I’m guided by a signal in the heavens
I’m guided by this birthmark on my skin
I’m guided by the beauty of our weapons
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin
Ah, you loved me as a loser
But now you’re worried that I just might win
You know the way to stop me, but you don’t have the discipline
How many nights I prayed for this, to let my work begin
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin
—Leonard Cohen, “First We Take Manhattan”(1988)
The meaning of the lyrics to one of Canadian singer/poet Leonard Cohen’s most famous songs is an ongoing subject of debate. There are several interpretations, but the two most common are the one outlined by Guardian columnist Ben Hewitt, who sees an apocalyptic warning made by a deranged protagonist who is “greedily eyeing world domination like a Bond villain,”[i] and the one put forward by by Mikal Gilmore of Rolling Stone, who views the song as a threat of “social collapse and a terrorist’s revenge”.[ii] In the end it hardly matters whether the song’s protagonist is a terrorist or merely mentally unstable, since either way the intended goal is clearly the destruction of the established order.
Sadly, it may soon be possible to argue that the lyrics are also prescient. It only requires imagining US President Donald Trump as the protagonist, demanding to “take” Greenland, while the western liberal democracies are too weak and/or ‘undisciplined’ to stop him. And as the song makes perfectly clear, if he succeeds in taking Greenland, nothing will stop Trump from moving on to take, if not Berlin, then almost anywhere else he chooses.
In short, Greenland has become the line in the sand that Donald Trump cannot be allowed to cross. The future of western democracies and the world order, not just NATO, are at stake. Put another way, Trump adviser Stephen Miller’s claim that “nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland,” [iii] must, if necessary, be proven wrong.
As with almost every other Trump initiative, there is no possible logical explanation for his current obsession with Greenland, nor is there any connection between his words and deeds. (This is, after all, the man who has railed for years against drug lords and “narco-terrorists”, going so far as to murder people on the high seas and kidnap the president of a sovereign state, while at the same time pardoning the former president of Honduras, who was convicted of trafficking 360 tons of cocaine into the United States and was serving a 45-year term in an American jail.)
So what is Trump’s ostensible reason for wanting to “take” Greenland? The answer, it seems, is the ubiquitous concept of “national security”. And why is this necessary? Because otherwise this obscure ice covered island will be taken by Russia or China, who are “everywhere” in the region. Yet China has shown zero interest in Greenland, nor has Russia, which already controls much of the Arctic as part of its own territory, and currently has its hands full with its four-year debacle in Ukraine.
As former State Department official Jeremy Shapiro bluntly put it, “The President’s arguments about Greenland are self-evidently bullshit from top to bottom.” His opinion is shared by many EU officials, who also fear Trump’s focus on Greenland will deflect NATO members from their focus on Ukraine. As one senior EU representative stated, “Russia thought it would take Kyiv in three days and has instead spent four years making very modest gains. The idea that they have the bandwidth to challenge the West in Greenland is ludicrous.”[iv]
According to another EU official, “If Trump is so concerned about Russian aggression he has ample ways to address that — most notably in Ukraine, where allies have pleaded for the president to take a harder line against Putin since he returned to office… his refusal to rule out a military takeover of Greenland (will) help Putin achieve his longtime aim of weakening Western alliances…Putin wants a weaker NATO and Trump is giving it to him.”[v]
Perhaps the most absurd part of this whole manufactured crisis is the fact that Trump does not need to “take” Greenland in order to heighten its defensive capacity. To begin with, in 1951, at the start of the Cold War, Denmark and the United States signed a treaty under the direction of NATO (both countries being member states) recognizing Danish sovereignty over Greenland but also allowing the Americans to build bases and station troops on the northern part of the island. And they did. At the height of the perceived threat of nuclear war and Russian aggression, the United States had some ten thousand troops stationed in northern Greenland. It had also built a number of research and weather stations along with the massive Thule Air Base that served as a communications and missile launch site.
However all but the Thule Base, (renamed the Pituffik Space Base in 2023) were closed decades ago on the advice of the U.S. Defence Department, which considered there was no longer any threat. In 2025 the American presence consisted of only 150 military and scientific personnel. But, as several Danish officials have noted, there is nothing to prevent the Americans from increasing their presence through this mechanism, which was never revoked.
Far more to the point, the Denmark of the early 1950’s was badly weakened economically and militarily by the events of World War II. The Denmark of today now spends some 3.4% of GDP on defence, one of the highest ratios of NATO members, and last fall announced an extra $4.2 billion package of defence expenditures for additional protection of Greenland and the Arctic.[vi]
Yet Trump persists in stating that the US must have “control” of Greenland, one way or another. “We can do this the easy way or the hard way”, he has said more than once, indicating that only outright ownership will be acceptable. Worse still, he has reiterated that force will be used if necessary to accomplish this if the Denmark and Greenland governments continue to refuse to “sell” the island to him. (Both Danish and Greenlandic prime ministers emphatically reiterated that position after unsuccessful discussions in Washington with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.)
