Dmitry Medvedev, former president and deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, took to social media on Tuesday to comment on Denmark’s recent statements regarding Greenland.
Medvedev wrote, “The Gallic cock has crowed that, if the sovereignty of Denmark is affected, the consequences would be unprecedented. Ooh, what they will do?! Kidnap POTUS? Nuke the US? Course not. They’ll just … give up Greenland. And that would be a great European precedent.”
Medvedev’s comments came after French officials publicly suggested that any infringement on Denmark’s sovereignty would trigger serious consequences. His post ridiculed these warnings and framed Greenland as a potential point of leverage, suggesting that Europe might capitulate rather than act militarily.
Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, has gained strategic attention due to its location in the Arctic and its mineral resources. The United States maintains a military presence on the island under a 1951 agreement. But U.S. officials, including President Donald Trump, have argued that existing arrangements are not sufficient to guarantee Greenland’s defense.
“We are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not. Because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor,” Trump told reporters at the White House. He added that the U.S. must defend ownership, not just leases, and suggested plans could include military action or direct payments to Greenlanders to encourage secession from Denmark.
European leaders have reacted with alarm and disdain. On Tuesday, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Britain, and Denmark issued a joint statement saying only Greenland and Denmark can decide matters regarding their relations. The statement underscores the tension between U.S. ambitions and European concerns about sovereignty and NATO obligations.
Medvedev’s remarks, while sarcastic in tone, underscore Russia’s continued focus on Arctic geopolitics and European territorial matters. By highlighting Greenland, he points to the ongoing debate over sovereignty and the strategic importance of the island amid rising international interest from major powers.
