Analysis of: US will have Greenland ‘one way or the other’, says Trump as EU warns it would mark the end of Nato – Europe live
The Guardian | January 12, 2026
The escalating confrontation between the United States and its ostensible NATO allies over Greenland reveals the fundamental contradiction at the heart of the Western alliance: it was never truly about collective defense or shared democratic values, but rather about managing inter-imperialist competition under American hegemony. Trump's brazen declaration that the US will take Greenland 'one way or the other'—including his dismissive shrug that 'if it affects NATO, it affects NATO'—strips away decades of ideological veneer to expose the raw material interests driving great power politics. What makes this moment particularly significant is not Trump's characteristic bluntness, but rather what his statements reveal about the nature of capitalist interstate relations. The Arctic contains an estimated 13% of the world's undiscovered oil, 30% of its natural gas, and vast deposits of rare earth minerals essential to modern technology and military production. As climate change makes these resources increasingly accessible, the scramble for Arctic control intensifies. Denmark's autonomous territory of Greenland sits at the center of this emerging theater of resource competition, with its strategic position for military installations and shipping routes adding to its value. The EU's response—particularly former German Vice-Chancellor Habeck's proposal to offer Greenland EU membership—represents not solidarity with Greenlandic self-determination but a competing bid for access to the same resources. Both proposals treat Greenland primarily as a strategic asset rather than a homeland of the Inuit people, whose interests appear only as an afterthought in discussions of 'preserving culture' while extracting 'critical raw materials.' The crisis thus illuminates how imperialist competition operates even among nominal allies when sufficient material stakes are involved.
Class Dynamics
Actors: US state apparatus and military-industrial complex, European ruling classes and EU bureaucracy, Danish state representing Nordic capital interests, Greenlandic political elite navigating between powers, Inuit population and working people of Greenland, International energy and mining corporations, Chinese state capital pursuing Arctic interests
Beneficiaries: Extractive industries positioned to exploit Arctic resources, Military contractors and defense industries, Financial capital seeking new investment frontiers, Whichever imperial power secures territorial control
Harmed Parties: Greenlandic indigenous population facing potential displacement or marginalization, Working classes of all nations who bear costs of military confrontation, Global populations affected by accelerated resource extraction and climate impact, Smaller nations whose sovereignty becomes negotiable under great power pressure
The crisis reveals a hierarchy where American imperial power feels entitled to override the sovereignty of allied nations when strategic interests demand it. Denmark occupies a subordinate position within the Western alliance, possessing formal sovereignty over Greenland but lacking the material power to resist American pressure beyond diplomatic protest. The EU attempts to present itself as an alternative pole of attraction but fundamentally shares the extractive orientation toward Greenland. Greenlandic political actors find themselves in the weakest position, their autonomy becoming a bargaining chip between larger powers regardless of which 'offer' they accept. Trump's dismissal of Greenland's defense as 'two dog sleds' encapsulates the contempt with which imperial powers view peripheral territories and peoples.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Vast untapped Arctic hydrocarbon reserves becoming accessible, Critical rare earth mineral deposits essential for electronics and green technology, Strategic shipping routes opening due to ice melt, Military basing rights in an increasingly contested region, Competition for resources driving inter-imperialist rivalry despite alliance structures
The struggle over Greenland reflects the fundamental capitalist imperative of endless accumulation requiring constant expansion into new territories and resource frontiers. As traditional extraction sites deplete and competition intensifies, capital must seek new sources of raw materials regardless of political arrangements or indigenous rights. The proposed 'investment packages' from both the US and EU center on 'sustainable extraction of critical raw materials'—a formulation that prioritizes the needs of metropolitan industrial production over local development or environmental preservation. Greenland's small population and limited industrial base mean its labor is secondary to its territory's value as a source of extraction.
