European countries, with Denmark at the forefront, are urgently responding to recent threats from the United States regarding the future of Greenland. Following a successful operation in Venezuela on January 3, the US government, emboldened by its actions, is now openly discussing the possibility of annexing Greenland. This has left European leaders anxious and struggling to formulate a coherent response to what they perceive as a betrayal by a supposed ally.
Since the September 11 attacks in 2001, Denmark has been a steadfast ally of the United States, participating in US-led military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The political landscape in Denmark has shifted rightward, favoring a pro-US stance over Nordic and EU cooperation. However, the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 prompted Denmark to reassess its foreign policy, leading to its participation in the EU’s common security and defense policy and closer ties with NATO members Finland and Sweden.
Denmark’s relationship with the European Union has been complex; it opted out of the euro and certain justice and home affairs collaborations, aligning itself more with the UK’s approach. However, any US intervention in Greenland could disrupt Denmark’s fixed exchange rate policy with the euro, in place since 1982, indicating significant economic implications alongside territorial concerns.
Shifting Alliances and Economic Implications
The potential fallout from US threats extends beyond Denmark. The EU, which aligned with the US during Joe Biden’s presidency, has seen relations sour with the re-election of Donald Trump. In 2025, the US and EU clashed over various issues, including trade, social media regulation, and environmental policies. The latest developments suggest that Trump’s US may no longer be a reliable ally for Greenland, Denmark, the EU, or Europe at large.
This geopolitical crisis is multifaceted, driven by numerous factors. To comprehend the situation, four analytical approaches from academic thought provide valuable insights. These perspectives not only contextualize the Greenland issue but also illuminate the emerging multipolar world where “might makes right.”
Realism: National Interests at the Forefront
The conservative tradition of “realism” remains a dominant analytical framework, predicting that states prioritize their national interests. In this context, Trump’s actions are part of a multipolar world where major powers like the US, China, India, and Russia assert dominance. This perspective rationalizes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US’s moves in Venezuela and Greenland, and China’s ambitions in Taiwan as strategic counterbalances among these powers.
The New Elites: Power and Influence
Another perspective focuses on the influence of global elites—wealthy families, corporations, and oligarchs—who shape politics through media, campaign power, and financial clout. In Venezuela and Greenland, the US’s disregard for international law and its pursuit of energy resources are significant factors. The timing of these actions, overshadowing other major news stories, highlights the strategic manipulation by these elites.
The Decline of the Liberal Order
Some academics view these events as indicative of the decline of the “liberal order,” historically dominated by the US, Europe, and the UN. This perspective sees the actions of leaders like Putin and Trump as symptoms of the erosion of international law and multilateralism. However, this view often overlooks the persistent dominance of the global north. The reluctance of many global south countries to condemn Russia’s actions in the UN, for instance, raises questions about how they might respond to a US move on Greenland.
The Planetary Approach: A Holistic View
The final perspective, the planetary politics approach, emphasizes the interconnectedness of global crises, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and geopolitical conflicts. From this viewpoint, the sustainability of Greenland and the well-being of its indigenous people should guide responses to US claims. Greenlanders, on the frontlines of climate change, envision a resilient economy, not one driven by political drama.
While it is tempting to view events in Venezuela or Greenland through the lens of daily news cycles, these four perspectives encourage deeper reflection on complex international crises. Among them, the planetary approach offers a path toward addressing our broader planetary political challenges.
