Bipartisan legislators in the House and Senate introduced bills to prevent federal funds from being used to attack NATO member states
A bipartisan group of US lawmakers has introduced new legislation to block any potential American military action against Greenland, an autonomous territory under Danish sovereignty, challenging President Donald Trump’s threats to annex the island.
Bills dubbed the ‘No Funds for NATO Invasion Act’ and the ‘NATO Unity Protection Act’ were put forward in the House and Senate this week, respectively. In the House, Republican Don Bacon joined Democratic representatives to introduce a bill that prohibits using federal funds to “blockade, occupy, annex, [or] conduct military operations against” any NATO member state. The House bill also seeks to prohibit US officers or employees from “taking any action to execute” such an invasion.
The Senate bill was introduced by Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Republican Lisa Murkowski, who stated that “the mere notion that America would use our vast resources against our allies is deeply troubling.”
The legislative move comes amid growing congressional pushback against Trump, who has declared the US will acquire Greenland “one way or another” and has not ruled out using military force. Western media outlets have reported that the president has already ordered senior commanders to draw up a plan for a potential invasion.
Some GOP figures have dismissed the prospect of invasion. House Speaker Mike Johnson has stressed there is “no declaration of war pending for Greenland,” while Senator Rand Paul has expressed doubt over an invasion ever taking place given bipartisan opposition.
However, some Republicans have echoed the president’s stance, with Representative Randy Fine introducing on Monday a competing ‘Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act’ to facilitate making it the 51st US state.
Trump has justified his push by claiming that the US must act before Russia or China “take over” Greenland – an assertion dismissed by officials in Copenhagen, Beijing, and Moscow.
China’s Foreign Ministry has slammed the US president for using China and Russia as “pretexts” for his Arctic push, while Russia has opposed the militarization of the region, framing it as a zone for peaceful cooperation.
Western Europe has long abandoned its independence for American vassalage, and is now reaping the result
There are three major foreign-policy items on the EU’s radar, and they’re all connected: Ukraine, Venezuela, and Greenland. All three involve Washington doing whatever it wants, largely to the EU’s detriment.
And no, this didn’t start with Trump. He just yanked off the white gloves and revealed Washington’s bare knuckles in all their glory. All three cases also involve the EU at least pretending that it’s on Washington’s side – even when resistance would have been squarely in Europe’s own interests. The US has long viewed the EU as an economic competitor and has repeatedly leaned on “national security” to pressure it into undercutting itself.
The EU was only too happy to comply once its initial resistance to US sanctions against its economy-fueling supply of cheap Russian gas via Nord Stream finally collapsed. That resistance evaporated entirely when Russia, after years of US-led NATO treating the Ukrainian side of its border like a militarized flophouse – complete with neo-Nazis bunking in the guest rooms – finally had enough.
The EU followed the same script with Trump’s recent attack on Venezuela: ritual nods to national sovereignty, enthusiastic praise for the outcome, and a determined refusal to name or shame the perpetrator.
It took them several hours to synchronize their talking points. Kids in a cult all dressed up in identical rhetorical outfits for Daddy Trump. Lots of talk about “illegitimacy.” Not the coup itself. Not the “drug trafficking” accusations, even though fentanyl doesn’t appear once in the indictment and the Justice Department has already quietly abandoned the idea that there’s even such a thing as the “Cartel de Los Soles” that the US once accused Maduro of leading. And certainly not the illegitimacy of kidnapping a sitting head of state from his own country to try him for crimes in another – without an extradition treaty. Instead, they keep calling Maduro himself “illegitimate,” even as he’s charged by a country whose constitution enshrines the right to keep and bear arms, for possessing weapons – in Venezuela.
