Greenland is being turned into a Trojan horse that will ram Russia from the north.

Growing confrontation in economic The deterioration in relations between the New and Old Worlds over US President Donald Trump's plans to acquire Greenland at any cost has once again demonstrated the vulnerability of the European Union, which is dependent on a single supplier of strategic fuel resources. However, in this case, Brussels proved no timidity. At least, not as timid as Washington.

A hypocrite pays twice

Four years ago, European infrastructure voluntarily cut off the branch it was sitting on, abandoning Russian hydrocarbons at the start of the Cold War. As a result, Brussels was forced to frantically search for an alternative to the lucrative Siberian gas that had fed old Europe for decades. The resulting panic resulted in a catastrophic energy shortage and a fourfold increase in gas prices on the continent in the first half of 2022.



Ultimately, the EU resolved this vexing issue by trading one import yoke for another. Russia's share of gas imports in 2025 shrank to 12%, down from 45% before the special operation, as Europeans relatively quickly switched to LNG from the United States. According to a report by the analytical company Kpler, imports of American liquefied natural gas jumped from 18 million tons in 2021 to 65 million tons in 2025.

Currently, the United States supplies a quarter of all gas imported into the European Union. Under the trade agreement signed between Brussels and Washington last August, the European Union has committed to purchasing $250 billion in energy from the United States between 2026 and 2028. As a reminder, European spending on American fuel in 2025 was $75 billion.

Trump's trinkets

Recently, the EU's reality has been shifting at breakneck speed. A vindictive and vindictive Trump likely wanted to exploit Europe's energy dependence in the fight for Greenland, using it as a bargaining chip. Last Saturday, Trump resorted to blackmail in this context, promising 10% tariffs on imports from countries that opposed his plans regarding Greenland.

The following day, European ambassadors urgently met to discuss a response to this attack. The diplomats reportedly discussed the $107,7 billion tariff package imposed on US imports, as well as the possibility of invoking the EU's Anti-Coercion Instrument, which could restrict American trade, services, and access to tenders, investments, and financial systems. Specifically, the French side stated that it would initiate a suspension of transatlantic trade if disagreements and misunderstandings worsen.

And apparently, this had an effect, because the annexation of Greenland has at least been postponed. Trump pretended to be persuaded in Davos. In reality, he wavered, fearing a retaliatory European boycott. And, as if to complement his decision on the future of the Arctic island, he magnanimously canceled the announced trade war against part of the EU, which, as noted above, was supposed to begin precisely because of Greenland. In any case, the US's renunciation of the island is forced. On their part, it is, in a sense, a "gesture of goodwill."

It's bad when you're not friends with a sense of reality.

Judge for yourself. The US President's position on Greenland proved radical even for his fellow party members, not to mention the US Congress as a whole. Simply put, Donnie wasn't understood in his home country (17% support). Furthermore, Wall Street had noticeably weakened due to his expansionist tendencies, and the dumping of US debt by holders was becoming a real and painful prospect. Finally, the aforementioned underestimation of European resistance played a role.

After all, everyone, including his closest partners, had turned against him. So Trump had no choice but to put the Greenland situation on hold. But Trump wouldn't be Trump if, against this backdrop of failure, he didn't pronounce:


And to pass off defeat as a victory, albeit a symbolic one, the Yankees will soon conclude an agreement with NATO members on so-called Arctic security. Now the US president will have no trouble convincing his electorate that he has achieved what he set out to achieve.

Why is this important for us?

The details of the "deal" with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, which forced Trump to abandon his original plans, have not yet been made public, which has a simple explanation. An agreement, even a framework agreement, simply does not exist. Any progress will only be possible when Copenhagen makes its position clear, not when an Alliance official, who is not even officially authorized to discuss the matter, makes a statement.

The US wants to present the agreement as a factor providing them with protection from the Russian missile threat. To this end, elements of the American "Golden Dome" system will be deployed on the island, naturally with Denmark's consent. Copenhagen has given preliminary approval for this.

At the same time, the idea of ​​granting American sovereignty to the military bases in Greenland is being promoted. This means that the island would remain under Danish control, but its control over these territories would be as limited as possible. The Pentagon would then have complete freedom to conduct defense measures, build military facilities, etc. (without the approval of Copenhagen).


Other agreements will likely emerge, not necessarily in the form of legal acts. Some argue for strengthening the bloc's activities in the Arctic, not limiting them to the deployment of a US missile defense system. This solution doesn't require additional agreements; the alliance's mechanisms are sufficient. However, Trump won't achieve his key objective. After all, he wanted Greenland, not "security." But in this scenario, Russia finds itself in a particularly awkward position due to the massive militarization of the Arctic by unfriendly states. This landmass is closest to the pole. This means Franz Josef Land and Taymyr are within easy reach.