Greenland, Great Powers, & Europe’s Sovereignty Dilemma.

I want to start with a brief history because I want readers to understand, as Europe finds itself sandwiched between ambitious “larger states” (USA & Russia), the principles of 1648 serve as a reminder to Europe that to ensure peace in the region & to counter the aggression of larger powers, state sovereignty must be given primacy.

Historical Context:

Before 1648, the Holy Roman Empire (parts of modern-day Germany, Austria, Italy & France) & Spanish Empire (both under the Habsburg dynasty) were major forces that shaped contemporary geopolitics. These states asserted dominance over Europe with their aggressive interventionist policy. They believed to have universal authority over all smaller states. If a small state tried to establish an independent domestic policy, these larger states felt they had the legal and moral right to send in armies to “correct” them. (Does that sound similar?). This eventually led to one of the most destructive wars in European history, that is ‘thirty years war’. This war ended with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, where interventionist logic was replaced by state sovereignty with the concept of ‘border’ and non-intervention. No matter how small a country is, other nations are legally forbidden from crossing those borders.

Why USA wants Greenland?

To understand this, let me take you to Materialising Greenland within a Critical Arctic Geopolitics by  Klaus Dodds and Mark Nuttall. They have given a “volumetric view of Greenland” where Dodds and Nuttall argue Greenland should not be treated merely as a flat surface on the map; we have to see various aspects related to it.

Greenland as a shield:

Mr Trump argues Greenland acts as a natural shield for the US against airborne attacks from the north (particularly Russia). But the US already established a Pituffic Space Base in 1943 for the same purpose. So, even if security reasons exist, annexation is not the only way to address them.

Russia-China threat:

There is another speculation that if the US don’t acquire Greenland, Russia or China will. This can be linked to Russia’s flag planting on the seabed in 2007 to assert its dominance. But China’s case is different, as Johannes Mohr argued in “China in the Arctic and the Case of Greenland, China maintains a limited economic presence in Greenland primarily through rare earth exploration. Note that China pursued a mining licence, but most bids were rejected due to environmental and national security concerns. Thus, limiting China to exploration without extraction. Greenland is under NATO’s security umbrella, and on top of this, the US military is already stationed in Greenland under the defence agreement of 1951 between the US and Denmark. Thus, under present conditions, Mr Trump’s claim that Russia or China will annex Greenland appears vague.

Access to Minerals:

Greenland is estimated to have 110-120 million tonnes of REO (rare earth oxides), which primarily includes uranium, zinc, lithium, neodymium, praseodymium, etc. This is believed to be the implicit reason for the USA’s push for control over Greenland. If the rare earth supply chain is the main concern, then Greenland should be included in Pax Silica. This way, supply chain resilience can be established against China’s dominance, and Greenland will have sovereign decision and control over its resources.

Control over SLOC:

Arctic ice is melting due to climate change, which is opening maritime routes (Sea Lines Of Communication) that were earlier believed to be inaccessible. The Northern sea route, which connects the Atlantic to the Pacific via the Russia-Norway frontier and the Northwest passage, which connects the Arctic to the Atlantic via Canadian archipelagos, have the potential to shape the international connectivity and trade dynamics as a whole. 

But Russia have an edge here because it has invested heavily in infrastructure and technology to navigate through icy routes. Russia operates 15+ deep water ports like Murmansk, Sabetta and Dikson, etc. Russia’s icebreaker fleet is unmatched, with over 40 icebreakers, including nuclear-powered fleets. This capacity positions Russia not only to navigate icy waters but also to shape the regulatory and logistical environment.

To match these decade-long efforts, the US needs to adopt a collaborative approach. Recent efforts like the ICE pact (2026) signed between the USA, Finland and Canada to pool shipbuilding expertise and the Polar Security Cutter, which aims to build Icebreakers offer a better way forward rather than the annexation of Greenland.

Europe’s Dilemma:

Europe is sandwiched between Russia’s military aggression from the east and now America’s assertive posture from the west. While Russia’s aggression is explicit and limited to hard power, the US poses a diplomatic challenge on top of a territorial challenge. 

Mr Trump and Putin meeting in Alaska over Ukrine issue without any European leaders and Mr Trump’s advocacy for G2 with China poses a diplomatic challenge for NATO and questions its relevance.

If Europe assumes that current relations with the US are strained merely due to Mr Trump’s aggressive style, and will dissipate once he leaves the Presidential office, then it is misreading the structural nature of the issue. Trump is not the first one to put forth the acquisition of Greenland, & he will not likely be the last one. As early as 1867, Former Secretary of State William Seward expressed interest in owning Greenland for the same “security reasons”; the US again offered to buy Greenland under Truman’s presidency. Therefore, Greenland is a recurring feature of the USA’s foreign policy, which will continue create tensions with Europe’s sovereignty. Thus, Europe needs to stop treating this issue through a reactionary lens. It has to reduce its dependency on the US for its security and focus on building defense capacity of its own.

There is also a persistent risk for Europe that the USA will leave NATO. This stems from Europe’s internal conflicts (reflected in the Ilulissat Declaration 2008, where the Arctic 5 countries tried to set rules for the region, excluding other European nations). If the USA leaves, then NATO will collapse due to internal divisions among European nations. It is USAs military might that keeps NATO intact. Europe relied heavily on the USA for its security, and it is paying the price where Europe increasingly finds itself in a situation akin to the fox guarding the henhouse, where the very power meant to ensure its security becomes a source of strategic dependence and erosion of sovereignty.

Europe’s path to strategic resilience:

Resolving internal divisions:

Europe must address its internal fractures, which currently leave the continent vulnerable to disintegration should the USA decide to revoke its security guarantees. By standing firm and unified for its own safety and security, Europe creates leverage against the USA’s uncertainty for NATO’s security. A unified Europe is a more difficult entity to “bully” or abandon.

The Deterrence:

If Europe firmly resists the USA’s attempts to take over Greenland, it demonstrates a commitment to Westphalian sovereignty that will discourage Russia from further westward expansion.

But, if Europe remains silent or inactive regarding Greenland and allows a US takeover, it will encourage Russia to expand further into Ukraine and beyond.

Greenland is therefore not merely a territorial question but a litmus test for Europe’s commitment to sovereignty in an era of renewed great-power politics. Upholding the spirit of Westphalia today is about preserving a rule-based order where even small territories retain the right to decide their own future.