You can’t seize another nation, it says. At a recent press conference with the Greenland’s approaching and approaching prime ministers, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen delivered this information. It appeared to be directed at Russian President Vladimir Putin, rather than Donald Trump, the leader of one of her government’s closest friends, who has threatened to overthrow Greenland.
Frederiksen was speaking in Nuuk, the money of Greenland, stating something that is clear under international law but cannot now be taken for granted. Under Trump, US foreign policy has played into Russian and possibly Chinese regional ambitions and has become a major driver of this doubt.
Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the approaching Greenlandic prime minister, made it abundantly clear that Greenlanders should decide their coming, no the United States. Denmark is in charge of Greenland’s home scheme, but it makes its own choices. Surveys indicate that the majority of locals want to leave Denmark in the future but don’t want to live in the US.
Trump’s attention in Greenland is frequently linked to the island’s great, but generally untapped, mineral resources. But its advantageous position is unquestionably an even greater plus. Due to melting sea ice, shifting roads through the Arctic have become more predictable and reliable throughout the year.
The Northern Passage and the Northern Passage ( along the US and Canadian shorelines ) are frequently ice-free during the summer.
This opens up more opportunities for business transport. For instance, the east section can make a pot send travel from Asia to Europe up to three times shorter than traditional roads through the Suez Canal or around Africa.
The northwest section, on the other hand, offers the shortest path between Alaska and the east coast of the United States. Add to that the Arctic’s good significant assets, which range from oil and gas to nutrients, and the area is starting to appear like a huge real estate deal in the works.
goods in the Arctic
The Arctic’s financial potential and, in particular, its greater availability have also raised military and security concerns.
Vladimir Putin addressed the fifth global Arctic community in Murmansk in Russia’s high north the day before JD Vance’s planned trip to Greenland on March 28 and warned of growing geopolitical conflict.
He quickly pointed out that Moscow was “upgrading the combat skills of the Armed Forces, and modernising military equipment services” in the Arctic, even while saying that” Russia has previously threatened anyone in the Arctic.”
Russia’s increased marine assistance with China and Beijing’s access to the Arctic, which is equally alarming, have both increased. The two nations ‘ warships signed a cooperation agreement on search and rescue operations on the great lakes in April 2024.
China participated in Russia’s largest marine tactics in the post-Cold War period, Ocean-2024, which were carried out in the northern Pacific and Arctic waters in September 2024. Russian and Chinese beach watch ships conducted their second joint Arctic guard the following month. Thus, Vance makes a point when he urges Greenland and Denmark to break up a bargain with the US because the “island isn’t safe.”
Westwards have noticed that the Russia-China relationship has led to an extremely militarized presence in the Arctic. Canada recently announced a$ 6 billion ( US$ 4.2 billion ) upgrade to facilities in its joint North American Aerospace Defense Command, which it oversees with the United States, in protest of the security of its Arctic territories.
To strengthen its Arctic defenses, it will also engage another$ 420 million in boosting the presence of its military forces, as well as purchase more boats, icebreakers, and fighter jets.
What part will Svalbard play in the future?
Norway has increased its military presence in the Arctic, particularly in relation to the Svalbard archipelago, which is strategically located between the Scandinavian mainland and the Arctic Circle.
Russia has reacted infuriated to this, falsely alleging that Oslo violated the 1920 Svalbard Treaty, which gave Norway the mainland with the condition that it must certainly host Scandinavian military installations.
According to the agreement, Russia has a straight to a place of worship there. Yury Trutnev, the Russian deputy prime minister’s minister to the far eastern federal area, is the head of the” commission on ensuring Russia’s existence on the coast Spitzbergen,” which is the Russian government’s adopted name for Svalbard. Trumpnev has filed numerous complaints about excessive Scandinavian restrictions on Russia’s appearance in Svalbard.
From the Kremlin’s point of view, this is more about Norway’s and NATO’s appearance in a proper place at the intersection of the Greenland, Barents, and Norway seas.
From there, it is possible to monitor sea prospects along Russia’s northeastern passage. The strategic significance of the island would grow even more if and when a key Arctic shipping route, which may link Greenland and Svalbard, becomes practicable.
Greenland is more significant from the standpoint of Washington because it is more close to the US. However, Svalbard is essential to NATO for tracking and halting marine pursuits from Russia and China.
Trump’s White House cares less about local security administration and is more concerned with its own immediate area.
In consequence, there hasn’t been any advice so far that the US needs Svalbard in the same way that Trump claims he needs Greenland to provide US security. Russia has not threatened Svalbard in any particular way.
However, it was obvious that Putin discussed traditional regional issues in his speech at the Arctic Forum, including a mysterious 1910 proposal for a property switch between the US, Denmark, and Germany involving Greenland.
Putin also noted that” the NATO countries are exceedingly frequently designating the Far North as a catalyst for potential problems.” Moscow’s logic is understandable, and it is easy to see why Russia may claim Svalbard if the US is claim Greenland for safety reasons.
The conclusion to draw from this is not that Trump may aim to seize a royal Norwegian area as well. The importance of maintaining and strengthening long-standing relationships is highlighted by the North Atlantic’s sea geography.
As a result of expanding NATO security cooperation with Denmark and Norway, US interests may be protected and Russia would receive a powerful concept. It would also send a strong message to the rest of the world that the US is not planning to start a regional reorganization of international politics in order to serve only Moscow, Beijing, and Washington.
University of Birmingham professor of global surveillance Stefan Wolff
The Conversation has republished this post under a Creative Commons license. Study the article’s introduction.