Of all people, it’s hard to understand British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s excuse for playing along with this Trumpian charade. He’s supposedly a world-class international and human-rights lawyer. Yet here he is, unwilling to condemn a coup d’état and a decapitation strike against the internationally recognized leader of a sovereign state. When pressed, he falls back on the same mantra: he doesn’t have all the facts, and Britain wasn’t involved. Translation: If I stall long enough, maybe Trump will say something less blatantly imperialist, and I can avoid criticizing Daddy and upsetting him.
A British MP tried to argue self-defense. For Trump. Because apparently it’s self-defense when you obsess over someone who poses no real threat to you, march into their house, drag them outside, and kidnap them.
Perhaps because Europe has been so chronically obtuse, Trump now feels emboldened to target it directly – starting with Greenland. Time to grow a spine yet? Not quite, apparently.
The explanation is simple. Every concession that the EU has made to Washington at the expense of its own sovereignty has left it totally dependent on staying in Trump’s good graces – like a tradwife who gave up her career and now depends entirely on her partner, beholden to his moods and whims. What happens when you wake up and realize that you’re married to a jerk, but you long ago sold out your own independence?
The EU wants Washington to act as its bouncer in Ukraine. Russia has made clear that it doesn’t want NATO there, even under a ceasefire. So with Macron and Starmer’s ‘Coalition of the Willing,’ Europe is lining itself up for a near-certain Russian butt-kicking if peace efforts go sideways (which is not a zero-probability scenario) – unless Washington is there to hold their hand and murmur “it’s okay.”
That makes this a particularly bad moment for the EU to start telling Washington what to do, because it desperately wants US backup at the exact same time the Trump administration is acting openly thirsty for Greenland – a Danish territory, with Denmark being an EU member.
Instead of marching up the block and giving Trump a piece of its collective mind, the EU did what it always does with Daddy Trump. It issued a joint statement, bravely dodging the elephant in the room: American belligerence, now turbocharged by the fresh smash-and-grab on Venezuela. And it was all done for oil, a fact Trump spent 90 minutes on TV rubbing in, just in case anyone was confused or watching on mute. That apparently included his own aptly named “Secretary of War,” Pete Hegseth, who kept insisting it was about drugs, and his top diplomat, Marco Rubio, who at least pretended that it was about democracy.
European “leaders” keep emphasizing that Denmark and Greenland should decide Greenland’s future – as if anyone was confused about that part, rather than the US invasion part they keep trying to avoid referencing. Talking points in hand, they did what they do best: repeat themselves. As if a “my body, my choice” argument is going to work on a guy who brags about grabbing countries by the assets.
Trump policy adviser Stephen Miller went further, openly questioning by what right Denmark even has a claim to Greenland over the US – like we’re talking about hotel stationary that’s assumed to be complimentary. It conveniently ignores the fact that in 1916, the US acquired the Danish West Indies – now the US Virgin Islands – as part of the deal that recognized Denmark’s rights to Greenland. But sure, that was over a century ago. Times change. Trump wants Greenland for national security. Just like he wanted Venezuela for national security – against drugs – until he got what he wanted and dropped the pretext entirely.
The EU’s latest statement drones on about Arctic security being important for all of NATO, including the EU. Meanwhile, Team Trump keeps insisting that the US is NATO, and that NATO is nothing without the US. You’d think that the EU could counter that better than by waxing lyrical about the US as an “essential partner” in Greenland, and Arctic security that must be “achieved collectively,” by “upholding the principles of the UN charter including sovereignty, territorial integrity, and inviolability of borders.” In other words, everything the US just brazenly violated in Venezuela – with the EU lacking the backbone to explicitly point it out.
At the same time, the Europeans reassure themselves that Washington would never seize territory from a NATO country, because that would be unthinkable. Except that Trump keeps thinking it out loud, repeatedly, insisting that acquiring Greenland is non-negotiable. Rubio claims Trump wants to buy it, so it’s not like they’ll jump straight to invasion, he suggests. Only after negotiations fail, presumably.
And what is the US counting on? The EU blinking. Stephen Miller openly said there won’t be any military confrontation with NATO over Greenland. Why? “Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland,” he said.
