, told Al Jazeera that Moscow’s goal is not to “end or derail” peace talks, but instead it is to “keep them going as a cover and an enabler of continuing Russian brutal invasion in an attempt to wipe Ukraine off the world’s map regardless of human cost”.

After years of public criticism directed at Europe, US President Donald Trump put together a National Security Strategy (NSS) that reflected his twisted perceptions. Still, it is one thing to hear his stage rhetoric and another to see his worldview codified in official doctrine. Its core claim: Europe will be “unrecognisable in 20 years” due to “civilisational erasure” unless the United States, “sentimentally attached” to the continent, steps in to restore its “former greatness”.

Trump is right, Europe has problems. But they are not what he claims.

Decades of underinvestment in people, persistent political incentives to ignore excluded communities and a reluctance to confront how demographic and economic decline interact, go unaddressed. Political leaders largely avoid this conversation. Some deny these problems, others concede them privately while publicly debating symptoms but not addressing the root causes.

A clearer perspective can be found among those who live with these failures. Across Europe, millions in the working class struggle to survive amid shuttered factories, underfunded schools, unaffordable housing and broken public services. Among them, the Roma sharpen the picture. As Europe’s largest and most dispossessed minority, their experience exposes the continent’s choice to treat entire populations as collateral damage. When Trump presses on Europe’s wounds, these communities confirm where it hurts.

What Trump gets right about Europe

The NSS argues that Europe’s “lack of self-confidence” is most visible in its relationship with Russia. Yes, Europe’s paralysis towards Moscow contrasts with its aggression towards weaker groups at home. This reflects the lack of confidence in European values.

Trump is right. We’re weak. If we were strong, we would stand up for European values of democracy and pluralism. We would not demonise our minorities.

But we do. Across the continent, Roma communities face racist policies. In Slovenia, following a bar fight that spiralled into public hysteria, the national legislature passed a law in November to securitise Roma neighbourhoods.

In Portugal, Andre Ventura of the far-right Chega party put up posters saying “G****es have to obey the law” as part of his presidential campaign. In Italy, far-right politician Matteo Salvini built an entire political brand on anti-Roma paranoia. In Greece, the police shoot at Roma youth for minor crimes.

Leaders over-securitise the Roma while overcompensating for their caution towards Russia.

The NSS also highlights Europe’s declining share of global gross domestic product, from 25 percent in 1990 to 14 percent today. Regulations play a part, so does demographic decline, but the deeper problem is Europe’s failure to invest in all its people.

Twelve million Roma, the youngest population in Europe, remain locked out of education, employment and entrepreneurship through structural barriers and discrimination, even though surveys show their overwhelming willingness to contribute to the societies they live in and their high success rates when they run businesses that receive support.

If Roma employment in Romania, Slovakia and Bulgaria – where their unemployment rates are currently 25 percentage points above those of the majority population – matched national averages, the combined GDP gain could be as much as 10 billion euros ($11.6bn). In a continent losing two million workers a year, letting this labour potential go unused is self-sabotage.

Trump is right about Europe’s declining share of GDP. If Europe were serious, it would not believe it can leave Roma people on the scrap heap.

The NSS further warns of “subversion of democratic processes”, and while he is not talking about minorities, it is true that Europe does fall short.  Proportionally, according to our estimates at the Roma Foundation, they should hold over 400 seats.

The European Parliament includes seats for Malta and Luxembourg, states with populations of 570,000 and 680,000, respectively; yet, it does not include any seats for the Roma community.

Trump is right that we have a democratic deficit. But it’s not because of laws against hate speech and constitutional barriers to the far right. The most pressing deficit is that 12 million Roma are not represented.

A continent that wastes its population cannot be competitive, and one that suppresses parts of its electorate cannot claim to be representative. Political exclusion reduces voter turnout and registration rates, leading to systematically underrepresentative institutions, while economic exclusion makes communities easier targets for vote-buying, coercion and political capture.

What Europe really needs

Trump’s proposed solution for Europe’s crisis would not resolve anything. He seems to assume that far-right pseudo-sovereigntists, opposed to immigration and minorities alike, can reverse Europe’s decline.

The evidence suggests otherwise. Countries where xenophobia influences policy have not performed well. In the United Kingdom, where the far right drove a campaign to leave the European Union over fears of migration, experts have calculated that GDP is 6-8 percent lower than it would have been without Brexit. In Hungary, where the government of Viktor Orban has enacted various anti-migrant and discriminatory policies, there is stagnant economic growth, a high budget deficit and frozen EU funds. Exclusion weakens economies and makes democracies vulnerable.

Empowering the ideological heirs of forces that the United States once helped Europe defeat would not aid the continent’s recovery. In fact, this “restoration” to power of extremist right-wing ideology would deepen Europe’s dependence on Washington, then Moscow.

It is also true that Europe cannot survive global realpolitik, leaning on liberal nostalgia, multilateral summits or rhetorical commitments, either.

What Europe needs is inclusive realism: the recognition that investing in all people is not charity but a strategic necessity. China’s rise illustrates this. Decades of investment in health, education and employment have expanded human capital, increased productivity and reshaped global power balances.

Europe cannot afford to waste its own population potential while expecting to remain a relevant player. The real choice is not between liberals and the far right, but between deepening its wounds by sidelining millions or beginning to heal by investing in the people it has long treated as expendable.