When Erik the Red named the land Greenland in the latter part of the 10th century, he realized a timeless truth about politics that still applies today: perception = power. By labeling a frozen border region a paradise, he persuaded migrants to move there and thereby provided Europe’s first Arctic foothold.
Yet today Greenland is once again at the nexus of global politics – not as a Viking settlement but as a strategic pivot point in a polarized Arctic resulting from the influences of climate change, great power politics, and the breakdown of trans-Atlantic unity.
The current situation in Greenland, triggered by coercive signals from President Trump, has laid bare long-standing assumptions about NATO’s cohesion, transatlantic predictability, and Arctic stability.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent defended Trump’s tariff threat, framing it as a “geopolitical decision” aimed at “avoiding a national emergency.” He argued that Europeans must accept U.S. control of Greenland as “the best outcome,” adding pointedly: Europeans project weakness; the U.S. projects strength. He also dismissed legal challenges to the tariffs, asserting it is “very unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule a president’s signature economic policy.” The controversy comes as Trump asserted that Denmark has been unable to counter the “Russian threat” in Greenland. He wrote: “Now it is time, and it will be done!!!”
The Greenland crisis is a profound stress test of Europe’s capacity to safeguard sovereignty, coordinate internally, and assert strategic autonomy in a rapidly changing Arctic.
For decades, Greenland was treated as a silent pillar of NATO’s Cold War architecture. The U.S.-Denmark Defense Agreement of 1951 which established the U.S. military’s official presence on the island and enabled the construction of Thule Air Base, is the source of its strategic importance. Control of North Atlantic air and sea links, early warning against Soviet bombers, and later missile defense and satellite monitoring all depended on Greenland.
Yet it was largely depoliticized: NATO managed the Arctic as a technical theater, relying on U.S.-Danish bilateralism rather than formal institutional oversight. The underlying assumption was clear—the Arctic could remain a low-tension region while the dominant power in the Alliance ensured stability.
That assumption has now collapsed. The United States has openly framed Greenland as a geopolitical necessity, invoked the specter of Russian and Chinese threats, and backed tariff measures as a form of coercive leverage against European allies. From a transatlantic perspective, this is unprecedented. NATO’s founding principle – that no member should threaten the territorial integrity of another-has been challenged not by an external adversary, but by its leading partner. For Europe, the implications are structural: NATO may remain militarily indispensable, but it is no longer politically predictable. Greenland’s crisis forces a reckoning with a reality long postponed: the continent may now have to assume far greater responsibility for its own deterrence, crisis management, and geopolitical resilience-including within NATO itself.
Europe’s Arctic Signal
First, the recent European troop deployments or military exercises in Greenland were not intended as a threat to the United States – nor should they be interpreted as such. They were largely symbolic and precautionary measures: a demonstration that Europe is attentive to its Arctic interests and capable of contributing to collective defense, while also signaling to domestic and international audiences that sovereignty and territorial integrity matter. Diplomacy often requires visible preparedness; it does not automatically equate to aggression.
Second, while Europe has conventionally relied on the U.S. for defense and security matters, it has also pursued initiatives aimed at enhancing its strategic autonomy-such as the European Defence Fund and Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO). These can also be seen as part of a long game aimed at matching European values with concrete strategic capabilities. Strategic thinking is also reflected in the growing preference for European defense autonomy, as evidenced in President Macron’s drive for Ukraine to purchase munitions made in Europe, decreasing the influence of foreign suppliers and strengthening the European defense-industrial base. The latter has always been incremental and hedged by political realities, but not absent.
Third, some argue that Europe is weak because it prioritizes social welfare over military strength. Yet European member states have deliberately pursued a model balancing defense, economic resilience, and social cohesion. It is precisely this combination that has produced internal stability, economic leverage, and soft power—tools of strategic influence often underestimated in zero-sum analyses. Let’s be clear: military strength is only one dimension of overall strategic capability.
Finally, the critique underestimates Europe’s current trajectory. The Greenland episode, alongside debates around NATO, Arctic sovereignty, and U.S. unpredictability, has already renewed attention to defense spending and EU strategic autonomy.
The European Union strategic culture is habitually expressed through coalition-building, multilateral instruments, and diligent diplomacy rather than by any unilateral, high-visibility actions. Briefly, the EU cannot afford to imitate an ultra-aggressive and transactional attitude or approach. Rather, its strength is a matter of building resilience, multilateralism, and legitimacy—all qualities that will be ever more essential in a multipolar world where raw power does not suffice.
A New Strategic Mechanism for Greenland?
