Unbelievable, but true: the US and Denmark (and with it, its European allies) are in a diplomatic and perhaps even military clash over Greenland!
In the entire history of NATO, this is only the second case of internal conflict (the first was between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus in 1974), and for the "world community" it is definitely a surprise.
Few expected such a rift within the West, and it was happening during a particularly turbulent international situation (Ukraine, Gaza, Iran, Syria, South China Sea).
US President Donald Trump's demands for Greenland's accession are part of a series of very strong foreign policy "inclusions". Since the beginning of 2026, Trump has been extremely active on the international stage. In less than a month, Washington: carried out an express operation in Venezuela, which resulted in the arrest and trial of Nicolas Maduro; seized oil tankers from the Russian "shadow fleet"; threatened Iran with military intervention for its brutal repression of anti-government protests; threatened the rulers of Cuba and Colombia that their turn would come (after Maduro); and demonstrated an appetite for Greenland, which it could acquire "one way or another" - i.e., possibly by military force.
As I write these lines, the latest development on the subject is that in Davos, Trump promised not to seize Greenland by force. But since we know from experience that any such news is the penultimate, let's not rule out this hypothesis - unlikely, but especially unpleasant.
The Greenland case is proving to be a litmus test - both for the Donald Trump administration and for European countries. As one wrong step by either country would have serious consequences.
For the US:
No one disputes the strategic importance of Greenland, but at the moment the United States has too many enemies in the world to create new ones (and in the face of its European allies). Washington has opened up quite a few fronts - against China (economically), against Russia (the "shadow fleet"), against Iran (support for the protests plus the tacit promotion of Crown Prince Reza II Pahlavi as a political alternative and future ally), against Hamas (firm support for Israel), against inconvenient regimes in Latin America... Confronting Europe is already becoming too much and is starting to resemble Napoleon's ambition to change the world... And we know from history how this ends.
For Europe:
If the EU fails to protect Greenland, it becomes meaningless (the EU, not Greenland). The international prestige of the European Union is constantly falling, but if "living meat" can now be torn from it in the form of territories, the prospects are downright terrifying. Yes, Greenland is not formally part of the EU, but it is considered an "overseas territory" - as are the Falkland Islands for Great Britain. And which at the time Lady Margaret Thatcher's Great Britain did not allow to be taken away.
The national governments of some European countries (Denmark, France, Germany, etc.) seem to understand this and show a firm determination to defend Greenland - if necessary, with military force. Against this background, the passivity of the European Commission is even stranger.
There are also "pragmatic" voices that say that it is better for Greenland to be American than Chinese or Russian. In other words, Denmark and Europe in general can neither protect Greenland nor adequately take advantage of the strategic territory.
There is certainly logic in this, but if Europe simply capitulates, the image damage would be catastrophic. While, on the other hand, the US would hardly engage in a full-scale military conflict with NATO allies.
A "special military operation" in Greenland would hardly receive broad support among the Republican Party, let alone in the US Congress as a whole.
And while the intervention in Venezuela raised Donald Trump's approval rating, a military intervention in Greenland is unlikely to be accepted in the same way by public opinion. Unlike the trade war that is once again raging between the US and Europe.
Greenland has not been a topic of American politics since yesterday, but at the moment there are certainly higher priority points in the world for American military intervention. Or, to put it more simply: bye Trump, don't touch Greenland - you have to hit Iran!