If America Takes Greenland by Force, Taiwan Becomes the First Real Casualty

The world watches in stunned disbelief as U.S. President Donald Trump escalates his long-standing fixation on Greenland into overt threats of forcible annexation.

In a White House meeting with oil executives on January 9, Trump declared the United States would “do something on Greenland whether they like it or not,” warning that failure to act would allow Russia or China to occupy the Arctic island, making them America’s “next-door neighbor.”

He framed the choice starkly: “I would like to make a deal the easy way. But if we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way.”This rhetoric follows the U.S. military’s recent abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, an operation that emboldened Trump’s circle to push aggressive territorial moves.

Reports indicate Trump has ordered special forces to draft invasion plans for Greenland, though senior military leaders resist.

Meanwhile, Greenland’s political parties have united in rejection: “We do not want to be Americans,” they declared in a joint statement. Greenlandic Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt insisted her government should lead any talks with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, emphasizing autonomy from Denmark while rejecting coercion.

Yet Trump’s narrative persists: Greenland is an “absolute necessity” for national security, its melting ice revealing vast rare earth minerals essential for tech and defense, and its strategic location vital for monitoring Arctic routes amid alleged Russian and Chinese incursions.

He accuses Denmark of negligence in securing the waters, despite the existing 1951 defense agreement granting the U.S. full access to Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule).

This is not mere bluster—it’s a dangerous hypocrisy that could shatter the post-World War II international order. If the United States, self-proclaimed champion of democracy and sovereignty, forcibly annexes territory from a NATO ally like Denmark, it hands authoritarian powers—particularly China—a perfect precedent for their own revanchist ambitions. Taiwan stands as the most immediate and catastrophic casualty.

Exceptionalism Meets Imperialism

Trump’s Greenland push revives 19th-century expansionism under a modern guise of “America First.” Historical bids—from Truman’s 1946 $100 million offer to Trump’s 2019 “purchase” proposal—always framed the island as a strategic asset. But threats of force cross into imperialism.

The U.S. already enjoys military dominance via Pituffik, with radar systems integral to North American defense against nuclear threats. Annexation adds nothing tangible except control over minerals and a symbolic victory for Trump’s legacy.

Pro-Trump voices amplify biased narratives: Stephen Miller boasts “nobody’s going to fight the U.S. militarily,” while allies like Katie Miller post images of Greenland under the American flag captioned “SOON.” They portray Denmark as weak and Greenland as vulnerable to foreign takeover, ignoring evidence that Russian or Chinese “ships swarming” are exaggerated—often in distant seas like the Bering or Barents.This exceptionalism dismisses sovereignty.

Trump cavalierly questions Denmark’s claim: “They landed a boat there 500 years ago doesn’t mean they own it.” Coming from a nation founded on indigenous dispossession, this rings hollow. Greenlanders, many Inuit descendants scarred by Danish colonial policies like forced modernizations and sterilizations, now face U.S. coercion.

Polls show overwhelming opposition: 85% reject joining the U.S., with only 6% in favor, viewing Trump’s interest as a threat rather than opportunity.Greenlandic voices are clear and fearful. One resident told media, “Trump spoils my sleep… He wants our minerals to pay off U.S. debt.” Premier Jens-Frederik Nielsen declared, “This is enough. No more pressure.”

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned armed action would “destabilize NATO and threaten Arctic security cooperation,” a view echoed in joint European statements from France, Germany, and Nordic nations.

The Geopolitical Domino Effect

The core danger lies in the precedent. If America invokes “national security” to seize allied territory, why can’t China do the same with Taiwan? Beijing views Taiwan as a “core interest,” much like Russia claims Ukraine. Trump’s playbook—fabricate threats, deny sovereignty, threaten or use force—mirrors Putin’s in Crimea and Ukraine, or Xi Jinping’s rhetoric on reunification.

Analysts warn of a “strategic catastrophe.” Foreign Policy calls annexation a blueprint for chaos, eroding norms under the UN Charter (Article 2(4) prohibits threats against territorial integrity). If the U.S. flouts these, China gains a “permission slip” for invasion. State media already mocks American double standards, urging Taiwan toward “peaceful reunification” under implied duress.

On social platforms, users draw direct parallels: “If the US takes Greenland, China has every right to annex Taiwan.” Another envisions a grim bargain: U.S. gets Greenland, Russia Ukraine, China Taiwan. Trump’s threats embolden Beijing, which dominates rare earth processing (over 90% globally) and eyes Arctic ambitions via its “Polar Silk Road.”

Greenland’s minerals could reduce U.S. dependence on China, but coercion risks pushing Greenland toward Beijing instead.NATO faces existential risk. Frederiksen posits forcible takeover as the alliance’s end.

Republicans like Senator Lisa Murkowski call it “appalling,” warning of fractured relationships. European leaders scramble to bolster defenses, with Denmark eyeing troop deployments and the UK increasing Arctic presence.

Costs are staggering: occupation could run $1 trillion, plus market instability and alliance collapse. U.S. public opinion largely opposes force (73% against military takeover in recent polls), yet partisan echo chambers downplay backlash.

Taiwan as the First Real Casualty

Taiwan embodies the fallout. The U.S. champions its democracy against Chinese aggression, arming it amid rising tensions. But annexing Greenland undermines credibility. How can Washington credibly deter Beijing when it practices the aggression it condemns?

If Trump proceeds, expect acceleration: China could cite U.S. precedents for “reunification” by force. Xi’s New Year messages emphasize inevitability, and arms sales to Taiwan already provoke.

A Greenland seizure signals might trumps right, inviting revanchism from Russia (“Near Abroad”) to Venezuela-like interventions elsewhere.

This isn’t security—it’s isolationism disguised as strength. True deterrence requires alliances, not domination. Europe must prepare independent Arctic defenses, perhaps a non-NATO framework. America must rediscover diplomacy.Trump’s “hard way” on Greenland isn’t bold—it’s reckless folly.

If America takes it by force, Taiwan becomes the first real casualty in a world where norms collapse, adversaries embolden, and the free world fractures. The Arctic chill could ignite a global firestorm unless checked now.

Naorem Mohen

Naorem Mohen is the Editor of Signpost News. Explore his views and opinion on X: @laimacha.