The Duran Podcast - Trump Gets Greenland; Denmark Caves, Europe Humiliated

Episode Date: September 26, 2026

Trump Gets Greenland; Denmark Caves, Europe Humiliated

All right, Alexander, let's talk about the Greenland deal. And what are your thoughts on what was side between Trump, Denmark and Greenland? Well, I thought it was very interesting because it is exactly on the lines of what we anticipated after the Munich Security Conference. If you remember, there's an awful lot going on around Greenland at that time. and Trump announced that the Danes had agreed to a deal that was being brokered by the NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutter, which basically gave the United States control, security, military control of Greenland. And there was a lot of pushback afterwards. People were saying that this wasn't really the case.

Trump was fantasizing. We said in a program at that time that probably this is exactly how it would shape out. And now we have the actual deal. The actual deal, in effect, gives the U.S. military control of Greenland in exactly the way that we said. So Trump got what he wanted over Greenland. The Danes cave. the British, the Dutch, the Germans, Ursula, all of them ultimately told the Danes, give Trump what he wants, give the US what they want over Greenland, because we need the Americans involved, we need them involved in Europe, we need their support for project Ukraine. So ultimately, Denmark was left on its own. own and it gave the US what it wanted and Friedrichson who is the Danish Prime Minister and who is obsessively focused on Russia she too was not going to make any give any ground she too wasn't going

to fight hard for Greenland when it is Russia that she cares about so that is what happened Why would she fight hard for Greenland against the United States? Well, she didn't fight hard for Greenland. Why would she? She's going to do exactly what the United States tells her to do. The part that was interesting about this Greenland deal was not, I don't think was what the U.S. got or what Denmark or the Europeans conceded. I think the interesting part to the Greenland deal was that we had all of these theatrics. around Greenland, you know, Trump posting the memes, the AI images, the AI slop that he was posting

about Greenland, talking about it, how it was, it's going to become the 51st state or a 53rd state, and the U.S. is going to take Greenland and the United States and the EU was horrified and they were shocked and they were pushing back against the U.S. is claims, Trump's claims, that he was going to take Greenland. There was even talk about it. military confrontation at one point. I mean, it was just all freaking theater. It was a skit. It was theater, the whole thing.

Purpose, it was done on purpose. Because at the end of the day, the United States could have contacted Denmark, and they could have sat down with Denmark and said, look, here's the deal. We want three military bases. We want 10 military bases. We want 100 military bases.

Denmark and Europe, we're not going to say no to the United States. No, of course, they weren't. The key thing to understand about why Friedrichson should have made a stronger position on Greenland is because Greenland is, sorry, Danish sovereign territory. And of course, Greenland, many people in Greenland have an eventual aspiration towards Indonesia. And they've not been consulted about this. As far as I can tell, their prime minister was basically given this done deal, which he had to sign. The Danes, in effect, in other words, sold the Greenlanders out. That's how it looks to me.

And Friedrichson, as you absolutely rightly said, went through all the motions and all the activities of trying to hold out for Greenland. But, of course, he didn't. Because the European Union, the leaders of all of the European states, Friedrichson definitely, the Baltic states, not just the three Baltic states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, but all of the Baltic nations, their governments, what they are overwhelmingly obsessively focused upon is Russia. they're not interested in protecting the sovereignty of their countries in the United States because of course they are themselves frassals of the United States, as we have discussed in many places. And the long-term aspirations of the people of Greenland are neither here nor there in this discussion. Now, I'm going to say something, by the way, and this is for the future.

It's not for today or next year or five years, or 10 years time, maybe, well, actually, maybe five years or 10 years time, but if we ever do get into a situation where the United States does indeed fully disengaged from Europe, and I accept that there is no plan or intention to do that now. But if we ever get there, if the United States does indeed withdraw into its own geographical sphere of influence, then they will simply annex Greenland. I mean, it's a done thing. Denmark isn't going to be in any position to say no.

The American troops will already be there. The people of Greenland will have no choice in the matter. I mean, that now, if we get into that kind of geopolitical environment, has become irresistible. Yeah, the deal between the U.S. agreement could have been negotiated, if you even want to use the word negotiated. Could have been demanded by the United States towards Denmark in a week's time through back channel diplomacy without having to go through all the theatrics of it. Okay. It's the way Trump is utilized for the goals of the.

of the globalists and of the deep states is to create this, this WrestleMania type of theatrical skit. And Trump is very good at it. Yeah, it was very humiliating for the Europeans. We should not forget that. I mean, I don't know what people think about it in Denmark or indeed in Greenland. But the fact of the matter is, if it had been negotiated in the quiet way that you have suggested, the United States would have got what it wanted, obviously. But it would have been much better for the day.

