A new transatlantic crisis is gathering momentum, this time centered on Denmark’s island of Greenland. The problem lies less in the technical details of the dispute than in what it reveals: a profound European disorientation in confronting a new era in which the United States no longer appears primarily as ally and partner, but increasingly as a competitor, and potentially even an adversary. The growing frequency and intensity of transatlantic crises raise far-reaching questions, not only about a Western strategic partnership that endured for decades, but also about the liberal ideological foundations that shaped Western politics, culture, and economics, most notably the democratic peace theory and the long-held taboo against war among societies that subscribe to it. 

President Donald Trump has not confined himself to economic or trade threats against Western allies; he has also resorted to explicit military intimidation. His statement suggesting the possible seizure of the Danish island by force placed allies and adversaries alike under the same threat of coercion, wielding America’s overwhelming military power as an instrument of pressure and compulsion. By force, Trump abducted Venezuela’s president, violating the country’s sovereignty; by force, he struck at Iran’s sovereignty, directing American missiles to cripple its capabilities, and today threatens its very existence through nuclear rhetoric. By force, he seeks to impose solutions on the Palestinians in Gaza, an issue whose fundamental injustice and the historical wrong inflicted upon the Palestinian people are scarcely disputed anywhere in the world. Does this pattern of American international conduct signal the emergence of new strategic doctrines among other major powers, particularly within the Western camp?

Trump’s recent threats regarding control over Greenland in the Arctic did not come as a surprise. He had floated the idea years earlier during his first term, when he publicly raised the possibility of purchasing the island in 2019 and held informal discussions with Denmark on the matter. He returned to the issue last year following his second return to office, once again issuing explicit threats. Over recent decades, geopolitical interest in the Arctic has intensified markedly, and the United States has begun to speak with increasing candor about Greenland’s strategic importance.

Greenland has long held strategic significance for the United States. As early as the nineteenth century, US Secretary of State William Seward regarded the acquisition of Greenland from Denmark as a potentially advantageous strategic move, consistent with the expansionist logic of the era. Control over North Atlantic passages, participation as a major actor in future Arctic trade routes, competition with other great powers, and the consolidation of global standing all figured into this thinking, which formed part of a broader land-purchase strategy at the time. In 1910, proposals were discussed for a territorial exchange with Denmark that included Greenland. 

After the end of the Second World War, in 1946, the United States formally offered once again to purchase Greenland from Denmark, this time for $100 million, during President Harry Truman’s administration at the dawn of the Cold War. During the Second World War, the US military had already constructed bases on the island; in 1951, Washington and Copenhagen concluded a defense agreement allowing the United States to retain military installations and a permanent presence. These arrangements entrenched Greenland as a strategic defensive outpost, as the United States, amid its rivalry with the Soviet Union, sought to secure Arctic positions to monitor Soviet movements and reinforce its own defensive capabilities.

READ: Trump warns Russia, China could take over Greenland if US does not act

Greenland’s contemporary importance to the United States........

© Middle East Monitor