Among the more troubling statements made by Donald Trump regarding international affairs is his interest in Greenland, a chilly and sparsely inhabited land in the Arctic. During his initial term as President, Trump voiced a wish to purchase the territory from Denmark and directed his ire at Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in 2019 after she labeled his proposal “absurd” and clarified that Greenland was not for sale.
Since his return to the White House in January, Trump has intensified his calls for dominance over the island, even implying that it might need to be seized by force. Such remarks have unsettled the U.S. relationship with Denmark, which is part of NATO and the European Union. In a heated phone conversation with Frederiksen last month, Trump reportedly made his most forceful attempt to wrest the semi-autonomous region from Denmark. Frederiksen maintained that the decision on Greenland’s future lies with its people, who achieved home rule in 1979 and gained additional authority in 2009.
European diplomats, speaking anonymously to the press, described the tone of Trump’s phone call as “horrendous” and indicated that the Danes are quite “freaked out” about the pressure Trump could exert on them. In an exclusive interview with TIME on February 16, Frederiksen elaborated for the first time about her conversation with Trump, its implications for his relations with Europe, and how she is managing the growing transatlantic tensions over Ukraine and NATO.
Below is a transcript of the discussion that occurred on the margins of the Munich Security Conference, condensed and edited for clarity by TIME.
TIME: Can you share details about your phone call with President Trump on January 20? What was discussed, and what impression did it leave you?
I appreciated our discussion. Your president is very straightforward, and I share that approach. We addressed the critical issues head-on without beating around the bush.
While our perspectives don’t always align perfectly, the president shows a genuine interest in understanding the European viewpoint. As a European leader, being curious about the American perspective is vital.
Take the Indo-Pacific for instance; it’s a region quite distant from Europe. Nevertheless, we must understand the shifts in U.S. security thinking there due to China. Thus, my message to Europe is: if we expect U.S. support regarding Ukraine and Russia, we must also extend our understanding towards their concerns.
Was this part of your conversation with Trump?
Indeed, we discussed the Middle East, the Arctic region, including Greenland, and what I believe is a significant transformation in the security situation: the growing collaboration among Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
This triangular alliance is incredibly perilous. Though these three nations differ vastly in histories, thought processes, and national interests, they are united by one sentiment: their animosity towards us and their willingness to cause us harm.
I feel there remains a perspective within parts of Europe and the U.S. that echoes the end of the Cold War and the illusion that history has reached a conclusion—that conflict is over and the rest of the world will naturally lean towards democracy as we do. That notion has proven false and will continue to be unfulfilled.
My key message to the U.S. is to maintain solidarity with Europe. Frustrations and disagreements are minor compared to those prevalent with Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China.
Russia would find it impossible to wage war in Ukraine without assistance from China. I continue to urge all European partners: these threats will not vanish, and time is of the essence! We must significantly increase defense production and expenditures.
Reflecting on Trump’s remarks regarding Greenland, Panama Canal, and Canada, what vision does he hold for the world?
When President Trump and others proclaim “America First,” it stems from a genuine belief. It’s not an entirely novel mindset; it echoes throughout U.S. history. I am a transatlanticist at heart and will advocate for our alliance, striving to unify everyone. However, there are many Americans who truly uphold the “America First” ideology. I don’t subscribe to a “Denmark First” or “Europe First” philosophy; rather, I believe in a mutual commitment towards democracy and cooperation.
What was your stance on Greenland during your conversation with President Trump? You mentioned that Greenland is not for sale. What more did you convey?
It seems completely natural to me that allies care about developments in the Arctic. Quite frankly, I believe that we, including Arctic frontline countries—Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Canada, and the U.S.—should persuade NATO to prioritize Arctic issues. If we observe Russia today, their aggressiveness extends beyond Ukraine. Consider their actions in Georgia and Moldova; they actively interfered and swayed elections in European nations.
As I have frequently stated, the war in Ukraine is not merely about Ukraine. It’s fundamentally about Russia and its imperial aspirations, which also pertain to the Arctic region.
Trump’s focus extended beyond U.S. security interests in Greenland; he also addressed natural resources, correct?
In terms of security and defense, that’s critical for me because the Faroe Islands and Greenland fall under the Kingdom of Denmark. They are constituents of NATO. Regarding natural resources, feedback from the Greenlandic government suggests they welcome increased business and investment opportunities, particularly with the U.S. and other dependable allies, while deliberately avoiding reliance on China.
Thus, I believe there is scope for dialogue. My proposal is to convene and openly discuss these matters, as Greenland is unequivocally part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and, consequently, we are a sovereign nation. I trust that all parties will respect our territorial integrity as it would anywhere else in the world.
