Why Greenland suddenly matters in global politics

Insights|January 16, 2026

In this article we look at why Greenland has moved to the center of geopolitics, what is driving US pressure, and what it could mean for Europe, NATO, and global stability.

The conversation took place yesterday during our extra webinar. The discussion was led by Johan Sidklev, Managing Partner. He was joined by Ambassador Erik Ramanathan, an attorney and diplomat who served as US ambassador to Sweden from 2022 to 2025, and Iro Särkkä, a senior researcher at the Finnish Institute of Foreign Affairs specializing in security policy, NATO, and Europe.

A turbulent start to the year

Johan opened by saying the world has entered a tense and unpredictable period. He pointed to a series of developments that have raised concern in Europe, including US actions in Venezuela and escalating rhetoric toward Denmark and Greenland.

“Many of us hoped 2026 would be calmer,” Johan said. “Instead, it has started in the opposite way.”

With interest high and questions pouring in, he turned to his guests with the key issue. Why is this happening now?

The bigger trend behind the headlines

Iro began by stepping back from the daily news cycle. She argued that the world is moving away from what many scholars call a rules-based international order.

“What we are witnessing is the end of an era,” Iro said. In her view, international law and global institutions are increasingly challenged by great power rivalry. She linked the Greenland situation to a broader pattern that also includes Russia’s war against Ukraine and China’s pressure in Asia.

“We are moving toward an era where hard power matters more than rules,” she said. “That is bad news for small states.”

Iro also pointed to US domestic politics as a driver. With midterm elections approaching and public support under pressure, she said the White House may be moving quickly to secure wins. “His time to act is running out,” she said.

When it comes to Greenland specifically, Iro said the official arguments do not tell the whole story. “Security is the cover story,” she said. “The real interest is access to shipping routes and natural resources, especially critical minerals.”

A familiar idea, pushed further

Erik agreed that Greenland has been on the agenda for years. “Greenland has been in his sights since 2017,” Erik said. He described Greenland as strategically important because of its location and because the US already relies on the region for surveillance and missile defense.

Erik also suggested that recent operations have increased the administration’s confidence. “He believes he has acted aggressively elsewhere without paying a real price,” he said.

In Erik’s view, the Ukraine war also shapes the timing. “He thinks this gives him leverage with Europeans,” Erik said. “Europe wants the US to stay engaged on Ukraine.”

He called the approach harmful, but not random. “It is a logic,” he said. “It is a perverse logic that disregards norms, but it is still a logic.”

Is there something not being said?

Johan pressed both guests on whether there is a hidden agenda beyond what has been openly stated, like security, minerals, and shipping lanes.

“I do not see a hidden agenda,” Erik said. He did acknowledge that foreign moves can sometimes distract from domestic political weakness. “There may be a wag-the-dog factor,” he said, “but overall he has been blunt about what he wants.”

Iro agreed. “He has been unusually straightforward,” she said. She added that the US has tried to buy or control Greenland before, but the difference now is the open threat and the tone.

She also made a simple point that she said many people are thinking. If the issue is Arctic security, why not handle it through NATO? “That is why people can see through the argument,” Iro said.

NATO still works, but trust is damaged

Johan brought up a recent meeting in Washington between Denmark, the US, and Greenland that ended with little progress beyond a working group.

“It did not move things forward,” Erik said. He described a major disconnect: NATO cooperation continues to function at a high level, but political trust is being undermined by threats against an ally.

“There are two different worlds,” Erik said. “A functional NATO that does its job, and at the same time a separate conversation where threats are made toward a NATO ally.”

Iro said the damage is real, but she warned against assuming NATO would collapse overnight. “NATO would still exist,” Iro said, “but it would not be the same NATO.”

She argued that Europe must take more responsibility for its own defense inside NATO. “We need a more European NATO,” she said, while stressing that this does not mean shifting defense to the EU. Her point was that European allies should become less dependent on Washington over time.

A gift to Russia and China

Johan raised the concern many Europeans have voiced: that public division inside NATO benefits Russia and China.

“This is consistent with his worldview,” Erik said. He argued that a sphere-of-influence model helps authoritarian rivals, because it normalizes the idea that large states dominate smaller ones.

Erik also highlighted the political gap at home. “Polling showed 4 percent of Americans support taking Greenland,” he said. He suggested the larger question is whether Congress will finally intervene to restrain presidential actions. “There is an enormous delta between what voters believe and what is happening,” he said.

What should Europe do now?

Johan asked for practical advice to European leaders.

“Stay firm and stay united,” Iro said. She argued that Europe must support Denmark and Greenland while keeping dialogue open with Washington.

“We cannot afford to lose the US entirely,” she said. “That would be catastrophic.”

Iro suggested that Europe may need to think in pragmatic terms, including economic options that could reduce pressure. “He is interested in money and power,” she said. “That reality matters.”

What about business risk?

A question from the audience turned the discussion toward companies operating in global markets.

“It depends on the company,” Erik said, but he urged people not to assume Greenland will become a major new driver of instability by itself. He said other crises are likely to consume attention and limit how far the situation goes.

Still, he noted that critical minerals and supply chains will remain a real strategic focus. “Greenland has minerals,” Erik said, “but so do many other places. The real question is extraction, processing, and doing it without destroying the environment.”

One reason to be hopeful

Johan ended by asking for one positive outcome.

“This may bring European countries closer together,” Iro said. She also suggested it could strengthen Greenland’s connection to Denmark and Europe.

Erik offered a US-focused hope. “This may finally be the red flag that pushes Congress to act,” he said. He also said the situation could bring renewed attention to Arctic cooperation, which he called essential.

As the webinar closed, the message was clear. The situation is worrying, but it is not incomprehensible. And in a period defined by uncertainty, clearer understanding is a form of preparation.