Recent developments in Greenland have once again demonstrated that the Arctic region has become not only an environmental and economic arena of competition, but also a geopolitical and strategic one. While the deployment of a limited number of European military personnel to Nuuk is technically described as an exercise and reconnaissance activity, it is clear that this step carries significant symbolic value in the context of international relations. This development, particularly when considered alongside Donald Trump’s insistent statements that Greenland is indispensable to the United States’ “national security,” has highlighted the fragile balance in transatlantic relations.
Greenland’s status is that of a semi-autonomous entity under Danish rule. However, as the geostrategic importance of the Arctic increases, this status has become more than just a legal framework; it has become part of the great power competition. The US already has a military base in the region, providing Washington with operational capacity in the Arctic. Nevertheless, Trump’s continued rhetoric of direct “control” has been seen as a form of pressure incompatible with classical alliance relationships. In this context, the limited but coordinated military presence of European countries aims more at political deterrence than at actual power projection.
On the European front, Emmanuel Macron’s statements in particular have shown that the issue is not limited to Denmark’s sovereignty, but is also linked to the collective security of the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Macron’s emphasis on Greenland as “European territory” reflects the EU’s claim to be a normative actor in the Arctic.[i] This discourse has shown that a counter-argument has been developed against the US’s unilateral security justifications, based on multilateralism and the law of alliances.
The fact that this military deployment was carried out within the framework of a NATO exercise led by Denmark has been a critical element in terms of legal and political legitimacy. This situation carries a message that reminds the US of the balance of power within the alliance without directly challenging it. Indeed, the statement by French diplomat Olivier Poivre d’Arvor that “NATO will be shown to be here” emphasized the alliance’s assertion of its presence rather than its military capacity.[ii]
The US rhetoric regarding Greenland can be evaluated within the framework of international relations theories. From a realist perspective, Washington’s desire to directly control a strategic area, citing increasing Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic, is seen as consistent with the logic of power and security maximization. However, when viewed from a liberal institutional perspective, the same approach is interpreted as undermining trust among allies and eroding the legitimacy of existing institutions. Trump’s statement that “Denmark can’t do anything” reinforces the impression that international law and alliance solidarity have been relegated to a secondary role.[iii]
The limited military presence of European countries emerged as a balancing reflex at this point. The involvement of Germany, France, the Scandinavian countries, and the United Kingdom with small contingents was not aimed at competing militarily with the US; instead, it was a strategy to increase the political cost. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s characterization of a possible US intervention as a “political disaster” indicated that an intra-alliance conflict could have consequences that would call into question the very reason for NATO’s existence.[iv]
Russia’s accusation that NATO is amassing troops in the Arctic demonstrates that the region is not merely a transatlantic issue, but has become part of a global power struggle. Moscow’s reaction reveals that every move by NATO affects the balance of power not only with Washington, but also with Russia and, indirectly, with China. This suggests that developments centered in Greenland have created a multifaceted security dilemma.
The Greenlandic local government and its people’s open opposition to the idea of joining the US has brought to the forefront the legitimacy of local actors, often overlooked in international relations. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen’s emphasis on preferring Denmark demonstrates that the sovereignty debate should be considered not only in the context of interstate relations but also within the framework of the principle of self-determination. This reinforces the perception that Trump’s rhetoric of “buying” or “controlling” is in clear conflict with modern international legal norms.
The possibility of the United States using direct military force against a NATO member state represents not only a security crisis for international relations but also a structural rupture that undermines the founding logic of the alliance system. Article 5 of NATO, which regulates the principle of collective defense, is explicitly built on the assumption of an external threat, and it is likely that this normative framework will become effectively inoperable if this threat comes from within the alliance. Furthermore, such a step by the US would weaken its leadership role based on international law and alliance relations, and would pave the way for the easier instrumentalization of discourses justifying the use of force on a global scale.
In this context, while the likelihood of such an intervention directly escalating into a US-Europe war was considered low in the short term, the resulting political consequences were assessed to be long-term and profound. Rather than engaging in open military conflict with the US, European states were more likely to develop reflexes toward diplomatic isolation, institutional rupture, and an acceleration of their pursuit of strategic autonomy. This situation leads to the de facto disintegration of the transatlantic security architecture and a serious questioning of NATO’s deterrence capacity. Therefore, the real risk emerged not as the possibility of a hot war, but as a prolonged crisis of trust and strategic divergence in US-Europe relations.
Finally, briefly considering the issue in the context of Venezuela, it seems unlikely that the high-profile move by the US against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro could be directly linked to the Greenland issue. However, it is known that in international relations, the harsh actions taken by states in certain geographical areas produce indirect messages not only to the target country but also to third actors. In this context, the use of force and the approach that challenged diplomatic norms demonstrated in the Venezuela case have been interpreted as a reflection of the coercive diplomacy approach characteristic of the Donald Trump era. Such moves, which create uncertainty rather than military intervention and increase the risk perception of the opposing side, have taken on a symbolic function in terms of showing how far the US can stretch its boundaries on a global scale. Therefore, this stance exhibited in Venezuela has been evaluated not as a direct threat in the context of Greenland, but rather as a deterrent reminder of the US’s power to international actors, including its allies.
In conclusion, this military and diplomatic activity centered around Greenland has demonstrated that the Arctic has become a new geopolitical front. Europe’s limited but coordinated military presence has been interpreted not as a direct challenge to the US, but as a reminder of alliance norms, the principle of sovereignty, and the concept of multilateral security. This process has shown that any actual or rhetorical pressure exerted by one NATO member on another poses serious risks to the long-term integrity of the alliance. The Greenland issue has thus become an example where the future of the transatlantic order, beyond Arctic security, is being tested.
[i] Kirby, Paul. “European Military Personnel Arrive in Greenland as Trump Says US Needs Island.” BBC News, BBC, www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd0ydjvxpejo, (Access date: 18 Jan 2026).
[ii] Same reference.
[iii] Same reference.
[iv] Same reference.
