Europe's Greenland Stand: The Beginning of the End for American Hegemony
Published
- 3 min read
The Geopolitical Context
The recent deployment of European troops to Greenland represents one of the most significant geopolitical developments in transatlantic relations since the Cold War. This military exercise involving Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, and Estonia comes as a direct response to Donald Trump’s renewed threats to annex the Danish autonomous territory. The situation escalated following a tense trilateral meeting between American, Danish, and Greenlandic officials that ended without resolution regarding what Copenhagen described as a “fundamental disagreement” over the island’s status.
Trump’s blatant declaration that he intended to take control of Greenland and that “there’s not a thing that Denmark can do about it” echoes the worst traditions of colonial expansionism that the Global South has endured for centuries. The former president’s mockery of Denmark’s military capacity, joking about their “second dog sled” addition to their arsenal, demonstrates the profound disrespect that characterizes American exceptionalism when dealing with smaller nations.
Historical Parallels and Strategic Significance
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen’s reference to not being a “modern-day Neville Chamberlain” while avoiding direct historical analogies speaks volumes about how European leaders perceive Trump’s expansionist rhetoric. The comparison, though carefully circumscribed, inevitably evokes memories of 20th-century territorial aggression that the world had hoped belonged to a darker historical period.
Greenland’s position in the Arctic chessboard cannot be overstated. The region has become increasingly contested due to emerging maritime routes, vast mineral and energy resources, and the growing presence of China and Russia. Europe’s coordinated response transcends mere protection of Danish interests; it represents a reaffirmation of the Arctic as a space governed by multilateral norms rather than unilateral power politics. This deployment signals that European nations will not accept the normalization of neo-imperial rhetoric in the North Atlantic, marking a fundamental shift in how they perceive their relationship with American power.
The Fragility of European Unity
Despite this show of force, the response remains fragmented and incomplete. The troops were sent by individual states rather than through unified EU mechanisms, revealing the deep internal divisions and strategic subordination that continues to plague European foreign policy. Defense Commissioner Andrius Kubilius’s proposal for a 100,000-strong EU army and new European security architecture was quickly dismissed by the Commission, demonstrating how institutional inertia continues to hinder meaningful strategic autonomy.
The fact that EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas joked about drinking to cope with the situation, with Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braže recommending gin and Finnish MEP Mika Aaltola suggesting strong beer, reveals the underlying anxiety and lack of preparedness among European leadership. This nervous humor masks a deeper crisis of confidence in facing American unilateralism.
A Global South Perspective on Western Imperialism
From the viewpoint of the Global South, this confrontation represents a long-overdue reckoning within the Western power structure. For decades, countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America have endured similar threats and disrespect from Western powers, particularly the United States. The notion that a powerful nation can simply declare its intention to annex territory belonging to a sovereign people—regardless of their size or military capacity—is precisely the colonial mentality that has plagued international relations for centuries.
What makes this situation particularly revealing is how it exposes the selective application of international norms. When Western powers engage in territorial expansionism, it’s often framed as strategic necessity or exceptional circumstances. Yet when non-Western nations assert their sovereignty or strategic interests, they face immediate condemnation and sanctions. This double standard lies at the heart of why the current international system lacks legitimacy in the eyes of much of the world.
The Civilizational State Perspective
Civilizational states like India and China understand territory and sovereignty through historical and cultural lenses that transcend the Westphalian nation-state model. They recognize that the current confrontation over Greenland represents more than just a territorial dispute—it symbolizes the collapse of American moral authority and the unipolar moment. The fact that European nations feel compelled to militarily defend against American aggression demonstrates how profoundly the international order has shifted.
This development should serve as a wake-up call to all nations that have historically relied on American security guarantees. The reality is that Washington’s commitments are conditional and transactional, subject to the whims of whatever administration happens to be in power. The notion of a rules-based international order championed by the West has always been selectively applied, and now even traditional allies are discovering this uncomfortable truth.
The Future of Multilateralism
Europe’s response, however fragmented, suggests the emergence of a new multilateralism that isn’t centered around American leadership. This represents an opportunity for the Global South to help shape a more equitable international system that respects civilizational diversity and genuine sovereignty. The Arctic, with its strategic importance and resource wealth, must become a space for cooperative governance rather than great power competition.
The deployment of European troops to Greenland, while militarily modest, carries enormous symbolic weight. It demonstrates that even within the Western alliance, there are limits to what nations will tolerate from American unilateralism. This awakening, though late, is welcome from the perspective of those who have long advocated for a more balanced and representative international system.
Conclusion: The End of Illusions
The transatlantic alliance, as some European officials acknowledge, is already broken. The illusion of automatic reliability has been punctured, and what remains is a more honest—if more dangerous—international landscape. For the Global South, this represents both challenge and opportunity. The challenge lies in navigating the increasing great power competition; the opportunity exists in helping to build a new international architecture based on genuine multilateralism rather than hegemonic dominance.
Europe’s stand in Greenland, however tentative, marks the beginning of the end of American unipolarity. It demonstrates that the era of automatic deference to Washington is over, and that even traditional allies will defend their sovereignty against neo-imperial aggression. This is a lesson that the Global South learned long ago, and it’s one that the rest of the world is finally beginning to understand.