The Global Showdown Over Greenland

From the New York Times, I'm Natalie. [music] Kitroeff. This is The Daily. >> [music]. >> For weeks, President Trump has been. ratcheting up tensions across the world. by claiming he [music] would stop at. nothing in his quest to seize Greenland. from Denmark. Then on [music] Wednesday, Trump. appeared to back down, announcing that. he'd agreed, at least for now, to an.

off-ramp. >> [music]. >> Today, my colleague Mark Landler on the. dizzying ups and downs of Trump's. Greenland gambit, and why this whole. [music] saga may mark the beginning of a. new world order. It's Thursday, >> [music]. >> January 22nd. Mark, what a week this has been. Welcome. to The Daily. Thanks. It's great to be.

back. So, in the last couple of days, we've seen this incredible pressure. build over Trump's desire and stated. intention to take over Greenland. And. then, just today, Wednesday, we got this. announcement that Trump and NATO had. reached some kind of framework for a. deal. And we don't know all that much about. it, but just orient us. What do we know?

Well, you know, as you said, we don't know a. great deal. There appears to be the. outlines of an agreement under which the. US would perhaps be granted some form of. ownership or sovereignty, if you will, over small pockets of land in Greenland, probably US military bases. And it. appears that that would be something. that would allow President Trump to. claim what he has wanted all along, which is some American ownership of.

Greenland. While for the Danish. government, maintaining the reality of. the situation, which is that this is. Danish territory. So, it appears to be. something that Mark Rutte, the NATO. Secretary General, is trying to craft. that will somehow mollify Trump while. sort of preserving Denmark's claim over. over Greenland, which was shaping up to. be an unbreakable conflict between the. United States and Denmark. How it all.

shakes out, very unclear. For those of. us that have covered Trump in the past, we know that these dramas tend to have. multiple acts, and what you find out in. act one often changes radically into act. two and act three. But, it does appear, on the face of it, that the Europeans. have managed to edge Trump away from, you know, a rather dangerous cliff edge. on this whole issue. And the upshot is, at least as far as we.

know for now, that they've reached some. kind of agreement that falls way short. of the United States owning all of. Greenland. But, there is some kind of. compromise that's been made. So, it's been a head-spinning day. It's. been a head-spinning week. Let's talk. about how we got to this point. Why does. Trump want Greenland so badly? Can you explain that? Well, I guess I would answer that on two. levels. I think Donald Trump wants.

Greenland, in a sense, coming from his. background as a real estate developer. He wants to acquire territory for the. United States. Greenland would be a. larger new acquisition for the United. States in square miles than the. Louisiana Purchase, than Alaska, than. some of the other major expansions of. the United States. So, that's on a very. visceral level. It's simply about. expanding the footprint of the country. while he is president. >> Right. But, there's also a more.

strategic argument here, and that. argument is that Greenland sits in a. very contested part of the world, in the. Arctic. It sits atop these very valuable. minerals known as rare earth minerals. For that reason, other countries are. going to become increasingly interested. in Greenland, uh the Russians, the. Chinese. And Trump's argument, in short, is we need Greenland. We need Greenland. as a frontline place to protect US. national security. We need Greenland.

because we want to exploit its mineral. riches, and we can't do any of that. unless we actually own it. It's not just. enough to have a military base there, which the United States does have. We. need to be the owners in order to get. the full advantage of the protection of. Greenland, to be able to exploit it. economically. And is he right, Mark, that owning. Greenland would somehow secure all of. these new benefits? Well, the point is, the US could already.

obtain virtually all of these benefits. under the existing arrangement between. the United States and Denmark. A 1951. treaty gives the US a great deal of. flexibility to expand its military. facilities on the island. So, President. Trump's argument is, you're never going. to defend something if it's a license. agreement, which is the way he. characterizes our current arrangement in. Greenland. But, the truth is, we could.

