Analysis of: Protests in Greenland and Denmark as Trump repeats tariffs threat – Europe live
The Guardian | January 17, 2026
The mass protests across Denmark and Greenland against U.S. annexation threats represent a striking moment where the contradictions of contemporary imperialism become visible to ordinary people. Thousands chanting 'Greenland is not for sale' are articulating, whether consciously or not, a resistance to the commodification of territory and peoples that characterizes capitalist expansion. The protest organizers' framing—that Greenlanders have 'involuntarily become the front in the fight for democracy and human rights'—reveals how peripheral populations bear the brunt of great power competition while having the least say in its outcomes. The material basis of this conflict is unmistakable: Greenland's vast mineral wealth, strategic Arctic location, and increasingly accessible resources due to climate change make it a prize in inter-imperial rivalry. Trump's use of tariff threats—economic coercion dressed in the language of 'deals'—demonstrates how contemporary imperialism operates through financial mechanisms alongside traditional military posturing. The deployment of NATO troops to Greenland, ostensibly for 'defense,' reveals the military dimension lurking beneath diplomatic rhetoric. Perhaps most revealing is the split within the American ruling class itself. Republican senators publicly opposing their own president, bipartisan delegations offering 'reassurance' while their government threatens annexation—these contradictions expose the tensions between different fractions of capital with competing interests in maintaining versus disrupting the post-WWII imperial order. The European response, caught between dependence on U.S. military protection and the existential threat to their own sovereignty, illustrates how the contradictions of the NATO alliance are sharpening under conditions of declining American hegemony and intensifying resource competition.
Class Dynamics
Actors: Greenlandic indigenous population (Inuit), Danish state apparatus, U.S. executive branch (Trump administration), U.S. congressional representatives (both parties), European ruling classes (NATO allies), Extractive capital interests (unnamed but implicit), Civil society organizations (Uagut, Inuit Association)
Beneficiaries: U.S. extractive and military-industrial capital seeking Arctic resources, Geopolitical strategists positioning for Arctic shipping routes, European defense industries benefiting from NATO mobilization
Harmed Parties: Greenlandic population facing potential loss of self-determination, Danish workers and taxpayers bearing costs of military escalation, Working classes globally who bear consequences of trade wars, Indigenous communities whose land is treated as commodity
The situation reveals a hierarchy of imperial power where Greenland's formal autonomy within Denmark is subordinated to great power competition. The Greenlandic people, despite being the nominal subjects of 'self-determination' rhetoric, have no seat at the table where their fate is decided. Denmark occupies an intermediate position—nominally sovereign but dependent on U.S. military umbrella, forced to choose between subordination and confrontation. The intra-ruling class split in the U.S. (Trump vs. congressional Republicans) reflects competing strategies for maintaining American hegemony rather than fundamental disagreement about imperial prerogatives.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: Greenland's rare earth mineral deposits critical for electronics and military technology, Arctic shipping routes opening due to climate change, Strategic military positioning vis-à-vis Russia and China, Tariff threats as economic warfare tool, European economic dependence on U.S. markets and security guarantees
Greenland represents a territory whose value is defined almost entirely by its resource extraction potential and strategic location rather than its productive economy. The conflict is fundamentally about which imperial power will control access to these resources and shipping routes. The indigenous Greenlandic population appears in this calculus primarily as an obstacle to be managed rather than as productive agents. The tariff threats reveal how trade relations under capitalism function as instruments of coercion, with the threat of exclusion from markets serving as a weapon against smaller economies.
Resources at Stake: Rare earth minerals (critical for technology and defense), Oil and gas reserves, Arctic shipping route control, Military base positioning, Freshwater resources (ice sheet), Fishing rights
Historical Context
Precedents: U.S. purchase of Alaska (1867), U.S. attempts to purchase Greenland (1946, 2019), Colonial 'Scramble for Africa' resource competition, Monroe Doctrine assertions over Western Hemisphere, Danish colonization of Greenland (1721-present), NATO expansion as post-Cold War imperial consolidation
This episode fits within the long history of capitalist powers treating territories and peoples as commodities to be bought, sold, or seized. The 'purchase' framing echoes the Louisiana Purchase and Alaska—transactions that commodified entire populations. More broadly, it reflects the pattern of intensifying inter-imperial competition during periods of hegemonic decline, as rising and declining powers scramble to secure resources and strategic positions. The Arctic specifically has become a new frontier of great power competition as climate change makes previously inaccessible resources available—a grim irony where capitalist-driven environmental destruction creates new opportunities for capitalist extraction.
Contradictions
Primary: The contradiction between the ideology of national self-determination (which the U.S. claims to champion globally) and the practice of imperial annexation. The U.S. cannot simultaneously claim to defend democracy and human rights while threatening to seize territory against the expressed will of its population.
Secondary: NATO alliance contradiction: members are bound to mutual defense but one member threatens another's territory, Republican unity contradiction: party loyalty to Trump vs. commitment to traditional alliance structures, Danish sovereignty contradiction: formal independence vs. actual dependence on U.S. military protection, Greenlandic autonomy contradiction: right to self-determination exists within Danish kingdom, not independently, Climate contradiction: warming that opens Arctic resources was caused by the industrial powers now competing to extract more fossil fuels
These contradictions are unlikely to find stable resolution within the current framework. Possible trajectories include: (1) U.S. backs down due to domestic and international pressure, temporarily stabilizing NATO but leaving underlying tensions unresolved; (2) escalation leads to serious rupture in transatlantic relations, accelerating European strategic autonomy; (3) some form of 'deal' that formally preserves Danish sovereignty while granting U.S. expanded military and economic access, satisfying capital's interests while maintaining ideological legitimacy. The fundamental contradiction between imperial competition and international law will persist regardless of immediate outcome.
Global Interconnections
This conflict must be understood within the context of accelerating great power competition as U.S. hegemony declines relative to China and a resurgent Russia. The Arctic has become a key theater in this competition, with all major powers seeking to secure resources and strategic positions. Trump's aggressive posture toward Greenland parallels broader shifts in U.S. foreign policy toward more openly coercive methods—the mentioned capture of Venezuela's Maduro, tariff wars with multiple countries, and pressure on NATO allies all reflect an imperial power attempting to maintain dominance through force rather than consent. The European response—deploying troops while seeking to maintain alliance ties—illustrates the contradictory position of secondary imperial powers caught between dependence and self-preservation. The invocation of 'democracy and human rights' by protesters, while genuine, also serves European ruling class interests in maintaining the post-WWII order that has benefited them. This convergence of popular resistance and elite interests against U.S. aggression creates unusual political alignments that may not survive resolution of the immediate crisis.
Conclusion
The Greenland crisis exposes how the veneer of international law and alliance solidarity dissolves when core imperial interests are at stake. For working people globally, this offers a teachable moment about the nature of capitalist states and their relationship to territory, resources, and human populations. The protests themselves demonstrate that popular resistance can emerge even in the imperial core when ruling class actions become sufficiently brazen. However, the framing of resistance around 'democracy' and 'human rights'—rather than anti-imperialism or indigenous sovereignty—suggests the ideological work needed to transform such moments into broader challenges to the capitalist world system. The immediate task is solidarity with Greenlandic self-determination while recognizing that genuine liberation requires challenging not just U.S. imperialism but the entire system of competing capitalist powers that treats peoples and territories as objects of competition.
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%