Transcription
The stability of the NATO alliance and American interest in Greenland. Danes rallying in the nation's capital of Copenhagen earlier today in a show of support for the people of Greenland.
But this morning, President Trump announcing he'll place new tariffs on European allies until a deal is reached for the U.S. to acquire Greenland. This is he dodged a question from MSNBC on possible U.S. military action. "We're going to see NATO has been dealing with us on Greenland. We need Greenland for national security very badly. If we don't have it, we have a big hole in national security."
"President, sorry guys, you cannot push too much. I don't talk about that."
Let's bring in former U.S. ambassador to Russia and MSNBC International Affairs analyst, our friend Michael McFaul. So, Ambassador, we have heard denials from Danish and Greenlandic officials about Russian and Chinese assets on or around Greenland. What was the situation when you were U.S. ambassador to Russia? Does Russia have assets on the island? Has Russia ever recently seriously considered taking over Greenland? Does President Trump have reason to say, as he has repeatedly, the U.S. needs Greenland for NATIONAL SECURITY?
"NO, NO, NO, NO. THIS IS THE DUMBEST IDEA EVER THAT I CAN EVER REMEMBER both in working on foreign policy or as a student of foreign policy, and I have studied American foreign policy since the 18th century. This makes no sense whatsoever. If there were threats. There are no assets there, first of all. But, you know, look at the map you just showed and you look at the water and you think, well, where might Russian subs come from? Where might Russian ships come from? Of course they're up there, but we don't need to annex Greenland to protect us against those. And by the way, I'm glad you have this map. Look at some of the other countries that are up there. They're all NATO allies. So if we annex Greenland and blow up NATO, we lose access to all those other bases, all those. You might not be surprised. We might have intelligence assets in all those other countries up there that are members of the NATO alliance. It just makes no military sense whatsoever. Second, I dealt with Greenland by the way when I worked at the national security council responsible for Russia we have an agreement with the kingdom of Denmark goes now back to 1951 we can put as many soldiers and bases there as we want if the goal is really national security but the goal is not national security The goal is a vanity project for President Trump. He wants Greenland to become Trumpland so that he will be remembered in history as the guy that expanded the United States of America, and we just have to stop this idiotic idea that negative consequences of blowing up NATO, the most enduring, powerful alliance in the history of the world, to put a few bases in Greenland has to, it is, in my view, it's the worst foreign policy idea that I can ever remember in American history. And again, you just said that if we want to add military bases there, Denmark, MARK, GREENLAND ARE GOING TO SAY, GREEN LIGHT, GO AHEAD, DO IT. ABSOLUTELY. THEY'VE BEEN CRYSTAL CLEAR. WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT. GREENLAND IS IN THE NATO ALLIANCE, EVERYONE. GREENLAND IS PART OF IT. LOOK AT THOSE OTHER PLACES THERE. CANADA IS IN THE NATO ALLIANCE. THIS IDEA TO COERCIVELY TAKE ONE PIECE OF THE ALLIANCE, AND THEN ALL THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES IN YOUR CIRCLE WILL leave the Alliance, it just makes no sense. It's just so kooky. And therefore you have to look for other explanations. And I don't have any evidence to support this, it's just an opinion. I want to to be clear. But it reminds me of this ballroom. You know, nobody asked him to build that. He didn't pledge to build that when he was a candidate. And this is now something he wants personally. He says we need it very badly. Well, why didn't he say that when he was president the first time around, by the way? We don't need it very badly. We can do everything we need in terms of national security without annexation. And I want to underscore one more point. It wouldn't just be blowing up NATO. It would be America going alone in the world. We we would become an imperial power, just like the Russians, conquering territory. And the whole world that believes in international rules would pivot in a different direction. And I worry 20 or 30 years from now, we'll be alone and everybody else will be more united, playing by some rules-based international system. That just is not in America's national interest."
Danish and Greenlandic officials, they were not buoyed at all from the talks with Vice President J.D. Vance, and now we have, in addition, European nations sending more NATO troops to Greenland in response to all this. So given Trump's previous comments about U.S. membership in NATO, and you studying him over the years, what could the EU, Denmark or Greenland say to deter Trump? I mean, do these new tariffs show the only response Trump will accept is to appease his REQUEST?
"YEAH, THAT'S A HARD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER EXACTLY BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP IS RATHER ERRATIC WHEN IT COMES TO THESE COERCIVE THINGS. HE THREATENS THINGS, He brings tariffs, and then he plays a game of chicken from time to time like he did with the Chinese, and he backs down. But I would say a couple of things. First of all, there's a paradox here that Trump is sanctioned in these countries for sending soldiers to Greenland. I thought the whole purpose was we're supposed to defend Greenland with NATO soldiers, right? So there's a real contradiction there. Secondly, I hope that there can be a prolonged, drawn-out process. They pledged to set up a working group. I hope that working group meets for years and years and years, and then eventually the clock runs out. And the third thing I hope is on our side. I hope every presidential candidate, especially in the Democratic Party, makes clear today that if this goes forward in some manner, either through a coercive way or not, they will reverse it. And I think the world needs to know that just because President Trump wants to do something today doesn't mean that it will be permanent. And I think that would be very useful, because the polling is really clear. The American people don't support this by a four to one margin. They don't support this at all. They want the president to go back to what he promised him as a candidate. The price of eggs are more important to the American people not seizing Greenland. And I just want to point out this will be costly for us, even if it's done as a contract. We're going to have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to take Greenland when we could be using that money for other things right here at home."
OK, Ambassador Malcolm McFaugh, grateful for your analysis. Thank you, my friend. Appreciate it. Thanks for having me.