ROME — Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini faces a battle to save his far-right League party from electoral oblivion. The party’s internal crisis exploded into public view last week after Salvini’s maverick deputy, Roberto Vannacci, an ex-general and defender of fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, threatened to form a splinter party to the right of the League called National Future. Salvini seeks to play down the split with his No. 2, but Vannacci’s move revealed starkly how the League — a key part of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s right-wing ruling coalition — risks disintegrating as a political force before next year’s elections. Current and former party members told POLITICO that Salvini’s rift with Vannacci had exposed a deeper and potentially devastating factional struggle at the heart of the party — between moderates and extremists, and over whether the League should return to its roots ad seek northern autonomy from Rome. In the short term, weakness in the League could bring some relief to the Atlanticist, pro-NATO Meloni, who is prone to irritation at the anti-Ukrainian, Kremlin-aligned outbursts of Salvini and Vannacci, who are supposed to be her allies. In the longer term, however, the party’s full implosion would potentially make it harder for her to build coalitions and to maintain Italy’s unusually stable government. PUBLIC FEUD The tensions between Salvini and Vannacci became impossible to disguise last month. On Jan. 24 Vannacci registered a trademark for his new National Future party. He later distanced himself from an Instagram account announcing the party’s launch, but hinted on X that he could still turn to social media to launch a party when the time was ripe. “If I decide to open such channels, I will be sure to inform you,” he said. By Jan. 29 Salvini was in full firefighting mode. Speaking before the stately tapestries of the Sala della Regina in Italy’s parliament, he insisted there was “no problem.” “There is space for different sensibilities in the League … we want to build and grow, not fight,” he added, vowing to hold a meeting with Vannacci to set the relationship back on course. Many in the League are more hostile to Vannacci, however, particularly those alarmed by the former paratrooper’s placatory language about Mussolini and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. A powerful bloc in the League that is more socially moderate — and deeply committed to northern autonomy — is pressing for Salvini to take the initiative and fire Vannacci, according to two people involved in the party discussions. Daniele Albertazzi, a politics professor and expert on populism at the University of Surrey, said a schism looked imminent. “[Vannacci] is not going to spend years building someone else’s party,” Albertazzi said. “It’s clear he doesn’t want to play second fiddle to Salvini.” FROM ASSET TO LIABILITY Vannacci emerged from obscurity in 2023 with a self-published bestseller “The World Back to Front.” It espoused the Great Replacement Theory — a conspiracy that white populations are being deliberately replaced by non-whites — and branded gay people “not normal.” More recently he has stated he prefers Putin to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Vannacci emerged from obscurity in 2023, with a self-published bestseller “The World Back to Front.” | Nicola Ciancaglini/Ciancaphoto Studio/Getty Images Albertazzi said Vannacci was positioning himself on the extreme right. “You can see it even in the typography of his symbol [for National Future], which evokes the fascist era,” he said. Salvini originally identified the military veteran as a lifeline who could reverse the League’s flagging fortunes. Salvini had early success in transforming the League from a regional party “of the north” into a national force, and it won a record 34 percent of the Italian vote in the 2019 European elections. But by 2022 things were souring, and support collapsed to about 8 percent in the general election. Vannacci was brought in to broaden the party’s appeal and shore up his own leadership. The gamble initially paid off. In the 2024 European elections, Vannacci personally received more than 500,000 preference votes — roughly 1.5 percent of the national total —validating Salvini’s strategy. But Vannacci has since become a liability. He was responsible for a failed regional campaign in his native Tuscany in October and has flouted party discipline, building his own internal group, opening local branches and organizing rallies outside the League’s control, operating as “a party within a party.” In recent interviews Vannacci has increasingly flirted with the idea of going solo with his own party. For the traditional northern separatist camp in the League, Vannacci has gone too far. Luca Zaia, head of the Veneto regional assembly, a towering figure in northern politics, and three other major northern leaders are now demanding privately that he be expelled, according to two League insiders.  “His ideas are nationalist and fascist, and have never been compatible with the League,” said a party member, who was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive internal disputes. “The writing is on the page. Since the first provocation it has been clear that it is only a matter of when, not if, he starts his own party.”  An elected League official added: “Now if he gets votes it’s Salvini’s fault for giving him a ton of publicity. No one had heard of him before. He basically won the lottery.” Attilio Fontana, a senior League official who is president of the Lombardy region, said Vannacci’s actions raised questions for Salvini. “I think that if inside the party there are differences, that can enrich the party. But creating local branches, holding demonstrations outside the party, registering a new logo and website, this is an anomaly … these are issues that [Salvini] will be looking at,” he told reporters in Milan on Friday.  EVERY VOTE COUNTS There’s no guarantee any party Vannacci launches will be a success. Three leaders in his “World Back to Front” movement — seen as a precursor to his National Future party — quit on Friday, issuing a statement that described a lack of leadership and “permanent chaos.” But his party could upset the political landscape, even if he only peels off relatively minor support from the League. Meloni will have a close eye on the arithmetic of potential alliances in the run-up to next year’s election, particularly if left-wing parties team up against her. Giorgia Meloni will have a close eye on the arithmetic of potential alliances in the run-up to next year’s election. | Simona Granati/Corbis via Getty Images Polling expert Lorenzo Pregliasco of You Trend, which is canvassing a potential new party led by Vannacci, said it had a potential electorate on the right of the coalition of about 2 per cent,  among voters who had supported [Meloni’s] Brothers of Italy, League voters and non-voters with an anti immigrant, anti-political correctness stance, who are attracted by Vannacci’s outspokenness.  The potential party “poses some risks for Meloni and the coalition … It’s not a huge electorate but in national elections two points could make the difference between winning and not winning, or winning but with a very narrow majority that could mean you were not able to form a government.”  Vannacci “has been clever in putting himself forward as a provocative opinion leader and converted this into electoral success … He has the potential to be a strong media presence and central to political debate.” The northern separatist Pact for the North movement, led by former League MP Paolo Grimoldi, said Salvini’s reputation was now damaged because of the faith he put in Vannacci. While Salvini could resign and support an alternative figure such Zaia as League leader, this was extremely unlikely, Grimoldi told POLITICO. “If not, there aren’t tools to get rid of him before the next election,” he added.  “The result will be political irrelevance and electoral defeat [for the League].”

