Soccer Match Poised for Decisive Moment

Former President Donald Trump’s recent claims about needing to acquire Greenland for American security interests have been dismissed as propaganda by a Norwegian defense expert, who warns that such rhetoric serves to create uncertainty and division among NATO allies.

Paul Buvarp, a researcher at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment specializing in influence operations and disinformation, challenged Trump’s assertions that the United States faces significant threats from Russia and China in Greenland.

“That Russia and China pose major threats to Greenland, as Trump claims, is not something the rest of us have seen,” Buvarp said. He noted that the United States already maintains substantial military presence in Greenland through a 1951 agreement that established bases and surveillance facilities.

The researcher believes Trump’s statements about Greenland should be interpreted as a form of modern propaganda, designed not to persuade but to create unease. “When statements mainly create confusion, reactions, and unease, it’s a sign that the goal is the unease itself, not the content,” Buvarp explained.

While it remains unclear if Trump explicitly aims to divide Europe, Buvarp observed that such rhetoric aligns with a narrative promoted by certain American political circles. “These kinds of statements fit neatly into a narrative Trump – and parts of American politics – have already promoted: That Europe is fragmented, weak, and incapable of taking responsibility for its own security,” he said.

This narrative was evident less than a year ago when JD Vance, now Trump’s vice-presidential running mate, characterized Europe as a continent in decline during a speech in Munich. Buvarp pointed out that similar messaging appears in recent U.S. national security strategy documents, which criticize European dysfunction rather than focusing on Chinese and Russian threats.

Contradicting Trump’s geographical claims, Buvarp highlighted a factual inconsistency: “The president shouts that Greenland is what stands between him and Russia. But if you look at the map, Russia is dangerously close – and much closer – to the state of Alaska.”

If genuine security concerns exist in the Arctic region, Buvarp argued that cooperation rather than division would be the logical approach. The U.S. should work with European partners on comprehensive military operations and security systems instead of pursuing unilateral strategies.

Other experts have expressed concern about the timing and focus of Trump’s Greenland statements. Svein Vigeland Rottem, senior researcher at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, suggested that leaders in Moscow and Beijing might be benefiting from this distraction. Kari Aga Myklebost, professor of Russian history at UiT The Arctic University of Norway, believes the Greenland discussion diverts attention from the war in Ukraine, which remains Europe’s most pressing security challenge.

“It’s crucial not to be thrown off balance by Russia. Their goal is to weaken unity among Western countries, and thereby support for Ukraine,” Myklebost said.

The Greenland statements come amid Trump’s controversial pronouncements on other international issues, including peace plans for Gaza and threats against Venezuela, as well as domestic actions like immigration enforcement operations in Minnesota.

While Buvarp acknowledges it’s impossible to discern Trump’s true intentions or predict how much of his rhetoric might translate into policy, he emphasized the damaging effect such statements have on transatlantic relations.

“These huge differences in how reality is perceived are extremely damaging for cooperation with Europe, NATO, and relationships within Europe itself,” Buvarp concluded.

The growing divide in security perceptions between the United States and Europe poses significant challenges for the alliance at a time when unity would be the most effective response to genuine geopolitical threats.