EU and US Are Dividing Greenland Right Now
Source: iStock.com/Artindo
Overshadowed by the Middle East crisis, the Greenland issue has once again been brought to the fore by a recently published New York Times investigation and a speech by the European Commissioner ahead of the Future Greenland conference (see below).
THE NORTH OBSERVER ABOUT GREENLAND
The publications cited below reveal the atmosphere in which the redistribution of spheres of influence in the Arctic is taking place between the two pillars of the so-called “democratic world.”
Both active parties in this neocolonial division require only natural resources from the vast Greenland with its tiny population: marine bioresources, oil, uranium, rare earths, and other metals. The United States also needs military bases with permanent state sovereignty over the territories occupied by these bases.
The European Commissioner’s cheap rhetoric cited below about the shared values that unite Europe and Greenland seems especially inappropriate given the tragic fate of 56,000 Greenlandic Inuit, who became targets of the Danish government’s Nazi-style forced sterilization of Inuit women, including teenage girls, after the Second World War.
The forced removal of infants from Inuit families living in Denmark is also still practiced based on so-called parental tests, in the spirit of the SS Lebensborn program.
Apparently, these are common values, since no one in the European Union has ever officially condemned them. Without these “values,” Greenland’s population could now be at least 100,000, the country’s economy would be more resilient, and the prospects for independence more realistic.
The European Commissioner’s promises to double the EU budget for funding projects in Greenland to €530 million for the period 2028–2034, or €75 million per year, also look pathetic: €1,339 per inhabitant of the island, with Greenland’s average monthly salary being 25,014 DKK, or about $3,627.
$1,554 would only buy a Greenlander 270 cappuccinos or 91 Frappuccinos.
If Europe truly wants a huge Arctic island, it’s embarrassing to even show up in public with such a meager budget, let alone increase its real influence and create a favorable public atmosphere among Greenlanders.
Rumors suggest the US is ready to allocate $6 billion to programs promoting its agenda in Greenland, which at least makes its bid for control of the island more credible.
To an outside observer, one thing is clear: the current status quo in Greenland’s international position will not last long, and the pro-Danish policies of its leading politicians, largely explained by their Danish origins, do not necessarily correspond to the mood of society, which, for the most part, harbors no warm feelings toward the Danish colonizers who mercilessly oppressed the island’s indigenous population and have yet to pay compensation for the gross violation of their rights.
Europe clearly fails to understand the logic of the US’s behavior in Greenland and attributes the world hegemon’s incongruous behavior to the whims and idiosyncrasies of President Trump. In this case, one could wait until nature or a random incident has its say and the Trump factor is eliminated.
However, this approach is fundamentally flawed. For the US, the stakes in Greenland are incredibly high and cannot be explained by random whims or the instincts of a conqueror of new territories. Control over Greenland is part of a global US retreat, part of the curtailment of its military-political control and presence in the Eastern Hemisphere.
At the same time, the US is auditing and consolidating its geopolitical assets and liabilities in the Western Hemisphere, activating a rightward turn in Central and South America, obtaining Venezuela’s oil through elite corruption, and pressuring Cuba.
The still-global hegemon, whose time is running out, is even more eager to restore order in North America. The territory known as Canada, where the US almost openly encourages separatists, is particularly attractive for manipulation. A failed country, Canada will sooner or later become part of the US, which, however, must also avoid collapsing before then due to the ideological division between nationalists and globalists, conservatives and liberals.
In this vast scenario of restructuring the global order, which the US is no longer able to maintain due to imperial overstretching, Greenland occupies a modest but important place.
The creation of a Western Hemisphere bastion protected by the Golden Dome and the US Navy will be the logical outcome of the Pax Americana, which, like the Pax Britannica before it, has served its allotted hundred-year term, and will give way to another world order, the contours of which are already more or less defined.
In this logic, the chaos the US has been sowing in Eurasia and Africa since the late 1990s represents nothing more than the rearguard action of a retiring (not tomorrow!) global hegemon. And it desperately needs Greenland to complete the construction of its post-empire—a Western Hemisphere bastion and refuge.
