Greenlandic Rift: Will Denmark and Europe withstand the pressure of Washington's appetites?
Kyiv • UNN
Donald Trump is once again showing interest in Greenland, calling it a "big real estate deal" and a matter of US strategic security. This has caused concern among Danish and European leaders, who see it as a threat to sovereignty and NATO's integrity.
Ice melts, and passions boil. The largest island on the planet, which for centuries was considered an endless white desert, suddenly found itself in the center of a geopolitical storm. Emboldened US President Donald Trump, after a fantastic operation in Venezuela, has seriously played out and is going on the offensive on literally all fronts.
At the beginning of his second term, Donald Trump repeatedly stated that the United States "must acquire" Greenland, calling it a matter of strategic and global security. This was primarily about countering Russia and China in the Arctic. However, a little later, the tension subsided, everyone got used to the "acts of madness" and empty words of the US President. And then the notorious Venezuela happens. Something changes. America declares the Western Hemisphere an "exclusive zone" of its interests. In fact, Trump pulls out the "Monroe Doctrine" of 1823 from dusty archives, adapting it to modern realities. This is a return to the concept of "America for Americans," where any presence or influence of other states in the Western Hemisphere is regarded as a direct threat to the United States.
The Monroe Doctrine was very important, and we forgot about it, but we will not forget about it anymore. Our new security strategy is dominance in the Western Hemisphere.
And it is a great misfortune for small Denmark to control a huge island that suddenly becomes a territory of historical redistribution of the world. Donald Trump's new statements that the defense of Greenland is only "two dog sleds" caused real alarm in Copenhagen. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called this period a "fateful moment."
We are at a crossroads. If the Americans turn away from the Western alliance and threaten an ally, which we have not seen before, everything will stop.
For Trump, Greenland is a "great real estate deal." For Denmark, it is a matter of sovereignty and the integrity of the kingdom. But is it only about emotions? Trump appeals to the fact that Denmark spends meager funds on the island's defense, while the US maintains the strategic Thule Air Base there, which is part of the early warning system for missile attacks. And here is the rhetorical question: isn't Trump right?
And why is Greenland "green" at all?
Let's get a little distracted. Looking at the map, and knowing English at least at the first-grade level, a question arises. Why the hell is this white spot called green? And all because the history of Greenland's name is one of the first examples of successful marketing in history.
In the 10th century, the Viking Erik the Red, exiled from Iceland for murder, sailed west and found a huge island. To lure settlers there, he named it Greenland ("Green Land"), although 80% of the territory is covered with ice. In contrast, Iceland, which is actually much greener, got its name from the first settlers who arrived there in a harsh winter and saw only ice-filled fjords. This is such an interesting, sometimes funny fact.
How did Greenland come under Danish rule?
Greenland came under Danish rule as a result of a long historical process that combined medieval claims and colonial policy. In the 10th century, the island was settled by Norwegian Vikings (we already know who brought them there), and formally it was considered part of Norway, and later – the Dano-Norwegian Union. After the disappearance of Scandinavian settlements in the 15th century, Greenland fell out of the European political space for several centuries. Denmark established real control in 1721, when the missionary Hans Egede, with the support of the crown, founded the first permanent settlements. In 1953, Denmark abolished Greenland's colonial status and integrated it into the kingdom, granting residents citizenship and parliamentary representation. Since 1979, Greenland has had autonomy, and since 2009, expanded self-government, although defense and foreign policy remain with Denmark.
Why is Greenland an island of treasures and world domination?
Why do the US so persistently want to control this island? It's always about money, but not only. Under the Greenlandic ice lie deposits of oil, gas, and, most importantly today, rare earth metals, necessary for the production of smartphones and electric vehicles.
Not only the states are so smart. China actively tried to invest in Greenlandic airports and mines, but the states blocked these deals through Denmark, realizing that China's economic presence in the Arctic is a direct threat to US national security.
And of course, what about the Russians? Russia is militarizing the Arctic at a frantic pace. Greenland is an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" that controls the shortest path for missiles between the Russian Federation and the United States across the North Pole. US Vice President Vance literally recently said this.
Have the Europeans and Danes done everything necessary to protect Greenland and preserve its role as a pillar of global security and missile defense? The answer is obvious – no.
That is, the politician hints that in the event of a nuclear war, Greenland will have strategic importance in intercepting missiles.
World leaders' reaction to the possible annexation of Greenland
For the first time in many decades, Europeans spoke of the US not as a guarantor of security, but as a potential "risk." Joint statement by EU leaders: On January 6, 2026, key European countries: France, Germany, and Britain issued a statement clearly emphasizing: "Denmark and Greenland, and only they, must decide their future."
French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer are trying to convince Trump that strategic goals (deterring China and Russia) can be achieved through strengthening existing agreements, not through annexation. The Netherlands and Norway: Separately emphasized that the sovereignty of a NATO ally is inviolable. The Norwegian Foreign Ministry stated: "The very idea of NATO will be broken if the US takes Greenland by force."
