Among Donald Trump’s more alarming pronouncements on the international stage have related to the vast island of Greenland, a frigid and sparsely populated territory in the Arctic. During his first term as President, Trump expressed a desire to buy the island from Denmark, and he lashed out at Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in 2019, after she called the discussion “absurd” and told him that Greenland was not for sale.
Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has ramped up his demands for control of the island, even suggesting that it may need to be taken by force. These statements have shaken the U.S. relationship with Denmark, a member of the NATO alliance and the European Union. During a fiery phone call with Frederiksen last month, Trump reportedly made his most aggressive push yet to pry the semi-autonomous territory away from Denmark. Frederiksen has insisted that it is up to Greenland, which gained home rule in 1979 and further powers in 2009, to decide its future.
Speaking anonymously since then to the media, European diplomats called the tone of the phone call “horrendous” and said the Danes are “freaked out” about the pressure Trump could bring to bear against them. In an exclusive interview with TIME on Feb. 16, Frederiksen spoke out in detail for the first time about her call with Trump, what it means for his relationship with Europe, and how she’s navigating new transatlantic tensions on Ukraine and NATO.
What follows is a transcript of the conversation, which took place on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference. It has been condensed and edited for clarity by TIME.
TIME: Please tell me about your phone call with President Trump on Jan. 20. What was the conversation about? What impression did it leave you with?
I enjoyed our conversation. Your president is very direct, and I can be the same. It was a conversation where we didn’t dance around the hot topics, but went directly into them.
We don’t look at the world with exactly the same eyes. But the president is interested in trying to understand what the European perspective is on things, and I think as a European leader it is extremely important to be curious about what the American perspective is.
For example, on the Indo-Pacific, that region is quite far away from Europe. But we need to be able to see why there is a change in the U.S. security thinking there, because of China. So what I’m trying to say in Europe is: Hey, if we want the U.S. to help us with Ukraine and Russia, then we have to be willing to do the same the other way around.
Was all of this part of your conversation with Trump?
Yes, we talked about the Middle East. We talked about the Arctic region, including Greenland. We also talked about what I think is one of the most defining changes in the security landscape: the closer cooperation between Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
This triangle is extremely dangerous. These three countries are so different from each other. Their history, their way of thinking, even their national interests. But there is one thing that they really share: They hate us, and they are willing to destroy us.
I think in part of Europe, and part of the U.S., there is still this attitude about the end of the Cold War, the end of History, that war is over, and the rest of the world will become democratic and will start to think like we do. It didn’t happen, and it will not happen.
My key message to the U.S. is: Stick together with Europe, because even though you can be frustrated with Europe, and we can have disagreements, it’s nothing compared to those with Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China.
Russia would not be able to wage war in Ukraine without help from China. And I keep trying to tell all my European colleagues: These challenges will not disappear. So we are in a hurry now! We really have to ramp up production and spend much more on defense and security.
Based on Trump’s statements not only about Greenland, but also the Panama Canal and Canada, what kind of vision does he have for the world?
I think that, when President Trump and others are saying America First, it’s not just words. It is a belief. It’s not a new way of thinking. We have seen it through U.S. history. I am, as you know, a transatlanticist at heart. I will fight for our alliance, and I will try to convince everybody to stick together. But I think there are quite a lot of Americans who really believe in the idea of America First. I don’t believe in a strategy of Denmark First, or Europe First. I believe in a shared commitment to democracy and cooperation first.
When you spoke about Greenland with President Trump, what was your position? You said Greenland is not for sale? What else?
For me, it’s very natural that allies have an interest in what’s going on in the Arctic. To be very frank, I think all of us, including the frontline states in the Arctic region—like Denmark, but also Norway, Finland, Sweden, Canada, and the U.S.—should convince the rest of NATO to put the Arctic high on the agenda. If we look at Russia today, they are not only being aggressive in Ukraine. Look at what they are doing in Georgia and Moldova. Look at what they did in Romania with the elections. They did not only interfere. They “won” the election in a European country.
As I’ve said many times before, the war in Ukraine has never been about Ukraine. It has been about Russia and its imperial dreams. And it goes for the Arctic region as well.
But Trump was not talking only about U.S. security interests in Greenland. He was talking about natural resources, was he not?
When it comes to security and defense, that’s an issue for me, because the Faroe Islands and Greenland are part of the Kingdom of Denmark. They are part of NATO. When it comes to natural resources, what I hear from the Greenlandic government is that they are open for more business, more investments, and they are looking in the direction of the U.S. and other reliable partners, not China. Not China.
So I think there is room for maneuver. My suggestion is that we sit around the table and open that discussion. When it comes to sovereignty, it is very clear that Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. And we are of course a sovereign state. So I hope and expect that everybody respects our territorial integrity like anywhere else in the world.
Let me ask about another Trump phone call. The one he had with Vladimir Putin on Feb. 12. What went through your mind when you saw that?