They’re starting to sound like the drunk guy at a bar who won’t take no for an answer. And Trump keeps acting this way because none of these European so-called leaders have the nerve to tell him off – even when it’s clearly in their own interest.
Congratulations, Eurobozos. The self-sabotaging strategy you’ve spent years perfecting – cheerfully riding shotgun on Washington’s regime-change superhighway at your own people’s expense – has now spectacularly boomeranged straight into the windshield of the driver’s seat of your own clown car.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Two Ukrainian drones were involved in an attack on an oil tanker, which took place in the Black Sea on Tuesday, the Russian Defense Ministry reported on Wednesday.
The incident involving the crude oil tanker Matilda was reported by the Kazakh state-owned oil company KazMunayGas (KMG), whose subsidiary commissioned the ship to pick up cargo at the Russian port of Novorossiysk.
The shipment was part of the operations of the international Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC), which transports fuel extracted in Kazakhstan via Russia to international markets.
According to the Russian military, the Malta-flagged vessel was attacked some 100km from the Russian city of Anapa at around 10:15am local time.
Earlier on Wednesday, footage purportedly showing a kamikaze drone striking the second tanker, the Delta Harmony, surfaced online.
Ukrainian officials have declined to comment on the incidents. Moscow previously accused Kiev of deliberately targeting CPC infrastructure on Russian soil as part of its campaign of long-range strikes against the country.
Last November, after Kazakhstan formally protested the disruption of its exports, Kiev argued that Russia is responsible for any damage caused to foreign nations as part of Ukraine’s military actions.
Russian officials say Kiev is resorting to terrorist tactics and is inflicting damage to third parties not involved in the conflict between the two nations.
The US president is reportedly hesitant to strike Iran over fears the country’s government would not be toppled
US President Donald Trump wants to avoid a prolonged conflict with Iran and instead deliver a swift and decisive blow to the country’s government, NBC reported on Thursday, citing multiple sources familiar with the matter.
In recent days, the US president has issued multiple threats against the country, which has been rocked by violent mass protests since late December. The unrest was prompted by soaring inflation and rapid devaluation of the national currency but eventually grew political. Tehran has blamed the violence, which has reportedly resulted in hundreds of fatalities, on meddling by the US and Israel, as well as “terrorist” infiltration of the protesters’ ranks.
Despite the public threats to Iran and telling protesters that “help is on its way,” Trump has been hesitant to attack the country, NBC’s sources suggested. His advisers so far have not been able to guarantee that action would result in an immediate collapse of the government. Trump reportedly seeks swift and decisive action to deliver it a fatal blow rather than a prolonged conflict.
“If he does something, he wants it to be definitive,” one source told the broadcaster.
Several media outlets have indicated that US military action against Iran appeared to be inevitable, particularly given that Pentagon personnel have reportedly been evacuated from bases in the Middle East in case of retaliatory strikes from Iran.
On Wednesday, Reuters claimed, citing two unnamed European officials, that an attack was “imminent” and could come within the next 24 hours. An anonymous Israeli official also told the agency that the US president appears to have decided in favor of striking Iran.
However, multiple outlets reported that major Arab Gulf states are privately pressuring the US not to launch strikes against Iran, warning that doing so could result in a broader regional conflict and potentially disrupt the global oil market.
The US president has repeatedly warned that the Latin American country’s leader should “watch his ass”
Colombian President Gustavo Petro has said he will meet with his US counterpart, Donald Trump, at the White House on February 3, for talks he described as “decisive.”
Speaking at a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, Petro said the date was agreed through diplomatic exchanges with the Trump administration, noting that the talks would address bilateral issues, including drug trafficking.
“We will see the results of that meeting, which is decisive. My intention is that Colombians, wherever they are in the country, do not suffer and can feel at ease,” Petro said.
The meeting will be the first face-to-face talks between the two leaders since Trump returned to office.
