Greenland has unexpectedly emerged as a focal point in a broader European debate. The uncomfortable reality is the EU’s geopolitical standing depends less on formal treaties than on unity, credibility, and the willingness to act when norms are challenged. So what do those directly challenged by the US expanisonism, the Danes think? EU Perspectives spoke to Denmark’s MEPs about it.
Various Danish members of the European Parliament reveal to EU Perspectives a shared concern for Greenland, but sharply different assessments of what the EU can realistically do and what failure to act might cost.
Sovereignty as a European question
While Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, several MEPs stress that the issue cannot be reduced to a bilateral matter. Greenland’s status as an Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT) linked to the EU places it within the Union’s political and legal sphere.
From this angle, MEP Stine Bosse (Renew) argues that the European Parliament has a responsibility to articulate a clear political position. She points to broad support across member states and is working toward a parliamentary declaration that would underline European solidarity with Denmark and Greenland. For her, sovereignty is not merely a legal concept, but a matter affecting people directly, particularly the Greenlandic population, which she describes as deeply unsettled by recent rhetoric.
At the same time, she highlights the internal balance of the EU’s institutions. While Parliament can speak politically, the European Commission must operate diplomatically, navigating the fragile relationship with Washington. The challenge, she suggests, lies in defending principles without fracturing alliances.
You might be interested
If I look at this from a Danish perspective, we are probably one of the most loyal. And not only have we been loyal also in operations in the Middle east and in other situations, but we have also now stepped up, investing billions in more ships, more security around Greenland. So we are not deaf, we listen. – MEP Stine Bosse (Renew Europe)
Others argue that diplomacy alone is insufficient. MEP Per Clausen (The Left) contends that the EU must move beyond symbolic statements and use its economic leverage. He calls for suspending negotiations on US-EU tariff arrangements until Washington publicly commits to respecting Greenlandic and Danish sovereignty. In his view, hesitation risks being interpreted as weakness. “The EU should also seriously prepare for immediate action if the US takes any further action, including by ways of propaganda in Greenland”, he said.
Villy Søvndal (Greens/EFA) echoes the emphasis on principles, warning that any action directed against Greenland undermines the post-war rules-based order that has underpinned European security for decades. As Greenland is linked to the EU, he argues, the Union has both a political and moral obligation to respond clearly.
Relationship under strain
Beyond Greenland itself, the situation exposes deeper tensions in EU–US relations. For Bosse, the core problem lies within Europe. Drawing on Donald Tusk’s warning that Europe stands at a crossroads, she argues that division among the 27 member states invites pressure from powerful external actors. Any lack of unity weakens the EU’s ability to act geopolitically.
She acknowledges that the United States remains Europe’s most important ally, particularly through NATO, and notes that European countries—including Denmark—have significantly increased defence spending. Yet she also warns that loyalty and burden-sharing no longer appear to guarantee political respect, raising troubling questions about the future of trust within the alliance.
Mr Clausen offers a bleaker assessment, arguing that attempts to placate Washington have repeatedly failed. In his view, the EU has underestimated the risks of appeasement and overestimated the value of informal assurances.
A sharply different perspective comes from Anders Vistisen (ECR), who questions the premise that the EU is even a relevant actor in this context. He argues that the Union lacks both the military power and diplomatic credibility to deter the United States. According to Mr Vistisen, the only real safeguard is NATO itself: any US move against Greenland would amount to an internal collapse of the alliance, not a failure of EU diplomacy. “The only reason a US military move against Greenland is unthinkable has nothing to do with the EU. It is because it would amount to the collapse of NATO itself if one ally attacked another. That is the real deterrent, not EU statements or resolutions”, he argued. From this viewpoint, Greenland highlights not a sudden crisis, but a long-standing illusion about Europe’s geopolitical weight.
European limits
The question of preventive action underscores the EU’s structural constraints. Ms Bosse openly acknowledges that citizens may need to accept a shift away from full transparency in security matters. In an increasingly volatile environment, she argues, governments must sometimes act discreetly, and trust in national authorities and European coordination becomes essential. Mr Søvndal takes the discussion further, suggesting that Greenland should prompt a reassessment of existing defence arrangements. The 1951 agreement gives the US a central role in Greenland’s defence, but today’s realities are very different from those of the Cold War. Expanding NATO involvement beyond a single dominant partner, he argues, could strengthen security and reduce strategic dependence. “Today, the US has around 140 soldiers in Greenland, compared to roughly 10,000 during the Cold War. Denmark and Greenland should therefore consider whether the agreement needs to be updated to include a broader NATO involvement”, he said.
Whether the EU responds with firm action, cautious diplomacy, or resigned realism will shape not only the future of Greenland’s security, but also Europe’s credibility as a political actor. For Danish MEPs, Greenland is not an abstract geopolitical scenario but a lived political responsibility: one that exposes both Europe’s strengths and its vulnerabilities. Across party lines, they stress that respect for sovereignty, borders, and alliances cannot be treated as negotiable, even when pressure comes from within the transatlantic partnership.
While they differ on methods, from parliamentary declarations and legal frameworks to economic countermeasures or reliance on NATO, their message converges on one point: Europe cannot afford ambiguity. Whether through unity, firmness, or institutional clarity, the EU must make clear that Greenland’s future is not subject to external bargaining.
