With just over a week to go until his inauguration, Donald Trump has reignited the debate over Greenland with statements that have sent ripples across the global stage. He described America’s potential annexation of Greenland as an “absolute necessity” for national security, raising the stakes in what many see as a bold move to reclaim American dominance in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.
Greenland: A Strategic Gem in the Arctic
Greenland, a vast territory with a small population of just 60,000, has long been viewed as a geostrategic asset. Its rich natural resources, including rare earth minerals crucial for high-tech industries, and its proximity to the geopolitically vital Arctic Ocean make it a coveted prize. The melting ice caps are opening up new maritime routes, such as the Northern Sea Route, which promises to reshape global trade by drastically reducing transit times between Asia and Europe.
For Trump, securing Greenland is not just about resources but also about positioning the United States as a dominant player in the Arctic. The region is becoming a new theater for global competition, with Russia and China already expanding their presence. Russia, with its extensive Arctic coastline, has been developing infrastructure and military capabilities to capitalize on the region’s potential. China, too, has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and is investing heavily in the region through its Polar Silk Road initiative. Trump’s vision for Greenland positions the United States to assert its influence in a region that is becoming central to 21st-century geopolitics.
Trump’s 2019 bid to purchase Greenland was dismissed by many as a quixotic idea, but his renewed focus on the territory reveals a deeper understanding of its strategic importance. His son, Donald Trump Jr., has joined the campaign, distributing “Make Greenland Great Again” hats and emphasizing the mutual benefits of Greenland’s integration into the United States. Critics argue that Trump’s rhetoric about annexation and military intervention is provocative, but such acts reflect a departure from the diplomacy of the past. By bringing Greenland into the spotlight, Trump is forcing a conversation about America’s role in the Arctic and its preparedness to compete with rival powers, EU included. This pragmatic approach aligns with Trump’s broader foreign policy vision: a recalibration of American priorities to focus on achievable and strategically significant goals.
Trump’s Greenland ambitions are part of a larger strategy to reassert American hegemony in the face of shifting global dynamics. The Arctic, with its untapped resources and strategic importance, is a critical frontier in this effort.
Under a 1951 treaty with Denmark, the United States already has a significant presence in Greenland, including the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), a key component of its missile defense system. Trump’s emphasis on Greenland highlights the need to expand and strengthen this foothold, ensuring that America remains a dominant force in the Arctic.
Trump’s vision for Greenland can be seen as part of a broader “continental” strategy reminiscent of the Monroe Doctrine. By focusing on the Arctic and the Americas, Trump is redefining America’s sphere of influence and prioritizing regions where it can maintain dominance. This approach acknowledges the realities of a multipolar world while emphasizing the need for decisive action to protect American interests.
The EU’s Divided Response
In the wake of Trump’s provocative statements, the EU found itself in a familiar position: fragmented and reactive. French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz seized the opportunity to position themselves as defenders of European “sovereignty”, each issuing strong statements against Trump’s rhetoric. Scholz, with characteristic caution, lectured Trump on the “inviolability of borders,” emphasizing that even powerful nations must respect international law. Macron, in a more grandiose display, declared that “the EU will not allow any nation, no matter how powerful, to undermine its sovereign borders.”
In contrast, the European Commission took a markedly different approach, with spokesperson Anitta Hipper dodging questions about Trump’s remarks. Hipper insisted that the EU “will not go into specifics” about the issue, adding that the prospect of U.S. intervention in Greenland was “very theoretical.” Her reluctance to confront the matter head-on drew criticism, with many interpreting the Commission’s stance as a sign of weakness and disarray.
A Stark Contrast: France, Germany, and Brussels
The divergent strategies of France, Germany, and the European Commission underscore a deeper problem: the EU’s inability to present a unified front in the face of external pressure. Macron and Scholz, while vocal, failed to coordinate their messaging, inadvertently highlighting the absence of strategic unity within Europe. Their actions also exposed underlying tensions between national governments and Brussels, as both leaders sought to assert their influence over an EU apparatus that has increasingly centralized decision-making.
Brussels’ evasive response, meanwhile, did little to reassure member states or bolster the EU’s credibility on the global stage. By refusing to engage directly with Trump’s statements, the Commission appeared out of touch and ill-prepared to handle a crisis involving a key transatlantic partner. This approach not only undermined the EU’s claim to “strategic autonomy” but also reinforced perceptions of the bloc as a reactive, rather than proactive, actor in global affairs.
Trump’s Strategic Play and Europe’s Dilemma
Trump’s remarks about Greenland, while provocative, reflect a broader strategy to test Europe’s resolve and gauge its capacity for coordinated action. By stirring the pot, Trump has managed to expose the EU’s vulnerabilities, leaving it scrambling to reconcile conflicting national and institutional priorities. His comments also underscore the United States’ renewed focus on the Arctic as a critical frontier in the competition with Russia and China.
For Europe, Trump’s Greenland gambit presents a stark choice: adapt to the realities of a multipolar world or risk becoming irrelevant in the face of more assertive global actors. Despite years of rhetoric about “strategic autonomy,” the EU remains heavily reliant on U.S. military and economic support, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. This dependence has left Europe ill-prepared to counter Trump’s bold moves, effectively ceding the initiative to Washington.
The Irony of EU Sovereignty
The EU’s response to Trump’s Greenland ambitions also highlights the irony of its claims to sovereignty. While Macron and Scholz invoke the sanctity of borders and European unity, the reality is that the EU itself undermines the sovereignty of its member states through centralized policymaking. This contradiction has fueled tensions within the bloc, as national leaders vie for influence in a system that increasingly marginalizes their authority.
Macron and Scholz’s efforts to outdo one another in responding to Trump only served to underscore these divisions. Rather than presenting a cohesive European position, their actions revealed a lack of coordination and a growing rift between national capitals and Brussels. This disunity has left the EU vulnerable to external pressures, with Trump emerging as the ultimate beneficiary.
As America refocuses its priorities, Europe must confront the reality of a world divided into spheres of influence dominated by the United States, Russia, and China. Europe’s continued reliance on the transatlantic relationship, despite growing evidence of America’s shifting priorities, leaves it ill-prepared to navigate this new global order.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s dismissal of Trump’s proposal underscores Europe’s discomfort with America’s assertive approach. However, Trump’s focus on Greenland could serve as a wake-up call for Europe to strengthen its own Arctic strategy and address its dependence on external powers.
Trump’s Greenland vision is a microcosm of the larger “Great Game” unfolding in the Arctic. As global powers vie for influence in this resource-rich and strategically significant region, America’s ability to assert its interests will be critical to maintaining its global leadership. Trump’s willingness to confront these challenges head-on sets the stage for a more assertive and focused American foreign policy.