build up our military footprint on. Greenland a great deal under the. existing arrangement, and furthermore, the Danes would welcome that. The Danish. government has said, over and over. again, we are willing to have. discussions with the United States. We. would welcome greater involvement, not. just military, but commercial. So, I. think the president is not quite right. when he makes this argument. Right, which is why when Trump originally. started talking about owning Greenland, people really didn't take him seriously, right? It seemed like the US already had.

this access to Greenland, and taking it. over was either a joke or a completely. empty threat. But then, obviously, that. changed. Yeah, I think that's right, and I think. that there was one specific event that. happened that changed the calculations. of a lot of people. And that was the. military operation in Venezuela, in. which the president, Nicolas Maduro, was. removed by American military forces and.

taken to the United States to face. criminal drug trafficking charges. I. think that event, more than any other. single thing, caused a lot of people to. sit up and say, "Hey, wait a minute. When he's talking about Greenland, he's. actually serious.". >> [music]. >> For the United States to secure the. Arctic region, to protect and defend. NATO and NATO interests, obviously, Greenland should be part of the United. States. You had a number of the. president's advisers, memorably Stephen. Miller, go on TV and kind of make the.

point this flexing of muscle is. something that the world should expect. to see from the United States elsewhere. Nobody's going to fight the United. States militarily over the future of. Greenland. We need Greenland for national security. And in effect, this [music] brute. philosophy of might makes right started. being widely broadcast by the president. himself. Ownership is. very important, you know. Why is. ownership important here? Because it's.

what I feel is psychologically needed. for. success. And so, Europeans are suddenly extremely. worried. We had what I would describe as. a frank, but also constructive, discussion. The Danes send officials, along with Greenland officials, to meet. with President Trump's aides at the. White House to try to work out some sort. of a compromise. The president has made. his view clear. And we have a different position. They.

leave empty-handed. Denmark's now. boosting its military presence on this. strategically located island, along with. allies from France, Germany, Norway, and. Sweden. >> You have NATO allies of Denmark, France, and the United Kingdom pledging to send. small numbers of troops to Greenland as. a show of solidarity. Things are really. ratcheting up. Things are really. ratcheting up, and suddenly this is a a. genuine full-blown crisis. And at that.

point, President Trump reenters the fray. very directly and says to Europe, >> A new threat from President Trump in the. standoff over Greenland. The president. says he'll impose a 10% tariff on. Denmark, and. >> if you're not willing to back off, I. will reopen the trade deals that I made. with each of your countries and with the. European Union, and slap [music] new. tariffs on top of the existing tariffs. And so, what had been a diplomatic and. geopolitical crisis now is also a.

full-blown economic crisis. >> [music]. >> And that brings us to this week, to. Davos, where world leaders and business. leaders had assembled for their annual. meeting in the Swiss Alps. This is. something they do every year, but now, this year, there are these enormous. stakes bearing down on this meeting. And. Trump arrives Wednesday morning to. deliver a speech that everyone was. waiting to hear, with the real sense.

that the future of America's. relationship with Europe, with Canada, with some of our closest allies was. hanging in the balance here. I watched the speech. I know you did, too. So, what struck you the most about. it? Well, if the hope of the people waiting. in that room was to be reassured, I. think that President Trump let them down. quickly, and let them down pretty hard. Would you like me to say a few words of. Greenland?

