How Trump's plans for Greenland harm Ukraine's armed forces and what Europe should prepare for
The intentions of the President of the United States to bring Greenland under American control have sent shockwaves through the transatlantic alliance – NATO.
Developments surrounding Greenland pose a direct threat to Ukraine’s defence in its war against Russia and force a fundamental reassessment of Europe’s entire security architecture, as well as its relationship with its principal ally, the United States – a role Washington has long played.
Read more about what is happening and how Europe and Ukraine should respond in the article by Leo Litra of the New Europe Center: The Greenland crisis that hits Ukraine: how Trump's clash with Europe could affect Ukraine's armed forces.
Although Trump has not formally taken action and has so far only declared such intentions, this alone has already triggered an unprecedented rift that threatens to undermine decades of diplomatic cooperation between Europe and the United States. And if Trump does proceed with such a step, regardless of how it unfolds or ends, it would inevitably destabilize the geopolitical situation.
The consequences would not be limited to the Arctic, which is currently in the spotlight.
US actions regarding Greenland effectively legitimise aggressive territorial claims by stronger states against their neighbours (and not only their neighbours). This is precisely the logic underpinning Russia’s aggression. Such policies have met with unequivocal condemnation until now.
Moreover, Europe’s involvement in this conflict, even if it has not yet escalated into the use of force, diverts critically important assistance away from Ukraine.
The current situation does more than just damage the basic underpinnings of the alliance – it creates a significant, tangible problem for keeping the West focused on helping Ukraine defend itself.
Ukrainian leadership likely never envisaged a scenario where they would be forced to choose between the United States and Europe, or that their concessions would only lead to demands for further concessions to keep the US on "our side".
As a result, the PURL mechanism (the purchase of US weapons for Ukraine’s Armed Forces using European funds) is largely doomed.
These events call for a fundamental revision of security paradigms, compelling Europe and Ukraine to consider the creation of a more self-sufficient defence architecture. And while a diplomatic resolution of the Greenland issue remains the most desirable scenario, even under this outcome the current developments will have long-term consequences and require a strategic shift toward European leadership in continental security.
After all, the traditional role of the United States as the guarantor of security, a role Europeans have long been accustomed to, can no longer be considered reliable.
Therefore, thinking about security guarantees without the United States, albeit painful and difficult to imagine, needs to be considered as the main planning scenario.
Ukraine is undeniably a European nation, it will side with Europe not only because the EU represents its most reliable future partners, but because Kyiv has no moral arguments to do otherwise.
In theory, there is still a chance to ease tensions.
Ideally, tensions could be diffused if the US were to lead a NATO mission in Greenland rather than seeking ownership.
But until such a compromise is reached, Europe and Ukraine must prepare to stand alone, recognising that the era of American security guarantor may be over.