Editor's note. Most analysts are still trying to explain Trump's Greenland push through strategic logic—Arctic security, rare earths, great power competition. Stephen Blank, a senior Russia expert who has published over 900 articles on Soviet/Russian foreign policy and consulted for the CIA, argues that's the wrong approach. The analytical frameworks fail, he writes, because the answers lie elsewhere. And the real beneficiary is sitting in the Kremlin.
President Trump's obsession with Greenland threatens to break not only the Transatlantic alliance but also to send shockwaves across Asia. If Trump succeeds, Ukraine's fate may be sealed—for this breakup of NATO has been Putin's main objective for years.
How then can we explain Trump's motives? And what are the likely consequences of this obsession?
Although almost every observer of this crisis has endeavored, as our profession requires, to explain his actions in terms of rational interests analogous to raison d'état, in fact his actions cannot be explained in this fashion. Indeed, the eminent forecaster George Friedman conceded that try as he might, he could not explain Trump's policies in terms of long-established analytical categories of political analysis.
Instead, on this issue, if not others, the answers probably lie in the realm of psychological pathologies, namely Trump's visible narcissism that manifests itself in countless ways in both domestic and foreign policy.
Trump himself, in a January New York Times interview, was asked why ownership of Greenland matters. His answer: "Because that's what I feel is psychologically needed for success." Asked whether he meant psychologically important for himself or for the country, he clarified: "Psychologically important for me."
Such drives are not unprecedented in the history of empire. The nineteenth-century Russian statesman P.A. Valuev wrote about Russia's conquest of Central Asia that it revealed "the lure of something erotic in the borderlands." Similar fantasies of power and narcissism are clearly at play here.
First time ever: NATO allies send soldiers to counter threats from the United States
The origins of an obsession
Trump's obsession with Greenland dates back to his first term, when China evinced an interest in acquiring long-term economic positions there, and the Danish government requested US assistance. At that time, he expressed a desire to buy Greenland, but cooler heads prevailed.
Nevertheless, the interest in Greenland took root and flowered since then into the present fantasy of Russo-Chinese encirclement.
Even before his second inauguration, he repeated his desire to take possession of Greenland. As Trump lives within his own fantasy world and his policy team will not or cannot tell him the truth because they have been chosen exclusively on the basis of their loyalty—i.e. willingness to accept and abet his fantasies and mendacity—US policy is now led by an ignorant despot and his sycophants who all abet his fantasies and lies.
As statements by Stephen Miller and Scott Bessent, Deputy Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Treasury, concerning Greenland reveal, all that counts with them or Trump is the naked exercise of power which they believe lies only in Washington's hands.
US policy is now led by an ignorant despot and his sycophants who all abet his fantasies and lies.
The strategic arguments don't hold
Despite the fact that there is no Russo-Chinese naval encirclement of Greenland or the equally well-known fact that the 1951 treaty with Denmark gives Washington every opportunity to strengthen its existing base by adding new deployments, the US in fact has eliminated all but one base there in Pituffik.
While there is an undeniable and arguably growing Russo-Chinese threat or challenge in the Arctic, neither Washington nor NATO have reacted passively to it. Finland is building 11 icebreakers for Washington, and members of NATO have long since forged new means of defense cooperation in the Arctic and High North, where Greenland sits.
Thus, claims of encirclement or imminent threats are fantasies if not lies. Neither is it true that Denmark and NATO cannot defend Greenland, especially as the alleged threat is vastly overexaggerated.
Nor does the argument about Greenland's reported possession of rare earths make sense here. While Greenland may or may not hold abundant quantities of these critical materials, there is no reputable analysis of either its holdings or of the immense costs involved in extracting, refining, and then exporting them to Western markets.
Consequently, there is no rational assessment of either the potential gains or costs that could be incurred by seizing Greenland.
Here again, collaboration among Denmark, the US, and other interested European governments would reduce costs and risks and benefit everyone, while coercive adventurism raises risks and reduces potential gains. More importantly, as Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stated, a forceful seizure of Greenland breaks NATO and any future pretense of trans-Atlantic alliance or even cooperation.
When the frameworks fail
Since there is no rational analysis that can justify the origins of this crisis, we are inevitably thrown back into the realm of psychological pathology.
Trump wants Greenland because he wants it.
The arguments about security and rare earths are at best rationalizations of this drive that originates in the shared fantasies of Trump, Miller, Bessent et al concerning the unbounded exercise of power—especially at the Europeans who are weak and yet refused Trump his coveted peace prize.
The statements by Bessent and Miller, as well as Trump's groundless assertion that only ownership will suffice, betray an infatuation with unlimited exercise of power. But there is more going on here than the glorification of autocratic and imperial power.
The Nobel Prize grievance
Trump's letter to Norwegian Premier Jonas Gahr Støre is particularly revealing here. In a reply to a letter from Støre and Finnish President Stubb protesting his threats against Greenland, Trump replied:
"Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America."
This extraordinary, childish, petulant, and unhinged rant is extremely revealing.
First, Trump reiterated arguments made by Miller and Bessent that Denmark had no treaty rights to Greenland or ability to defend it and therefore US ownership is the only solution. His whining petulance about the Nobel prize also reveals his childish narcissism—for it is the attitude of a child who, unable to obtain the reward he craves, overturns the board and takes away his marbles.
Thus, Trump demonstrated the ideological and psychological mainsprings of the obsession with Greenland, along with the fact that his ignorance of and animus towards Europe render him extremely susceptible to those who can manipulate his fantasies or excite his vindictiveness if thwarted.
This animus towards Europe and, particularly the EU, pervades the Administration and is strongly manifested in its 2025 National Security Strategy that reeks of contempt for Europe.
Furthermore, and second, the consistent supplicant-like behavior of European governments toward Trump has only reinforced his conviction of their weakness—even though, in his fantasy world, they rebuffed him by denying him the prize they gave Obama, his bête noire, whose deeds in no way even approximate his supposedly great achievements.
Third, he has returned to his idée fixe about Greenland at a time when, to quote Stalin, he and his entourage are dizzy from success since they believe they resolved Venezuela in a single operation. Venezuela, the supposed success of his threats against Iran, and now Greenland have persuaded the White House that Trump's power is unstoppable and perhaps irresistible.
Certainly, it is impossible to discern any rational strategic concern here, especially as neither in 2025 nor in his first term did Trump display any major investment plan for Greenland, despite his deepening obsession with it.
A gift to Putin
Finally, Trump's obsession with Greenland and willful disregard for the consequences for NATO, the EU, the US, and the Trans-Atlantic alliance are a heaven-sent gift to Putin—as this breakup of the alliance has been his main objective for years.
If this goal is attainable, Ukraine pales into relative insignificance—for it will surely fall into his hands unless Europe unites in Ukraine's and its own defense. Kyiv's dependence on Washington, e.g. for air defenses, will not be answered.
Therefore, Europe must resist Trump, for this is the only language he and his advisors understand. Otherwise, Ukraine will be isolated, and Europe fractured.
In other words, a Trump victory here opens the way to permanent warfare in Europe 80 years after World War II. This may be a triumph of the will for Trump, but it is a disaster for the West—if not for Asia and the global south as well.
Editor's note. The opinions expressed in our Opinion section belong to their authors. Euromaidan Press' editorial team may or may not share them.
Submit an opinion to Euromaidan Press
/medu
