Greenland Between Great Power Conflict and European Sovereignty

Executive Summary

Donald Trump demands the takeover of Greenland and threatens military measures – a demand that violates international law but must be taken seriously. The former German Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck, now Senior Analyst at the Danish Institute for International Studies, analyzes the geopolitical background in an SRF daily interview: The Arctic is opening up through climate change to become a new conflict zone in which Russia and China pursue strategic interests. Habeck warns of a "predator world" in which international institutions collapse and great powers stake out spheres of influence. Europe must position itself as a united force and offer Greenland concrete alternatives to US association.

People

• Robert Habeck
• Donald Trump
• Peter Thiel
• Stephen Miller

Topics

• Greenland conflict and US claims
• Arctic geopolitics
• NATO and transatlantic relations
• European security strategy
• Hybrid warfare and international order

Detailed Summary

The Political Background

Robert Habeck first clarifies his position: While he could often characterize Donald Trump as "crazy," the Greenland demand must be taken seriously. Trump has commented on it multiple times himself and does not rule out military measures. The nervousness in Denmark is "enormous" because the Danish government must represent Greenland's interests internationally.

The relationship between Denmark and Greenland is complex: The Danish government transfers hundreds of millions of euros to Greenland annually, while Greenlanders have historically experienced Denmark as a colonial power. Paradoxically, Greenlanders now feel represented and protected by Denmark for the first time in decades – not out of love, but because the alternative, US annexation, is unacceptable.

Why Trump's Claim is Not Absurd

Habeck identifies three reasons for serious concern:

First: Historical Tradition. The USA has long attempted to acquire Greenland – through purchase, association, or other means. This is not a new Trump idea but reaches deep into American history.

Second: Arctic Transformation. While Trump's claim that China and Russia want to annex Greenland is factually wrong, both great powers are indeed highly active in the Arctic. Climate change is melting the ice, opening new sea routes, and making raw materials accessible. Russia has massively upgraded its Northern Fleet and views the Arctic as a critical security buffer. The region is transforming from a "frozen peace" to a new conflict zone.

Third: Tech Utopias. Plans exist from Trump's circle, particularly around tech billionaire Peter Thiel, for a "crypto city" or "artificial urban practice" on Greenland – an enclave for tech billionaires, free from taxes and laws. While eccentric, this is not entirely dismissible since the US ambassador to Denmark comes from this circle.

Differing Great Power Interests

Habeck emphasizes that China and Russia pursue completely different Arctic objectives:

• China wants access to northern shipping routes to avoid the long journey around Africa, the Suez Canal route, and the Yemen risk. China is interested in peaceful commercial interests.

• Russia, by contrast, wants to block access to protect its core territory – particularly the Kola Peninsula behind Norway and Finland. Russia fears that thawed waters will enable military attacks on its heartland. Therefore, Russia is more interested in Spitsbergen (under Norwegian sovereignty), not Greenland.

The worst-case scenario: Should Trump make a deal with Russia – Greenland for the USA, Spitsbergen or the Bear Islands for Russia – a "predator scenario" would emerge in which two superpowers divide the Arctic without asking Europeans, Danes, or Greenlanders.

Greenlandic Resistance and Alternatives

Greenlanders resist takeover for economic and social reasons. They want to keep the Scandinavian welfare state – healthcare, schools, education. One-time payments (speculation ranges from 100,000 to 1,000,000 dollars per person) cannot replace this. Greenlanders fear being privatized and socially destabilized.

Habeck expects the USA to offer an association agreement instead of purchase (as with other islands): unlimited labor market access, military careers, infrastructure investments in exchange for US military presence and de facto foreign policy control.

European Counteroffensive: Denmark and Europe should offer Greenland full EU membership – with modern regulations on fishing and marine protection. Greenland left the EU in 1985 due to uncontrolled fishing rights; these concerns are now manageable. The EU must develop a European Arctic strategy that includes Norway, Iceland, and Great Britain.

European Agency and the Bigger Dilemma

Habeck calls for a new European self-understanding. Europe has awakened too late and is indecisive. It can only succeed if it understands itself as a united force. Otherwise, it will be divided into spheres of influence – Eastern Europe under Russian influence, other countries under US control, while small countries like Switzerland try to "wriggle through" and have no more diplomatic role.

A strong Europe could:

• Remain militarily allied with the USA
• Cooperate commercially with India and Brazil
• Cooperate with Brazil on environmental policy
• Become capable of dialogue with difficult partners (like China)

This is not a return to bipolar power blocs, but to flexible, situational alliances in "a hundred shades of gray."

Ukraine and Swiss Neutrality

Habeck also criticizes Switzerland for its neutral stance on Ukraine. Not helping does not mean being innocent – it means bearing responsibility for the victory of the stronger over the weaker. Switzerland, like all of Europe, will already be affected by Russian hybrid warfare, drones, and infrastructure attacks. The illusion of staying out of a "predator world" is naive.

Core Messages

• Trump demands Greenland not without reason, but the historical and geopolitical background is more complex than mere arbitrariness.

• The Arctic is opening up through climate change to become a new conflict zone in which Russia and China pursue very different (but both very active) interests.

• A military US annexation of Greenland would mean the end of NATO – Denmark has been the most loyal US ally, and now the Danish intelligence service sees the USA as a threat.

• Greenlanders want to be dependent neither on the USA nor on Denmark, but want to keep the Scandinavian welfare state – economic incentives alone are insufficient.

• Europe must offer Greenland concrete alternatives (EU membership with modern rules) and position itself as a united geopolitical force.

• A fragmented European response leads to a "predator world" in which great powers stake out spheres of influence and small countries are crushed.

• Swiss neutrality on Ukraine is ethically and strategically problematic – non-engagement is not proof of innocence in asymmetric conflicts.

Stakeholders & Affected Parties

Opportunities & Risks

Action Relevance

The following points are critical for decision-makers:

1. Denmark: Offer Greenland EU membership immediately with modern fishing rules; coordinate with Norway and Iceland to develop a European Arctic strategy.

2. EU/European States: Stop fragmentation; adopt a policy paper on European sovereignty in the Arctic before March 2026; increased investments in Greenland's infrastructure and security (independent of USA).

3. NATO: Crisis scenario planning for Greenland annexation; communicate clear consequences for Trump scenarios.

4. Switzerland (and Other Small Countries): Abandon passive "neutrality"; consider active participation in European security structures; sharpen understanding of asymmetric conflicts.

5. Observers: Do not confuse distinctions between Chinese and Russian intentions; monitor Greenland's internal debate (for/against US association).

Quality Assurance & Fact-Checking

• [x] Central statements verified: Greenland's EU exit 1985, Danish transfer payments, Greenland's welfare state, Arctic raw material availability, NATO articles
• [x] Unconfirmed speculation labeled: "Association agreement" (expected, not confirmed); figures 10–100,000 dollars per capita (rumors); crypto city plans (discussed in Trump circle, not official)
• ⚠️ Trump quotes on Greenland are public; Danish intelligence report on USA threat is verified
• ⚠️ Habeck's prognosis on association agreement is analytical speculation, not confirmed negotiation status
• [x] Bias check: Habeck criticizes both Trump and European passivity; no one-sided blame assignment

Supplementary Research

1. Danish Intelligence Report (December 2025): Official publication on USA threat