Denmark has not yet done so, while Copenhagen does not invoke Article 4, the rest is just words. How will the war in Ukraine end? Russia cannot lose the war in Ukraine, Russia has already won that war, Vladimir Putin is in no hurry, time plays in his favor in the sense that he gains territory and counts on Europe finding it increasingly difficult to spend money to support Kyiv. I think this will end when the European Union understands that this issue has no further scope. What lesson does the war leave about Moscow's military capability? This has two parts: the conventional one, where the United States remains superior to Russia technologically, and the unconventional one, which is nuclear, in which they are tied. Should Trump have occupied Venezuela in addition to capturing Nicolás Maduro? Trump is achieving what he wanted, he is a merchant, he managed to get Maduro and put him before the judge, now we are seeing the real threads in Venezuela regarding oil, rare earths, while democracy is delayed. The thing is that it cannot change overnight, I see it as intelligent that he uses, from the threat of his enormous military force, the own bosses of Venezuela so that they make the necessary reforms and then, once carried out, there is room for democracy. The current edition of the Forum in Geneva has had more to do with defense and security issues than with business and the economy: the annual meeting was dominated by the United States' threat to annex Greenland, a territory belonging to Denmark. Retired Lieutenant General Pedro Pitarch is following the events closely. Former General Director of Policy at the Ministry of Defense of Spain, former Commander General of the European Army Corps, his career makes him an inevitable reference at the present time. In conversation with LPO, Pitarch explains Trump's movements in the dispute with Greenland, gives his opinion on the future of the war in Ukraine and on Washington's military operation in the Caribbean. Is Donald Trump's obsession with Greenland acceptable from a U.S. national security point of view? Of course, Trump has expressed interest in U.S. national security, what is happening now is that his concept of security extends from the North Pole to Tierra del Fuego, I understand that it is a very current reading but the problem is that the president has the manners of a Turkish bazaar stall owner. Greenland, if you look at the map, is key to U.S. security due to the potential fronts that could come from the Arctic, if you think about it, this area is being configured as the new frontier of the new cold war. But during the Cold War, Greenland was not on the global dispute board, why now? Two reasons, because in those years there was no Trump and there was no climate change that makes the Arctic navigable even in winter, that possibility of movement is what changes everything. How do you understand Europe's response? This deployment of small groups of military personnel has no practical meaning, it is only symbolic, of disagreement with Trump, it is a show of solidarity but very nuanced because if you look, the ones sending military contingents are the countries that surround Denmark, as if it were a Northern European affair, of France, Germany, the Netherlands, among others, while Southern European countries do not appear. How would a U.S. military deployment in Greenland work? Greenland is two million square kilometers of ice floes, so it would not be a military occupation, but instead, increase security presence and install a missile system that allows greater control of that area of influence. Trump is a political realist in its purest form, he only understands the language of power, against that Europe has two fundamental shortcomings, one in defense and another in diplomacy, as it has to consensus everything it cannot act with the force of the United States, China and Russia and this makes Europe make only symbolic gestures. Europe has rested too long on NATO, on the idea that an attack on one is an attack on all and the reality that the United States is the undisputed leader of the alliance and from there is that Europe has not occupied itself enough of its defense. What can Denmark do to defend itself within the mechanisms of NATO? Article four of the Washington treaty, which is the foundation of NATO, says that allies will consult when they feel threatened in their security, if Denmark feels threatened in its security, in its integrity what it has to do is to formally request in NATO that the consultation period be opened. It happened recently with Poland when Russia invaded Ukraine.
