A prominent European political scientist has warned that Greenland could soon find itself at the center of escalating U.S. foreign policy ambitions, following America’s recent military action in Venezuela.
Dario Battistella, Professor of Political Science at Sciences Po Bordeaux, said the possibility of U.S. pressure or even force against Greenland cannot be dismissed. Speaking to Express, Battistella noted that recent events have revived long-standing concerns about Washington’s interest in the Danish territory.
According to the professor, Donald Trump’s repeated promise to end “forever wars” should not be interpreted as a rejection of military action altogether. Instead, he argues the slogan aligns with a broader “America First” doctrine, where force remains an option if it is perceived to advance U.S. national interests.
In Battistella’s assessment, military intervention is not off the table if it fits that framework. He suggested that Trump’s approach prioritizes swift, decisive actions that he believes can be won quickly, rather than prolonged conflicts.
The warnings follow renewed comments from Trump, who reiterated that the United States “needs” Greenland for national security reasons a position he has maintained since returning to office. While framed as a security concern, Battistella believes access to Greenland’s natural resources is the deeper motivation.
He also cautioned against assuming that aggressive rhetoric is merely diplomatic pressure on Denmark. In international politics, he explained, even unlikely scenarios deserve serious consideration.
Battistella pointed out that alliances such as NATO do not erase national self-interest. While member states share common defense goals, power imbalances remain. In his view, stronger states often act with greater freedom, while weaker allies are left to adapt.
Critics of the Venezuela operation have argued that it violates international law, but Battistella suggested that legal constraints have historically carried limited weight in major U.S. interventions. He referenced previous actions in Kosovo and Iraq as examples where legality did not ultimately prevent military engagement.
Despite these concerns, the professor does not believe a global war is imminent. He argues that few nations would openly confront the United States militarily. However, he warned that prolonged U.S. focus on Greenland and Venezuela could shift global dynamics, potentially encouraging China to reassess its position on Taiwan an outcome that could raise long-term risks significantly.
Meanwhile, Denmark’s leadership has firmly rejected any suggestion of a U.S. takeover. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stated that the idea “makes absolutely no sense” and emphasized that no country has the right to annex territory within the Danish Kingdom.
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer echoed that position, stressing that Greenland’s future must be decided solely by Greenland and Denmark.
As geopolitical tensions evolve, experts warn that rhetoric, resources, and power politics remain a volatile mix one that continues to test the stability of international norms.
Comments
Post a Comment