ALBAWABA — European officials and analysts are expressing unease about a possible U.S.–Russia arrangement. They worry it could tie the fate of Greenland to the conflict in Ukraine, a situation some are calling a troubling agreement between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
European diplomatic sources indicate that the scenario being considered involves Moscow orchestrating a military or political crisis concerning Greenland, which is still under Danish control. The ensuing strain would then lead Washington to intervene, using NATO as a cover, and increasing its military and strategic footprint on the island.
In return, the United States would dial back its involvement in Ukraine, essentially easing the strain on Russia regarding Kyiv.
European Unease Grows
Worries have mounted after comments from Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s deputy security council chief. He publicly called on Trump to swiftly annex Greenland, suggesting Moscow might then consider a referendum on closer ties with Russia. European diplomats are now concerned that this kind of talk has stoked fears Greenland could be used as a pawn in a larger geopolitical game.
A senior French diplomat noted that conversations at the World Economic Forum in Davos revealed a rising apprehension. They feared Trump might agree to a coordinated action with Putin—creating a controlled crisis to justify increased U.S. involvement in Greenland, while simultaneously reshaping the island's security and economic structure to benefit Washington.
Pressure on Military Action
The proposed strategy, according to sources, would prioritize political and economic pressure over direct military intervention. The goal: to slowly reshape Greenland's sovereignty and security, thereby amplifying U.S. influence without resorting to formal annexation or open warfare. Diplomats believe this would significantly limit Denmark and its European allies' available responses.
Denmark's Weak Points
German political sources point out that Denmark might be vulnerable to added pressure stemming from unresolved historical issues with Greenland's Indigenous population, including previous accusations of human rights violations. While this doesn't automatically mean support for U.S. control, these factors could certainly complicate Copenhagen's position in any future discussions or votes.
Strategic Calculations
Analysts point out that Greenland's significance goes well beyond mere optics. From a U.S. defense standpoint, the island is a vital Arctic staging ground, key to future shipping lanes, missile early-warning systems, and overall Arctic security.
Strategic specialists suggest the most probable scenario isn't a formal acquisition or a military invasion, but a blended approach: a larger U.S. military footprint, a de facto reduction of Danish control, and a unique security arrangement for Greenland under almost direct American supervision.
This kind of arrangement, they believe, would enable Washington to achieve enduring strategic advantages while sidestepping the legal and political upheaval that a direct annexation would inevitably cause within NATO and the global community.
