Iceland's Ex-President Debunks Trump's Greenland 'Siege' Claims

When Donald Trump declared that Greenland was "covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place," he painted a picture of imminent threat. But according to someone who knows Arctic waters intimately, that picture doesn't match reality.

The Facts Don't Add Up

Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, who served as Iceland's president for two decades until 2016, has directly contradicted Trump's claims about Greenland being surrounded by hostile vessels. Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, Grimsson stated flatly: "There are no Russian and Chinese ships in the waters of Greenland."

This isn't just diplomatic pushback. Grimsson chairs the Arctic Circle, a prominent international network focused on Arctic cooperation, giving him credible insight into regional maritime activity. His contradiction of Trump's assertion that "Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships" strikes at the foundation of the president's national security argument for acquiring the Danish territory.

Interestingly, Grimsson acknowledged that Russian and Chinese vessels do operate near Alaska's coast and airspace—but emphasized these are in "the American part of the Arctic, not the Greenland part of the Arctic." This distinction matters significantly for Trump's territorial ambitions.

The Real Arctic Competition

While Grimsson disputes the specific claims about Greenland, he doesn't downplay the Arctic's strategic importance. The region serves as a "neighbourhood that links North America, China, and also Russia," making it inherently significant for global power dynamics.

China has declared itself a "near-Arctic state" despite being 1,000 miles from the Arctic Circle, promoting its "Polar Silk Road" initiative. Russia controls the longest Arctic coastline and actively develops northern shipping routes. The U.S., through Alaska, maintains its own Arctic presence and interests.

Climate change has accelerated this competition. As ice melts, new shipping routes and resource extraction opportunities emerge, intensifying great power rivalry in what was once an inaccessible region.

The Danger of Threat Inflation

Grimsson's most pointed criticism wasn't about geography—it was about methodology. He warned that it's "important not to use scaremongering to justify major policy changes." This strikes at a broader pattern in contemporary politics: the tendency to amplify or fabricate threats to build support for controversial policies.

Trump's Greenland gambit faces significant obstacles. Denmark has repeatedly stated Greenland isn't for sale. Greenland's government, while interested in eventual independence, shows little enthusiasm for American annexation. Yet Trump continues pushing, even suggesting economic pressure against Denmark, a NATO ally.

The question isn't whether Arctic geopolitics matter—they clearly do. It's whether we can have honest conversations about complex international challenges without resorting to threat inflation that may ultimately undermine the credibility needed for genuine security cooperation.