Arctic Chessboard Shifts: US-EU Edge Toward Confrontation Over Greenland​

In early 2026, the focus of the global geopolitical stage unexpectedly shifted to the Arctic Circle. The Trump administration’s aggressive pursuit of Denmark’s autonomous territory, Greenland, has triggered the most severe trust crisis since the establishment of the transatlantic alliance. As the EU announced an emergency summit on January 22 to assess a €93 billion retaliatory tariff package on US goods, this dispute over the world’s largest island has escalated from a mere territorial dispute to a strategic confrontation that threatens global trade order and security architecture.​

Greenland’s strategic value has long transcended geographical boundaries. Covering 2.16 million square kilometers—80% of which lies within the Arctic Circle—the island not only controls the Arctic shipping routes that could reshape global maritime trade but also holds critical minerals for the new energy industry, such as lithium and graphite, along with abundant rare earth resources. As Arctic sea ice melts, its navigational potential and resource development value have become increasingly prominent, making it a coveted prize in major powers’ strategic layouts. Washington’s interest in Greenland is not a recent development: as early as the 1940s, the Truman administration attempted to acquire the island in exchange for gold and oil drilling rights. The Trump administration’s current tough stance is merely a continuation of this historical ambition.​

The US pressure tactics bear the hallmark of Trump-style brinkmanship. After multiple European countries explicitly opposed US efforts to secure Greenland, the White House directly placed eight nations—including Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and France—on a tariff threat list. More alarmingly, when asked if the US would use military force to seize the island, Trump responded with a vague "no comment" while asserting that tariffs would proceed as planned if the "deal" fell through. This tactic of linking territorial demands to trade coercion has completely breached diplomatic norms among allies and violates the 1933 International Court of Justice ruling that confirmed Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland.

In the face of US extreme pressure, Europe has demonstrated a rare unified countermeasure. On January 18, the eight affected countries jointly issued a statement strongly condemning Washington’s actions as "a serious breach of transatlantic relations" and reaffirming their commitment to the principle of territorial integrity. The EU quickly followed suit, announcing the launch of an emergency summit mechanism to develop a €93 billion retaliatory tariff plan targeting key US export sectors such as agricultural products and energy goods. According to EU diplomats, the countermeasures will proceed in three phases: suspending pending US-EU tariff agreements, automatically activating reciprocal retaliation once US tariffs take effect, and not ruling out the use of the EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument to escalate the confrontation. This multi-layered strategy reflects Europe’s firm stance while embodying restraint to avoid a complete breakdown.

Germany’s shifting position epitomizes the dispute. Chancellor Olaf Scholz publicly stated his "solidarity with Denmark and the people of Greenland," affirming Europe’s commitment to sovereignty, yet simultaneously ordered the withdrawal of 15 German Federal Defense Force troops from the island. This contradictory move lays bare Europe’s dilemma between standing up to the US and its reliance on Washington for security. As core allies within NATO, most European countries remain highly dependent on the US for defense, and the US military presence at Thule Air Base in Greenland serves as a critical pillar of NATO’s Arctic defense system. This structural dependency leaves Europe’s countermeasures in a precarious position of "wanting to act but fearing reprisal."​

At its core, the dispute represents a fierce clash between unilateralism and multilateral order. The Trump administration’s continuation of its "America First" logic—treating ally interests as bargaining chips—mirrors its inconsistent tactics in previous US-EU steel and aluminum trade disputes. Europe’s unified counterattack is not only about defending Greenland’s territorial sovereignty but also a collective resistance against Washington’s arbitrary disregard for international rules. Historical experience shows that unilateral concessions to the US only yield temporary peace; only by uniting to defend rights through multilateral mechanisms can Europe break the vicious cycle of "restriction-concession-further restriction."​

The EU emergency summit on January 22 will serve as a critical turning point. If retaliatory tariffs are implemented, the global trade landscape could undergo a fundamental restructuring, and the rift in transatlantic relations may become irreparable. Ultimately, this Arctic island standoff will test the strategic wisdom of both the US and the EU: will they allow confrontation to escalate into a lose-lose scenario, or return to the negotiating table to seek a win-win solution? Regardless of the outcome, the Greenland dispute has sounded a warning: in the era of globalization, any attempt to prioritize unilateral interests over shared rules will inevitably come at a heavy cost.