In January 2026, a diplomatic crisis over Greenland brought the world to the brink of a trade war between the United States and the European Union. This escalation represents more than a territorial dispute; it is a profound collision between competing political theories and vision for the global order.

Greenland’s importance lies at the intersection of geography, resources, and security. As the “shortest route” between North America and Europe, it hosts the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule), a critical node for ballistic missile early-warning systems.

During the second Trump administration, U.S. interest moved from transactional curiosity to a “national security priority”. The U.S. pursued a campaign of “societal infiltration,” including handing out dollar bills in Nuuk and allegedly attempting to recruit secessionists to weaken ties with Denmark. Tensions peaked in early January 2026 when the U.S. threatened a 25% tariff on all EU goods unless Denmark ceded control, a move European leaders described as turning NATO into a “protection racket”.

The Theoretical Collision

The crisis serves as a laboratory for three dominant political theories that are currently clashing over Europe’s future.

1. Offensive Realism and the Return of Spheres of Influence

At the heart of the U.S. strategy is Offensive Realism. This theory posits that states seek to maximize their share of world power to ensure survival. Under the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. views the Western Hemisphere, including Greenland, as its exclusive sphere of influence.

• The Zero-Sum View: The U.S. administration argued that “if we don’t take Greenland, Russia or China will,” treating the territory as a commodity to be acquired or seized to prevent adversaries from gaining a foothold.
• Hard Power Primacy: The U.S. effectively eschewed soft power in favor of “economic coercion” and the refused to rule out military force, prioritizing national security over established alliances.

2. Liberal Institutionalism and the Rules-Based Order

Opposing the U.S. is the Liberal Institutionalist framework, which Europe has championed since 1945. This theory emphasizes international law, institutional cooperation, and the rights of smaller states.

• Sovereignty and Self-Determination: European leaders emphasized that Greenland is not for sale because its 57,000 residents possess a right to self-determination under international law.
• The “Arctic Endurance” Strategy: Rather than ceding territory, Europe and Denmark countered with a strategy of “everything but territory,” offering increased NATO presence and joint mineral investment deals to address security concerns without violating sovereignty.

3. Constructivism: Identities and Norms

Constructivism focuses on how identities and historical norms shape policy.

• Danish Identity: For Denmark, rejecting the sale was a matter of national identity and historical responsibility toward the Greenlandic people.
• European Solidarity: The crisis forced a “European strategic mind” to emerge, with leaders from Norway, Germany, and France uniting to defend Denmark, ultimately leading to a U.S. “climbdown” at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos.

Why Europe is the Target

Europe remains the primary target for U.S. expansion—whether territorial, economic, or technological—because it is a strategic hub for power projection toward Russia and China.

• Resource Access: Greenland holds the world’s second-largest deposit of rare earth elements, essential for the green transition and high-tech defense.
• Strategic Choke Points: Control of Greenland secures the GIUK Gap (Greenland-Iceland-UK), a naval bottleneck used to monitor Russian submarine activity.

Conclusion: The “withdrew” Moment

The 2026 Greenland crisis ended in what observers called a “TACO moment”—a reference to “Trump Always Chickens Out”—as the U.S. withdrew its tariff threats in Davos after facing unified European military and economic resistance. However, the damage to the transatlantic alliance remains profound, with many in the region stating they “can never really trust America again”. This shift suggests that Europe’s future may lie in a “dedicated European defense pillar” independent of U.S. unilateral whims.