I was going to leave it out of the. speech, but I thought I think I would. have been reviewed very negatively. This was Trump at his [music] most. swaggering, his most menacing, really. delivering in perhaps [music] the purest. form we've seen a message that he's been. articulating for months, that this is a. world in which the strong survive and. the weak have to learn how to deal with. it. And the fact is no nation or group of.

nations is in any position to be able to. secure Greenland other than the United. States. He said he wants Greenland. He. wants the United States. >> [music]. >> to take ownership and control of. Greenland. >> We probably won't get anything unless I. decide to use excessive strength and. force. where we would be frankly unstoppable. But. I won't do that. But notably, he also. took military action off the table. It's.

the United States alone that can protect. this giant mass of land, this giant. piece of ice, develop it and improve it. and. >> So he came in and at one level he said, "Look, I'm not going to use force to. take over this huge hunk of ice in the. North Atlantic." And that's the reason. I'm seeking immediate negotiations to. once again discuss the acquisition of. Greenland by the United States. But I. want to have immediate negotiations and. I want you Europeans to be compliant. He. said They have a choice. You can say yes.

and we will be very appreciative. If we. can do a deal, >> [music]. >> I'll be most appreciative. Or you can. say no. Or you can say no and we will. remember. >> [music]. >> So it was a deeply unsettling and. menacing message delivered with Trump's. trademark mix of contempt and vitriol.

And so how is this speech received in. Davos? So what you see is that after a. very long period of trying to flatter. Trump, of trying to mollify Trump, of. trying to cajole Trump, European leaders. are now showing a bit more of a. willingness to stand up to him. They're. beginning to say, "No way. We won't. tolerate this. We won't accept it." And. that's a really, really fascinating.

moment in the evolution of how foreign. leaders, particularly European leaders, have dealt with President Trump. NATO. allies, in the words of one former. American diplomat, had gone through five. stages of grief with President Trump. It. began with denial right after he got. back into the White House. It. transitioned very quickly to anger, perhaps after that terrible meeting that. uh Trump had with Volodymyr Zelenskyy of. Ukraine, shifted to bargaining,

continued into depression, and has. finally arrived at something approaching. acceptance. And can you explain, >> [clears throat]. >> Mark, why this is the thing that has. prompted that change? Why is this the. moment that leaders in Europe are. turning away from, as you said, the. strategy of kind of, you know, placating. Trump to now going much harder at him? I think what it has to do with is the. fact that these leaders, who felt during.

the period of time that they were. negotiating with President Trump over. tariffs, that there was a deal to be. done, that they could do business with. him, that they could get some of the. damage limited. I think in this case they view this as. far more fundamental, far more. existential, and it's one in which they. felt [music]. they had to take a stand, they had to. draw a line. This is not open to. negotiation. This is a moment where you. have to stand up [music] for your. values.

We'll be right back. >> [music]. [music]. >> Okay, Mark. So you just said that. America's allies essentially came to the. view that this Greenland issue was much. bigger than just Greenland itself. They.

came to see this as something you. described as existential. Just describe, if you can, why they view. these threats as such a fundamental. risk. Because Europe really views the system. of international law, of a rules-based. order, as central to its existence, to. its economic prosperity, and frankly to. Western liberal democracy. All of that. is put at risk by having a sudden.

rupture, a shattering, of this. rules-based order. And so what you saw. in Davos was a series of leaders. stepping up on the dais to sort of warn. about the costs of this and to begin to. talk about what they need to do to. respond to it. So you had President. Macron of France get up and talk about. how we prefer partners to bullies. And. most extraordinarily, you had Prime. Minister Mark Carney of Canada deliver,

I think, what's going to be remembered. for years as an extremely significant. speech. It seems that every day. we're reminded that we live in an era of. great power rivalry. In which he. described what's at stake in the loss of. the international order. For decades, countries like Canada prospered under. what we called the rules-based. international order. And he went back. into history and described how this.

order was set up, who it benefited, of. course principally the United States. And American hegemony in particular. helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial. system. How there were elements of. dishonesty and hypocrisy to that system. We knew the story of the international. rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt. themselves when convenient. Which. nevertheless everybody went along with.

because not only did the United States. benefit, but the smaller and middle. powers did too, both through the. economic ties that were generated by it. and crucially the protection it afforded. to the weaker states. And essentially. what Mark Carney said is Let me be. direct. We are in the midst of a. rupture, not a transition. That system. is over. That bargain no longer exists. between the great powers and the middle.

