The Greenland Dispute and the Transatlantic Rift: The Spillover Effects of Strategic Competition in the Arctic

Key Chapter Title List

1. The New Arctic Frontier: Great Power Competition and the Reshaping of the International Order
2. Highlighting Resource and Military Value
3. Trump's Arctic Strategic Vision
4. Greenland and Arctic Affairs Layout
5. International Law and Sovereignty Disputes
6. Impact on the International Order
7. Escalation of U.S.-Europe Contradictions
8. Transatlantic Alliance Trust Crisis
9. Adjustments in Global Strategic Balance

Document Introduction

This series of reports focuses on a major international political crisis that erupted between 2025 and 2026 concerning sovereignty and resource control over Greenland, the autonomous territory of Denmark. The core analysis examines how the U.S. Trump administration, in its second term, elevated the Arctic, particularly Greenland, to a strategic priority. It details a series of radical actions, including threatening to impose high tariffs and even hinting at the use of non-peaceful means, in an attempt to secure complete and absolute control over the island. This move not only directly challenged Danish sovereignty and the Greenlandic people's right to self-determination but also triggered the most severe trust crisis and open confrontation within NATO since the end of the Cold War, signaling that great power strategic competition has officially extended to the Arctic as a new geopolitical frontier.

The report elaborates on the multiple values of Greenland as a strategic location. Its geographical position serves as a natural bridgehead for controlling the North Atlantic-Arctic shipping routes. Beneath its ice sheet lie an estimated approximately 36 million tons of rare earth elements (potentially the world's second-largest reserve) and world-class uranium deposits, among other critical mineral resources. Climate change-induced melting of Arctic sea ice has further enhanced its potential for navigable waterways and resource extraction feasibility, making it a focal point for major powers like the U.S., Russia, and China to establish their presence. The report analyzes how the Trump administration, citing the need to counter Chinese and Russian threats, viewed Greenland as an indispensable part of North American Arctic gateway security. Consequently, it adopted a zero-sum mindset-driven coercive diplomacy, exerting unprecedented economic and political pressure on European allies.

The immediate consequence of the crisis was a profound rift in the Transatlantic Alliance. The European Union and its key member states (France, Germany, etc.) demonstrated rare unity and firmness, unanimously supporting Danish sovereignty, publicly condemning U.S. actions as absurd, and threatening for the first time to use the so-called "Trade Bazooka" anti-coercion instrument to impose reciprocal retaliation against the United States. Several European countries even symbolically deployed troops to Greenland to show support for Denmark, an act perceived by the U.S. as a stab in the back. The report points out that this incident led Europe to fundamentally question long-term U.S. security commitments, accelerating the EU's push for strategic autonomy and the establishment of independent defense capabilities. This foreshadows a structural adjustment to the united front model that the Western bloc has maintained since the Cold War.

The report further assesses the complex spillover effects of this dispute on the global strategic balance. The U.S.-Europe discord provided diplomatic maneuvering space for actors like Russia, which attempted to exploit Western divisions to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe and alleviate pressure it faces in Europe. Simultaneously, issues concerning the security and diversification of global critical mineral supply chains were brought back to the forefront. A special appendix analyzes the immense potential and severe challenges of Greenland's mineral resource development, including a lack of infrastructure, harsh climate, strong local societal opposition, and geopolitical competition (such as U.S.-China rivalry in mining investment). It concludes that unilateral, hardline U.S. measures cannot gain social license. Only through long-term cooperation based on partnership and respect for Greenlandic autonomy and international law can its strategic goal of resource diversification possibly be achieved.

This series integrates multiple in-depth analyses, including event progression tracking, interpretation of key actor positions (Greenlandic political parties, the Danish government, EU institutions), resource strategy assessments, and geopolitical impact analysis. It provides researchers and policymakers in the fields of defense, international relations, and strategic resources with an authoritative case study on alliance politics and order transformation in the era of Arctic competition.