President Donald Trump’s quest to control Greenland is driving the news — and this time, it’s not a punchline. Trump has backed off threats of using force to take the island in favor of what he calls a framework that will give the U.S. access to the island. And on Friday, Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said the situation is still “serious” adding that the Scandinavian nation has “a path that we are in the process of trying with the Americans. We have always said that we are of course willing to make an agreement.” But whether the deal will work remains vague. Meanwhile, all of this has resulted in a flood of questions in Washington and abroad about whether Trump’s threats have been strategy, bluster, or something in between — and the long-term consequences for America’s standing with allies. We attempt to answer some of the most asked questions about the issue. What’s Trump’s interest in Greenland all about? Trump’s obsession with obtaining Greenland — which for decades has been controlled by U.S. ally Denmark — is ostensibly about keeping Americans safe. The president and his advisers increasingly describe Greenland as essential to ensuring American – and even European – security against encroaching threats from China and Russia. Why? Greenland sits astride key Arctic sea lanes that are becoming increasingly navigable as ice melts. It also hosts Pituffik Space Base, a critical U.S. military installation for missile warning, space surveillance and Arctic operations. To Trump, Greenland represents leverage: strategic location, military value and untapped natural resources. His interest in the island isn’t new. In 2019, Trump publicly floated buying Greenland, later describing it as “a large real estate deal.” At the time, it was mostly dismissed as a pipe dream from a mercurial president. But six years later, the once frivolous threat has alienated European allies and become one of the administration’s most important goals. Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, a global risk assessment firm in New York, said that Trump having captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by force has made his assertive “Donroe Doctrine” a “brand” — and emboldened him to take a more hostile posture toward Greenland and European allies. “He’s all in on having the brand,” said Bremmer, who is in Davos speaking with European allies. “Now he needs to populate it and have more ornaments on the tree. There has to be a next thing for the Donroe Doctrine. And Greenland was that thing.” Was Trump serious about invading Greenland? No. There is no legal or political pathway for the U.S. to seize Greenland without violating the sovereignty of NATO allies. Doing so would essentially end the alliance — not to mention violate international law. Trump and his aides were never seriously contemplating an invasion but refusing to rule it out publicly was an effort to increase Trump’s negotiating leverage. In the process, he incensed European leaders, who responded more forcefully than they ever had to his pressure, sending troops to Greenland for military exercises and weighing whether to deploy the European Union’s anti-economic coercion “bazooka” in response to increased Trump’s threat to impose U.S. tariffs. “For his first year, Europe has bit its tongue but worked with Trump to keep him on side,” said Charles Kupchan, a Europe specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations. “When the president of the United States is threatening to invade a NATO ally, it’s time for a different approach.” The stronger response worked. With global markets starting to plummet over fears of an escalating crisis, Trump finally made clear in his speech to Davos on Wednesday that he would not look to acquire Greenland with military force. But Trump’s new assurances have not fully allayed European anger or ongoing anxieties about a leader known for changing his mind and who has repeatedly treated force, coercion and brinkmanship as negotiating tools rather than a last resort. Trump’s governing style thrives on maximalist threats followed by selective walk-backs, leaving allies and adversaries alike unsure which statements are bluster, which are trial balloons and which could harden into policy. And so with this president, even ideas he claims are off the table, never fully are. What does Greenland — and Europe — think about all of this? They’re pissed. Greenland is a semi-autonomous, self-governing territory within Denmark, and its leaders have repeatedly said the island is not for sale. Local officials have also bristled at rhetoric that treats Greenland as an object rather than a society of 56,000 people with their own political aspirations, including long-term independence. “We are not in the situation where we are thinking that a takeover of the country might happen overnight,” Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said at a press conference earlier this month. “You cannot compare Greenland to Venezuela. We are a democratic country.” At the same time, Greenland’s government welcomes U.S. investment, security cooperation, and diplomatic engagement — so long as it comes with respect for Greenlandic autonomy. The Trumpian approach has strained that balance, fueling local skepticism even as U.S. military and economic ties deepen. Though Trump has backed off his invasion threats, “the damage was done,” Bremmer said. “They feel completely disrespected. They feel like Trump treats them with contempt.” How’s this playing in America? The reaction at home has been equally searing. “If there was any sort of action that looked like the goal was actually landing in Greenland and doing an illegal taking … there’d be sufficient numbers here to pass a war powers resolution and withstand a veto,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who recently traveled to Copenhagen, said last week. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) called Trump’s Greenland quest “the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.” According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, only 17 percent of Americans support the effort to acquire Greenland, while 47 percent disapprove and 35 percent remain unsure. Is the “framework” deal going to put an end to the effort to take Greenland? Trump announced in a vague post this week that he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte had agreed to a “framework of a future Arctic deal” on Greenland, which he described as giving the U.S. significant access to the island. But Denmark and Greenland have both strongly rejected any notion that sovereignty is negotiable or that a concrete transfer of control is underway. Though details are sparse, Trump said the U.S. got “everything we wanted,” adding that the deal is “infinite” and will last “forever.” He told reporters he’ll give more clarity on whether Denmark is on board in two weeks. How does it affect our European alliances? It reinforces a core anxiety many European allies already have about Trump: U.S. security commitments can blur into coercion when they collide with his personal priorities. “The European leaders believe it is primarily about ego,” Bremmer said. “When Trump is acting as an individual and not acting on behalf of the country, you can see how this is going to create conflict. It’s set up to create mistrust and conflict and undermine the relationship.” Even as Trump and his advisers insist his hunger for Greenland aligns with NATO interests, European leaders have warned that questioning a country’s sovereignty — even rhetorically — crosses a red line. In joint statements and public remarks, officials in NATO countries have stressed that Arctic security cooperation does not confer consent over territory, pushing back on what they see as a dangerous conflation of alliance coordination and unilateral pressure. “The American leadership of the transatlantic community was based on mutual trust, common values and interests, not on domination and coercion,” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Friday. “That is why it was accepted by all of us. Let’s not lose it, dear friends,” adding that is what he conveyed to other EU leaders on Thursday. Trump’s Greenland push has only intensified a clear undercurrent of administration-wide disdain for Europe, articulated over his first year in office via speeches, social media posts and an official national security strategy. In the weeks following his renewed Greenland push, Trump has only further alienated our European allies, claiming NATO has not been in America’s corner in the past. “We’ve never needed them,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News on Friday. “We have never really asked anything of them. You know, they’ll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan or this or that. And they did. They stayed a little back, a little off the front lines.” More than 40 countries following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks deployed troops to Afghanistan when the U.S. invoked NATO Article 5 for the first time ever. At peak years, allied forces made up roughly half of all non-Afghan troops in the country. More than 1,100 non-U.S. coalition troops were killed in Afghanistan, alongside many thousands wounded. Canada alone lost 158 soldiers and the U.K. lost 457. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer slammed Trump’s remarks Friday morning. “I consider President Trump’s remarks to be insulting and frankly appalling,” Starmer said. “I am not surprised they have caused such hurt to the loved ones of those who were killed or injured and, in fact, across the country.”