powers. You cannot live within the lie. of mutual benefit through integration. when integration becomes the source of. your subordination. We now live in an. openly predatory world. The powerful. have their power. We have something, too. The capacity to stop pretending. And for. countries like Canada, like other. European countries, to survive in that. world, they're going to need to be much.

more pragmatic, to some extent less. values-driven, willing to cut deals with. a greater number of actors, including. China. That is Canada's path. We choose it openly and confidently, and. it is a path wide open to any country. willing to take it with us. Thank you very much. >> [applause]. >> And so if Donald Trump, in his. characteristically.

visceral way, was laying out the threat, Mark Carney was supplying, in a deeply. articulate way, the response. And the speech by Carney was especially. striking. Worth noting, it got a. standing ovation. But for the purposes. of understanding this moment, essentially what Carney is saying is. that this fiction of a rules-based world. order is now over. The mask is off. The. hegemon that we've all been relying on,

the United States, is now essentially. turning against us. And so my question, Mark, is in standing up to that hegemon, what cards does the rest of NATO. actually have to play? Well, this is, of course, the heart of. the matter. And on one level you have to. say they don't have a lot of cards. Were. the United States to launch an all-out. military assault on Greenland, there is. a 0% chance that Germany, France, the.

United Kingdom, and Denmark are going to. go to war with the United States. Now, remember, of course, President Trump. appeared to rule that out. But, you. know, with regard to other threats, notably the threat in Ukraine, the. threat from Russia, you're already. beginning to see the outlines of that. kind of response. Germany has joined. France and the UK in building what they. call a coalition of the willing, a. proposal to send tens of thousands of. troops to Ukraine or around Ukraine to.

help secure the country in the event of. a ceasefire with Russia. You could see a series of smaller. alliances between Baltic countries or. between Mediterranean countries. So it. doesn't have the overarching feel of the. NATO alliance, but there are these more. piecemeal arrangements that countries. can make with each other, and I think. this is what Carney is talking about. It's messier, it's riskier, it's more. expensive, but in this predatory world,

it may be the best that these middle. powers can hope for. Basically, you're. saying that one strategy would be for. these NATO countries to get themselves. in a position to eventually rely a lot. less on the United States when it comes. to security, especially with regard to. the threat from Russia. Obviously, that. would be a. That would take time to play out. Generations. Europe, because it was. under this American security umbrella. since the end of World War II, would. have to take literally decades to build.

up an independent security force that. had no reliance or little reliance on. the United States. And that would. involve extremely difficult decisions by. governments about how to spend public. resources. Remember, these are countries. that are used to generous social welfare. programs. Welfare programs that are. funded by governments that historically. did not have to spend as much on defense. and the military as the United States. did. So, that's on one level. On the.

economic level, it is true that these. countries, at least in theory, do have. some leverage. On the trade front, for. example, the European Union can impose. uh what they call anti-coercion measures. against other countries, including the. United States. This is something that's. colloquially known as the bazooka. And. what is the bazooka exactly? Well, so bazooka is basically a series. of very draconian measures that the. Europeans can impose on another country.

that they think has hit them with unfair. trade practices. And of course, that. would be very painful for the many. American companies and investors that do. business in Europe. So, that is a form. of leverage, but there seems to be well. short of unanimity within the European. Union about using measures like that, and that goes to what is the perennial. problem with Europe, which is achieving. enough unity around uh any of these.

positions to make them truly effective. when you're facing, you know, a major. adversary like the United States. And I presume also part of the reason. it's hard to get on the same page about. using what you called this economic. bazooka is that there's a risk to it. There's a huge risk to it. At this. moment, Trump is saying he's not going. to impose the additional new tariffs he. had threatened. But he goes back and forth on tariffs. all the time. So, if you were to impose. the bazooka on the United States, what's.