One can only advise musty Europe not to stand in the way of the American grizzly, albeit old, yet still powerful and ruthless, which is quite capable of inflicting serious wounds on the European bull and driving it from its Arctic domain.
The grizzly won’t even notice the “brave” Norwegians, who are ready to fight the US for Greenland as part of the European coalition (below), but will simply trample them in the heat of battle.
Demands from the US Go Much Further
The US is pushing for more military control, insight into investments, and access to natural resources.
For four months, the United States, Denmark, and Greenland have held closed talks in Washington about Greenland’s future, writes The New York Times.
The talks are supposed to mitigate the crisis that arose when Donald Trump threatened to take control of the island, but the demands from the United States go much further than the Greenlanders like.
According to the newspaper, the USA wants to change the old defense agreement with Denmark so that American soldiers can remain in Greenland indefinitely—even if Greenland one day becomes independent.
“There will never be any real independence,” says the Greenlandic member of parliament Justus Hansen to NYT.
Will Have Veto Power
The American pressure is not only about the deployment of soldiers and the construction of bases. The USA also wants an arrangement which in practice can give Washington veto power over large investments in Greenland, especially to keep Russia and China out of infrastructure and resource projects.
Greenland and Denmark must have strongly protested because such an arrangement would encroach on Greenland’s sovereignty.
At the same time, interest in Greenland is closely linked to natural resources. The island has deposits of, among other things, rare earths, uranium, and other critical minerals. Greenland’s own mineral strategy for 2025–2029 emphasizes investments, sustainability, and social considerations.
The Pentagon assesses an increased presence, including in Narsarsuaq in the south of Greenland.
At most, the US had over 10,000 soldiers and 17 military installations in Greenland. Some estimates for the war years indicate around 15,000 Americans spread over more than a dozen bases and facilities.
Military Key Island
Greenland is strategically important for the United States. At Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, the US conducts missile attack warning, missile defense, and space surveillance. The base is America’s northernmost military installation.
The NYT writes that the Pentagon is also evaluating a wider military build-up in the Arctic, with radar stations, a deep-water port, and bases for US special forces.
Not for Sale
Greenland has extensive autonomy, while Denmark still has responsibility for foreign and security policy. The Self-Government Act also states that the Greenlanders themselves can take the initiative for independence.
Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has repeated that Greenland would like to cooperate with the United States, but not on American terms.
“We can certainly do business,” he says to NYT.
But the future must be decided in Nuuk—not in Washington. Nielsen also made it clear to Landry that Greenlanders’ self-determination is not up for negotiation:
“The Greenlandic people are not for sale.”
“We have reiterated that the Greenlandic people are not for sale, and our right to self-determination is not up for discussion,” he says.
Greenland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Múte B. Egede agrees:
“We have some red lines. We are not going to sell Greenland. We are going to own Greenland forever,” he says.
Respect Has Suffered a Setback
Nielsen says that Greenland seeks good cooperation, and that the work of the working group that has been established must be respected:
“We must respect the working group that has been established, and the work must be done through the right channels,” he says.
Múte B. Egede says that the discussion with the Americans has been good and orderly:
“I would like to emphasize that we need to return to proper cooperation, and we said that clearly from the Greenlandic side. With respect for each other. Respect has suffered a setback in recent years,” says Múte B. Egede, and continues:
“The things that are being said about wanting more out of the cooperation are something we have been looking for for six years. We have not put obstacles in the way of that cooperation. We must wait for the working group to finish their work,” he says.
“We have of course announced what is important to us. During the meeting, we emphasized the various things that have been said from the beginning: Greenland and the Greenlandic society must be respected,” he says.
EU Commissioner: We Must Increase Cooperation with Greenland
Greenland has had a partnership with the EU for 40 years. The main priorities have been fisheries and education, but in recent years the partnership has expanded to a wide range of other areas. In the latest budget, Greenland is set to receive a doubling of support, says EU Commissioner Jozef Síkela, who will be giving a presentation at the Future Greenland conference.
In addition, a major investment package is being prepared in dialogue with the Greenlandic authorities.
“We have identified a number of areas where we should increase our investments. The Commission has proposed to more than double the EU’s support for Greenland in the next budget. In addition, a strong investment package is being prepared in dialogue with the Greenlandic authorities. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will present it during her visit later this year.