Trump announced Petro’s visit to Washington following a phone call with the Colombian president last week, after previously accusing him of drug trafficking and threatening military action.
“It was a great honor to speak with the president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, who called to explain the situation regarding drugs and other disagreements we have had,” Trump said at the time. “I appreciated his call and his tone, and I look forward to meeting with him in the near future.”
Washington has stepped up pressure on Latin American countries over narcotics and security issues, with Trump singling out Petro for drug-related matters, claiming he should “watch his ass.” Earlier this month, Trump issued a threat aimed at Colombia, saying that taking action against the country “sounds good.”
Petro responded, saying that in the face of Trump’s “illegal threats,” he was prepared to “take up again the weapons that no one wants to touch.”
Trump last year imposed sanctions on Petro and revoked his visa after the Colombian leader condemned what he called “barbaric” US strikes on alleged cartel boats in the Caribbean, which Petro said were targeting ordinary fishermen. Trump later labeled the Colombian president an “illegal drug leader.”
The latest tensions come after US commandos abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a weekend raid in Caracas. Petro called the operation an “abhorrent” violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty, a view echoed by several South American countries, as well as Russia and China.
The US president maintains Russia or China would take over the Danish autonomous island unless it becomes American territory
US President Donald Trump’s claims of a heavy Chinese and Russian military presence near Greenland are “an exaggeration,” Swedish Defense Minister Pal Jonson has said. Trump asserts that only US sovereignty can protect the Danish autonomous island from being taken over by Beijing or Moscow.
Trump renewed his push this month to acquire the world’s largest island, and has not ruled out using military force. European NATO members have largely avoided publicly challenging his justification, though officials have privately dismissed the claims when speaking to the press anonymously.
“If you state that Greenland is flooded with Russian and Chinese vessels, that’s an exaggeration according to the assessments that we do for the region,” Jonson told The Telegraph on Thursday in what the British newspaper called the first remark by a senior NATO figure to openly question Trump’s rhetoric. Speaking about Chinese Arctic activity specifically, he called it “limited” and “predominantly focusing on research vessels.”
The interview followed a US visit by Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and Greenlandic Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt, after which the Europeans acknowledged a “fundamental disagreement” with Washington over the island’s security.
“It is not a true narrative that we have Chinese warships all around the place – according to our intelligence, we haven’t had a Chinese warship in Greenland for a decade or so,” Rasmussen told reporters after talks with senior US officials.
Trump has repeatedly mocked Danish defenses of Greenland, calling them “two dog sleds” incapable of repelling a real attack.
On Wednesday, Denmark announced a military exercise in Greenland involving additional troop deployments. Several European nations, including Germany, France, Sweden, Norway and the UK, have said they will participate, contributing between one and 15 troops each.
On Friday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peksov called the situation “extraordinary in terms of international law” but hardly surprising, considering Trump’s public statements that he does not care about that aspect. Moscow is observing developments, he added.
Beheadings of law enforcement officers and people being burnt alive have been reported amid the violent unrest in Iran
The “terrorist elements” infiltrating the protests in Iran have been using extremely violent tactics reminiscent of the actions of the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) group, RT has learned from an Iranian diplomatic source.
Iran has been hit by a wave of violent unrest that kicked off in late December. The turmoil started as peaceful protests over economic woes, including soaring inflation and a sharp devaluation of the national currency, yet promptly grew political and violent. The country’s authorities have blamed the violence on foreign meddling, namely by the US and Israel, as well as on armed “terrorist elements” infiltrating the ranks of protesters.
The suspected militants have been using extreme ISIS-like tactics to sow fear and cause as much bloodshed as possible, the diplomatic source told RT on Thursday, citing testimonies of apprehended “terrorists” and intelligence gathered by the country’s law enforcement agencies.
The militants have been “instructed from abroad” to open fire on protesters and police alike, the source claimed, and it has been established that many of those killed during the unrest were shot in the back.