to stop President Trump from imposing. 100% tariffs or 150% tariffs, which. could have really calamitous. consequences for German car makers or. French luxury goods exporters? And. that's a real issue for these European. countries because these are politicians. dealing with their own domestic. pressures, and tanking your economy to. uh make a point with the United States. is not going to do you any favors at the.

ballot box. And we should point out that. this whole time, there have also been. risks on the US side from this Greenland. gambit. We saw Wall Street didn't seem. to like this. There are Republican. senators that seem uncomfortable with. it. And I mean, let's be honest, it's. not like there's a huge hunger within. the American public to own Greenland. So, taken all the things that you've. just described about the dangers for. Europe and the potential pitfalls for.

the United States here, it makes sense, actually, that both. sides had a real incentive to find an. off-ramp here, which is exactly what it. looked like they did just hours after. Trump gave that speech in Davos when he. and Mark Rutte come out and announce. that they've come to some sort of deal. Yes, again, we don't know how solid this. off-ramp is. or what it entails as of Wednesday. evening, but yes, it does seem like. everybody backed off the edge of this.

particular cliff. But I have to ask, Mark, whatever this. deal or potential deal turns out to be, doesn't this whole saga, this saga of. the US threatening to subsume territory. of another NATO state by force, doesn't that make clear that NATO is. fundamentally rotten? Like, this is an alliance that at its. core is supposed to be about protecting. each other from outside threats,

defending each other's sovereignty. And this time, the threat came from. inside the family, one member against. the rest. You just put your finger on it right. there. When the largest, the central, the linchpin member of the alliance now. poses a direct threat to another member. of the alliance, that fundamentally makes NATO no longer. tenable. And so, I think you're right in saying. that even the fact that we're having. this conversation and that it's a.

serious conversation and that leaders in. Europe are having to make decisions. based on the potential of an American. takeover of Greenland, that is already. deeply, deeply damaging to the. underlying principles of NATO. And and so, while we've had this deal. today that perhaps postpones the moment. of reckoning, that gives NATO a sense of. preservation, it doesn't resolve or.

change the underlying reality of what. happened here, which is that the. animating theories behind NATO have been. unraveled through this process. You. know, what's ironic about some of this. is that Trump's foreign policy, at one. point, seemed to be geared toward. persuading the rest of the world to. break its dependence on China. That was. the goal of the US's tariff war with. China and with a lot of what Trump was.

doing on the global stage. But now, it seems as though his brand of. foreign policy in term two. has actually had the effect of pushing. the world to break its dependence on the. United States, probably to China's. benefit. Is that the right assumption? I mean, in a sense, what he's done is. driven these countries into the arms of. China. Because one thing that all of. these European and other middle power. countries are going to have to reckon.

with is if they can't rely on the United. States, if you can't rely on being a. member of the American camp, you would. in a sense have to balance between the. great powers. And the great commercial. power, the great economic power of the. future is China. So, one of the things. that I think you will see much more of. is Europeans, the Canadians and others. going to China, fashioning deeper ties. with China, being more open to China.

And as you pointed out, that is. precisely what Trump set out to avoid, and that's what successive American. administrations have always set as a as. a priority, which is to use our great. alliances, not just militarily, but. economically, and build this great. coalition that would be a proper. competitor for China. Now, you're going. to see countries, instead of saying, "We're with the United States," they're. going to say, "Well, we're going to. balance our interests. We're going to.

hedge against this uncertainty that we. now perceive in the United States, and. we're going to do it by drawing closer. to China." On the other hand, I have to. wonder whether there's some way that. Trump would actually see that outcome. that you're describing as a win for the. US. Like, he would have extended US. territory, demonstrated raw American. power, and, you know, pushing smaller. countries into the arms of China, he may.

