Greenland Faces Pivotal Summit Over Arctic Power Struggle

Published: 14 January 2026 | The English Chronicle Desk | The English Chronicle Online

Greenlanders are bracing themselves for a summit in Washington that many here believe could define not only the future of the Arctic, but also the destiny of their own vast, icebound homeland. On Wednesday, the United States Vice President, JD Vance, will host a high-stakes meeting at the White House with Denmark’s foreign minister, Greenland’s foreign affairs representative, and the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. At the heart of the talks lies Greenland, the world’s largest island, and a question that has unsettled both its people and its allies: who ultimately controls the Arctic’s future?

In Nuuk, Greenland’s snow-covered capital, the sense of unease is visible and palpable. Above the city’s main shopping mall, a giant digital news ticker flashes a handful of words again and again in red: “Trump”, “Greenland”, and “sovereignty”. Even for those who do not speak Greenlandic, the message is unmistakable. The island has become the focus of intense global attention after President Donald Trump renewed his assertion that the United States “needs” Greenland for national security, warning he would acquire it “the easy way or the hard way”.

Those words have landed heavily here, particularly in the wake of Trump’s controversial recent military action in Venezuela. Many Greenlanders say they are now inclined to take his threats at face value. What might once have sounded like political theatre is increasingly perceived as a real and present danger.

The countdown to Wednesday’s meeting has felt endless. “It feels like years,” one passer-by remarked as she trudged through Nuuk’s icy streets. For residents, the anxiety is not abstract geopolitics but a deeply personal concern about sovereignty, identity and survival.

“I would like to encourage Donald Trump to use both his ears wisely, to listen more and to speak less,” said Amelie Zeeb, pulling off her thick sealskin mittens, known locally as pualuuk, to gesture emphatically. “We are not for sale. Our country is not for sale.”

That sentiment is echoed across generations. Inuit writer and musician Sivnîssoq Rask expressed a quieter but equally firm hope. “My hope is for our country to be independent and well-managed, and not to be bought,” she said, reflecting a long-standing aspiration among many Greenlanders for eventual independence from Denmark, but on their own terms.

For others, the attention itself is the problem. Maria, cradling her seven-week-old baby inside her winter coat, admitted she feels overwhelmed. “I worry for the future of my young family. We don’t want all this attention here,” she said. Yet attention is exactly what Greenland is receiving, and few believe it will fade any time soon.

Far more is at stake than the fate of one island. The dispute over Greenland places two Nato allies, Denmark and the United States, in direct opposition. Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, controlling its own domestic affairs while Copenhagen oversees defence and foreign policy. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has issued a stark warning: if the United States were to seize Greenland by force, it would spell the end of the transatlantic defence alliance that Europe has relied on for decades.

Such a rupture would deal another severe blow to US-European relations, already badly strained since Donald Trump’s return to the White House. European leaders are simultaneously trying to keep Washington on side in the hope of securing sustained US support for Ukraine and a durable peace settlement. A confrontation over Greenland could derail those efforts entirely.

Despite the gravity of the situation, it remains unclear what tone Washington will adopt at Wednesday’s meeting. Will the talks seek compromise, reassurance and cooperation, or will they harden existing divisions? President Trump has repeatedly insisted that Greenland is vital to US national security, arguing that if Washington does not take control, China or Russia will fill the vacuum.

These claims have prompted European capitals to move swiftly. While firmly backing Danish sovereignty, major European powers are also scrambling to demonstrate that Greenland can be protected within the existing Nato framework. According to diplomatic sources, the United Kingdom and Germany have emerged as leading voices in discussions about strengthening Nato’s military presence in and around Greenland and the wider Arctic region.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz acknowledged US concerns earlier this week. “We share the US concerns that this part of Denmark needs better protection,” he said. “We simply want to improve Greenland’s security situation together.” His remarks underline a careful balancing act: addressing legitimate security fears without conceding ground on sovereignty.

In Germany, the debate has gone further. Patrick Sensburg, chairman of the German Reservists Association, has called for at least one European brigade to be stationed in Greenland as soon as possible. He argued that Germany would bear a “special responsibility” in such an endeavour and noted that training troops in Arctic conditions would offer significant strategic benefits to the German army.

The British government, meanwhile, is reported to be holding preliminary talks with European allies about the possible deployment of forces to Greenland. These discussions are framed as a response to perceived threats from Russia and China, both of which have shown growing interest in the Arctic’s shipping routes, resources and strategic positioning.

While the talks remain at an early stage and no troop numbers have been agreed, they already encompass a broad range of capabilities. Options under consideration include the deployment of soldiers, naval vessels, aircraft, submarines and advanced anti-drone systems. One proposal gaining traction is the creation of a maritime Nato “Arctic Sentry”, modelled on the “Baltic Sentry” established after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The rationale is clear. Like the Baltic Sea, the Arctic seabed is criss-crossed with critical infrastructure, including energy pipelines and internet cables that underpin global communications and financial transactions worth billions of dollars every day. These assets are vulnerable to sabotage and so-called hybrid attacks, a growing concern for Nato planners.

“There is a lot more that can be done in the Arctic,” said Oana Lungescu, Nato’s longest-serving spokesperson until 2023 and now a Distinguished Fellow at the defence think-tank RUSI. She does not expect the UK or Germany to deploy large numbers of troops permanently to Greenland, but believes they could expand military exercises and maritime patrols in the region.

“The Arctic became a strategic priority for Nato after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine,” she said. “But more needs to be done.” Nato allies, including the UK, have already begun deploying maritime assets for major exercises such as Norway’s biannual Cold Response drills in the High North, signalling a renewed focus on Arctic security.

For Greenlanders watching events unfold from Nuuk, the flurry of diplomatic and military activity offers little immediate comfort. Many fear their homeland is being reduced to a strategic prize in a contest between great powers. As the Washington summit approaches, hopes and anxieties collide. The decisions made behind closed doors this week could reverberate across the Arctic for generations, shaping not only global security but also the right of a small population to determine its own future.