After two weeks of escalating threats toward Europe, President Donald Trump blinked on Wednesday, backing away from the unthinkable brink of a potential war against a NATO ally during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Trump’s vow not to use military force to seize Greenland from Denmark eased European fears about a worst-case scenario and prompted a rebound on Wall Street. And his declaration hours later after meeting with NATO’s leader that he may back off of his tariff threat having secured the “framework” of an agreement over Greenland continued a day of backpedaling on one of the most daring gambits of his presidency to date. But his continued heckling of allies as “ungrateful” for not simply giving the U.S. “ownership and title” of what he said was just “a piece of ice” did little to reverse a deepening sentiment among NATO leaders and other longtime allies that they can no longer consider the United States — for 80 years the linchpin of the transatlantic alliance — a reliable ally. “The takeaway for Europe is that standing up to him can work. There is relief, of course, that he’s taking military force off the table, but there is also an awareness that he could reverse himself,” said a European official who attended Trump’s speech and, like others interviewed for this report, was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Trump’s promises and statements are unreliable but his scorn for Europe is consistent. We will have to continue to show resolve and more independence because we can no longer cling to this illusion that America is still what we thought it was.” Trump’s abrupt about-face after weeks of refusing to take military intervention off the table comes a day after Greenland shock waves sent global markets plunging, wiping out over $1.2 trillion in value on the S&P 500 alone. The president’s policy shift mirrored a similar moment in April, when he quickly reversed sweeping tariffs after a market downfall tied to his policies. If Trump’s refusal to use the military to threaten Greenland and the U.S.’s NATO allies holds, it would represent a win for administration officials such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who on Tuesday counseled the Davos set not to overreact or escalate the fight with Trump, assuring concerned Europeans that things would work out soon. The threat of force appeared to have the strong backing of deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, who offered the most forceful articulation of those desires in an interview this month where he claimed that America was the rightful owner of Greenland and insisted the “real world” was one “that is governed by force, that is governed by power.” But Miller aside, most saw the threat of force as an attempt to create leverage for an eventual negotiation. If Trump were to have pursued using military force, there could have been pushback from his closest allies like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance, said a person close to the administration and granted anonymity to describe the private dynamics. “Do some senior administration people talk to their best friends in conservative world and media and basically say, ‘Yeah, I don’t know why we’re doing this?’ Sure, but I think those are all in confidence,” the person said. Increasingly, Europeans have been voicing their growing fears aloud. When Trump arrived in the snowy Swiss Alps Wednesday afternoon for this annual confab of business and political titans, the West remained on edge after the president announced last weekend that he intended to increase tariffs on several European countries that had sent troops to Greenland for military exercises. As they contemplated the fact that an American president was threatening the territorial sovereignty of one ally and turning to economic coercion tactics against others, European leaders strategized openly about retaliating in kind. That posture marked a major shift from Trump’s first year back in office, when European leaders put up a fight but ultimately and largely accepted his terms — NATO begrudgingly agreeing to spend more on defense, taking on all of the financial burden for Ukraine aid and the European Union accepting a 15 percent tariff on all exports to the U.S. — in order to keep the president from breaking with the alliance and abandoning Ukraine. But the president’s brazen challenge to Denmark over Greenland and shocking disregard for Europe’s territorial sovereignty amounted to a disruption that is orders of magnitude more concerning. Demanding that Denmark, a steadfast NATO ally, allow him to purchase Greenland — and, until Wednesday, holding out the prospect of using military force to seize it — threatened to cross a red line for Europe and effectively shatter 80 years of cooperation, upending an alliance structure that America largely built to avoid the very kind of imperialistic conquest Trump suddenly seems fixated on pursuing. “We’ve gone from uncharted territory to outer space,” said Charles Kupchan, the director of European studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former adviser to President Barack Obama. “This is not just strange and hard to understand. It borders on the unthinkable, and that’s why you’re seeing a different response from Europe than before Greenland was center stage.” Trump’s social media posts last weekend announcing that he intended to increase tariffs on the European countries that had sent troops to Greenland for training exercises drew harsh public responses from heads of state across Europe and prompted a flurry of private phone calls and even text messages — some of which the president shared on social media — urging him to work with them more constructively to address security in the Arctic. That didn’t stop Trump on Wednesday from continuing to assert an intention to acquire Greenland through negotiations, despite an overwhelming majority of Greenlanders being opposed to living under U.S. control. “Let’s not be too cheerful on him excluding violence, as that was outrageous in the first place,” said a second European official in Davos. “And his narrative on Greenland is BS. It should be called out.” Trump, who met with European leaders to discuss Greenland on Wednesday afternoon, suggested in his remarks that the U.S. acquiring the massive island between the Arctic and North Atlantic was in the best interests of Europe as well as America’s. “It’s the United States alone that can protect this giant, massive land, this giant piece of ice, develop it and make it so that it’s good for Europe and safe for Europe,” he said. “You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no and we will remember,” Trump continued. Those words did not appear to fully allay the growing anxieties of democratic leaders that the world is spinning in a new and frightening direction, away from decades of relative peace and stability and back to a prewar era of global conquest. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, addressing Davos on Tuesday ahead of Trump’s arrival, was emphatic in declaring that there is no going back. “Every day we are reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry,” Carney said. “That the rules-based order is fading. That the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” Calling for democratic nations to take steps to lessen their reliance on the U.S. and their vulnerability to pressure from this White House, Carney urged other leaders to accept a new reality that, in his view, the longstanding postwar order was already gone. “Let me be direct: We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.” Trump made it clear on Wednesday that he saw Carney’s remarks, alluding to Canada’s reliance on the U.S. and going as far to suggest that its safety continues to depend on American defense technology. “They should be grateful to us,” he said. “Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, next time you make your statement.” The implied threat, in a way, may have underscored the Canadian leader’s point. With persistent threats of higher tariffs from the White House even after Trump backed off his saber rattling over annexing the country, Canada has looked to rebalance its trade relationships with other countries, including China, to reduce its economic dependence on the U.S. In Europe, leaders may be following suit. Just last week, Brussels approved a landmark free trade agreement with the Mercosur bloc of South American countries, a long-sought deal that took on greater urgency in recent months to provide Europe with a bulwark against Trump’s protectionism and coercive economic measures. There is still hope in Europe that Trump will eventually accept something less than U.S. ownership of Greenland, especially after his apparent walkbacks Wednesday on the threats of tariffs and military force. That could include accepting a standing offer from Denmark to boost America’s military presence on the island, not to mention economic cooperation agreements to develop natural resources there as climate change makes mineral deposits more accessible. But European leaders increasingly seem to accept that there are limits to their ability to control Trump — and are looking to hedge their reliance on the U.S. as urgently as possible. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former Danish prime minister and secretary general of NATO, wrote this week that it’s time for Europe to shift its posture toward the U.S. from one of close allies to a more self-protective stance defined by a stronger military and reciprocal tariffs. “Mr. Trump, like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, believes in power and power only,” he wrote, likening the U.S. president to the leaders of Russia and China. “Europe must be prepared to play by those same rules.” Trump’s threats against Denmark have obliterated the long-held view about the U.S., that after 80 years of standing up to imperialist conquerors from Adolf Hitler’s Germany to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Washington would always be the tip of the spear when it came to enforcing a world order founded on shared democratic ideals. Suddenly, that spear is being turned against its longtime allies. “The jewel in the crown of our power and of our role in the world has always been our alliance system,” said Jeremy Shapiro, a veteran of the State Department under the President Barack Obama administration who is now a fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. Shapiro noted that the U.S. has at times still employed hard power since the end of World War II, especially in its own hemisphere. But overall, American foreign policy has largely been defined by its reliance on soft power, which he said “ is much less expensive, it is much less coercive, it is much more moral and ethical, and it’s more durable.” Returning to the law of the jungle and a world where larger powers gobble up smaller ones, Shapiro continued, will make the U.S. more like Russia and China — the two countries he claims threaten U.S. interests in Greenland — and weaker over the long term. “Moving from our trusted methods to Putin’s methods is worse than a crime,” he said. “It’s an idiocy.”

BRUSSELS — After decades spent lambasting European politicians, Michael O’Leary is now targeting Donald Trump and Elon Musk. In less than a week, the outspoken Ryanair boss slammed both the U.S. president and his on-again, off-again supporter Musk. The latter hit back on social media, launching a feud and threatening to buy the Irish airline just to fire O’Leary, a proposal the airline CEO called “Twitshit.” Everyone involved is a seasoned infotainment warrior — they’ve all used outrageous attacks and language to further their financial and political goals. But this fight is putting O’Leary into a different league; his targets are a lot richer and more powerful than his normal punching bags of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, officials from Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium or UK Reform leader Nigel Farage. After telling POLITICO that Trump was “a liar” and taking aim at the U.S. president’s foreign policy and tariffs he said were harming business, O’Leary told Irish radio that Musk was “an idiot” in response to the world’s richest man calling him “misinformed” about the cost of installing Starlink systems on its fleet. Ryanair has publicly ruled out installing Starlink across its more than 600 Boeing 737s, arguing the external antennas would increase drag and fuel consumption. O’Leary’s keenness to scrap with Trump and Musk contrasts sharply with the approach taken by most of his fellow CEOs, who often balk at crossing the powerful. But insulting politicians and rivals is part of O’Leary’s DNA. He’s also insulated from blowback because his airline doesn’t fly to the U.S.; because it’s one of Boeing’s largest customers; and because Ryanair is protected against a hostile Musk acquisition by EU rules mandating that airlines have to be majority-owned by EU shareholders. The online scuffle escalated quickly, with Musk calling O’Leary “a retarded twat” and O’Leary telling Musk on Wednesday “to join the back of a very, very, very, very long queue of people who already think I’m a ‘retarded twat,’ including my four teenage children.” The airline said it was “launching a Great Idiots seat sale especially for Elon and any other idiots.” So far, Trump hasn’t responded to needling from O’Leary. But the dissing contest is more than a casual brawl among tycoons. It reflects what O’Leary has been doing for a long time in Europe: offending anyone who crosses his path, getting public attention and selling more tickets. After days of mutual insults between the flamboyant airline chief and his quasi-equivalent in the space industry with come-and-go ties to the White House, O’Leary offered Musk “a free ride air ticket, to thank him for the wonderful boost in publicity which has seen our bookings rise significantly.” “They’re up about 2 or 3 percent in the last five days,” he added at a press conference in Dublin. The company’s shares were also up over 2 percent on Wednesday. “O’Leary’s complaint about Starlink was an absolutely classic Michael O’Leary complaint: operationally driven, cost-based, almost certainly technically correct, quite probably an attempt to negotiate the price down by Musk,” said Andrew Charlton, managing director of the Aviation Advocacy consultancy. O’Leary confirmed on Wednesday that he had been in talks for over a year with Starlink and its rivals Amazon and Vodafone to provide Wi-Fi on Ryanair planes at no extra cost to passengers. This is just the latest cost-cutting crusade taken by the Irish businessman, who spent the first weeks of the new year threatening to slash flights to and from Belgium over a ticket tax increase of less than €10. “He’s the Trump of aviation, the same kind of idiot,” said Toto Bongiorno, a former union leader from Belgium’s now-defunct flag carrier, Sabena. “He’s the guy who once said he was going to allow standing seats on planes. He’s the one who said people would have to pay to use the [onboard] toilets at some point,” Bongiorno told the Belgian TV channel LN24. “He invented a different way of doing aviation.” CURSING DOESN’T COST In a market previously dominated by flag carriers that offered larger seats and free luggage, drinks and snacks — but also charged higher prices and occasionally received state aid from governments — Ryanair and other low-cost European airlines, such as easyJet and Wizz Air, have gained market share thanks to cheaper airfares and minimal extras. However, O’Leary built Ryanair not only by slashing costs at the expense of the passenger experience; he also harangued European leaders, demanding fewer rules and lower taxes. Von der Leyen is often referred to as “Derlayed-Again” by Ryanair due to her alleged failure to guarantee the right of airlines to overfly countries affected by air traffic controller strikes. After Ryanair was fined by Spain’s Minister for Consumer Affairs Pablo Bustinduy for unfair practices, O’Leary called him “a crazy Spanish communist minister” and showed a cardboard cutout of Bustinduy dressed as a clown and wearing an apron with the words “I raise prices.” Now it’s Trump’s turn. “If Trump threatens Europe with tariffs, Europe should respond in like measure and Trump will chicken out. He generally does,” O’Leary said on Wednesday. 

