Did ex-NATO general say, ‘If Trump moves on Greenland, Europeans must be ready to fight the US’?

Following the U.S. government’s capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on Jan. 3, 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump declared oversight over Venezuela and revived a longstanding objective to acquire Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory in the Arctic rich in minerals as well as oil and gas reserves.

As Trump’s threats against Greenland amped up — White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Jan. 6 that “U.S. military is always an option” for takeover — concerns regarding the stability of NATO intensified. The U.S. takeover of European territory would signal a break in an alliance created after World War II to counter Soviet and communist expansion.

Amid this geopolitical tension, a claim emerged that a former top NATO general, Michel Yakovleff, called for Europe to “fight” the U.S. if Trump seized Greenland.

The claim spread on multiple platforms, including Facebook and X (archived). Several posts used outdated images of Yakovleff being interviewed, further muddying the origins of the quote. One post claimed that Yakovleff said, “If Trump moves on Greenland, Europeans must be ready to fight the U.S.”

However, the statement was incorrectly attributed to Yakovleff, who did not say those words. He did give an interview on French TV in which he discussed Greenland, but his comments stopped short of explicitly calling for Europe to fight the U.S. in the event of an invasion. 

The interview aired on Télévision Française 1, a French media network (beginning at approximately 1:02:24). Rather than call for war, Yakovleff advocated “divorce” from the U.S. if NATO ends and “Trump talks to us like that.” The following is an English translation of the circulated clip, verified by a native speaker (emphasis ours):

It’s the end of NATO, yes, by definition. So we won’t go to war with the United States because we don’t have the means to go to war with the United States. Like a child faced with a toxic parent, we’re taken by surprise, that’s for sure. On the other hand, they wanted Greenland, so we kicked them out of Rammstein and Naples. You go home, you’ve got nothing, plus a stick. Who’s put out? We are. […] If NATO ends and Trump talks to us like that, it’s time to talk to the lawyers and speak of divorce. We need to end it here.

It’s unclear where the incorrect quote originated, but Yakovleff said in an email to Snopes that the interviewer also did not give him time to “elaborate or qualify” his position. When we asked if he’d stated the quote in question, he said, “I may have said something along those lines. … But it does not represent my full views, which are a bit more sophisticated than what I started to say before being interrupted.”

He proposed a “European symbolic force” that would send a message instead of actual war. Given NATO’s priority of defending Ukraine amid its war with Russia and its desire to keep the U.S. on board, he wrote: “Antagonizing Trump openly and directly is not on the table right now,” though he said the stakes were “absolutely existential to NATO.” 

Regarding a symbolic, “small trigger force,” he clarified:

If I were a counselor to European leaders ([French President Emmanuel] Macron in particular), I would advocate upping the ante on Greenland, by deploying a small trigger force to Greenland. For example: protecting public buildings. That would mean that if US troops landed, they would have to face the prospect of engaging some of their allies. Of course they would win. But still, from the perspective of US Marines, Special Forces or whatever, actually shooting at European allies would be slightly problematic. This implies that the European symbolic force would operate openly under Rules of Engagement (ROE) that allow initiative of fire, for example, against helicopters landing unauthorized forces. Or forces attempting to take over a public building.

In the court of public opinion, in America, imagine the prospect of parliament set ablaze by American fire power, with Allied casualties and prisoners. Humiliating for Europeans, OK, but what about American opinion? A festering sore, for sure.

We wrote to NATO seeking information regarding the alliance’s official stance on Greenland, and an official responded that NATO has a clear interest in maintaining security and stability in the Arctic. “NATO is also enhancing its focus on the High North through improved situational awareness, training and exercises to ensure readiness in all conditions, and Allies are investing in key air and maritime capabilities,” the official wrote.

The scope of this investment in “air and maritime capabilities” is unclear, as of this writing.

For further reading, Snopes investigated the claim that the U.K. has “dibs” on Greenland should Denmark decide to sell the territory.

Sources