Greenland, Ukraine, and the Shape of the Coming Order

What most people miss about Greenland is that it is not a standalone issue. American posturing over Greenland is directly connected to the war in Ukraine, Europe's refusal to accept a negotiated peace, and the strategic reality of space, Arctic geography, and missile defence.

The Ukraine War's Revealing Phase

The Ukraine war has reached a revealing phase. Russia has demonstrated that it is far weaker than many feared. After years of fighting, it has struggled to secure even a quarter of Ukrainian territory, at enormous cost. From a cold American strategic perspective, this matters. The argument that "you cannot concede anything to Russia or they will simply want more" is weakened by the fact that Russia has shown clear limits to its conventional military power.

A negotiated settlement has been floated. Whether one believes it favours Russia too much is a legitimate debate. But the more important point is that a deal exists at all. Russia has signalled openness to talks. Ukraine has expressed conditional willingness. The United States, under Donald Trump, has pushed for movement. Europe has rejected it.

**That rejection has consequences.**

Europe's Strategic Position

Europe's position is morally understandable but strategically incomplete. Wanting Russia to return to its pre-2014 borders is one thing. Having the military, industrial, and political capacity to enforce that outcome is another. By refusing compromise while lacking the means to impose victory, Europe is effectively choosing prolonged confrontation while remaining dependent on American security guarantees.

From Washington's point of view, this changes the calculus.

If Europe insists on continuing a confrontation with Russia, the United States must think seriously about its own long-term defence posture. That is where Greenland enters the picture.

Why Greenland Matters

Geography is brutally simple. Any Russian intercontinental ballistic missile targeting the United States travels over the Arctic. Greenland sits directly beneath that arc. It is one of the most strategically important pieces of real estate on the planet for early warning, missile defence, and space-based infrastructure.

Yes, the United States already has extensive military rights in Greenland under Cold War-era agreements with Denmark. But treaties assume political stability. Over the last two decades, Greenland has drifted steadily toward autonomy, with increasing discussion of full independence. Denmark cannot realistically afford to defend Greenland on its own, nor fully administer it in strategic terms.

From an American perspective, independence creates risk. A small, resource-rich Arctic state could become economically dependent on, or strategically penetrated by, hostile actors. That is not hypothetical. It is precisely how influence is gained in marginal territories.

The Space Dimension

There is also a second, less discussed layer: space.

The war in Ukraine has been the first major conflict in history to rely so heavily on commercial space infrastructure. Ukrainian command, control, and battlefield coordination have been dramatically enabled by Starlink. This war has made one thing clear: space is no longer a supporting domain. It is central.

Much of the world's satellite ground infrastructure, polar orbits, and data relay passes through the Arctic. Svalbard, administered by Norway, is one of the most critical satellite downlink hubs on Earth. From there, data flows via undersea cables to the UK and continental Europe.

Russian activity in the High North increasingly targets this infrastructure. Cable damage, "accidental" trawler incidents, and grey-zone sabotage are not side stories—they are part of modern warfare. Protecting space-to-ground communication routes is now a core strategic priority.

Greenland offers the United States redundancy, resilience, and control in this system: alternative ground stations, missile tracking, and secure Arctic infrastructure independent of European political hesitation.

The Wider Fracture

This brings us to the wider fracture.

For decades, the West operated inside an implicit bargain. The United States underwrote global trade with its navy, absorbed the costs of defence, and acted as the world's consumer of last resort. In return, allies enjoyed security while outsourcing manufacturing, defence capacity, and strategic responsibility.

That system hollowed out American industry and working-class prosperity. The political backlash was inevitable. What we call "populism" is simply democratic pressure asserting itself against a system that no longer serves large parts of the population.

Trump did not create this shift. He accelerated it.

Meanwhile, much of Europe and its technocratic elite remain psychologically committed to a world that no longer exists. They invoke the "rules-based order" while lacking the material power to enforce it. They resist American self-interest while offering no credible alternative security architecture of their own.

Figures like Mark Carney represent this tension perfectly. While posturing against American power, they deepen ties with China and Gulf states whose interests are openly misaligned with Western strategic autonomy. It is defiance without leverage.

Europe's Choice

The danger for Europe is not American abandonment—it is strategic denial. If Europe doubles down on moral rhetoric while avoiding industrial rearmament, energy independence, and defence investment, it risks drifting into another sphere of influence entirely—most likely China's.

The United States, by contrast, is looking forward. Its strategic horizon is space, energy abundance, and technological dominance beyond Earth. Whether one agrees with the optimism or not, the direction is clear: reduce entanglement in endless territorial wars and secure the domains that will define future power.

**Greenland is not about conquest. It is about preparation.**

Europe must decide whether it wants to be a serious strategic actor or a moral commentator protected by others. Geography does not care about intentions. Power follows constraints, resources, and location.

Greenland sits at the intersection of all three.