The world has been rewired. The post-war order is fragmenting, public pessimism has reached crisis levels, and the gap between elite and public opinion is wider than ever. The FGS Global Radar 2026 — drawing on 175 interviews with senior leaders and polling nearly 20,000 people across 27 democracies — maps the new terrain. For leaders gathering in Davos this week, understanding it is critical. Via FGS Global Previous Radar reports were defined by volatility and uncertainty. These remain constants. But in 2026, the shape of the world is now more clearly defined — and the question for leaders is whether they can see it clearly enough to navigate it. A rewired world The multilateral consensus in place since World War II — guided by international institutions and liberal democracies — is being rewritten. Those institutions are weakening, with strongman leaders increasingly calling the shots within their own spheres of influence. > The post-war rules-based order is fragmenting into spheres of influence, with > transactional relationships and strongman leadership supplanting shared > values. As one expert put it: “The post-war rules-based order is fragmenting into spheres of influence, with transactional relationships and strongman leadership supplanting shared values.” The United States and China are now in fierce, direct competition for dominance — across trade, technology and an emerging space race. Gray zone conflict will be common. The rest of the world is having to align accordingly, navigating constantly shifting sands. For those gathering in Davos, the implications are stark. We are shifting from “What are our shared principles?” to “What can you do for me?” As another expert observed: “America doesn’t have anyone’s back anymore.” Our polling finds that seven in 10 people want their country to be more assertive of national interests, even if this creates friction with others. Nationalist sentiment is ascending. And Europe? “If Trump and Xi are talking, Europe isn’t even at the table.” The elite-public divide This year’s Radar report reveals something leaders at Davos must confront directly: a profound and widening gap between elite opinion and public sentiment. Ideas widely favored by leaders — letting artificial intelligence flourish, cutting spending, incentivizing entrepreneurs — are roundly opposed by voters. More troubling still, the public is susceptible to populist claims that difficult trade-offs don’t need to be made. In our poll, most people agreed: “There are clear and easy solutions to the big challenges facing the country, if only we had better political leaders.” > We are shifting from ‘What are our shared principles?’ to ‘What can you do for > me?’ We are living in a K-shaped world. The winners are high-income earners and technology industries. Those on lower incomes and in traditional sectors are struggling. Most people across the 27 countries polled expect to be worse off next year; only those on high incomes believe they will be better off. The cost of living remains the most important issue across generations and political affiliations. This feeds directly into attitudes on tax. Large majorities want more of the burden borne by business and the wealthy. Sixty-four percent support a wealth tax. These are not fringe positions — they are mainstream sentiment across developed democracies. The generational divide compounds the problem. Fifty-four percent of 18-34 year olds believe too much support goes to the elderly. Fifty percent of over-55s think too much goes to the young. Each generation feels the other is getting a better deal. And across all age groups, 73 percent believe life will be harder for the next generation. Pessimism at crisis levels Public confidence has been eroding for years. But the mood has now intensified to a crisis point. Across all 27 countries polled, 76 percent say their country feels divided. Sixty-eight percent believe their political system is failing and needs fundamental reform. Sixty-two percent feel their national identity is disappearing. > Pessimism on this scale, replicated across democracies, isn’t normal — and may > not be sustainable. To be clear: pessimism on this scale, replicated across democracies, isn’t normal — and may not be sustainable. It is fueling political instability and populism. Systems and governments that appear analog in a digital world, and fail to deliver better outcomes, will increasingly be challenged. Trust in traditional institutions continues to collapse. Sixty-one percent believe mainstream media have their own agenda and cannot be trusted. The hierarchy of trust is stark: medical doctors at 85 percent, big business at 41 percent, ChatGPT at 34 percent and politicians at just 22 percent. Perhaps most striking: 47 percent of people report feeling disconnected from society. When presented with the Matrix dilemma — a choice between blissful ignorance and complex reality — a quarter chose ignorance. Among Gen Z, it rises to over a third. Disengagement is becoming a generational norm. Europe’s pivotal moment For European leaders, the report offers both warning and opportunity. Our polling finds overwhelming support — 70-80 percent — in every EU country for major reform and stronger control of national borders. The Draghi and Letta reports are seen as offering the most coherent reform roadmap in years, but implementation is stuck at just 11 percent. As one expert noted: “Things are bad — but not so bad people are willing to be pushed through a pain barrier.” That may not remain true for long. What leaders must do The Radar concludes with a clear message: in a rewired world, long-term strategy matters more than ever. “If you haven’t got a strategy, you’re lost,” said one leader we interviewed. But strategy alone is not enough. The next most cited quality was agility — the ability to move fast and adapt. One compelling analogy: leaders need satellite navigation. Be clear on your destination, but flexible on how you get there. “You need a North Star, but like a GPS, you’re going to have to re-route — roadworks, delays, traffic jams.” Authenticity emerged as essential. “Authenticity by definition is infinitely durable. You are what you are.” And finally, storytelling: “Social media divides us, hates complexity, kills concentration. Nothing sticks. Leaders must repeat their message relentlessly.” Strategy. Agility. Authenticity. Storytelling. These are what 2026 demands. Download the full FGS Global Radar 2026 report here: https://fgsglobal.com/radar.

