Nullus Europaea—The Likely Fate of Greenland

Last year, the European Union formulated a policy for expansion in the High North. The EU strategy, according to a report titled EU Enlargement Northwards in Sight? Initiative in Uncertain Times, outlines a plan to bring Greenland, Iceland, and Norway into the European Union. The report is strictly in line with the earlier statements of European Comission President Ursula von der Leyen about the EU’s opportunities for expansion in the Arctic. 

Von der Leyen specifically mentioned Greenland in a speech she gave last May in Aachen, the old capital of Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire in the Middle Ages. In her speech, von der Leyen announced an “independent Europe” in a harsh world of power politics and added:

“And when I say Europe, I obviously mean the European Union. But I am of the opinion that the journey will be taken with friends and partners. From the Western Balkans to Ukraine and Moldova. From Greenland to the United Kingdom and beyond. Our duty is to ensure stability on the continent with a vision of a common future.”

The EU-Europe’s ambition for influence in the North is primarily directed at Greenland and Iceland. Not surprisingly, two weeks after von der Leyen’s Aachen speech, she arrived in Iceland to give encouragement to EU supporters.

Von der Leyen used the term Pax Europaea, or ‘European peace’, which historically echoes Pax Romana, the Roman peace, at the apex of the empire’s power in the second century after Christ. The EU-Europe’s ambition for influence in the North is primarily directed at Greenland and Iceland. Not surprisingly, two weeks after von der Leyen’s Aachen speech, she arrived in Iceland to give encouragement to EU supporters.

Von der Leyen used the term Pax Europaea, or ‘European peace’, in her remarks, which historically echoes Pax Romana, the Roman peace, at the apex of the empire’s power in the second century after Christ. She said the Union needs to shake off the shackles of the past and take action quickly and decisively: as great powers do when their interests are threatened. The problem is that Europe is no great power.

Presently, three great powers are asserting themselves: the United States, China, and Russia. Only the United States is in a position to become a superpower that overshadows the other two and claims their share. And under President Trump, the United States does not bare its fangs in the name of international ideology but in pursuit of American interests, which are specific in the spirit of classic great-power policy.

EU-Europe anticipates isolation in this great power struggle. The push into the High North is therefore an attempt by EU-Europe to establish a position in a distant part of the world to compensate for isolation on the Eurasian landmass. U.S. President Trump’s Greenland pursuit is destroying those plans, as EU-Europe does not possess the military strength to back territorial acquisition ambitions.

EU-Europe had only further weakened itself when it transformed the conflict between Ukraine and Russia into a global political showdown reminiscent of the Cold War. Instead of negotiating with Moscow for a neutral Ukraine—outside of NATO—and granting self-rule to the Russian-speaking eastern regions, Brussels chose to frame the conflict as a moral crusade between good and evil, rejecting any form of compromise.

For a time, EU-Europe fought its proxy war against Russia with the United States at its side—until Donald Trump entered the White House early last year. Trump seeks peace in Ukraine; Europe does not.

Europe’s first mistake was its crusade eastward—attacking Russia with Ukraine as its instrument, without the strength to sustain a major conflict with weapon systems and finance (Ukraine did all the fighting). Its second was refusing peace when Trump’s America withdrew support for the war and sought negotiations. Europe overplayed its hand, insisting on prolonging a lost war.

In the struggle for influence over Greenland—whether the territory should remain under Denmark, an EU member state, or move under U.S. control—President Trump argues with Europe’s own logic. “If Russia is the greatest threat to the West,” Trump argues, “then only the United States can protect Greenland from Russian ambitions.” Greenland is vital to America’s national security—let us take responsibility for it, is the argument.

So Trump uses Europe’s own claim—that Russia threatens world peace—to win the argument over Greenland. Trump’s barbed remarks on Truth Social captured the tone. “The Danes have two dog sleds to defend Greenland,” he wrote, mocking the hastily assembled 25‑soldier EU task force sent to the island to “strengthen defenses.” In the same post, he announced punitive tariffs (from which he later backtracked) against countries that joined Denmark’s rushed militarization of Greenland. The countries involved were exclusively from rich North-Western Europe: Scandinavia, France, Germany, Britain and Holland. And yet, Trump’s tariffs threat sent shockwaves through Europe, provoking an emergency summit. “Trump betrays NATO,” declared a Telegraph editorial. Ironically, that same paper had warned only weeks earlier that Europe was finished if it could not even defend Greenland against Trump.

Another British publication, The Economist even suggested that Europe may respond to the Greenland tariffs by demanding closure of U.S. military bases across the continent. That was and is a highly unrealistic scenario. The United States relies on cooperation with Greenland, Iceland, Britain, and Norway to monitor and respond to threats in the Arctic. It is highly unlikely that the island states and Norway would curb their own defensive capabilities by signing on to the anti-U.S. league of mainland Europe.

Meanwhile, across both Britain and the Continent, doubts are growing louder: is the European project—and NATO itself—coming to an end? Iceland’s Foreign Minister Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir’s response to such doubts indicate that she inhabits a parallel reality. In a recent interview, she touted “trilateral cooperation between Iceland, Germany, and Finland” on defense and security to protect Iceland. The truth is that neither Finland nor Germany have history or competence to engage in military or diplomatic affairs in the high North-Atlantic. Staking Iceland’s security on partnerships with Germany and Finland is risky bet at best. 

Similarly risky are the rhetoric and staunch EU loyalty of Iceland’s foreign minister and the Reform Party that pose serious dangers to Iceland’s interests. Another Reform Minister, Hanna Katrín Friðriksson has even gone so far as to suggest that the U.S. President is a reincarnated Hitler. Remarks like this are disgraceful and damage Iceland’s image and reputation. The truth is that Arctic Iceland’s defense and security are best safeguarded not by European pretense, but by the defense agreement with the United States.

To sum up: faced with great-power politics driven by nationalism, EU-Europe is helpless. Greenland, spanning nearly two million square kilometers, is larger than France, Germany, Spain, and Britain combined. Twenty‑five troops—indeed, even 25,000—cannot defend the world’s largest island. European nations simply lack the military infrastructure for credible defense. 

A more likely result than Pax Europaea of EU-Europe’s power pursuit in the High North is ’Nullus Europaea’.