“There is one thing I would like to emphasize: whatever we invest in, it will meet the highest environmental and social standards—Greenland’s and Europe’s. It is not negotiable for us, and I know it is not negotiable for Greenland. Investments that do not bring real benefits to local communities are not the kind of investments we want to be part of,” says Jozef Síkela.
A Partnership without Pressure
According to the Commissioner, Greenland can play a much greater role in securing the EU’s supply of critical raw materials:
“Greenland possesses significant deposits of materials that Europe needs for its industry and its defense: graphite, molybdenum, rare earths, etc. Europe needs reliable, transparent supply chains, built together with partners who share our values. That is the basis for cooperation. So how it happens matters more than whether it happens. Our approach is partnership, not pressure. We support responsible development of the entire sector, i.e., capacity building, regulatory framework, and relations with European industry and investors.”
Green Energy Solutions
“We are already working together with the Department of Energy, Nukissiorfiit, Nunagreen, and mining companies, and we also plan to work on creating green energy solutions with agriculture in South Greenland.
“We must reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels. Climate change is a challenge that no country can solve alone. Greenland is on the front line. Europe is a serious partner in standing up to it and ensuring sustainable and local adaptation in line with what Greenland itself wants to do.”
Hydropower Development
“There is great potential, and we are already supporting the development of hydropower—both commercial projects like Tasersiaq and the expansion of public hydropower capacity through Nukissiorfiit. Looking ahead, Power-to-X is a real opportunity. Greenland has the renewable energy resources. Europe has the industrial demand and the technology. Bringing these together can open up completely new value chains with benefits that will be felt in Greenland. This is exactly the kind of cooperation we want to develop,” says Jozef Síkela.
A Region of Peaceful Cooperation
“The Arctic must remain a region of peaceful cooperation. Europe has learned the hard way how disastrous any other development can be, and the European Union is, at its core, a peace project that has helped transform a conflict-ridden region into the superpower we are today.
“Based on this, the EU fully supports Greenland, the Kingdom of Denmark, and its people, so that they can always determine their own future freely and without external pressure. Sovereignty and territorial integrity are non-negotiable,” says Jozef Síkela, adding that Greenland plays a very important role in the region and that EU cooperation reflects this.
“It is the practicalities that make people feel safe in a region where distances are great and conditions are harsh. This is part of a much broader EU engagement in the Arctic, together with our Member States and partners such as Norway and Iceland. And it is one of the main reasons why I am coming to Nuuk for the Future Greenland conference.”
Cooperation Must Be Strengthened
How do you see Greenland’s long-term strategic role within the EU’s international partnerships? Are there any concrete plans or ideas?
“The direction is clear: cooperation must be stronger, more long-term, and built around our common priorities.
“Two years ago we opened an EU office in Nuuk, and I believe that the more intensive dialogue is yielding results. We will continue to invest in the cooperation with a focus on the common priorities: climate, energy supply, and digital technologies.
“There is a real reciprocity. Greenland wants a more diversified economy and Europe needs sustainable, robust value chains. This creates opportunities for both parties. We are talking both with the government of Greenland and with businesses, local communities, and with young people.”
Norwegians Are Ready to Defend Greenland from the United States
More than half of Norwegians think Norway should send soldiers to defend Greenland, according to an opinion poll conducted by Kantar Media for the Defense Forum in the period 21–29 January 2026. A researcher at the Norwegian Defense Academy believes the answer may be about Nordic loyalty—and emphasizes that any Norwegian contribution should probably take place within the framework of NATO.
Majority Say Yes—Men Most Positive
In the survey, 53 percent answered yes to the question whether Norway should send soldiers to defend Greenland. 19 percent answer no, while 28 percent are unsure.
The figures vary between gender and age. 60 percent of men answer yes, compared to 46 percent of women, according to the case. The youngest age group (18–29) and the oldest (60+) are more reserved and have a higher proportion of “don’t know.”
Source:
- ABC Nyheter (in Norwegian)
- ABC Nyheter (in Norwegian)
- Sermitsiaq (in Danish)
- Sermitsiaq (in Danish)
- Sermitsiaq (in Danish)
- The New York Times