Denmark’s top military commander in the Arctic pushed back against claims that Greenland is facing an imminent security threat from Russia or China, undercutting a narrative repeatedly advanced by U.S. President Donald Trump. “No. We don’t see a threat from China or Russia today,” Major General Søren Andersen, commander of Denmark’s Joint Arctic Command in Greenland, said in an interview with the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, of which POLITICO is a part. “But we look into a potential threat, and that is what we are training for.” Andersen, who has headed the Joint Arctic Command since 2023, stressed that the stepped-up Danish and allied military activity around Greenland is not a response to an immediate danger, but preparation for future contingencies.  Once the war in Ukraine ends, he said, Moscow could redirect military resources to other regions. “I actually expect that we will see Russian resources that are being taken from the theater around Ukraine into other theaters,” Andersen said, pointing to the Baltic Sea and the Arctic region. That assessment has driven Denmark’s decision to expand exercises and invite European allies to operate in and around Greenland under harsh winter conditions, part of what Copenhagen has framed as strengthening NATO’s northern flank. Troops from several European countries have already deployed under Denmark’s Operation Arctic Endurance exercise, which includes air, maritime and land components. The remarks stand in contrast to Trump’s repeated claims that Greenland is under active pressure from Russia and China and his insistence that the island is vital to U.S. national security.  “In the meantime, you have Russian destroyers and submarines, and China destroyers and submarines all over the place,” Trump told reporters on Sunday about his pursuit to make Greenland part of the United States. “We’re not going to let that happen.” Trump has argued Washington cannot rule out the use of force to secure its interests, comments that have alarmed Danish and Greenlandic leaders. Andersen declined to engage directly with those statements, instead emphasizing NATO unity and longstanding cooperation with U.S. forces already stationed at Pituffik Space Base. He also rejected hypothetical scenarios involving conflict between allies, saying he could not envision one NATO country attacking another. Despite rising political tensions with Washington, Andersen said the United States was formally invited to participate in the exercise. “I hope that also that we will have U.S. troops together with German, France or Canadian, or whatever force that will train, because I think we have to do this together.”

BRUSSELS — The need for the EU to respond to multiple global crises means world affairs are likely to encroach on a leaders’ summit next month that was supposed to be solely a brainstorm on how to boost the bloc’s flagging industries. Discussions over February’s informal European Council agenda — the first face-to-face sit-down of the year — reveal the competing short and long-term pressures facing Brussels, as it works to cut the economy’s reliance on the U.S. and China. Pedro Lourtie, chief of staff to European Council President António Costa, met ambassadors on Wednesday to discuss preparations for the summit, scheduled for Feb. 12 at  Alden Biesen, a castle in the eastern Belgian countryside. Costa called the gathering as an extraordinary session to focus on competitiveness issues. But that was before U.S. President Donald Trump amped up his efforts to take control of Greenland from Denmark and launched a new round of talks with both Russia and Ukraine. An informal summit in Copenhagen last year ended with a number of planned issues left unresolved because of time constraints, with diplomats and officials keen to ensure that does not happen this time. Ambassadors used their meeting with Lourtie to say the agenda would need to give their leaders sufficient space to debrief on transatlantic relations and the threat from Moscow. “There was broad support from a large number of countries saying that there needs to be adequate time for the discussion of the big geopolitical issues that leaders will also want to talk about,” said one of the diplomats, granted anonymity to speak freely about the closed-door talks. “That will need to happen to make sure we can also talk about the important issue of competitiveness.” Global issues “may demand leaders’ attention” and Costa will ensure there’s enough time for that discussion, a Council official said. Hungary was skeptical about the move, the diplomats said. Budapest has refused to join other capitals in condemning Trump’s efforts to take control of Greenland from Denmark, and pursued closer relations with both China and Russia. The competitiveness debate is expected to include two elements: external threats including unpredictable trade barriers imposed by the U.S. and Beijing’s hostile trade policies, and internal threats like energy prices and red tape for industry. Hungary wants to focus primarily on the second point, the diplomats said. Victor Jack contributed to this report.

France will boost its military presence in Greenland in the coming days, President Emmanuel Macron said Thursday, as U.S. President Donald Trump continues to ramp up pressure in his bid to annex the Danish territory. “An initial team of French soldiers is already on site and will be reinforced in the coming days by land, air and sea assets,” Macron told an audience of top military brass during his new year address to the armed forces. “France and Europeans must continue, wherever their interests are threatened, to be present without escalation, but uncompromising on respect for territorial sovereignty,” he added, speaking in Istres, an airbase in the south of France that hosts nuclear-capable warplanes. On Wednesday, several European nations including France, Germany, Sweden and Norway said they would send troops to Greenland to participate in a Danish military exercise, amid repeated threats by Trump that the U.S. could use force to seize the island. After a White House meeting on Wednesday, Denmark and Greenland “still have a fundamental disagreement” with the U.S., Denmark said. In an obvious jab at Trump, who he didn’t mention by name, Macron criticized “a new colonialism that is at work among some.” Europeans have the means to be less dependent on the U.S., he added, revealing that two-thirds of Ukraine’s intelligence capabilities are now provided by France. In an address to his Cabinet on Wednesday, Macron warned that if the United States seized Greenland from Denmark, it would trigger a wave of “unprecedented” consequences, a government spokesperson said. The French president convened a defense council meeting Thursday morning to discuss both the Iranian uprising and the situation in Greenland, POLITICO reported.  MORE MONEY FOR DEFENSE Macron started increasing defense spending again as soon as he was elected in 2017, even before Russia’s full-scale attack on Ukraine and NATO’s commitment to boost budgets. The French president confirmed that France would seek to increase defense spending by €36 billion between 2026 and 2030, adding he wants the updated military planning law to be voted by parliament by July 14. “This decade of French rearmament is bearing fruit … and rearmament efforts will continue,” he told the audience. However,  the military planning law has been delayed by France’s spiralling political crisis. It was initially scheduled for last fall and has already been put off several times. As well, the €6.7 billion boost for 2026 still hasn’t been approved by lawmakers, and it’s unclear whether (and when) the government will manage to convince MPs to pass this year’s budget. In another jab at Trump, Macron said Paris wasn’t increasing military expenditures to “please this or that ally, but based on our analysis of the threat.” That’s a reference to last year’s NATO decision to set a new defense spending target of 5 percent of GDP — following significant pressure from the U.S. president. The three main priorities for France’s spending boost are: to increase munition stocks; to develop sovereign capabilities in air defense, early warning systems, space and deep strikes; and to improve the ability of the armed forces to engage swiftly. “This year will be a test of credibility in many ways, and we are ready,” Macron said. SLAMMING THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY The French president, who has a history of shaking up the defense industry, also criticized the country’s military contractors — arguing some of them risked being “forced out of the market” for slow innovation and deliveries. “I want to ask even more of you. We need to produce faster, produce in volume, and further increase mass production with lighter systems and innovative methods,” Macron said. “I need an industry that does not consider the French armed forces as a captive customer. We may seek European solutions if they are faster or more efficient. We too must be more European in our own purchasing and in our industrial strategies.” The French state usually buys mostly French military equipment, but Paris is increasingly opening its wallet to other Europeans, most recently by signing a deal with Sweden’s Saab to purchase GlobalEye surveillance and control aircraft. France is also “late” when it comes to drones because French companies didn’t set up enough partnerships with Ukrainians and are now being overtaken by rivals, he said. Although he bashed France’s military industrial complex, Macron did pat Paris on the back for its long-standing skepticism of relying too much on the U.S. and its calls for strategic autonomy and a European pillar within NATO. “What was initially a French conviction in the face of the evolving threat has become obvious for Europeans,” Macron told the audience. “We were right to start, even on our own.”