As Volodymyr Zelensky has said, Ukraine is ready to enter negotiations and talk about peace. My question is: Are we sure we can rely on the Russians? Are we sure we can trust them? Are we sure they want peace? Everything that I see when I’m looking at Russia, I see the opposite. I see a country that does not want peace.
That’s one thing that I think everybody should be concerned about, including the U.S. For me, just as important is the question: What will Russia do after a peace agreement, after a ceasefire? Not only in Ukraine but the rest of Europe. I think there is a big risk that Russia will use this opportunity to mobilize, to rebuild, and then they will continue. Maybe in Ukraine. Maybe Georgia, Maybe Armenia. Maybe Moldova. Maybe Central Asia. We have to be able to imagine that they will also proceed in NATO countries. My conclusion is we have to stop Russia.
Some European leaders have said that, if the U.S. backs away from Ukraine and tries to negotiate some deal with Russia, then the Europeans will stick with Ukraine and help Ukraine continue to resist. Is that your position?
I don’t believe in changing your strategy. I believe in following your strategy and sticking to it. Of course, I hope to have a good relationship with the U.S. I will seek to ensure that. But U.S. decisions are U.S. decisions, and European decisions are European decisions.
I don’t know what position the U.S. will take in the future. But I know that, no matter what, Europe has to be able to do what is necessary for Europe. I will always be supportive of alliances, but it takes two to tango.
For me, the most important thing now is to build Europe to be as strong as possible. I’m a strong believer in Europe. If you combine all our countries and all our economies, we are a strong player. Everybody knows that. I think Europe, if we are willing, we can do almost whatever we want. For me, it’s about willingness above anything else.
Therefore, my main message in these weeks and months is that we need to be in a hurry. We have to scale up on defense and security. It’s the only way forward.
So even if the U.S. changes its strategy on Ukraine, Europe should not change its strategy?
Exactly. That shouldn’t change our strategy. I don’t think Europe should ever make any division with the U.S.
But if the U.S. under Trump moves in a different direction, don’t you have to adjust?
Of course you have to adjust, but then it would be a decision made in the U.S. I don’t think we should make a European decision of splitting up. Our own strategy cannot be formed by what is happening somewhere else in the world. We need to have a European strategy on our own.
What do you think of the idea of European soldiers going to Ukraine to secure a possible ceasefire? What prompted you and other European leaders to begin considering this last year?
This discussion has been on-and-off-the-table for a long time. I remember Emmanuel Macron invited us to a meeting in Paris to discuss this one year ago. But for me, the easiest and cheapest way to achieve a just, reliable peace in Europe and Ukraine is NATO membership for Ukraine. And I have been in favor of NATO membership since the war began. If they were a member of NATO, the war would never have started.
The other options are more dangerous. Article 5 of NATO is so simple. That’s why I am still one of the European leaders who fights for Ukraine’s NATO membership. That’s my number one priority.
And what about the option of European troops in Ukraine to secure the peace?
There are many steps before having boots on the ground in Ukraine. Before even entering a concrete discussion about this. Putting your young men and women into a war without full, 100% agreement on the back-up and their safety—that’s a no-go.
Does that back-up need to be American?
In my view, yes. I think it should be America, and it should be Article 5, directly or indirectly.
What do you mean by ‘indirectly’? Article 5 of the NATO treaty means mutual defense: If one country is attacked, then all must respond. How do you get that for Ukraine indirectly?
One idea that has been on the table is maybe not NATO membership, but a ceasefire or peace agreement with some kind of troops on the ground. And if Russia does a single move that goes against what we have agreed on, then Article 5 comes into effect.
So give Russia one chance, and then NATO mutual defense kicks in?
Yes. You know, I’m a hardliner on security. But safety for my soldiers who would be a part of this, that’s my top priority, and that goes for everybody who would be a part of this. So there are many questions to be addressed first.
I understand that some NATO leaders, but not all, gathered in December to discuss this issue at the home of Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general. You were there. Could you tell me about this kind of informal meeting and why it was necessary?
It’s only natural. One of the things I have really enjoyed in recent years is this horseshoe that has formed in Europe with The Netherlands, the U.K., the Nordic countries, the Baltic States, and Poland. We are more and more aligned in our way of thinking. We are also some of the hardliners in security, in helping Ukraine, in the willingness to step up on defense. There has been this cooperation before, but it was softer.
Now we are getting more and more structured. The world is on speed right now. Everything is changing. It’s only natural that some countries will work more closely together now to form some ideas. Of course, they have to be decided collectively afterwards.
Ukraine’s president, despite all the pressure he is now facing from the U.S., seems to have found the confidence to push back against some of Donald Trump’s positions on Ukraine. Does the backing of Europe give him that confidence?
We have his back. I’ve said it to him from the beginning: We are with you until the end. We’re not going to leave you. I think we have fulfilled that promise for three years, and we will continue to do so.
The post Exclusive: Denmark’s PM Opens Up About Fiery Trump Call, Greenland, and NATO’s Future appeared first on TIME.