Resources at Stake: Estimated 50 billion barrels of oil and gas equivalent, Rare earth elements including neodymium and dysprosium, Uranium deposits, Strategic military positioning against Russia and China, Control over emerging Arctic shipping lanes, Fresh water resources in glacial ice
Historical Context
Precedents: 1917 US purchase of Danish West Indies (Virgin Islands), 1946 US offer to purchase Greenland for $100 million, 19th century scramble for Africa among European powers, Monroe Doctrine assertion of hemispheric control, Post-WWII American establishment of global military base network, Historical pattern of indigenous peoples losing land to imperial competition
This episode fits squarely within the historical pattern of imperialist expansion and inter-imperialist competition that Lenin analyzed over a century ago. The division of the world among great powers is never final under capitalism; it must be periodically renegotiated as relative power shifts and new resources become valuable. NATO itself emerged as a mechanism for managing intra-Western competition under American hegemony during the Cold War, but that hegemony is now being openly challenged—not primarily by external rivals but by American capital's own demands for more direct control. The crisis also echoes the 'scramble' pattern where indigenous peoples and their lands become objects of negotiation between competing powers, with their self-determination acknowledged only rhetorically.
Contradictions
Primary: The fundamental contradiction is between NATO's ideological presentation as a defensive alliance of sovereign democracies and its actual function as a mechanism of American imperial management, now strained to breaking point as American interests demand the absorption of an ally's territory.
Secondary: EU claims to represent an alternative to American unilateralism while pursuing the same extractive agenda, Greenlandic autonomy movements seeking independence from Denmark may find themselves under more direct American control, Climate change makes Arctic resources accessible while the extraction of those resources accelerates climate change, Trump invokes Russian and Chinese threats to justify actions that actually drive those powers closer together, Defense of 'sovereignty' and 'territorial integrity' by powers that routinely violate these principles elsewhere
These contradictions are unlikely to find stable resolution within the current system. The most probable near-term outcomes include: intensified competition manifesting as economic pressure and military positioning; potential fragmentation of NATO as European powers recognize the alliance cannot protect them from American demands; acceleration of Greenlandic independence movements attempting to navigate between powers; and possible de facto American control regardless of formal sovereignty arrangements. The underlying contradiction between capitalist accumulation imperatives and political sovereignty structures will continue generating crises until either imperial competition produces open conflict or systemic transformation removes the material basis for such competition.
Global Interconnections
The Greenland crisis cannot be understood in isolation from the broader reorganization of global capitalism in an era of declining American hegemony and intensifying resource competition. It connects directly to the war in Ukraine—mentioned by Trump in the same remarks—as both reflect struggles over Eurasian resources and strategic positioning. China's criticism of American Arctic ambitions, while self-interested, points to the emergence of a multipolar competition that NATO was not designed to address. The crisis also intersects with the global energy transition, as rare earth minerals in Greenland are essential for electric vehicles and renewable energy technology, meaning control over these resources shapes which capitals will dominate the next phase of industrial production. The Swiss bar fire mentioned in the same news feed might seem unrelated, but both stories illuminate how risk and harm are distributed under capitalism—whether the risk of imperial violence or inadequate safety regulations, it is working people and marginalized communities who bear the consequences while capital and state power pursue their interests. The Greenland crisis particularly reveals how the liberal international order's proclaimed values—sovereignty, self-determination, rule of law—become negotiable the moment they conflict with material interests of dominant powers.
Conclusion
The unfolding Greenland crisis offers a clarifying moment for understanding contemporary imperialism and the true nature of Western alliance structures. For working people globally, the lesson is that no capitalist alliance or international institution will reliably protect sovereignty or self-determination when these conflict with the accumulation imperatives of dominant capitals. The path forward requires building solidarity across borders based on shared class interests rather than relying on inter-imperialist institutions whose function is managing—not eliminating—exploitation and domination. The Inuit people of Greenland, like indigenous and working peoples everywhere, will find their interests served only through their own organization and through connection with international movements challenging the system that treats their homeland as a resource to be claimed rather than a place where people live.
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: 93%