I’d like to inquire about another phone call from Trump—with Vladimir Putin on February 12. What was your reaction upon seeing that?
As Volodymyr Zelensky has stated, Ukraine is prepared to engage in peace negotiations. My concern is: can we truly depend on the Russians? Can we genuinely trust them? Do they actually seek peace? Everything I observe regarding Russia signals the contrary.
That aspect should raise alarm bells for everyone, including the U.S. Equally important is understanding what Russia might do following a peace accord or ceasefire—not only concerning Ukraine but throughout Europe. I foresee a significant risk that Russia may exploit this moment to rearm, regroup, and potentially lash out again. This could happen in Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Moldova, or even Central Asia. We must be prepared for the possibility of actions against NATO nations. My conclusion remains: Russia must be stopped.
Some European leaders have voiced that if the U.S. steps back from Ukraine and seeks negotiations with Russia, Europeans will remain committed to supporting Ukraine. Is that your stance?
I advocate for maintaining your strategy rather than altering it. I certainly aim to cultivate a strong relationship with the U.S., but ultimately, U.S. actions are theirs to determine, just as European decisions rest with us.
I cannot predict the future direction of U.S. policy, but I am aware that Europe must be equipped to undertake whatever measures are essential for our interests. I will always support alliances, yet it takes a joint effort.
It is crucial now to strengthen Europe to its fullest potential. I genuinely believe in Europe’s capacity. If we unite our nations and economies, we possess immense collective strength. That reality is recognized by all. For me, it’s fundamentally about the willingness to act.
Hence, my primary message in the upcoming weeks and months is the necessity for urgency. We must expedite our defenses and security efforts. It’s the only path forward.
So, even if the U.S. alters its Ukraine strategy, does Europe need to maintain a consistent approach?
Precisely. That doesn’t warrant a shift in our strategy. I believe Europe should refrain from divisive tactics with the U.S.
If the U.S. under Trump takes a different approach, shouldn’t you adapt?
Of course, adaptations may need to be made, but they would be decisions originating from the U.S. I don’t think Europe should move towards splitting apart. Our strategy must not be dictated by external circumstances. We need to formulate our own distinct European strategy.
What’s your stance on deploying European soldiers to Ukraine for peacekeeping purposes? What led you and other European leaders to explore this option last year?
The discussion surrounding this topic has ebbed and flowed for some time. I recall Emmanuel Macron convening us in Paris for discussions on this matter a year ago. However, I believe that the most straightforward and economical route to achieving a just, sustainable peace in Europe and Ukraine is through Ukraine’s NATO membership. I have consistently supported their accession to NATO from the outset of the conflict. Were they to be a NATO member, the war would likely never have started.
Alternative solutions carry greater risks. NATO’s Article 5 is straightforward. Consequently, I remain one of the European leaders advocating for Ukraine’s NATO membership as my top priority.
How about the prospect of European troops in Ukraine to maintain peace?
Before committing troops to Ukraine, various essential steps must be taken. It’s critical that discussions happen with absolute clarity regarding backup and troop safety—deploying young soldiers into a conflict without total agreement on these aspects isn’t an option.
Should this support come from the U.S.?
In my opinion, yes. I believe it should involve the U.S. and align with Article 5, either directly or indirectly.
What do you mean by ‘indirectly’? Article 5 of the NATO treaty involves mutual defense: if one nation is attacked, all must respond. How can that apply to Ukraine indirectly?
One potential idea revolves around establishing a ceasefire or peace agreement with ground troops present. Should Russia make any moves contrary to the agreement, then Article 5 would come into play.
So, grant Russia a single opportunity, then activate NATO’s mutual defense?
Yes. I adopt a hardline stance on security, but the safety of personnel involved is my utmost priority, as it should be for everyone involved. There’s much to discuss before making any decisions.
I understand that some NATO leaders, though not all, convened in December at Mark Rutte’s home to discuss this matter. Could you share insights from this informal meeting and its significance?
That approach seems only logical. Recently, I’ve appreciated the collaboration among The Netherlands, the U.K., Nordic countries, Baltic States, and Poland. Our alignment on security matters, commitment to aiding Ukraine, and dedication to enhancing defense has strengthened over time. While we previously collaborated, it was less structured.
Now, as the world evolves rapidly, it’s only natural that certain nations deepen cooperation to formulate concrete ideas, albeit ensuring collective decisions post-discussion.
Despite the pressure from the U.S., Ukraine’s president has pushed back against some of Donald Trump’s positions on Ukraine. Does European support bolster his confidence?
We stand firmly behind him. I have reassured him since the onset: we will support you until the end. We have upheld that promise over the past three years and intend to persist.
