An “Atlantic Wall” from the United States to Europe

After the war in Ukraine, the energy crisis, and tensions with Venezuela, the Greenland issue has now come to the forefront. The “White Man” appears to have set his sights on the innocence of this untouched island as well. The shift in U.S. foreign policy has placed Greenland at the center of strategic competition among Europe, China, and Russia. While Washington is redefining the island in terms of its national security, China is seeking a foothold in the region, and Russia is pursuing territorial dominance in the north.

TIED TO EUROPE, CLOSE TO AMERICA

Greenland is fueling Trump’s ambitions. Statements by the Trump administration suggesting that the island could be occupied if no agreement is reached are echoing through political circles. In Europe, the series of negative developments during the first week of the new year is increasingly being viewed as a sign of impending catastrophe. Polls show that 90 percent of the island’s population opposes the American plan, but this has done little to ease panic across Europe. Repeated statements from Washington emphasizing that a military option remains “on the table” are forcing European states to consider military countermeasures of their own. In the event of an American military intervention, the possibility of shutting down U.S. military facilities in Europe has moved onto the European agenda.

A JOINT MESSAGE FROM EUROPE

In response to growing concerns, the leaders of seven European countries issued a joint declaration. French President Emmanuel Macron, Germany’s Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen openly declared their support for Denmark and Greenland. The declaration emphasized that decision-making authority over matters concerning Denmark and Greenland belongs exclusively to those two parties, while also underlining that the Kingdom of Denmark is a member of NATO.

A HARD LINE FROM VIENNA

It is clear that Europe’s solidarity with Denmark will not be limited to a declaration alone. One of the strongest political reactions came from Austria. Austrian Vice Chancellor Andreas Babler argued that the European Union must possess a strong “catalog of deterrent measures” against the U.S. administration. According to Babler, this catalog should not be limited to diplomatic warnings. The report listed options such as severe sanction threats against U.S.-based technology giants, punitive tariffs on agricultural products from certain U.S. states, and restrictions on American investments in infrastructure. Babler’s remarks were widely interpreted as an open challenge to Washington.

THE MARINERA RAID

Tensions between the United States and Europe were further heightened by a raid carried out by U.S. SAT commandos on the Russian vessel Marinera. In the North Atlantic, the tanker—sailing under the Russian flag—was intercepted and seized by the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard in international waters between the United Kingdom and Iceland, based on a U.S. court order. Russia dispatched warships to the area to protect the vessel. Although the incident took place in international waters, the fact that the operation occurred in a European theater constituted a military message not only to Russia but also to Europe. It is seen as a precursor to potential military action against Greenland following Venezuela.

WASHINGTON’S STRATEGY

According to the Monroe Doctrine, “the American continents are closed to military and political intervention by European and other external powers.” Today, Washington’s effort to reduce its military burden in Europe and shift its focus to the Northern Hemisphere is being interpreted as a 21st-century adaptation of this doctrine. While Venezuela and Cuba stand out on the southern flank of the Atlantic, the United States aims to draw an “Atlantic Wall” across the middle of the ocean. Thus, as the U.S. gradually withdraws military forces from Europe, it is pursuing a new, Northern Hemisphere–focused security architecture concentrated along the Venezuela–Cuba–Greenland line. In other words, instead of a “Berlin Wall,” it is building an “Atlantic Wall” to protect itself. The ship raid demonstrates that Washington is not merely seeking to erect a defensive barrier in the Atlantic Ocean, but is also prepared to accept military dynamism—and even direct armed confrontation.

CONTRADICTORY SIGNALS

The question raised earlier in the week—“Military intervention or purchase?”—now appears to have lost its relevance. The White House no longer explicitly rules out a military intervention in Greenland, which is European territory. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated: “The President and his team are evaluating a range of options to achieve this important foreign policy objective. Of course, the use of the U.S. military always remains an option for the commander-in-chief.” These remarks have brought to the forefront in Europe the necessity that any countermeasures may also need to be military in nature. The New York Times reports that President Donald Trump reactivated a plan earlier this week regarding the purchase of the island. Criticism of the Trump administration is growing not only in Europe but also within the U.S. Congress. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has repeatedly stated that the United States has “no right whatsoever” to annex Danish territory and has demanded an end to America’s threatening rhetoric. Trump, however, appears unmoved by criticism and reiterated in his latest statement: “We need Greenland for national security reasons.”

A MILITARY-DIPLOMATIC MESSAGE FROM PARIS

Over the past 24 hours, reactions from France have come primarily from the diplomatic rather than the military channel. Speaking to Reuters, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said that France is working with its allies on a “response plan” in the event that the United States takes action regarding Greenland. Barrot emphasized that France would not act alone and would prioritize coordination with European and NATO allies. This approach has been interpreted as Paris’s desire to keep the issue within a diplomatic framework rather than escalating into a military confrontation. The most direct and forceful reactions in the Greenland debate continue to come from Denmark.

TO BE DISCUSSED IN MUNICH

The United States is demanding not only Greenland from Europe but also Canada, a member of the British Commonwealth. King Charles of the United Kingdom responded symbolically by donning a uniform and taking a seat on the bridge of the aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth. Although this demand is not currently at the forefront, it reportedly remains in Trump’s strategic dossier. Alongside decisions made in Moscow and Washington, military operations and acts of sabotage—particularly targeting Germany’s infrastructure—are increasing. In Berlin, 50,000 people were left without electricity and heating. The sabotage was claimed by a pro-Russian left-wing group calling itself “Vulkan.” It is well known that the Greenland issue was clearly on the table during closed sessions of last year’s Munich Security Conference. At this year’s summit in February, the situation is expected to move to a more advanced stage, possibly including Canada. While the official agenda focuses on completing missile defense architecture and institutionalizing the Arctic as the northern defense flank, the conference will evidently serve as a stage for a serious military standoff between the United States and Europe.