I know. Well, you're, you're putting my question. My question is, why go through all of this? Why do you have to put Trump out there? If you're the guys that are really running the show, why do you put Trump out there to post the memes? Why do you create these memes of the United States with a, with a U.S. flag over Greenland or the AI of a giant Trump overlooking Greenland, eye in Greenland because he's going to take it. annex it. Why do you create the narratives of Denmark and the Europeans actually getting into a confrontation with the United States? Why do you have to go through all of this? Is it to con the people? Is it to feed this stuff to the citizens of Denmark, to the citizens of Europe and the United States? That there's tension, that there's anger, that there's this big struggle because you don't want to just make this a quick one and done kind of deal. We're going to take 10 bases. We're going to build 10 bases. There's nothing you can say about it, Denmark. Okay, it's over. I mean, why do you have to go through all of this?

To humiliate the Europeans and tell them who the master is. But why? Why do you have to humiliate the Europeans? I mean, to do it to do it in ways that are the most humiliating possible. and to put the option of annexation on the table. To be absolutely clear, with the American troops, the American army now all over Greenland on a bunch of bigger scale than we've seen in the past, all that annexation would require now would be a stroke of the pen in Washington.

I mean, there would no longer be any need in the future to discuss this with Copenhagen. and with the Danes, because the Danes, having already conceded, in effect, that the United States takes over security and protection in Greenland, that is, in effect, a concession of sovereignty. Sovereignty goes with military protection, a country that is not protecting itself or a region of a country that is not protecting itself, that is being protected by a different country, has given up the sovereignty of that territory. So that's the, that's the, reason it was done. Obviously, there's an element of theatre on Trump's side. He goes and shows

everybody, you know, that he's, you know, the emperor and all of that. He doesn't like the Europeans very much. I think that is probably true. Why would he? So he doesn't like the Europeans. He likes to play theatre and he likes to provide, you know, a big story to people in the US. But ultimately, there was never much pushback against this within the United States because political, the political class in the United States, the deep state in the United States, have long had their eyes on Greenland and they've now got it. Why do they have to humiliate the Europeans, though? I mean, what is the U.S. gain by humiliating the Europeans?

And your description of Greenland, the fact that you have the U.S. military presence in Greenland is in a way one step closer to just outright annexation and control of Greenland. I mean, you know, you've pretty much described all of Europe. Yeah. Right? The entire U.S. military is in Europe. A large part of the U.S. military is controlling much of Europe.

Yes. There is, is there sovereignty in Europe? Is there sovereignty in Germany? Is there sovereignty in the European countries that have large U.S. military presence? Poland is now going from one base to two is what I'm hearing. Not only are they going to build one American base, but now there's talk of a second American base. Yes. Right.

I mean, one cannot compare the situation of someone, a place like Germany, with a place like Greenland. I mean, however circumscribed sovereignty in Germany or indeed Poland or even Britain is, the fact remains that these are countries of large populations, they do have their own militaries. they do have, in theory, at least they're in foreign policy. They can always, in theory again, and not just in theory, in practice. They could say no. Greenland is no longer in a position to say no if the United States just decides to move forward with annexation. Greenland is too small, his population is too limited. It has never secured independence from Denmark anyway, If the decision is made in Washington to an ex-greenland, that's it.

It's over. There is no further discussion. Europe, in theory, maybe one day might strike out on its own. Greenland from this moment never can and never will. You could make the same argument about, say, the Baltic states, small, no military. I mean, you're going to. I'm exaggerating it, but, you know, it's, I mean, they're not as small in population terms as Greenland is, nor is the military, the American military there going to be as overpowering as it isn't going to be in Greenland. And, of course, no, I mean, it is. I mean, they're not. And, and of course, the other extra dimension about the Baltic states is because that they're on the front line.

they do can, in theory, have political and diplomatic options. There is a potential challenge to future American control of the Baltic states and the Russians, or from the Eurasians, or from whoever. In Greenland, if the United States makes an absolute peace agreement with Russia, if NATO is done away with it, all of that, they can still take over Greenland tomorrow, and one day probably they will. I mean, I think this is the other thing to say. I mean, I don't know whether it will ever be given the status of a state within the U.S.

Union. But I personally think that there's a good chance now that it will eventually become sovereign U.S. territory. And from a U.S. point of view, as I said, if Europe does cease to be a place where the U.S. is going to be so strongly established, and the US is still pulling troops out of Europe. They may be talking about bases in Poland, and they may be talking about a presence of the Baltic states and in Finland, but overall, the military footprint of the United States in Europe continues to decline. If there is ever an American pullback out of Europe,

they now control Greenland, and that closes the Atlantic. It means. It means. means that the Atlantic remains an American lake. Yeah, well, there is a pullback in some areas, but yeah, it's like you said, there's, there's a reshuffling is, I think, a better way to look at. I think it's more than just a reshuffling. You know, 10,000 troops in Poland is a lot. It's a, well, is it, 10,000 and then you're going to have a second base, which they're now talking about and we'll see how big that base is going to be.

