Greenland Is Europe’s Strategic Blind Spot—and Its Responsibility

[rangerrebew]

Greenland Is Europe’s Strategic Blind Spot—and Its Responsibility
.By Justina Budginaite-Froehly
 

Bottom lines up front

In responding to recent rhetoric from the White House about “taking” Greenland, European leaders need to look beyond the legal infeasibility.

The White House is correct that Greenland and the waters around it are a strategic asset—one that Europe has failed to recognize in recent years.

If Europe wants to ensure that no outside power can exercise control over Greenland, then it must expand its military presence in the region.


WASHINGTON—The Trump administration’s resolute handling of Venezuela—framed unapologetically in terms of strategic necessity—has once again revived an idea many Europeans hoped had been buried: that the United States should “take” Greenland.

European capitals reacted, again, in a familiar way: with statements of concern and invocations of international law. That reflex may be understandable. But it is also revealing. Because if Europe’s response to US power politics is limited to declaring what is not allowed, it should not be surprised when its voice carries little weight in the new era of transactional power politics. 

Trump’s rhetoric about “taking” Greenland is neither new nor legally plausible. Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, embedded in NATO and protected by international law. There is no legitimate pathway for a Venezuela-style intervention in the Arctic. But legality alone does not create security. And Europe should be careful not to mistake moral clarity for strategic engagement.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2026/01/08/greenland_is_europes_strategic_blind_spotand_its_responsibility_1157405.html

[MeganC]

The European Union's defacto policy has been to disavow the "colonial" holdings of its members. For instance the French islands immediately off of Canada are French and not part of the EU.

[libertybele]

Greenland Is Europe’s Strategic Blind Spot—and Its Responsibility
.By Justina Budginaite-Froehly
 

Bottom lines up front

In responding to recent rhetoric from the White House about “taking” Greenland, European leaders need to look beyond the legal infeasibility.

The White House is correct that Greenland and the waters around it are a strategic asset—one that Europe has failed to recognize in recent years.

If Europe wants to ensure that no outside power can exercise control over Greenland, then it must expand its military presence in the region.


WASHINGTON—The Trump administration’s resolute handling of Venezuela—framed unapologetically in terms of strategic necessity—has once again revived an idea many Europeans hoped had been buried: that the United States should “take” Greenland.

European capitals reacted, again, in a familiar way: with statements of concern and invocations of international law. That reflex may be understandable. But it is also revealing. Because if Europe’s response to US power politics is limited to declaring what is not allowed, it should not be surprised when its voice carries little weight in the new era of transactional power politics. 

Trump’s rhetoric about “taking” Greenland is neither new nor legally plausible. Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, embedded in NATO and protected by international law. There is no legitimate pathway for a Venezuela-style intervention in the Arctic. But legality alone does not create security. And Europe should be careful not to mistake moral clarity for strategic engagement.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2026/01/08/greenland_is_europes_strategic_blind_spotand_its_responsibility_1157405.html

I don't think Trump would be so bold as to try to find a loophole so-to-speak and take Greenland.  That would be a huge mistake.