|
Lekshmi MK
23 January 2026 |
The note below was first published as part of NIAS-IPRI Conflict Weekly. See, "Trump’s “Board of Peace” in Gaza I Escalation/De-escalation in Greenland," Conflict Weekly #316, 23 January 2026, Vol 7, No. 3
In the news
On 22 January, President Trump said a “framework of a future deal” on Greenland was discussed in the World Economic Forum in Davos with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and called the talks “very productive.” On 21 January, he argued that control over Greenland is critical for US national security and NATO’s strategic posture, though European leaders reacted with scepticism. Earlier, he stated there was “no going back” on his goal to control Greenland. On 19 January, he remarked he no longer felt obliged to think “purely of Peace” and had earlier threatened additional tariffs on European countries.
On 20 January, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen spoke of building a “new independent Europe.” On 19 January, EU leaders discussed reactivating EUR 93 billion in tariffs and considered using the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI). Also on that day, the European countries sent military personnel to Greenland, signalling collective support for Denmark. Denmark and Greenland consistently stated that Greenland is “not for sale” and that sovereignty and autonomy are non-negotiable.
On 20 January, Russia’s Foreign Minister questioned Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland, calling it a result of colonial conquest and adding a wider geopolitical dimension to the issue.
Issues at large
First, Trump’s escalation-deescalation approach on Greenland. His approach includes - tariff threats, strong claims over ownership were later softened through references to “frameworks” and continued dialogue with NATO partners. This pattern reveals applying pressure to shift negotiations, then step back to retain diplomatic space, creating uncertainty among allies and complicates alliance management. In the Arctic context, this alternating posture tests institutional limits, and introduces unpredictability into transatlantic relations and regional governance.
Second, Denmark and Greenland’s firm assertion of sovereignty, and its challenges. Denmark and Greenland’s response highlights the difficulty of defending sovereignty in a region amid external pressure. Their firm stance on Greenland is not for sale, reflecting a need to protect territorial integrity, political autonomy, and indigenous governance arrangements. At the same time, Greenland’s autonomy arrangements, environmental concerns, and resource control further complicate the situation. This creates a delicate balance between engagement and resistance. The issue lies in ensuring that sovereignty is preserved without escalating tensions or isolating partners.
Third, Europe’s political and military assertion. Europe’s actions reflect a broader need to protect alliance principles while responding to strategic pressure in the Arctic. Political statements, military presence in Nuuk, and consideration of economic tools show an effort to reinforce Denmark without undermining NATO cohesion. Europe has to balance deterrence with diplomacy, ensuring that its response does not escalate tensions but still signals commitment to sovereignty and international law. Europe’s posture is therefore not reactive alone but part of a strategic effort to preserve stability, credibility, and trust within transatlantic relations.
In perspective
First, Trump’s focus on Greenland is likely to remain unchanged. Despite de-escalatory remarks, Trump’s repeated references to Greenland’s military location and resource value show a sustained strategic interest in the Arctic. His position reflects that the issue is not temporary rhetoric but part of a long-term approach that may continue to influence US engagement with allies over Arctic affairs.
For Europe, Greenland has become a test of cohesion and collective security. Europe must carefully balance its response to strategic pressure while preserving NATO unity and alliance norms. Political statements, military signalling, and economic preparedness show an effort to defend territorial integrity without escalating tensions. How Europe handles this situation will reflect its ability to act collectively, uphold legal principles, and maintain credibility in protecting regional stability and shared security commitments.
For Denmark and Greenland, sovereignty will remain a continuing challenge. Greenland’s strategic value places Denmark and Greenland in a difficult position of defending autonomy while maintaining cooperative relations with powerful allies. Protecting territorial integrity, local governance, and resource control requires constant balancing between engagement and resistance.
