options

US discussing options to acquire Greenland, including use of military

Watch: What Trump and Vance have said about Greenland

US President Donald Trump has been discussing “a range of options” to acquire Greenland, including use of the military, the White House said.

The White House told the BBC that acquiring Greenland – a semi-autonomous region of fellow Nato member Denmark – was a “national security priority”.

The statement came hours after European leaders issued a joint statement rallying behind Denmark, which has been pushing back against Trump’s ambitions for the Arctic island.

Trump repeated over the weekend that the US “needed” Greenland for security reasons, prompting Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen to warn that any attack by the US would spell the end of Nato.

The White House said on Tuesday: “The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the US military is always an option at the Commander-in-Chief’s disposal.”

Nato is a trans-Atlantic military group where allies are expected to go to each other’s aid in case of external attacks.

On Tuesday, six European allies expressed support for Denmark.

“Greenland belongs to its people, and only Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters concerning their relations,” the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Denmark said in a joint statement.

Stressing they were as keen as the US in Arctic security, the European signatories of the joint statement said this must be achieved by Nato allies, including the US “collectively”.

They also called for “upholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders”.

Map showing the location of Greenland and the capital Nuuk, relatively to Denmark, Canada and the United States. Also labelled is the US capital Washington.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen welcomed the statement and called for “respectful dialogue”.

“The dialogue must take place with respect for the fact that Greenland’s status is rooted in international law and the principle of territorial integrity,” Nielsen said.

The issue of Greenland’s future resurfaced in the wake of the US military intervention in Venezuela, during which elite troops went in to seize the country’s President Nicolás Maduro and take him to face drugs and weapons charges in New York.

A day after that raid, Katie Miller – the wife of one of Trump’s senior aides – posted a map on social media of Greenland in the colours of the American flag, alongside the word “SOON”.

On Monday, her husband, Stephen Miller, said it was “the formal position of the US government that Greenland should be part of the US”.

Asked repeatedly in an interview with CNN whether America would rule out using force to annex it, Miller responded: “Nobody’s going to fight the US over the future of Greenland.”

An unnamed US senior official told Reuters news agency that the American options included the outright purchase of Greenland or forming a Compact of Free Association with the territory.

In response, a state department spokesperson told the BBC on Tuesday that the US “is eager to build lasting commercial relationships that benefit Americans and the people of Greenland”.

“Our common adversaries have been increasingly active in the Arctic. That is a concern that the United States, the Kingdom of Denmark, and NATO Allies share,” the spokesperson said.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also told lawmakers at a classified briefing on Capitol Hill on Monday that the Trump administration did not plan to invade Greenland, but mentioned buying it from Denmark, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Greenland and Denmark previously said they had asked to meet Rubio quickly to discuss the American claims on the island.

Denmark’s Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said speaking with America’s top diplomat should resolve “certain misunderstandings”.

Senator Eric Schmitt, a Republican from Missouri, emphasised the national security aspect when he spoke to the BBC on Tuesday.

“I think they’re just in talks right now,” he said. “My hope is that Europe would understand that a strong America is good – it’s good for Western civilisation.”

Republican Senator Schmitt to the BBC: It’s “important” US moves forward with acquiring Greenland

Trump floated his idea of acquiring Greenland as a strategic US hub in the Arctic during his first presidential term, saying in 2019: “Essentially it’s a large real estate deal.”

There is growing interest from Russia and China in the island, which has untapped rare earth deposits, as melting ice raises the possibility of new trade routes.

In March, Trump said America would “go as far as we have to go” to get control of the territory.

During a congressional hearing last summer, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth was asked if the Pentagon had plans to take Greenland by force if necessary, and he said they “have plans for any contingency”.

Greenland, which has a population of 57,000 people, has had extensive self-government since 1979, though defence and foreign policy remain in Danish hands.

While most Greenlanders favour eventual independence from Denmark, opinion polls show overwhelming opposition to becoming part of the US, which already has a military base on the island.

Morgan Angaju, 27, an Inuit living in Ilulissat in the west region of the country, told the BBC it had been “terrifying to listen to the leader of the free world laughing at Denmark and Greenland and just talking about us like we’re something to claim”.

“We are already claimed by the Greenlandic people. Kalaallit Nunaat means the land of the Greenlandic people,” Morgan said.

He added that he was worried about what happens next – wondering whether Greenland’s prime minister may suffer the same fate as Maduro – or even about the US “invading our country”.

Source link

Bruno Fernandes injury: What are Manchester United’s options?

Since Amorim’s arrival, he has attempted to get United playing his specific system, rarely straying away from his philosophy.

By taking a system-first approach, Amorim looks for specific qualities from his players in each position, asking them to adapt to what he wants, rather than altering his system to fit the players at his disposal.

Looking at his system and what he wants from his midfielders may help explain how he navigates the next few months.

Amorim opts for a 3-2-4-1 shape that does not rely on having the majority of the ball.

At the start of his tenure, Amorim looked to build-up short, but to his credit has opted to play long from the keeper more often – which suits the players he has. This requires players able to cover distance and win second balls.

His side are asked to carry out passing routines too with patterns of play often ending in United’s midfielders playing through-balls over the top for attackers running in behind.

The midfield duo therefore need to be able to carry out these instructions.

Amorim’s preferred midfield duo of Casemiro and Fernandes provides clues to what he asks from his midfielders.

Casemiro’s role is more positionally strict – screening the defence, breaking up play and getting up and down the pitch to close the distance between defence and attack when the ball is played long.

Fernandes is given licence to contribute in attack but, like Casemiro, has the ability to run hard up and down the pitch, getting back to defend when needed.

Both players have a tendency to play direct passes into attackers running in behind whilst taking few touches in midfield – qualities that fit Amorim’s tactical plan.

The other midfield options must therefore fit into either Casemiro or Fernandes’ roles, with Ugarte being the most likely back-up to Casemiro while Mount, Martinez and Mainoo possess some of the quality to do Fernandes’ job.

Given the constraints around the Africa Cup of Nations and United’s injuries, the other option is for Amorim to tweak his system.

This is not something he has done yet at Old Trafford, but – when asked about a shortage of wing-backs – he hinted he could, depending “on the way we play in that particular week, if we have to change for a back four, we change for a back four”.

The shortage of midfielders could force his hand in the same way.

If United are to move to four at the back, with three in midfield, the obvious player to benefit would be Mainoo.

The England man has struggled to displace either Casemiro or Fernandes given the specific tactical demands Amorim asks for in this system. And the United boss believes Mainoo’s strengths and weaknesses are more suited to a midfield three.

“The problem is that we are playing with two [midfielders] and you guys see Kobbie in a different way to what I am seeing,” he said.

“Maybe if you play with three midfielders, not with just two. But with three, Kobbie will have more minutes.”

Source link