Russia goads Trump on Greenland and stakes its claim
10:40 Share

Welcome to The World in 10. In an increasingly uncertain world, this is The Times daily podcast dedicated to global security. Today with me, Tom Noonan, and Alex Dibble. Since Donald Trump said that he's open to taking control of Greenland by force, America's friends and enemies have been trying to work out just how serious he is.

Denmark has admitted it's been lax and neglected defending Greenland, which is an autonomous territory, and says it is watching Trump's threats very, very closely. And now Russia has waded in. Vladimir Putin's spokesman has tried to play the bigger man, saying that Russia is interested in preserving what he calls an atmosphere of peace and stability in the Arctic.

But Dmitry Peskov has also said Russia does have strategic interests in the region and has described Donald Trump's claim to Greenland as a dramatic intervention. It's worth remembering that although Russia's been focusing its military might on Ukraine, it has also been building new Arctic bases and moving its most advanced anti-aircraft missiles to the Arctic.

So how should we see the Kremlin's response? Is there an escalating crisis or is it all for show? Our guest today is Mark Gagliotti, a Russia specialist who's a senior associate fellow at the Rusi think tank and director of MIAC Intelligence. Mark, what is your take on how Russia has reacted? Well, it's interesting. I mean, the key thing to say is no one in Russia seems to be taking this seriously.

But nonetheless, you've got, in effect, three different communities with three different angles. The academic and expert community are just throwing up their hands, saying this is just Trump trolling the world. You have the Kremlin and the government...

very happy to use this as an opportunity to allow them to sound like the reasonable, rational ones. So, for example, you've got Dmitry Peskov, Putin's own press spokesman, saying that we're watching this situation very carefully with a certain amount of concern because we're also an Arctic power and we believe in stability.

And then you've got the more toxic and outspoken elements of the Russian commentary out and sort of propaganda apparatus who are basically buying popcorn and settling back for a show, happy to basically use this as an opportunity to say, you see, the Americans, they are essentially bullshitting

bullies and hypocrites and this is why we always needed to stand up and now we're going to see those weak and flabby Europeans roll over as soon as the Americans start anything. When they're talking to the West it's absolutely goading them. It's more or less saying are you really comfortable being in this position? So essentially different angles but all starting from the same common premise that this isn't going to go anywhere.

And how far does Russia actually succeed in painting itself as this reasonable world power trying to uphold the rules of the game, given what it's been doing in Ukraine for almost three years now? I mean, I think we shouldn't underestimate the degree to which, especially in the global south, as we would generally call it, which Putin and his people now call the world majority in a

I think we shouldn't underestimate the degree to which there is a considerable scepticism about Western claims to be the ones who stand up for stability and the world order, because they have a tendency to say, well, yes, it's the world order that the West has created in the West's interests. And they point, for example, to various other conflicts in which the West hasn't really got involved yet.

So that I think there is something of an open door against which the Russians are pushing. And particularly in Africa, for example, the Russians have been presenting their war in Ukraine ridiculously as an anti-colonial war.

But for countries whose experience of colonialism has been at the hands of British, French, Italian, German, Belgian and so forth adventurers, they're more likely to actually listen to the Russians making this claim. So, look, I mean, at the moment, I think everyone is by now fairly well accustomed to the fact that Trump says a lot more than he does. But nonetheless, the very fact that this underscores the degree to which America has

could conceivably start to precisely become a rather aggressive bully on the world scene isn't as unrealistic a prospect to some countries as we might hope. So is it that the Kremlin is using this to make Russia seem more reasonable?

Or are they just trying to say to the world, well, we're all as bad as each other ultimately? Yeah, the latter is very much the way the Russians have presented themselves. I mean, obviously, where they can claim some kind of little scrap of moral high ground, they try to do so. But their main line, frankly, a line that actually does have some kind of success, is to say, look, we're not angels.

