Selim Ibraimi- Uncertainty continues for both small and large countries. Meanwhile, we are seeing some unusual developments in the Western world and its military defence structure. Current events bring to mind the paradox and the old maxim that “yesterday’s friends can become tomorrow’s enemies.” This is particularly true for the US and its European NATO members regarding Greenland.
US President Donald Trump on Friday issued a new warning of imposing tariffs against countries that oppose his plan to buy Greenland. Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen and Defence Chief Michael Wiggers Hyldgaard confirmed an increased Danish and NATO military presence in and around Greenland during a press conference. French President Emmanuel Macron announced that the first French soldiers in Greenland will be supported “by land, air and naval assets.”
In a report by the French newspaper Le Monde, President Macron stated that Europe is being shaken in some of its certainties. “The European continent now has ‘competitors we did not expect to see.” “We are living in a world in which destabilising forces have awakened,” Macron said. “At the request of Denmark, I have decided that France will participate in the joint exercises organised by Denmark in Greenland, Operation Arctic Resilience,” Macron said.
Danish Defence Chief Michael Wiggers Hyldgaard said the Danish Armed Forces would deploy capabilities and units in connection with a series of exercises, including guarding socially important installations, assisting the Greenland authorities, hosting allied troops, deploying fighter jets and conducting naval operations.
Hyldgaard stressed that the exercises would take place on land, at sea and in the air. Meanwhile, Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen noted that the increased presence would be permanent compared to the military exercises of 2025. “If you are attacked, we must defend the Kingdom,” adding that the scenarios involving the US are purely hypothetical. Also, at the invitation of Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Norway and several other countries will participate in this mission in Greenland.
According to analysts, the aim is to examine the framework conditions for possible military contributions in support of Denmark. Unlike other NATO countries, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said that Poland will not send soldiers to Greenland, adding that an attack by one NATO country on the territory of another would be “the end of the world as we know it”.
Denmark and its EU allies have taken the consequences of the failure of the talks in the US and are now ready to do more to counter Washington’s threats. The absurdity now is that NATO member states are “fighting” each other. Russia and China are watching. Greenland’s Prime Minister in this battle of words and non-retreat from the position, Jens Frederik Nielsen, has reiterated that they will choose Denmark-NATO over the US if forced, but emphasising the right to self-determination.
The Danish and Greenlandic delegations in Washington on Wednesday, during a meeting with Vice President JD Vance and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, did not reach any agreement on the future of Greenland. The media reported that the US has not withdrawn in any way from taking over Greenland. On the other hand, the White House press secretary, Caroline Levitt, said on Thursday that the meeting with the Danish and Greenlandic sides had been fruitful. “It was a productive meeting.
It was a good meeting, and in that meeting, both sides agreed to create a working group that will continue to hold technical talks on the purchase of Greenland.” “These talks will take place every two to three weeks. So these are talks that the administration intends to continue to have with the Danes and with the respected delegation from Greenland.”
“The president has made his priority very clear. He wants the US to buy Greenland.” “I don’t think European troops in Greenland will affect President Trump’s decision-making process or his intention to buy Greenland,” Levitt added. Denmark has opposed this new American stance. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said there was no agreement to discuss any purchase and outlined a clear Danish red line.
He said that, at best, there could only be a very short series of meetings if the US had different ambitions. US Senator Thom Tillis said that the US had 17 military installations in Greenland. There is no doubt that Denmark welcomes the US presence in Greenland to do everything we can to deter Russian and Chinese aggression in the Arctic. “Let’s work together with Denmark and our NATO allies to project force against these adversaries,” he said. Senator Tillis. Secretary of the Interior and Chairman of the National Energy Council Doug Burgum, in an appearance on Fox News, said: “We need Greenland to make sure that the Golden Dome will protect America.”
Recent appearances show that senior American officials are declaring something else, while the Europeans are working on another phase, that of a possible confrontation with the United States in Greenland. In all this chaos, the absurdity of the breakup is possible for NATO if the United States and Denmark, with other NATO members, do not manage the situation in Greenland properly. The problem is that the United States does not just want to return to the previous status of military presence.
The United States wants to expand in the northeast, which, ultimately, according to Washington, makes the United States safer. The state of NATO members, in the context of the US position towards allies and neighbours, is shown by the recent visit of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to China, a visit which can be assessed to the disadvantage of the US. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said in Beijing: “We came to Beijing to create a new strategic partnership with China”. “We will return with a new trade agreement and billions of dollars in open export markets for Canadian workers”.
“The relationship between Canada and China has been a source of prosperity and opportunity on both sides of the Pacific. Today, we are creating a new strategic partnership. It builds on the best of our past and reflects the world as it is today, in the interests of both peoples”, said Carney. While things are moving chaotically, it is clear that the Greenland case will further worsen relations between the US and Europe.
The latest comments are sending bad signals to other fragile democracies. The Western Balkan states, in all this geopolitical confusion, as we have mentioned in our previous articles, together with the European NATO member states, may follow different approaches. Some may support the US position, some the EU approach, and the third group is likely to continue to remain neutral, with the potential to move towards other alliances in the future. NATO was founded in 1949.
It currently has 32 members. The US is considered the largest financial contributor of any other NATO members. In the long term, everyone should think about what is in the interest of the future of the alliance. We encountered similar tensions between NATO member states in 1974 during the Cyprus crisis between Greece and Turkey. Through diplomacy, alliances can be preserved. If not, then we are really dealing with another era where we can no longer talk about a united West or a strong military alliance.
In this situation, will the West be able to stay in the game with other rising powers if the states on both sides of the Atlantic do not show the will to overcome their differences? There is little doubt that Greenland, Ukraine, and other crises have put NATO, transatlantic relations, and more to the test. The issue here is the very existence of NATO and the Western world. Some critics see the recent disputes as a new or old manifestation of the American expansion of the 18th and 19th centuries, presented in another era that is producing a new global order together with other powers, and of course, turning former allies into adversaries and vice versa.
The article was written specifically for Portalb.mk. The publication rights are only owned by Portalb.mk and the author, according to the agreement between them.