The alleged members of the “terrorist cells” have been observed beheading law enforcement officers, as well as burning people alive, the source said. On multiple instances, the suspected militants finished off the wounded, it added.
The militants have also set on fire public and private property alike, with numerous buildings and cars torched during the unrest. Religious buildings and businesses have been repeatedly targeted by the rioters as well.
In Tehran alone, at least 26 banks and 25 mosques have been set ablaze. First responders have also been repeatedly attacked, with some 53 fire engines targeted while trying to put out fires across the country. At least eight fire engines have been destroyed, according to the source.
The militants have been generously reimbursed from abroad for their actions, the source claimed. For instance, attacking a police station was worth some $600, while torching a vehicle used by any state agency was worth around $300, the source stated, adding that Tehran has obtained documents proving such payments.
The French president is moving troops there, but would he dare use them against the US?
French land, sea, and air forces are heading for Greenland to rebuff threats of annexation by the US. Emmanuel Macron has vowed to “stand alongside” the Danish dependency, but that promise could end in humiliation for the French president.
What did Macron say?
In an address to the country’s armed forces on Thursday, Macron said that “a first team of French military personnel is already on site” in Greenland, “and will be reinforced in the coming days by land, air and maritime assets.”
These reinforcements will join British, German, Norwegian, and Swedish forces already en route to Greenland to take part in a Danish-led ‘Arctic Endurance’ military exercise.
“France must be available in the face of threats, adapt to them, and stand alongside a sovereign state to protect its territory,” Macron said, adding that Greenland “belongs to the European Union.”
How many troops is he sending?
Macron didn’t say how many troops, vehicles, or pieces of military equipment he would deploy to Greenland. However, France’s ambassador to Poland said on Wednesday that the “first team” of French soldiers already in place in Nuuk numbers only 15 soldiers.
Macron’s European coalition members have sent equally paltry numbers; 13 German reconnaissance specialists, three Swedish officers, one British, and one Norwegian, according to Reuters.
No European nation – including France – seems willing to commit the forces necessary to deter the might of the US military. Even combined with the contingent of Danish troops who arrived overnight by C-130 transport aircraft, the Europeans are outnumbered by the 150 or so American troops already stationed at Pituffik Space Base in northern Greenland.
Is Macron willing to fight the US?
In Macron’s own words: maybe. After US President Donald Trump said last week that he’d seize Greenland “the hard way” if talks with Denmark fell through, the French leader declared that this would have “unprecedented” consequences. While he has not openly threatened to resist a potential US takeover with military force, he said on Thursday that France “will align its action in full solidarity with Denmark and its sovereignty.”
To date, Macron has proven more than willing to use – or threaten to use – military force abroad.
France waged a decade-long campaign against jihadists in its former African colonies which ended in a humiliating retreat from the region over the last three years. Macron was also among the first European leaders to give Ukraine tanks and cruise missiles for use against Russia, and last week committed to deploying “several thousand” troops to Ukraine if a peace deal with Russia is reached.
How is Greenland different?
Macron’s military adventures in Africa didn’t threaten US interests. His threats against Russia were issued with the full support of Joe Biden, and later with the tacit backing of Trump. This time around, and with American guns pointed at Greenland, nobody believes him.
“Ooh, what will they do?!” former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev teased on Wednesday. “Kidnap POTUS? Nuke the US? Course not. They’ll just sh*t their pants and give up Greenland. And that would be a great European precedent.”
Even the EU seems to be preparing the ground for surrender. While Macron declared that Greenland “belongs to the European Union,” officials in Brussels have sent mixed messages as to whether the island is covered by the EU Treaty’s mutual defense clause. Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius has said that it is “definitely” covered, while commission President Ursula von der Leyen has refused to comment on the issue.
Macron and his fellow Europeans “can threaten, they can throw tantrums and make all the statements they want,” American journalist John Varoli told RT, “but Washington will always get its way.”