just view that as an inevitable result. of his quest to realize this worldview. that he has, which you, Mark, have. described on this show, that the great. powers should divide the globe into. these spheres of influence that they. dominate. Yeah, that's exactly right. I. think that in Trump's world, it's the. great powers that set the tone for. everybody else. I mean, there's a really. interesting saying by a Greek historian, Thucydides. It's making the rounds a lot.

these days, and it kind of encapsulates. Trump's philosophy, and it goes, "The. strong do what they can, while the weak. suffer what they must." And I think in. essence, what we're seeing over the last. few weeks most vividly, but it really. has been the story of Trump's second. term, is putting that ancient idea. into practice. He really does see three. major traditional great powers dividing. up the spoils, the United States,

Russia, and China. And Europe, unhappily, finds itself wedged. uncomfortably between two of those major. great powers, but without some of the. key ingredients, the key weapons that. make one a great power, it has to kind. of navigate this rather dangerous and. unfriendly world making partnerships and. alliances where it can. And yet, at the. same time, I think we need to be careful. not to indulge in too much declinism.

The Europeans do have a future. It's a. future that will require them to make. some difficult choices, but will give. them a chance to become every bit as big. a sphere of influence as some of these. others. After all, remember Russia for. all of its saber-rattling is in in many. ways a weak country. And the Europeans. in this case seemed to get Trump to back. down. Yeah, bully for them.

>> [music]. >> It seems like in a sense this was the. best scenario that one could have. imagined for this situation. >> [music]. >> And it's also a reminder that Europe is. for all its weaknesses still a player. They can still find ways to fend [music]. off the worst threats. They have massive economies and educated. workforce, diplomatic soft [music] power, powerful. cultural values.

>> [music]. >> In this new global order that Donald. Trump is creating, in this great global. game, I think writing off Europe today. would be [music] as big a mistake as it. would have been 200 years ago. >> [music]. >> Mark, thank you so much. Thank you, Natalie. >> [music]. >> We'll be right back.

Here's what else you need to know today. >> [music]. >> On Wednesday, the Supreme Court signaled. it was likely to reject President. Trump's effort to fire Federal Reserve. Board member Lisa Cook. Trump announced [music] last summer that. he was going to remove Cook, claiming. she'd engaged in mortgage fraud. Cook has [music] disputed the. allegations, and her lawyer has said. that the case was really an effort by. Trump to change the makeup of the Fed.

and get the board to lower interest. rates faster. >> [music]. >> But on that, your position that there's. uh no judicial review, no process required, no remedy. available, very low bar [music] for cause that the. president alone determines, I mean, that would weaken if not shatter. the independence of the Federal Reserve. that we just discussed. >> [music]. >> And during the oral arguments in the. case, the justices questioned whether.

the allegations against Cook [music]. were serious enough to allow the. president to fire her. Let's talk about. the real-world downstream effects of. this, um. because if this were set as a precedent, it seems to me, just thinking big-picture, we're really at at-will removal. So, what are we doing here? >> [music]. >> The court seemed likely to allow Cook to. keep her job for now, effectively. freezing the president's push [music] to. reshape the Fed. And a House panel has voted to hold Bill.

and Hillary Clinton in contempt [music]. of Congress for refusing to testify in. the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. Nine Democrats voted with Republicans. [music] in an extraordinary first step. in referring the Clintons to the Justice. Department for prosecution. The charges carry penalties of a steep. fine [music]. and imprisonment for up to a year. The Clintons have offered to be. interviewed by the chair of the. oversight committee under oath, but have.

refused to appear at a formal deposition. with the committee. >> [snorts]. >> They've said the process is politically. motivated and designed [music] to result. in their imprisonment. Today's episode was produced by Carlos. [music] Prieto, Claire Teylouni, and. Diana Wynn. It was edited by Maria Byrne and Paige. Cowett. [music]. Contains music by Alicia Eubanks and. Marion Lozano, and was engineered by. Alyssa Moxley.

>> [music]. >> That's it for The Daily. I'm Natalie. Kitroeff. See you tomorrow.