I mean, aren't 10,000 U.S. troops in Poland really very much? Well, I mean, I would have said, how many troops are they really pulling out? of Germany, I mean, I've heard a top, top estimate of 5,000? Yeah, I mean, the latest reports are, say, 25,000. But look, if you go, if you compare the American military footprint in Europe with what it was, say, at the time of the Cold War, or at the end of the Cold War, it has greatly reduced. And there doesn't seem to be any objective to increase it. That's probably the reason, one of the reasons, why the Danes have agreed to this. Because of course, the Danes, the Europeans altogether do not want the United States to leave Europe.

That's the problem. That's the issue. There may not be that many American troops altogether in Europe. I've heard that the total number is about 50,000. But whatever there is, they want them to remain in Europe. because they're obsessed with Russia, and they see America also as the guarantor of their own control. And if that means throwing Greenland under the bus, agreeing this enormous deal, which basically gives the United States everything that it was looking for. Well, they've got it.

I don't know if it's so much a troop thing either. I mean, you know, you're now going to have a military buildup in Greenland. But it's more of the U.S. investing militarily in Europe, being president in Europe and investing in Europe. And the Europeans have that. They have that as the EU, which ultimately the U.S. exerts a large amount, if not total control over the EU. and you have NATO, of which the U.S. exerts complete and total control over. Oh, absolutely. So, I mean, it's, you know, the U.S. is not going anywhere, nor does it need to build up its troop levels

because it already controls Europe through different mechanisms. Yes. And I'm only talking about, say, the EU and NATO. I mean, we could throw in there, the IMFs, we could throw in there, the World Bank, we could throw in there to think tanks, the NGOs. knows, you know, Europe is not going anywhere when it comes to the United States. I think the Europeans get nervous because even if they see a little bit of business, what they perceive as U.S. investment in business, because for them, it's revenue for the European elite.

This is their paycheck, right? So even if they see a little bit of the U.S. leaving 5,000 troops in Germany or one NGO or think tank closing, it makes them nervous. Absolutely. It makes them nervous. You know, European could say, well, my cousin was working at X, Y's think tank. Yes. And he was making, you know, five times the national average in terms of salary.

And now it's gone. I mean, these are the things that do keep them up at night. Yes. But I think the panic, it's unwarranted panic because the US is not going to go anywhere. Well, it probably is unwarranted panic in the short term. But there is another way of looking at this Greenland. thing and looking at it from the perspective of the Pentagon. American troops in Europe went to Europe after the Second World War in order to protect Europe from the Soviet Union. Then I think at some

point it evolved into a situation of controlling Europe for the benefit ultimately of the United States. Now, the American military presence in Greenland is going to be very different. It's not going to be about protecting Greenland, and it is not going to be about controlling Europe. It is about defending the United States itself. In other words, closing the North Atlantic to potential adversaries. Now, that does signal that some people in the Pentagon are now looking beyond, and they're starting to think of the situation where the United States might not, be present in Europe in the way that it is, that the United States might itself decide that the time has come to pull out of Europe, that there are other priorities in other areas.

And that's why you need to create the big defensive barrier in Europe. That is why the Europeans ultimately do not like this development. Maybe there are some people in the Pentagon who have an understanding in that Europe doesn't have anything to really offer the United States in terms of resources, in terms of technology, and in terms of capital. I mean, there's just nothing that Europe can give to the United States. There's not much left that the United States can take from Europe. So maybe the thinking is to just continue. to push Europe into some sort of conflict with Russia and see where the chips land.

Just create chaos. See how far they could take this and see how everything shakes out. Well, I think there is a faction to think in exactly that way. And, I mean, Elbridge Colby. I mean, if you weaken Russia, that would be a win. I'm just saying, so if Europe can weaken Russia, it may not defeat Russia and Europe may get smashed. but in the grand scheme of things If it weakens Russia

then that's a W for these guys I know I mean there is a group of people in the Pentagon who probably do think that way Elberich-Colpia as I said is associated with this line of thinking that I mean he was recently in Europe he visited Brussels

he told the Europeans you know we can't be here to protect you as much as we were we are going to withdraw more of our forces from Europe, and that remains overall, the overall trend. You've got to look after your

own defenses and that the United States is going to focus on hemispheric defense, defense of the Western Hemisphere, defense of its heartland. And Greenland, establishing secure control of Greenland and ultimately putting the United States in a position where it can annex Greenland plays exactly into that policy. The other problem and the other concern for the Europeans is I don't think this view about Europe, this sense that Europe is really more a burden for the United States long term than a asset. I do think that this is confined. to people like Elbridge Colby in the Pentagon, I think that there are all sorts of people in the United States

