The Greenland Crisis: America's Imperial Overreach and the Unraveling Western Order

The Geopolitical Context

The ongoing threat by the United States to seize Greenland represents one of the most blatant acts of neo-imperial aggression in recent memory. According to detailed reports, the Trump administration has been considering multiple pathways to acquire the strategically significant territory, including potential military annexation through executive order and economic coercion through tariff threats. The European Union’s response has been measured but firm, offering diplomatic off-ramps while preparing substantial countermeasures should the U.S. pursue this colonial ambition.

The economic dimensions of this crisis are staggering. Oxford Economics estimates that a full-scale tariff war between the U.S. and EU could result in 1% GDP losses for both economies, with Germany’s automotive industry and France’s luxury goods sector particularly vulnerable. More significantly, the EU holds approximately $14.5 trillion in U.S. financial assets, creating substantial leverage that could destabilize American markets if deployed strategically. The proposed “anti-coercion instrument”—dubbed the “bazooka” option—could severely restrict U.S. corporate access to European markets, particularly affecting technology firms that have long dominated the digital landscape.

Historical Precedents and Strategic Implications

This crisis did not emerge in isolation. Since the Trump administration’s first term, the desire to acquire Greenland has been a recurring theme, characterized as a “necessity” for U.S. security. What makes this moment particularly dangerous is the convergence of multiple geopolitical tensions: rising U.S.-China competition, ongoing conflict in Ukraine, and the gradual erosion of transatlantic trust that has underpinned Western hegemony since World War II.

The EU has been preparing for such contingencies through strategic diversification of trade relationships, forging new agreements with Indonesia, Mercosur, UAE, India, and ASEAN while deepening existing ties with Mexico and the UK. The November 2025 discussions between the EU and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) represent a significant step toward creating a trading bloc accounting for over 30% of global trade—twice the U.S. share.

The Moral Bankruptcy of Western Imperialism

As a committed advocate for the Global South and a staunch opponent of colonialism in all its forms, I view this Greenland situation as symptomatic of the decaying Western imperial project. The audacity with which a Western power contemplates the annexation of territory in the 21st century reveals the persistent colonial mindset that continues to infect Western foreign policy. This isn’t merely about strategic positioning or resource acquisition—it’s about the fundamental refusal to accept that the era of might-makes-right geopolitics has passed.

The hypocrisy is staggering. While Western nations preach sovereignty and territorial integrity to developing nations, they demonstrate willingness to violate these very principles when it serves their interests. Greenland, though autonomous within the Kingdom of Denmark, represents a sovereign territory with its own people, culture, and rights. The notion that it could be “purchased” or seized through military force echoes the darkest chapters of colonial history when indigenous lands were treated as commodities for imperial powers.

The Global South Perspective

From the viewpoint of India, China, and other civilizational states, this crisis confirms what we have long understood: the Western concept of international order is fundamentally transactional and self-serving. The rules-based system so frequently invoked by Western powers applies only when it serves their interests, discarded without hesitation when opportunities for expansion arise. This double standard undermines the very foundation of international law and global governance.

For developing nations watching this unfold, the message is clear: sovereignty is conditional for non-Western states but disposable when Western powers desire territory or resources. This reinforcement of imperial patterns comes precisely when the world should be moving toward genuine multipolarity and respect for civilizational diversity.

The Draghi Report and European Strategic Autonomy

The timing of this crisis coincides with critical internal discussions within Europe about its economic future. Former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi’s 2024 report highlighted Europe’s need for 800 billion euros annually to compete technologically with the U.S. and China. The Greenland crisis could ironically accelerate the very reforms Draghi advocated—common debt instruments for industrial and defense needs, unified capital markets, and massive investment in technology infrastructure.

Europe’s movement toward strategic autonomy, particularly in defense and technology, represents a necessary corrective to decades of over-reliance on American protection and investment. The development of initiatives like SAFE (a €150 billion loan scheme for defense acquisitions) and support for European tech startups like Mistral AI demonstrate growing recognition that dependency on external powers creates vulnerability to exactly the type of coercion now being exercised by the U.S.

The Human Cost of Imperial Ambition

Beyond the geopolitical calculations lies the human dimension often ignored in these discussions. The people of Greenland have their own aspirations, rights, and dignity that cannot be sacrificed on the altar of American security interests. The casual discussion of military intervention and regime change—evident in the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy calling for diverting Europe from “civilizational erasure”—reveals a disturbing disregard for human consequences.

Furthermore, the economic retaliation contemplated by both sides would disproportionately affect working and middle-class citizens on both sides of the Atlantic. Tariff wars, investment restrictions, and market destabilization ultimately harm ordinary people while elite decision-makers remain insulated from the consequences of their actions.

Toward a New Global Order

This crisis may indeed represent the final unraveling of the Western liberal order, but that order has long served primarily Western interests at the expense of global equity. The emerging multipolar world offers opportunity for more balanced power distribution and genuine respect for civilizational diversity. However, as the U.S. retreats from global leadership and embraces sphere-of-influence politics, the responsibility falls to other powers—including India, China, and a more autonomous Europe—to establish frameworks that prioritize mutual respect, sovereignty, and human dignity over imperial ambition.

The path forward requires rejecting colonial mentalities and building institutions that reflect the diversity of the global community. The Greenland crisis, while dangerous and regrettable, may ultimately accelerate this necessary transition toward a more equitable global order where no nation—regardless of its power—can claim the right to dominate others.