Will NATO collapse over Greenland?
The situation around Greenland strikes at the very heart of the Alliance - Article 5 on collective defense. If one NATO country (the US) threatens the territorial integrity of another (Denmark), the Alliance loses its meaning. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen directly warned: "If the US attacks Greenland, everything will stop, including NATO."
Greenland rejects joining the US and remains in alliance with Denmark13.01.26, 19:08 • 3256 views
Radical scenarios are already being discussed in diplomatic circles. For example, Günther Fehlinger (head of the Austrian Committee for NATO Enlargement) suggested that in the event of a forceful seizure of the island, European countries could confiscate all US military bases on their territory - from Ramstein in Germany to bases in Romania and Italy.
However, Europe remains Europe, calm, balanced, unfortunately, toothless. The Financial Times notes that NATO headquarters in Brussels currently maintains an alarming silence, trying not to provoke Trump into even sharper steps before the US midterm elections in November 2026.
The main question. Has anyone asked the Greenlanders?
The people of Greenland themselves (about 57,000 people) are determined. Polls show that 85% of residents oppose joining the US, but an absolute majority also does not want to be part of Denmark. These proud people do not want to be "real estate" in a geopolitical game. They want independence.
Ukraine's dilemma: superpower US or loyal friend Denmark
For Ukraine, the situation looks like a classic diplomatic split.
On the one hand, the US is our main strategic partner, no matter what disagreements we have now – everyone understands everything perfectly. On the other hand, Denmark has become a model of "new constructivism" for us. As a person who worked in the Mykolaiv Regional State Administration, I saw this process from the inside. The Kingdom of Denmark took patronage over the southern region. This is a country that does not just promise – it acts. They were the first to take an entire region under their care, their help in infrastructure, water supply, and the reconstruction of Mykolaiv is an invaluable contribution. Moreover, the country actively cooperates with Ukraine in the defense industry. This is the first NATO country that allowed the construction of a Ukrainian plant for military needs. Moreover, the state violated more than 20 different rules and laws, imagine how incredible that is. Europe… violates… norms… This is fantastic.
What should Ukraine do in the situation with the potential annexation of part of Denmark?
Do not choose a side. This is a conflict within NATO. Ukraine must support the integrity of the Alliance. Advocacy through Denmark: We can be a voice that reminds the US that "small" European countries are incredibly effective allies.
Use the Greenland case: Show the US that we understand their strategic interests in the Arctic, but emphasize the importance of international law - a principle that protects both Greenland from "absorption" and Ukraine from annexation.
Ukraine fundamentally cannot recognize or support the forceful transfer of Greenland to the US, even under pressure from Washington. We have been fighting against the Russian logic of "the right of the strong" for 12 years. If Kyiv recognizes Trump's right to "take" territory due to its strategic importance, we automatically legitimize Putin's arguments regarding Crimea or Donbas, and then Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Recognition of the "Greenland scenario" will destroy our own legal position in international courts. Our armor is international law.
How to wisely get out of the deadlock and prevent war in Greenland?
Overall, from the outside, the situation around Greenland looks like an accident where American pragmatism, European values, and global threats have collided. However, there is a way out, and it lies not in the plane of "buying and selling," but in the plane of a new type of alliance.
Instead of unilateral US control, NATO could deploy a permanent multinational mission in Greenland, similar to those in the Baltic countries. This would reassure Trump, as the presence of Alliance troops (including American) would increase, while Denmark's sovereignty would remain inviolable. The US would gain security, and Europe would preserve its borders.
Resource alliance instead of annexation. Instead of trying to "take over" Greenland's mines, Washington, Copenhagen, and Nuuk (Greenland's capital) could conclude a trilateral economic agreement. The US would invest in rare earth metal extraction to displace China. Greenland would receive technology and jobs. Denmark would remain a guarantor of political stability. This is a "joint development agreement" that would give Trump the desired resources without violating international law.
It is also possible to apply a model under which the US has agreements with countries such as Palau or the Marshall Islands. Greenland could gain even more autonomy from Denmark by concluding a direct defense pact with the US, but formally remaining part of the Danish Kingdom. This would allow the US to "take care of the island's security" (as Trump wants) without destroying NATO.
Ukraine can act as a mediator, appealing to its own experience. We can propose the format of an "Arctic-Baltic Security Dialogue." Our position is simple: we are grateful to the US for weapons, and to Denmark for F-16s, the reconstruction of Mykolaiv, and the development of the defense industry. We are interested in our allies not quarreling while Russia sets the world on fire.
If Trump manages to present this as his diplomatic victory (strengthening US presence without shots fired), and Denmark maintains its integrity, the world will avoid a catastrophic split. This will be a victory for everyone. Peace in Greenland is stability in NATO. And stability in NATO is the only path to Ukraine's victory.