British Prime Minister Keir Starmer hit back today in a press conference to the nation, saying the tarrifs were “wrong” and that Greenland and Denmark alone have the right to decide what happens to the territory.

Trump claims that the US requires Greenland for national security purposes and will take ownership of the Arctic island “the easy way” or “the hard way”, suggesting that military intervention is not off the table.

But Andrew suggests there are other reasons at play. He told Express.co.uk:”American dominance in the Arctic is critical to American primacy. And that’s the argument for Greenland.

“The second argument for Greenland is the importance of American economic independence in the use of not only strategic critical use minerals or rare earth minerals, but also critical minerals.

“So the minerals that are required for economic development, as well as the rare earth minerals that are required for military advancement and weaponisation, both of those exist in Greenland with the benefit of global warming, which is making more and more of Greenland accessible.

“So there is a very real American interest in taking some control over the resources that are in Greenland. However, there is no legal, even by American standards, there’s no legal precedent for us to take it by force. So, what does that mean?

“I think there’s a very real chance that the United States strikes an economic deal with the independent parties in Greenland that already want independence.”

Andrew believes the US would work commercially with businesses on the ground to “essentially bypass” diplomatic relations and move immediately to commercial relationships.

He continued: “So the United States will take control of the parts of Greenland that it wants, and I think it will find a way to do so without undermining NATO.

“However, I don’t see an outcome where Denmark is happy. I see an outcome where Greenlanders are happier than, you know, than their parent company or their parent country.

“But it’s a very difficult, very difficult thing to predict. How fast, in what ways, et cetera. But we can’t, it’s not something that’s just gonna be forgotten.”

He admitted there is “no case” for the US to take Greenland by force. He went on: “There’s no case for them to try to, you know, break their commitment to NATO by moving aggressively, politically or militarily, against the NATO allied, essentially, protectorate. So it’s a very strange and confusing situation.”

Greenland’s location between North America and the Arctic means that it is crucial for the purposes of vessel surveillance and for warning systems when facing missile attacks from adversaries.

It also houses an array of valuable natural resources, including uranium, iron, rare earth minerals and possibly even oil and gas, although Trump has claimed previously that the US requires Greenland for “national security, not minerals”.

Speaking further about the tensions, Andrew suggested that the stand-off may not remain in the headlines for long, as it’s “not sexy”, noting how the public’s interest could wane if a story “doesn’t bleed”.

Elaborating, he also claimed that people would “stop paying attention” when commercial or economic agreements are finally struck, and this is something that Trump “knows”.

He added: “But right now, he has a chance to basically continue to assert his power, strategic ambiguity because of his demonstration of power in Venezuela, so why not milk that for all it’s worth and make people wonder whether or not they should just kowtow to his demands in Greenland?”