On a positive note, the governments of several EU countries have recently joined together to push back on Trump’s outrageous claims. Germany, Sweden, France, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland and the UK have all agreed to send troops to the embattled island as part of an indefinite joint NATO “exercise” and the first contingent has already arrived.
Polish president Donald Tusk has stated that U.S. intervention in Greenland would be a “disaster.” Reinforcing the concerns expressed earlier by EU officials, he declared “I mean, a conflict or an attempt to take over the territory of a country that is a NATO member, by another NATO member state, and what’s more, it’s the United States, well, that would be the end of the world as we know it, which has guaranteed our security for decades.” [vii]
French president Emmanuel Macron, a leading figure in the European countries’ military response, was equally blunt. “France must be available to assess the threat, adapt, and stand alongside a sovereign state to protect its territory,” telling a group of assembled French soldiers “a new form of colonialism is at work among some,” and people “now live in a world where destabilizing forces have been awakened,” and Europe now has “competitors it did not expect to see.”[viii]
Sadly, but not surprisingly, Trump has responded to this defiance by upping the ante, introducing increasingly vengeful and ultimately counterproductive measures. For example, he immediately announced plans to impose a 10% tariff on “any and all goods” from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland starting February 1. This will increase to 25% on June 1 and continue until an agreement on Greenland is reached. This move predictably resulted in increased EU resistance, with the French president declaring that “no amount of intimidation” will cause European states to back down from their defence of Denmark and Greenland, while the Dutch prime minister described Trump’s latest move as outright “blackmail.” Meanwhile the European Parliament is now set to refuse to ratify the US-EU trade deal reached last summer and EU officials are describing the situation as a “downward spiral.”[ix]
In short, the good news is that Trump’s bullying tactics appear to be unifying rather than dividing European leaders, who are now demonstrating the discipline and resolve that Leonard Cohen’s protagonist thought they would not manage. The bad news is that Canada, also a member of NATO, appears to be Missing in Action. Two statements were issued with considerable fanfare last week supporting Greenland’s right to self-determination, the first signed by Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and the UK, and the second by Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland. Canada could, and should, have signed either or both. Instead, the prime minister verbally expressed ‘support’ for Greenland during a meeting with the Danish prime minister.
The government’s announcement that Governor General Mary Simon and Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand will officially open a Canadian consulate in the Greenland capital of Nuuk in February is another tepid, if not outright embarrassing, response to the Trump challenge. Surely we, too, are capable of sending a small contingent of soldiers to participate in the so-called ‘joint exercise’ of NATO and, as a member, are obligated to do so.
Then there is Canada’s role in NORAD and the Arctic Council, both institutions where alliances can be strengthened and resistance heightened. Note, for example, that there are already signs that elements of the American military are becoming increasingly unhappy with the direction their government is taking. A case in point is the firing of the commander of the US base in Greenland after the visit of Vice-President Vance last summer. Vance stated publicly that Denmark had “not done a good job” for Greenlanders and had not spent enough on security, after which Col Susannah Meyers sent out an email stating that his comments were “not reflective” of the Pituffik Space Base.”[x] Two days later she was removed from her post. Will more such firings be necessary in the near future?
And for those who caution that Canada must be timid because it is in a more difficult position than its European partners, due to the greater damage that Trump can cause to our economy, one might at least consider adopting the traditional role of Canada at the UN. A call for an emergency meeting of the Security Council would be an obvious first step, as Professor Michael Byers of UBC has noted. While the Americans would defeat any draft amendment presented there, it could then be submitted to the General Assembly, where its passage would be far more likely, and a Canadian diplomat could function as its sherpa.
Last but hardly least, Canada may want to consider playing a key role in bringing onside allies from outside Europe, such as Australia, New Zealand and Japan, in the defence of Greenland and the world order.
At the end of the day, either the bully will be stopped in his tracks or the situation will indeed become a downward spiral, one from which only Russia and China could benefit.
[i] “Leonard Cohen: 10 of his best songs”. The Guardian. 6 May 2015.
[ii] “Leonard Cohen: Remembering the Life and Legacy of the Poet of Brokenness”. Rolling Stone. 30 November 2016.
[iii] https://thehill.com/policy/international/5694105-stephen-miller-greenland-acquisition-defense/
[iv] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/16/europeans-befuddled-by-trumps-russian-rationale-for-greenland-00734955
[v] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/16/europeans-befuddled-by-trumps-russian-rationale-for-greenland-00734955
[vi] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9n790j878o
[vii] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/france-nato-countries-send-troops-greenland-exercises-after/story?id=129241103
[viii] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/france-nato-countries-send-troops-greenland-exercises-after/story?id=129241103
[ix] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/eu-set-halt-us-trade-211056932.html
