The new year is still young, yet Donald Trump’s focus on expanding U.S. territory signals a troubling shift in global politics. From Venezuela to Greenland, the world is clearly moving away from the relative stability of the post-Cold War era—a trend accelerated by Russia’s war in Ukraine.
This erosion of long-standing norms has serious implications for Europe, a continent built on the principle of limiting national power. Europe’s identity is rooted in a rules-based order, international law, and negotiated solutions. Yet today, Europe can only uphold these values if it becomes a stronger geopolitical player itself—nowhere is this clearer than in the Arctic.
Once seen as a zone of peace, the Arctic has become a focal point of geopolitical competition, driven by an expanding U.S. presence, Russia’s longstanding role, and China’s rise as a global power. For Europe, this should not be surprising. The region is not new to the EU, which is already present through its Nordic members: Denmark (excluding Greenland), Finland, and Sweden. The European Arctic’s vast resources—from oil and gas to critical minerals and marine life—already support Europe’s economy and could further strengthen its strategic autonomy in the future.
Despite an evolving EU Arctic policy since 2008 and similar efforts by major EU governments, the broader Arctic has largely been overlooked in European security discussions. Its peace and stability offered little reason for deeper engagement.
Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland may change this. This was reflected in a joint statement on January 6 by France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the UK, and Denmark, followed by a similar declaration by Nordic foreign ministers. However, EU leaders and institutions have mostly responded with silence or caution, avoiding questions about Greenland or issuing vague statements on social media. Notably, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen made no mention of the Arctic or Greenland in her annual State of the Union address last September—an omission that highlights the internal challenges the Arctic has long faced within the EU.
As the European Commission and the European External Action Service update the EU’s Arctic policy, a more fundamental question arises: what does northern Europe mean for the EU? With the end of the Northern Dimension (a cooperation framework involving the EU, Norway, Iceland, and Russia) and renewed transatlantic tensions, Europe needs a new strategic vision—one that redefines its role in a broader European north. This vision should build on the 25-year legacy of the Northern Dimension and nearly two decades of EU Arctic policymaking, while addressing today’s geopolitical changes and clearly outlining an EU strategy for the region.
The EU’s strength lies not in domination but in bringing people together: uniting EU and non-EU actors as equals to shape a shared regional agenda, rather than ceding influence to the most powerful. For decades, North Atlantic countries have relied on access to the EU’s single market as a guarantor of rules-based trade and economic stability. With the U.S. stepping back from leading on free trade, the EU remains the central anchor of economic order in the region.
Such a strategy must go beyond existing boundaries and assert a stronger political stake in the European north, including non-EU partners like Norway, Iceland, and Greenland.As tensions rise in the North Atlantic and Arctic regions—shifting areas once considered peaceful into zones of strategic competition—Europe must turn its normative influence into real operational capability. This is where Greenland becomes critical. With discussions increasingly focusing on acquiring or even occupying the island, Europe’s absence of a strategic alternative is notable. Now is the time to explicitly offer EU membership to Greenland, and by extension to the Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Norway—an idea recently suggested in the European Parliament.
Greenland left the European Communities in 1985 after gaining home rule from Denmark, but in today’s changed world, perspectives have evolved, and Europe should adapt. A proposal to Greenland could be practical and gradual: EU membership by 2026 or 2027; early agreements on key areas like fisheries, subject to review after five to ten years; a major investment package for infrastructure and sustainable extraction of critical raw materials; and a firm commitment to protecting Inuit culture, language, and local governance.
Such an offer would represent a tangible step by a continent that must move beyond its comfort zone into the realm of power politics. Even as the United States exerts hegemonic influence, Europe could act as a convener, helping to ensure Greenland and the wider Arctic remain a space for multilateral cooperation rather than unilateral control. Trump’s approach is, in many respects, predictable; what has shifted is Europe’s position—from ally to something closer to a strategic frenemy. It is time for European leaders to respond, and the Arctic may be the place to start.
Robert Habeck served as German vice-chancellor and minister for economy and climate action from 2021 to 2025 and is now affiliated with the Danish Institute for International Studies.
Andreas Raspotnik is the director of the High North Center for Business and Governance at Nord University and a senior researcher at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Oslo, Norway.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about the idea of the EU inviting Greenland to join framed around the context of past interest from the Trump administration
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 What is this about I heard something about Trump and Greenland
In 2019 it was reported that thenPresident Donald Trump had privately discussed the idea of the United States purchasing Greenland from Denmark The proposal was swiftly and firmly rejected The current suggestion is a strategic response that instead of the US the European Union should proactively invite Greenland to join as a member state
2 Why would the EU want Greenland
Greenland is strategically important for three main reasons its vast natural resources its growing role in Arctic shipping routes as ice melts and its geopolitical position between North America and Europe
3 But isnt Greenland already part of Denmark How does that work
Yes Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark It has its own government and controls most domestic affairs but Denmark handles foreign and security policy For Greenland to join the EU it would first need to become fully independent from Denmark or Denmark would have to agree on its behalfboth complex political processes
4 What would Greenland get out of joining the EU
Greenland would gain direct access to the EUs single market receive significant structural and development funds have a stronger voice in Arctic policy and secure a powerful political and economic alliance that could support its development and protect its interests
Advanced Strategic Questions
5 Why is the suggestion the EU should act first Whats the strategy
The strategy is to preempt future geopolitical moves by other major powers in the Arctic By integrating Greenland into the EU family it would solidify the EUs influence in the region ensure shared democratic and environmental standards and prevent Greenland from being swayed by offers from other nations that might not align with EU interests
6 Didnt Greenland already leave the EU in the past Why would it rejoin
Yes Greenland was part of the EU as part of Denmark but voted to leave in 1985 primarily due to disputes over fishing rights and EU policies Today the calculus is different The focus is on mineral resources
