Posted on 01/20/2026 4:34:48 AM PST by SunkenCiv
Former U.S. ambassador John Bolton criticizes President Trump's escalating rhetoric on acquiring Greenland, possibly by military force, because of security concerns. "This is a tragedy that just unfolds day by day, causing us more and more harm," Bolton tells "NewsNation Prime."
Trump's Greenland threats aren't real, but they're harmful: John Bolton | 5:24
NewsNation | 2.52M subscribers | 302,702 views | January 18, 2026
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
What's his FR nick?
[transcript]Will Americans respond for more? Tonight we are joined live by Ambassador John Bolton, former National Security Adviser under President Trump, as well as former Ambassador to the UN. Appreciate your time and your perspective on this. Let's start with Greenland tonight. President Trump has been very aggressive in his rhetoric here. He says he will take it by force if necessary. You actually penned an op-ed in The Telegraph about this. You say that this Greenland grab is Trump's worst move yet, also claiming nothing America needs in the country requires sovereignty or military force. Tell me more about this. Tell me why.
>> Well, the damage that Donald Trump is doing to America's reputation, to the belief and trust in good faith, and the lines our European allies and friends around the world have drawn is just impossible to state. This is so extraordinary to threaten the invasion of a NATO ally to seize by force territory from a democracy. The impact is just... you cannot calculate how bad this is for us. There is nothing that we need at the moment in terms of security in Greenland that is not fully provided in a 1951 treaty with Denmark called the Defensive Grant Treaty. And you know, if we could get this out of the spotlight, I think diplomats agreed between the two countries and with other NATO allies could resolve this very quickly. This is a tragedy that just unfolds day by day, causing us more and more harm.
Wow. I mean, so let me take the counterpoint. Then the President has said.
>> But if we don't take action, Russia or China will. Tell me why you believe that reason alone is not enough to do something.
Well, the question is whether Russia and China are going to do something. They are clearly a threat in the Arctic Circle. We have known that for decades. The U.S. has been lax in taking steps against any other NATO ally. And there's nothing that we wouldn't do to protect our interests from threats by Russia and China in Greenland, in Northern Canada, or Alaska. The defense of these NATO territories is all critical, and that's why you have alliances. So this idea that somehow we alone can defend... it's not a question of defending Greenland. The President said Chinese and Russian ships are all over. They are not. This threat comes because of the melting polar ice cap. We need surveillance capabilities up there. We need to protect against Chinese efforts through the Belt and Road Initiative, stout financing to get minerals in Greenland. All of this is possible. It has nothing to do with the need for American military force. If you want to rip up the NATO alliance, if you want to convince every other American ally around the world—Japan, South Korea, Australia—that we can't be trusted, go ahead and use military force against Denmark and go ahead and threaten your best friends and allies with retaliatory tariffs because they just won't give in. This is so counterproductive for the United States that it's going to take years to repair the damage that Donald Trump is doing, and none of it will do anything for the security of Greenland or the NATO alliance.
>> Yeah. Tell me. Tell me about the stakes here. Do you think this could lead to the breaking up of NATO? Are you talking about World War III? What are the stakes?
>> Well, it could consider what it means for the United States to invade an ally like Denmark. Is Canada next, shall we? Invade Great Britain? How about Spain? What is it that gives Trump the idea that the only way to deal with one of the friendliest countries in the world toward America for 250 years is to threaten military force? Now people say, well, that's just the way Trump is. That's not the right answer. He's the President of the United States, and overseas, people take what he says seriously, and they think that the risk of military force is real. I don't think it is, but other people could be forgiven if they do. And then to compound that by threatening a trade war after we've agreed with your last year on Trump's April tariffs on Liberation Day. You know, this says no deal with Trump is ever final. Is that really the way you want other countries to look at us? Our word is never a lot longer? Does that have... are we going to be a hero in every... and we're almost out of time. But I have to ask you, this is your former boss. Give us some insight. Why do you think he's doing this? Why Greenland?
>> Well, he said the other day we need Greenland. Psychologically, the United States does not need Greenland. Psychologically, Donald Trump does. That is why this is not about American national security. This is about bad Donald...YouTube transcript reformatted at textformatter.ai.
...
If it’s not real, how can it be harmful?
UK clears construction of ‘mega’ Chinese Embassy in London, delayed over national security concerns
Our republic has no allies among the governments of Western Europe.
Sit down and shut up, John. No one listens to you any more, you are completely discredited.
We used to love John Bolton when Trump anointed him but now we hate John Bolton because Trump disowned him. There will be many posts on this thread before we hear one substantive word contradicting what John Bolton said, it's much easier to attack the man than to deal with the uncomfortable truth he utters.
Says the indicted hypocrite who likely traded national secrets with America’s enemies.
He is indicted and pending court on the misuse of national secrets but go ahead hitch your wagon to his credibility.
People can like policies but find a person offensive, typical liberal always seeing everything in one dimension.
Maybe you did.
I never trusted Bolton after our Bush-era Middle-East debacles, even if Trump did use him for a while.
I also recognize that Trump made a number of bad deep state personnel decisions in his first term.
Bolton, the traitor, would love a war, any war. Always has. He just has TDS.
When is this guy’s trial? Why is he out on bail? Why is the press giving him any credibility?
Trump is "America First!" Because if we don't start pushing America, first, there will be no America. And when America fully collapses, the world is, as they say, "..in a world of hurt."
Interesting being indicted for misuse of classified information is not substantial, the fact this speaks to his possible motif in making such statements somehow goes over your head.
The ignorance of willful obfuscation was expected. Courts recognize people have a motive for saying things, but somehow that goes over your head. To you it is not substantial that his comments may be colored by his bias.
motif = motive
causing us more and more harm? Bolton doesn’t know my old friend ‘Jack’.
STFU John
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.