President Donald Trump has linked his desire to own Greenland with the development of his nascent missile defense shield, Golden Dome. Except that he doesn’t need to seize the Danish territory to accomplish his goal. Golden Dome, Trump’s pricey vision to protect the U.S., is a multi-layered defense shield intended to block projectiles heading toward the country. The president announced a $175 billion, three-year plan last year, although gave few details about how the administration would fund it. “The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security,” Trump said Wednesday in a Truth Social post. “It is vital for the Golden Dome we are building.” But the country already has the access it needs in Greenland to host interceptors that could knock down enemy missiles. And the U.S. has other locations it could place similar defense systems — think New York or Canada — if many of the interceptors are even based on land, instead of space as envisioned. “The right way for the U.S. to engage with an ally to improve our homeland defense — whether through additional radars, communication antennas or even interceptor sites — is to engage collaboratively with that ally,” said a former defense official. “If strengthening homeland defense is the actual goal, this administration is off to a truly terrible start.” Here are three reasons why Golden Dome has little to do with Trump’s desire to take Greenland: HE COULD HAVE JUST ASKED DENMARK The U.S. military’s presence in Greenland centers on Pituffik Space Base, which operates under a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark that grants the U.S. regular access to the island. The base is a key outpost for detecting threats from the Arctic, although it doesn’t host any interceptor systems. If the Pentagon wanted to station interceptors or more sensors on the island, the U.S. could simply work with Denmark to do so, according to the former official and a defense expert. Greenland has been part of the U.S. homeland missile defense and space surveillance network for decades and it would continue that role under Golden Dome, said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “We already have unfettered access to what we need for Golden Dome in Greenland, but the president talks as if he’s not aware of that,” Harrison said. “His statements about Greenland are detached from reality.” The White House, when asked for comment, pointed to Trump’s post. HE COULD CHOOSE SOMEWHERE ELSE — THAT THE U.S. OWNS Greenland could prove a good location for ground-based interceptors that block missiles launching from Russia and the Middle East towards the U.S. But the U.S. has other options for interceptor locations, and none would necessitate taking another country (a seizure that could threaten to destroy the NATO alliance). The Pentagon has examined potential locations for interceptor sites and Fort Drum, an Army base in upstate New York, has routinely survived deep dive analysis by the Missile Defense Agency, said the former defense official, who, like others interviewed, was granted anonymity to speak about internal discussions. “Compared to Fort Drum, Greenland does not appear to be a better location for such interceptors,” the person said. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Ala.) has also said his state could play a “critical role” in housing interceptors. MUCH OF THE DEFENSE SHIELD IS SUPPOSED TO BE BASED IN SPACE Trump’s assertion about needing Greenland for Golden Dome also raises questions about what the multibillion-dollar architecture will actually look like. The Pentagon has largely avoided discussing the price tag publicly. And officials originally envisioned most of it located above the Earth. A key part of Golden Dome is space-based interceptors — weapons orbiting the planet that can shoot down incoming missiles. But moving missile defense systems to space would require fewer ground-based systems, negating the importance of acquiring more land for the effort. “If Golden Dome’s sensor network and defenses are primarily space-based — as per the current plan — Greenland might still be of value,” said a former defense official. “But less so than it would be for terrestrial architecture.”

Donald Trump wants the U.S. to own Greenland. The trouble is, Greenland already belongs to Denmark and most Greenlanders don’t want to become part of the U.S. While swooping into Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, and taking over Venezuela-style seems fanciful ― even if the military attack on Caracas seems to have provided a jolt to all sides about what the U.S. is capable of ― there’s a definite pathway. And Trump already appears to be some way along it. Worryingly for the Europeans, the strategy looks an awful lot like Vladimir Putin’s expansionist playbook. POLITICO spoke with nine EU officials, NATO insiders, defense experts and diplomats to game out how a U.S. takeover of the mineral-rich and strategically important Arctic island could play out. “It could be like five helicopters … he wouldn’t need a lot of troops,” said a Danish politician who asked for anonymity to speak freely. “There would be nothing they [Greenlanders] could do.” STEP 1: INFLUENCE CAMPAIGN TO BOOST GREENLAND’S INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT Almost immediately upon taking office, the Trump administration began talking up independence for Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. An unshackled Greenland could sign deals with the U.S., while under the status quo it needs Copenhagen’s approval. To gain independence, Greenlanders would need to vote in a referendum, then negotiate a deal that both Nuuk and Copenhagen must approve. In a 2025 opinion poll, 56 percent of Greenlanders said they would vote in favor of independence, while 28 percent said they would vote against it. Americans with ties to Trump have carried out covert influence operations in Greenland, according to Danish media reports, with Denmark’s security and intelligence service, PET, warning the territory “is the target of influence campaigns of various kinds.” Felix Kartte, a digital policy expert who has advised EU institutions and governments, pointed to Moscow’s tactics for influencing political outcomes in countries such as Moldova, Romania and Ukraine. “Russia mixes offline and online tactics,” he said. “On the ground, it works with aligned actors such as extremist parties, diaspora networks or pro-Russian oligarchs, and has been reported to pay people to attend anti-EU or anti-U.S. protests. “At the same time, it builds large networks of fake accounts and pseudo-media outlets to amplify these activities online and boost selected candidates or positions. The goal is often not to persuade voters that a pro-Russian option is better, but to make it appear larger, louder and more popular than it really is, creating a sense of inevitability.” Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, told CNN on Monday that “nobody is going to fight the U.S. militarily over the future of Greenland.” | Joe Raedle/Getty Images On Greenland, the U.S. appears to be deploying at least some of these methods. Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, told CNN on Monday that “nobody is going to fight the U.S. militarily over the future of Greenland.” Last month, Trump created the position of special envoy to Greenland and appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry to the role. He declared his goal was to “make Greenland a part of the U.S.”  Meanwhile, U.S. Vice President JD Vance, on a visit to the territory in March, said “the people of Greenland are going to have self-determination.” He added: “We hope that they choose to partner with the United States, because we’re the only nation on Earth that will respect their sovereignty and respect their security.” STEP 2: OFFER GREENLAND A SWEET DEAL Assuming its efforts to speed up Greenland’s independence referendum come to fruition, and the territory’s inhabitants vote to leave Denmark behind, the next step would be to bring it under U.S. influence. One obvious method would be to fold Greenland into the U.S. as another state — an idea those close to the president have repeatedly toyed with. Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was on Monday forced to say that “the U.S. has no right to annex” Greenland after Katie Miller — the wife of Stephen Miller — posted to social media a map of the territory draped in a U.S. flag and the word “SOON.” A direct swap of Denmark for the U.S. seems largely unpalatable to most of the population. The poll mentioned above also showed 85 percent of Greenlanders oppose the territory becoming part of the U.S., and even Trump-friendly members of the independence movement aren’t keen on the idea. But there are other options. Reports have circulated since last May that the Trump administration wants Greenland to sign a Compact of Free Association (COFA) — like those it currently has with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau. Under the deals, the U.S. provides essential services, protection and free trade in exchange for its military operating without restriction on those countries’ territory. The idea resurfaced this week. Kuno Fencker, a pro-independence Greenlandic opposition MP who attended Trump’s inauguration and met with Republican Congressman Andy Ogles last year, said he tries to “explain to [the Americans] that we don’t want to be like Puerto Rico, or any other territory of the United States. But a Compact of Free Association, bilateral agreements, or even opportunities and other means which maybe I can’t imagine — let them come to the table and Greenlanders will decide in a plebiscite.” Compared to Nuuk’s deal with Copenhagen, things “can only go upwards,” he said.  Referring to Trump’s claim that the U.S. has a “need” for Greenland, Fencker added: “Denmark has never said that they ‘needed’ Greenland. Denmark has said that Greenland is an expense, and they would leave us if we become independent. So I think it’s a much more positive remark than we have ever seen from Denmark.” But Thomas Crosbie, an associate professor of military operations at the Royal Danish Defense College that provides training and education for the Danish defense forces, warned that Greenland is unlikely to get the better of Trump in a negotiation. “Trump’s primary identity as a deal-maker is someone who forces his will on the people he’s negotiating with, and someone who has a very long track record of betraying people who he’s negotiated deals with, not honoring his commitments, both in private and public life, and exploiting those around him … I really see zero benefits to Greenlandic people other than a very temporary boost to their self esteem.” And, he added, “it would be crazy to agree to something in the hope that a deal may come. I mean, if you give away your territory in the hopes that you might get a deal afterwards — that would be just really imprudent.” STEP 3: GET EUROPE ON BOARD Europe, particularly Denmark’s EU allies, would balk at any attempt to cleave Greenland away from Copenhagen. But the U.S. administration does have a trump card to play on that front: Ukraine. As peace negotiations have gathered pace, Kyiv has said that any deal with Putin must be backed by serious, long-term U.S. security guarantees. Meanwhile, U.S. Vice President JD Vance, on a visit to the territory in March, said “the people of Greenland are going to have self-determination.” | Pool photo by Tom Brenner vis Getty Images The Americans have prevaricated on that front, and in any case, Kyiv is skeptical about security guarantees, given those it has received from both Russia and the West in the past have amounted to nothing. One potential scenario an EU diplomat floated would be a security-for-security package deal, under which Europe gets firmer assurances from the Trump administration for Ukraine in exchange for an expanded role for the U.S. in Greenland. While that seems like a bitter pill, it could be easier to swallow than the alternative, annoying Trump, who may retaliate by imposing sanctions, pulling out of peace negotiations — or by throwing his weight behind Putin in negotiations with Ukraine. STEP 4: MILITARY INVASION But what if Greenland — or Denmark, whose “OK” Nuuk needs to secede — says no to Trump? A U.S. military takeover could be achieved without much difficulty.  Crosbie, from the Royal Danish Defense College, said Trump’s strategists are likely presenting him with various options. “The most worrisome would be a fait accompli-type strategy, which we see a lot and think about a lot in military circles, which would be simply grabbing the land the same way Putin tried to grab, to make territorial claims, over Ukraine. He could just simply put troops in the country and just say that it’s American now … the United States military is capable of landing any number of forces on Greenland, either by air or by sea, and then claiming that it’s American territory.” According to Lin Mortensgaard, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies and an expert on Greenlandic security, Washington also has around 500 military officers, including local contractors, on the ground at its northern Pituffik Space Base and just under 10 consulate staff in Nuuk. That’s alongside roughly 100 National Guard troops from New York who are usually deployed seasonally in the Arctic summer to support research missions.  Greenland, meanwhile, has few defenses. The population has no territorial army, Mortensgaard said, while Denmark’s Joint Arctic Command in the capital includes scant and out-of-date military assets, largely limited to four inspection and navy vessels, a dog-sled patrol, several helicopters and one maritime patrol aircraft. As a result, if Trump mobilizes the U.S. presence on the ground — or flies in special forces — the U.S. could seize control of Nuuk “in half an hour or less,” Mortensgaard said. “Mr. Trump says things and then he does them,” said Danish Member of European Parliament Stine Bosse. “If you were one of 60,000 people in Greenland, you would be very worried.” Any incursion would have no “legal basis” under U.S. and international law, said Romain Chuffart, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Arctic Institute, a security think tank. Any occupation beyond 60 days would also require approval from the U.S. Congress.  Meanwhile, an invasion would “mean the end of NATO,” he said, and the “U.S. would be … shooting itself in the foot and waving goodbye to an alliance it has helped create.” Beyond that, a “loss of trust by key allies … could result in a reduction in their willingness to share intelligence with the U.S. or a reduction in access to bases across Europe,” said Ben Hodges, a former commander of U.S. troops in Europe. “Both of these would be severely damaging to America’s security.” Reports have circulated since last May that the Trump administration wants Greenland to sign a Compact of Free Association (COFA) — like those it currently has with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau. | Joe Raedle/Getty Images NATO would be left unable to respond, given that military action must be approved unanimously and the U.S. is the key member of the alliance, but European allies could deploy troops to Greenland via other groupings such as the U.K.-Scandinavian Joint Expeditionary Force or the five-country Nordic Defence Cooperation format, said Ed Arnold, a senior fellow at the Royal United Services Institute. But for now, NATO allies remain cool-headed about an attack. “We are still far from that scenario,” said one senior alliance diplomat. “There could be some tough negotiations, but I don’t think we are close to any hostile takeover.” Max Griera, Gerardo Fortuna and Seb Starcevic contributed reporting.