Their wording: “Trump can take Greenland because in an anarchic system, a great power willing to use coercion against a small state will succeed - Denmark has no means to resist”

Mearsheimer holds this from offensive realist theory: the international system does not prevent great powers from acting on their interests, and a power disparity this extreme makes the outcome structurally determined. Cross-conflict consistency: the same framework that explains Russia's behavior in Ukraine explains US behavior toward Greenland

Their wording: “Greenland combined with Ukraine would basically ruin NATO - the alliance cannot survive the US simultaneously coercing an ally and abandoning another”

Mearsheimer holds this as a structural prediction rather than an advocacy position: NATO depends on US credibility, and two simultaneous credibility-destroying actions would exceed the alliance's capacity to absorb

Their wording: “Great powers expand when the cost is low enough - Trump sees Greenland as achievable 'on the cheap' because Denmark cannot resist”

Mearsheimer does not endorse this normatively but describes it as how great powers behave: the structural opportunity (massive power asymmetry, minimal resistance cost) predicts the action regardless of international law