featured
Marco Rubio Threatens to Take Greenland by Force // Jimmy Dore
Jimmy Dore | Trusted Newsmaker
Rubio’s Greenland Threat Sparks Alarm as U.S. Floats Military Options Against NATO Ally
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has triggered international backlash after signaling that the United States is prepared to consider military force to take control of Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark and a NATO ally. Rubio’s remarks came amid escalating U.S. intervention abroad, raising fears that Washington is normalizing unilateral military action against sovereign territories under the banner of national security.
The comments followed a closed-door briefing with U.S. senators, after which Rubio confirmed that talks with Denmark would take place regarding Greenland’s future. The White House later acknowledged that President Donald Trump has discussed multiple options, including the use of force, to secure control of the Arctic island, which U.S. officials describe as strategically vital.
Greenland as a Strategic Target
U.S. officials have increasingly framed Greenland as essential to American defense planning, particularly in preparation for a potential future global conflict. The island’s location along Arctic shipping routes and near key military corridors has drawn growing attention as melting ice opens new access points. Rubio argued that U.S. control of Greenland is necessary to counter emerging threats, despite the absence of any direct attack or provocation.
Critics note the contradiction between these ambitions and domestic realities. As infrastructure decays and homelessness rises in U.S. cities, the push to acquire foreign territory has been portrayed by commentators as imperial overreach rather than defensive necessity.
European Allies Push Back
Denmark responded sharply, warning that any U.S. attack on Greenland would effectively end the NATO alliance. European leaders rallied behind Copenhagen, issuing a joint statement emphasizing that Greenland belongs to its people and that only Denmark and Greenland can determine their political future. France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Poland, and Denmark all reaffirmed the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity under international law.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said Rubio had privately ruled out an invasion during a phone call, creating confusion over Washington’s actual intentions. The mixed messaging has fueled concern that U.S. officials are deliberately keeping military options on the table while attempting to manage diplomatic fallout.
A Pattern After Venezuela
The Greenland controversy emerged just days after the United States used unilateral military force in Venezuela to seize President Nicolás Maduro. While the administration insists the Venezuela action did not constitute a war, European leaders have pointed out the inconsistency in condemning hypothetical violations of international law while remaining largely silent on an actual one.
Analysts argue that the juxtaposition reveals a shifting U.S. posture, one increasingly willing to bypass alliances and international norms in pursuit of strategic dominance. Greenland, they say, is being treated less as a partner’s territory and more as an asset to be acquired.
Greenland’s Legal Status
Greenland’s status is rooted in centuries of European history. Originally settled by Norse populations, the island became tied to Denmark through medieval unions and colonial arrangements. Following World War II, Denmark formally integrated Greenland into the Danish state, later granting home rule in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009. While Greenlanders retain the right to pursue full independence, the territory remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark under international law.
Greenlandic officials and residents have expressed alarm at being discussed as an object of acquisition. Inuit leaders described it as terrifying to hear global powers speak casually about claiming their land without consent.
Domestic Politics and Power Projection
Rubio’s remarks have also been viewed through a domestic political lens. Critics argue that aggressive foreign posturing plays well in media cycles while deflecting attention from unresolved crises at home. Polling cited by commentators suggests little public appetite for territorial expansion, undermining claims that such moves reflect popular will.
Some analysts warn that treating military force as a routine policy tool risks eroding diplomatic credibility. Once threats against allies become normalized, they argue, the distinction between adversary and partner begins to collapse.
Implications for the Global Order
The Greenland episode has intensified debate over the future of international norms. If powerful states assert the right to seize territory based on perceived security needs, smaller nations may have little protection beyond raw power dynamics. European officials have warned that such a shift would destabilize alliances built over decades.
For now, Denmark and Greenland have rejected U.S. ambitions outright. But the fact that military options were publicly discussed has already altered the diplomatic landscape, reinforcing fears that U.S. foreign policy is entering a more openly coercive phase with consequences that extend far beyond the Arctic.
