{"id":42976,"date":"2026-01-21T12:44:46","date_gmt":"2026-01-21T11:44:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/redanalysis.org\/?p=42976"},"modified":"2026-04-04T09:48:46","modified_gmt":"2026-04-04T07:48:46","slug":"%e7%be%8e%e5%9b%bd%e5%a8%81%e8%83%81%e6%a0%bc%e9%99%b5%e5%85%b0%e8%a7%82%e5%af%9f","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/redanalysis.org\/zh\/2026\/01\/21\/us-threat-greenland-when-watch\/","title":{"rendered":"\u7f8e\u56fd\u5bf9\u683c\u9675\u5170\u7684\u5a01\u80c1\uff1a\u4f55\u65f6\u5e94\u89e6\u53d1\u76d1\u89c6\uff1f"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

(Art design: Jean-Dominique Lavoix-Carli)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On 23 December 25, Trump declared again he wanted to take over Greenland.1<\/a><\/sup>James Landale and Rachel Hagan, “Trump says US ‘has to have’ Greenland after naming special envoy”, BBC<\/a><\/em>, 23 December 2025.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By December 25, tensions over the issue were already high, especially between the U.S. and the Kingdom of Denmark.2<\/a><\/sup>See detailed timeline below.<\/span> Yet, the American statements made during late December 25 and even early January 26 were also, sometimes, met with disbelief.3<\/a><\/sup>Lucie Oriol, “Emmanuel Macron fait-il preuve de na\u00efvet\u00e9 sur Trump et le Groenland ?”, The Huffington Post<\/a><\/em>, 7 January 26.<\/span> Two weeks later, escalation is ongoing, despite European fears and sometimes lack of solidarity, mixing, initially, statements, very weak European troops deployment in Greenland (Operation Arctic Endurance), then tariffs, related economic threats, and strengthened Danish troops deployment.4<\/a><\/sup>e.g. Sarah Shamim, “Trump\u2019s Greenland tariffs: What\u2019s Europe\u2019s \u2018bazooka\u2019 option to hit back?”, Al Jazeera<\/a><\/em>, 20 January 2026; Denmark sends more troops to Greenland amid tensions with Trump, Al Jazeera<\/a><\/em>, 20 January 2026; Katya Adler, “Confronted over Greenland, Europe is ditching its softly-softly approach to Trump”, BBC<\/a><\/em>, 20 January 2026.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

Should the U.S. conquer Greenland, or obtain it through any coercive or manipulative means, which looks increasingly likely, the potential impacts and consequences, would be staggering and wide-ranging, from the unraveling of NATO, to fundamental changes for the European Union, through uncertainty regarding the decoupling of American and European economies, without forgetting possible shifts in alliances worldwide, as escalation, deterrence and retaliations will take place.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

Note (22 January 2026): It is not because the U.S. threat to use force against Greenland recedes following the 2026 Davos summit, as a consequence of the actions of other actors, that the whole issue of an American threat against Greenland disappears. The issue should continue to be monitored, dynamics understood and surveilled and impacts assessed.<\/em>5<\/a><\/sup>WEF<\/em><\/a>, “Davos 2026: Special Address by Donald J Trump, President of the United States of America”, Jan 21, 2026; @WhiteHouse, Trump on Greenland<\/a>;

Considering the very high severity of the risk, even though many, initially, did not believe the threat to be possible, the issue should have been put on watch early enough to allow concerned actors to design related policy and responses. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, when should we have put the threat of an American conquest or coercive annexion of Greenland under watch?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To answer, we shall examine the timeline of President Trump’s statements and actions regarding Greenland, and highlight three different periods regarding the identification, selection, and monitoring of the issue, as well as its foresight analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n