But the point is, this is a massively hypocritical attack from the West because, in fact, everyone is just the same when push comes to shove. Despite the Kremlin arguing that Donald Trump is the aggressor with his stance on Greenland, Russia has been moving some of its most modern anti-aircraft missiles to the Arctic Circle and it's been...

building more bases as well in the Arctic. Are we going to see more of that as part of this Russian response to Trump? There's a limit to really what the Russians can do. I mean, in part, they've been moving stuff northwards simply to get it out of the range of the increasingly far-reaching Ukrainian attacks. Secondly, it is a sort of symbolic gesture that we regard ourselves as assailed from every side and we are ready.

But the point is, actually, at the moment, the lion's share of Russian military resources that are not committed to the strategic rocket forces, nuclear forces, is going on Ukraine. And it's not as though Russia is in a position that I continue to fight the current struggle in Ukraine and also to build up its other facilities. If one looks at what's going on in terms of base building in the high north, essentially this is about two things. One is precisely acquiring search and rescue capability.

And the second thing is actually coping with the fact that global warming, climate change, is also beginning to melt the permafrost. And therefore you quite literally have some Russian bases that are going to be sinking into the ground as the permafrost thaws. So they're having to build new ones further back or more effectively buttressed in order to cope with that.

Last month, Mark, the head of the Russian Navy, Aleksandr Moiseyev, said that the world was heading for a confrontation, I think was the word he used, in the Arctic. Do you think this intervention from Russia, days away from Donald Trump re-entering the White House, makes that more likely or is it still very unlikely? Yeah, it's very unlikely because Russia

Really, the big story in the Arctic, apart from just the extraction of natural resources, has been the receding pack ice, which is in due course going to open up a new trade route, so-called Northern Route, which will go above Russia and essentially will be a cheaper, quicker way for the productive capacities of China to be connected to the markets of North America.

And the striking thing about this is actually how many different interests will be served by this. The Russians are hoping to get their cut by presenting themselves as stewards of this region with search and rescue and everything else. The Chinese are obviously looking for quicker, cheaper shipping. And we want our cheap iPhones and all the other goodies that we get from China. And we want them as cheaply and as easily as possible.

So, yes, in theory, there is this scenario being portrayed that the Arctic is going to become an increasingly sort of hot confrontation zone. The fact of the matter is, whichever power actually initiated that, and let's be honest, the Russian fleet, although it's largely intact apart from its Black Sea fleet, is not anything more really than a coastal defence force. It can't take on Western navies. But the point is, it's whoever starts the struggle

will actually be the one causing massive economic damage to China, to the West, and frankly will probably pay the price for that.

Mark, you mentioned a few minutes ago, and this is something that we've spoken about on this podcast before, that Donald Trump often talks big, but is not being literal and laying out his policy. He's actually setting out perhaps an opening gambit, a negotiating position, which he's then going to edge back from. Assuming that that is the case here, and rather than

full control of Greenland. He persuades Denmark and Greenland to have more access, a bigger American presence, if you like. In that situation, in that eventuality, how do you think Russia would react? I mean, the honest answer is twofold. On one level, yes, they would be dismayed to see a new US base being constructed or whatever.

But at the same time, look, this is not a quick process. This will take quite a long time. It's probably a multi-presidential process. And in the meantime, again, it will give Russia the opportunity to say, you see, we've always said this. The issue is actually about this hostile West that is trying to encircle Russia. Now, again, it's nonsense. But on the other hand, it allows them to, again,

bring up these arguments, present it as, you know, we are essentially on the defence and it is the West that is aggressive. So, you know, on balance, look, there's not much they can do. There's a limited number of political fights that today's Russia can afford to take on. And there's no way they can stop the Americans from doing that, even though they are one of the various Arctic guarantor powers. But, well, when it comes down to it,

I think they will regard a US base in Greenland as actually being a sign that America has cracked the whip. And they're going to use it as a way of also reaching out to European populations and say, are you really comfortable being a vassal state of an aggressive and expansionist America? They will see what they can do with it. Mark Gagliotti, Senior Associate Fellow at RUCI and Director of MIAC Intelligence. Thank you very much for joining us.

That's it from us. Thank you for taking 10 minutes to stay on top of the world with the help of The Times. See you tomorrow.