At the January 14 U.S. – Danish – Greenlandic meeting, the parties agreed to continue discussions and announced the creation of a high-level working group tasked with exploring whether U.S. interests in Greenland could be reconciled with Denmark’s red lines. While the high-level working group can be seen as a way to discuss U.S. acquisition of Greenland, the working group nonetheless presents a real opportunity for diplomacy. It could reaffirm the terms of the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement or even renegotiate them. While it is difficult to imagine what more the United States could seek in an already revised agreement, the ceremonial signing of a new, equally generous deal could still be presented as a political win for NATO, and it can also address the long-term challenge of Greenlandic independence. Some Greenlanders have been pushing for autonomy, which would create a security gap. The working group could explore mechanisms to fill that gap, whether through a Defense of Greenland Agreement to an independent Greenland and integrating it into NATO – similar to Iceland’s model, where security is guaranteed by the Alliance despite the absence of a national military.
At present, there is a lack of effective multilateral enforcement, and although the Arctic Council plays a major role in this process, there is no decision-making power. That’s why the high-level working group may develop into a wider strategic body to cope with the challenges to governance in the region. When the remit is widened, the working group would be better positioned to manage these challenges, promoting collective security, the rule of law, and responsible resource use, thus mitigating the potential for strategic competition to disrupt the region.
Greenland at Davos: A Stress Test for Transatlantic Unity
Europe’s stance against the rising U.S. pressure regarding the issue of Greenland is taking shape in a precisely measured manner. European Council President António Costa has scheduled an extraordinary meeting with the full membership of the European Council over the coming days (mid-week in Brussels) for the purposes of unity, protection against territorial invasion, and a common defense strategy for Europe’s territories. The response from major capitals like Paris and Berlin is indicative of the common stance against the U.S., its resolute opposition to U.S.-led unilateral pressure, as well as maintenance of the transatlantic partnership. However, there are smaller member states calling for restraint as Europe calculates its strategy against the unpredictable strategy followed by Washington.
There is a World Economic Forum in Davos that is currently underway until January 23rd. This is a crucial diplomatic opportunity. EU leaders and representatives will have direct talks with high-ranking American interlocutors, possibly even during President Trump’s presence and speech at the forum, to reach a common understanding of their positions and work out compromises (for example, working together in NATO to ensure Arctic security without demanding territory). This is a direct effort to lower temperatures before defining possible courses of action within the EU summit. It is a balance of toughness and constructive engagement to avoid a disastrous cycle of deterioration within transatlantic affairs.
While the forum is more than a mechanism for public diplomacy and we live in turbulent times, in my view, the upcoming World Economic Forum in Davos promises a showcase of tough declarations, as European and U.S. leaders confront questions of sovereignty, NATO commitments, and Arctic strategy.
At Davos, the rhetoric is expected to echo the forceful tone of previous U.S. statements abroad. Just as Vice President Vance’s speeches in Munich and Paris combined admonishments with historical references, Greenland will likely be framed both as a strategic asset and a symbol of geopolitical leverage. U.S. officials are anticipated to stress Arctic security, early warning systems, and the “Russian threat” in ways designed to awaken Europe to perceived vulnerabilities.
Historical alliances and shared defense achievements will almost certainly feature – the Thule Air Base, the 1951 U.S.-Denmark Defense Agreement, and Cold War precedents. As with Lafayette’s sword in Vance’s Paris speech, Greenland’s strategic importance will be both literal and metaphorical: a reminder that tools of defense can safeguard liberty—or be leveraged for coercion.
The U.S. can emphasize its capability in the Arctic region, be it icebreakers, satellites, or surveillance systems, as deterrence tools. Then, Europe would be tasked with showing its preparedness, its contribution to the collective defense mechanism, and finally its strategic autonomy. There would also be tough talk against its overdependence on the U.S. leadership, yet cooperation can be feasible only when Europe takes the initiative.
Just as AI leadership requires speed, openness, and intelligent risk-taking, the diplomacy in Davos will require flexible rules, quick infrastructure development, and harmonization of norms for security. The forum is a litmus test for transatlantic cohesion. How Europe appears, united, tough, and ready, will demonstrate to both Moscow and Beijing that they can protect their interests without US dependability. The world will need leaders who are focused, credible, and resilient; acting in the precision of a well-run start-up.
Greenland will be probing the unity of NATO, and it is now a strategic scalpel; it cuts and sparks conflict when wielded unsoundly and builds and defends sovereignty when wielded shrewdly. How Europe “ships” its Arctic strategy today will define the regional balance of power for decades. The age of European preparedness—in strategy, policy, and diplomacy—must begin.