who are starting to come around to that view. That is long term. These people are not in the ascendant yet. The ascendant group in Washington remain the old Atlanticists left over from the Cold War. They are dominant in Congress. Congress, they're very powerful in the CIA and in the intelligence community, they remain committed to maintaining and preserving the US position in Europe. But the fact that this thing has happened

in Greenland is a sign that perhaps that other group is starting to exert itself and is starting to think forward about the sort of things it might do. And I'm going to suggest that this is what is making the Europeans really frightened and nervous, much more so than any fictitious threat from Russia, which makes absolutely no sense and is nonsensical. They worry that over time the United States is not going to be there in Europe, in its own self-interest, or at least on its own calculations of its own self-interest, it might start to disengage. And this is why we have the war scares,

the talk about Russia being on the move, the militarisation, and the attempts to control even more firmly the mood of European populations. And we're getting a lot of this all over Europe. We've had extreme examples of this in Britain. We've had Jacob Rees-Mogg, former British Conservative cabinet ministers, and an influential man in political circles in London, even though he's not in Parliament,

talking about conscription and about locking people up if they don't do what they're told and fight and go and fight where they're told. And we've had an extraordinary, incredible speech from the British Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, about disinformation and Russia's role in it and the threat insidiously from Russia and about new institutions being, agencies being created in Britain in order to control it. This sort of language, this sort of talk, does not come from self-confident and strong, political systems. They come from political systems that are becoming increasingly nervous. And, well, obviously, the collapse in Ukraine is bringing a major role in this, but also the uncertainties about the United States and what the United States might eventually do play into

this as well. In Britain, we, or people talk about this, the fact that at the end of the Roman Empire, the Roman Emperor wrote to the British cities and said, look, you've got to look after your own defence and the Roman army left and the Dark Ages began. Incredible as it sounds, I know that there are people in Whitehall. Remember, this is a country where classical training is taken seriously or at least was amongst people within the elite. These sort of stories are circulating. Well, my final comment is this. It's really weird because there is a group of people in the United States

who do see Europe as nothing more than the next proxy in order to weaken and degrade Russia. And that's what they see Europe's purpose as being. Once again, they don't see resources. They don't see anything that can be utilized. pillaged, plundered. There's just nothing there. They see it as a burden.

But they do see Europe and the Europeans, I would say especially the central north European countries, they do see them as a useful next proxy to keep Russia extended and occupied fighting. And so this is what they're. they're pushing Europe towards. The weird part about it is that Europeans feed right into this narrative. Oh, yes. As do the Russians feed right into this narrative. It's really weird.

You know, you have a group of people in the United States who are saying, okay, Europe, you know, keep on, keep on antagonizing Russia, keep on provoking Russia. Maybe one day you're going to have to go to Russia and you're going to get completely smashed. But just do it. And they're saying, okay, we'll do it. And then you have Russia saying, okay, Europe is the enemy and we're going to do this as well. It's a really weird dynamic. And the U.S. is just kind of sitting back there. These people in the U.S. that are thinking like this are just kind of sitting back or just watching on and saying, okay, let's wait for these two entities, the Russia, the Russian landmass and the European landmass. Let's wait for them to just go

at it. And we're just going to sit back and see how everything unfolds. Yes. Well, yes, I think there is something of that. What I would simply say, though, is that for the U.S., I don't think they want an outright war between the various European states and Russia, a simple, straightforward war. Because, firstly, if that were to happen, the demands of the United States to involve itself in that war would be enormous. And there would be people in the United States who would demand that the United States became involved in it too. It would create problems in the US itself.

The other, and I think this is something that more and more people in the United States are beginning to understand. is at the risk in such a war is that it ends very quickly, as Lavrov said, and at the end of it, the United States finds itself faced with a Russia that is not weaker, but very, very much stronger. So it's a difficult game to play. I don't think actually that it is a game that the United States. United States ought to be plain. It's very reckless and very dangerous. I think there are some

people in the US who understand just how dangerous it is actually. I'm not saying that there are people who think in that way too. But yes, the war scares in Europe have two benefits. They benefit the Americans because they keep the Europeans survive. The Europeans. The Europeans know that without the Americans, they are absolutely powerless against the Russians. So the war scare keeps the Europeans servile. And from a European point of view, the war scares keep the United States engaged in Europe. And at the same time, it enables them to tighten control of their own populations. which is what we see with Andy Burnham and with Jacob Rees-Mogg.

But you can reproduce the same thing all over Europe in France, in Germany, wherever. Even in Italy now, people are talking in the same hysterical way. And that's the reason, but mostly I think the reason. All right. We will end the video there, the durand.com. We are an X and Rumble and Telegram. We are also on substack. Go to Durant Shop, pick up some merch.

Link is in the description box down below. Take care.