Analysis of: Greenland belongs to its people, say European leaders, as coalition of willing meets to discuss Ukraine in Paris – Europe live
The Guardian | January 6, 2026
The Paris summit ostensibly focused on Ukraine security guarantees has been overshadowed by a more immediate crisis: the US administration's open threats to annex Greenland, exposing fundamental contradictions within the Western imperial alliance structure. What presents itself as a dispute over territorial sovereignty is fundamentally a contest over strategic resources and Arctic shipping routes increasingly accessible due to climate change. The ruling classes of both the United States and European states find themselves in an unprecedented position where the supposed guarantor of post-war capitalist order—the US—is now threatening to overturn that very order against its own allies. The European response reveals the material constraints facing these states: despite Denmark's warnings that a US attack would end NATO and 'post-second world war security,' the joint statement from European leaders notably avoids directly naming the United States as the threat. This careful diplomatic positioning reflects Europe's continued dependence on American military and economic power, even as that power turns against their interests. The working populations of Greenland, Denmark, and Ukraine find themselves as objects rather than subjects of these negotiations—their futures being determined by great power competition over resources, territory, and strategic advantage. The simultaneous discussions of Ukraine security guarantees and Greenland sovereignty highlight a central contradiction of the current moment: European states are seeking security commitments from an administration that has just demonstrated its willingness to violate international law through the Venezuela operation and is openly threatening allied territory. This exposes the fundamental instability of security arrangements built on capitalist great power relations rather than genuine collective security or self-determination.
Class Dynamics
Actors: US ruling class and state apparatus (Trump administration, Miller, Witkoff, Kushner), European ruling classes represented by heads of state (Macron, Starmer, Merz, Frederiksen), Ukrainian state leadership (Zelenskyy), Greenlandic population (57,000 people treated as objects of negotiation), Defense industry capital across NATO states, Energy and mining corporations with Arctic interests
Beneficiaries: US defense and energy corporations seeking Arctic access, European defense industries receiving increased investment, Political elites who gain legitimacy through 'defending sovereignty', Capital interests in Arctic mineral extraction and shipping routes
Harmed Parties: Greenlandic indigenous population whose self-determination is being discussed without meaningful participation, Ukrainian working class bearing the costs of war and uncertain peace, Working populations across NATO states who fund military expenditures, Danish workers whose state sovereignty is being openly challenged
The article reveals a hierarchy within the Western alliance where the US exercises dominant power, with European states in a subordinate position despite their rhetorical assertions of sovereignty. The 'Coalition of the Willing' framing itself demonstrates how states align around US-led initiatives. Stephen Miller's dismissive comments about Greenland's small population reveal how the US views smaller nations as objects to be absorbed rather than sovereign entities. European leaders' reluctance to directly name the US in their joint statement demonstrates their material dependence on American power even when that power threatens their interests.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Arctic shipping routes becoming viable due to ice melt, Rare earth minerals and oil deposits in Greenland, European energy security concerns post-Russian gas dependency, Defense industry contracts for Ukraine military support, Strategic military positioning in the Arctic region
The conflict centers on control over strategic territory that provides access to emerging production possibilities—Arctic resources and shipping routes represent enormous potential value extraction. The 'Coalition of the Willing' discussions around Ukraine reveal how military-industrial production relations between states operate: commitments to weapons supply, training, and 'investment in Ukraine's military' are essentially commitments to sustain demand for defense industry production. The framing of security as requiring European 'stepping up' investments translates to increased military spending, benefiting defense capital across NATO states.
Resources at Stake: Greenland's rare earth mineral deposits (crucial for technology production), Arctic oil and natural gas reserves, Strategic Arctic shipping lanes, Military basing rights and surveillance infrastructure, Ukrainian agricultural land and mineral resources, European defense budgets and procurement contracts
Historical Context
Precedents: US acquisition of Alaska from Russia (1867), US attempts to purchase Greenland under Truman (1946) and Trump (2019), Monroe Doctrine and US intervention in Latin America (referenced via Venezuela), Colonial scrambles for territory in Africa and Asia, NATO expansion as extension of US hegemony post-Cold War, Historical pattern of great powers disregarding smaller nations' sovereignty
This situation reflects the historical pattern of capitalist great powers competing over strategic territory and resources, particularly during periods of hegemonic transition. The US behavior mirrors classical imperial expansion—using military and economic leverage to absorb peripheral territories. Denmark's position echoes that of smaller European powers historically caught between larger empires. The invocation of the 'rules-based international order' by European leaders while that order is being actively dismantled reveals its function as ideology serving dominant power interests rather than genuine principle. The reference to 'post-second world war security' ending represents recognition that the particular configuration of US hegemony that structured international relations for 80 years is decomposing.
Contradictions
Primary: The fundamental contradiction is that the post-WWII Western security architecture depends on US hegemony, but US hegemony is now being exercised against that very architecture. European states require US power for their security framework yet that same power now threatens their sovereignty and interests.
Secondary: NATO claims to defend territorial integrity while its leading member threatens to violate it, European leaders seek security guarantees from the same power demonstrating contempt for international law, The 'Coalition of the Willing' for Ukraine operates alongside US indifference to their concerns, Greenland is declared to 'belong to its people' while those people have no seat at the negotiating table, Defense of sovereignty rhetoric coexists with inability to enforce it against the US
These contradictions are unlikely to find stable resolution within the current framework. Possible trajectories include: European states developing independent military capacity (a long-term process requiring massive investment), accommodation to US demands through negotiated concessions, deeper fracturing of NATO as alliance coherence breaks down, or temporary stabilization if US attention shifts elsewhere. The Ukraine situation may accelerate European defense integration out of necessity. However, the underlying contradiction—that capitalist great power relations produce competition rather than genuine security—cannot be resolved without fundamental transformation of international relations beyond the current state system.
Global Interconnections
This story illuminates the broader crisis of US hegemony and the 'rules-based international order.' The Venezuela operation, Greenland threats, and Ukraine negotiations are interconnected expressions of an imperial power attempting to maintain dominance through increasingly aggressive means as its relative position declines. Climate change's opening of Arctic resources creates new zones of inter-imperial competition, with Greenland becoming valuable precisely because of ecological crisis. The Ukraine conflict itself connects to competition over European energy markets, agricultural resources, and the boundaries of Western versus Russian spheres of influence. The working classes across all affected nations share material interests that cut against this great power competition: they bear the costs of military spending, suffer from wars fought over elite interests, and have no genuine voice in determining their collective futures. The Greenlandic population of 57,000—dismissed by Miller as too small to resist—exemplifies how ordinary people become pawns in resource competition. Similarly, Ukrainian workers face an uncertain future regardless of which configuration of great power 'guarantees' emerges, as their country becomes a buffer zone managed by external powers rather than a genuinely sovereign state.
Conclusion
The Paris summit reveals the profound instability of the current international order as capitalist competition intensifies and US hegemony becomes more aggressive in its decline. For working people in Greenland, Ukraine, and across Europe, the lesson is that security cannot be achieved through alliances of ruling classes whose interests ultimately diverge and whose 'guarantees' depend on calculations of power rather than solidarity. The Greenlandic independence movement, Ukrainian self-organization, and European anti-war movements represent embryonic alternatives to the current configuration, though none yet poses a fundamental challenge to the logic of great power competition. The coming period will likely see continued instability as these contradictions sharpen, creating both dangers and potential openings for movements that reject the framework of inter-imperial rivalry altogether.
Editorial Note: This analysis applies a dialectical materialist framework to news events. It represents one interpretive perspective and should not be considered objective reporting.
AI-Assisted Analysis | Confidence: 92%