The ambition of former U.S. President Donald Trump to acquire Greenland has been sharply condemned by German conservative politician Jürgen Hardt, who characterized the pursuit as “imperialism in its purest form”. In an interview with the German news outlet “Der Spiegel”, Hardt accused Trump of harboring an expansionist territorial drive, motivated by a desire to etch his name in history as the president who expanded the United States’ territory.
Hardt, the foreign policy spokesman for the conservative CDU/CSU parliamentary group, suggested that Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan extended to a literal desire to increase the nation’s size. He emphasized that acquiring Greenland would enlarge the U.S. territory by roughly 20 percent, highlighting this as the key allure for the former president.
While acknowledging that existing U.S. security interests in Greenland could be addressed through increased military presence or enhanced NATO involvement, Hardt warned that Europe cannot permit this “game with the map”. He drew a concerning parallel to the United States’ approach towards Venezuela, underlining the critical legal distinction: Greenland possesses a legitimate, democratically elected government and is unequivocally part of the Danish Kingdom under international law. Any aggressive action against the island, Hardt argued, would be “a thousand times” a violation of international law.
The warning carried significant weight, with Hardt suggesting a potential collapse of the NATO alliance. He predicted that a U.S. military intervention in Greenland would likely trigger Denmark’s withdrawal from NATO. This, in turn, would force the U.S. Congress to confront the reality that the pursuit of Greenland had jeopardized the alliance and U.S. dominance within it, potentially leading to widespread condemnation and political repercussions for Trump.
Greenland, along with the Faroe Islands, constitutes an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. The persistent U.S. interest in the strategically valuable island, positioned between the North Atlantic and the Arctic, raises complex questions about international law, the future of NATO and the potential for escalating geopolitical tensions. The incident underscores ongoing concerns regarding unilateral actions and challenges to established international norms, prompting calls for vigilance and a reaffirmation of principles of sovereignty and respect for democratic governance.