Tag Archives: Geenland

Analytics and Reports, Country Analytics

US-Greenland Dispute SITREP – Week Ending January 31, 2026

Executive Summary

The reporting period ending January 31, 2026, concludes a month of unprecedented diplomatic and military volatility within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), centered on the “Greenland Crisis”.1 Following weeks of escalating rhetoric from the United States administration regarding the potential annexation or “complete and total purchase” of Greenland, the situation has transitioned into a fragile de-escalation phase termed the “Davos Framework”.2 This framework, established during high-stakes negotiations at the World Economic Forum between President Donald Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, resulted in the rescinding of threatened 25% tariffs on eight European allies and a public ruling out of military force.5

The strategic driver for US assertiveness is identified as the “Golden Dome” initiative, an ambitious $175 billion to $3.6 trillion space-based missile defense architecture.7 Intelligence and national security analysis indicates that the high-latitude geography of Greenland is considered an “operational fulcrum” for this system, particularly for the Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture (PWSA) ground stations and boost-phase interceptor sites.9 While the threat of immediate annexation has receded, the US administration continues to pursue “sovereign claims to pockets of territory” and “total, permanent access,” which remain points of significant friction with Copenhagen and Nuuk.11

On the ground, “Operation Arctic Endurance,” a Danish-led multinational military deployment, remains operational as a “tripwire” force to deter unilateral US maneuvers.1 Concurrently, the Danish Defence Intelligence Service has for the first time designated the United States as a potential threat to national security, reflecting a profound shift in European threat perception.1 In the intelligence domain, Russian and Chinese actors are aggressively exploiting these intra-alliance fractures through sophisticated disinformation campaigns, such as the “Good Old USA Project” and “CopyCop,” while Russian submarine activity in the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) Gap has returned to Cold War intensities.15

Economically, the domestic Greenlandic environment is anchored by its fisheries sector, which remains resistant to external pressure due to its diverse export markets, notably China.17 However, the $11.3 billion legal dispute involving Energy Transition Minerals and the Kvanefjeld rare earth project continues to complicate Greenland’s mineral development strategy.18 As the week closes, the diplomatic focus shifts toward “technical-level” meetings intended to reimagine the 1951 Defense Agreement without compromising Danish territorial integrity or Greenlandic self-determination.20

Strategic Diplomatic Context: The Davos Framework and Alliance Cohesion

The geopolitical landscape regarding Greenland underwent a transformative shift during the final week of January 2026. The “Greenland Crisis,” which surged in December 2025 and escalated through January 2026, has been characterized by a move from transactional diplomacy to overt economic and military coercion.1 The administration’s pursuit of Greenland is not a fleeting interest but a formalized objective, underscored by the appointment of Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as a Special Envoy to the territory in December 2025.3

The January 2026 Escalation Timeline

The following table outlines the sequence of events that brought the Transatlantic alliance to its deepest crisis in decades:

DateEventStrategic Impact
January 9President Trump declares the US will act on Greenland “the easy way or the hard way”.3Signals shift to potential military/economic coercion.
January 14“Frank but constructive” meetings in DC; Trump claims Denmark cannot defend Greenland.2Public questioning of ally capabilities; sets security justification.
January 17Announcement of 10% (rising to 25%) tariffs on 8 European allies.3Initiation of trade-based brinkmanship.
January 18Emergency EU summit; thousands protest in Nuuk outside the US Consulate.1European and local mobilization against US policy.
January 19“Operation Arctic Endurance” begins; US confirms aircraft arrivals at Pituffik.13Direct military signaling from both sides.
January 21Trump-Rutte Davos meeting; force ruled out; tariffs paused; “Framework” announced.2Temporary de-escalation and shift to negotiations.
January 22Greenland PM Nielsen establishes “red lines” on sovereignty.20Local government rejects any transfer of ownership.
January 29Secretary Rubio confirms technical meetings are underway.21Institutionalization of the “Framework” deal.

The Mechanics of the “Framework” Deal

The “Framework of a future deal” announced on January 21 represents a tactical retreat by the US administration from the brink of a trade war and military confrontation.1 However, analysts note that the underlying objectives remain largely unchanged. The administration’s “Peace Through Strength” platform prioritizes “offensive overmatch,” viewing Greenland as critical terrain that cannot be “outsourced” to allies perceived as underinvested in defense.8

The deal reportedly involves a renegotiation of the 1951 US-Danish Agreement Concerning the Defense of Greenland.6 This agreement, which already facilitates the US military presence at Pituffik Space Base, provides the legal avenue for expansion.2 The new framework seeks to broaden “operational freedom,” support new base construction, and facilitate the deployment of the “Golden Dome” missile defense system.26

Crucially, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Special Envoy Jeff Landry have indicated that the US seeks “shared responsibility and shared sovereignty”.30 This model, potentially analogous to the Diego Garcia arrangement, would provide the US with long-term (or perpetual) leases over specific territorial pockets, granting a level of control that exceeds traditional basing rights.11

European and Local Resistance

The Danish and Greenlandic governments have maintained a unified front despite the US attempt to capitalize on local independence sentiments.31 Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has repeatedly stated that Greenland is “not for sale” and that any such discussion is “absurd”.1 The Danish perspective holds that security issues in the Arctic should be resolved exclusively within the NATO framework, rather than through bilateral territorial concessions.33

In Nuuk, Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has emphasized that “nobody other than Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark have the mandate to make deals”.6 The Greenlandic “red lines” include:

  1. Territorial Integrity: Rejection of any transfer of sovereignty over any part of the island.20
  2. International Law: Compliance with the 2009 Self-Government Act, which recognizes Greenlanders as a people with the right to self-determination.34
  3. Environmental Standards: Any resource exploitation or military expansion must adhere to Greenlandic regulations.20

The Golden Dome: Technical Imperatives Driving US Expansionism

The “Golden Dome” for America is the primary technical and strategic driver behind the administration’s fixation on Greenland.10 Announced in May 2025, the project aims to establish a layered missile defense architecture capable of intercepting ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missiles in all phases of flight.7

Architecture and Greenland’s Role

The system transitions US posture from “measured protection” against rogue states to a near-impenetrable shield designed for peer-level competition with Russia and China.8 Greenland’s geographical position directly below the shortest trans-polar ballistic missile route makes it the “operational fulcrum” of the system.9

The technical architecture involves three primary layers:

  • Space-Based Layer: A constellation of hundreds of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites equipped with infrared sensors and kinetic kill vehicles. These are designed for “boost-phase” intercept, destroying missiles while their engines are still burning and they are most visible.7
  • High-Latitude Ground Layer: This is where Greenland is essential. The high-latitude geography allows for continuous tracking and “assured command and control” of the space-based assets as they pass over the North Pole.9
  • Atmospheric Layer: Ground-based interceptors and advanced radars, potentially stationed in expanded Greenlandic bases, to refine tracking during the mid-course phase and provide terminal-phase protection.7

Technical and Fiscal Challenges

The project faces massive engineering hurdles. Interceptors must achieve speeds exceeding Mach 20 with millisecond precision to neutralize hypersonic threats.7 Furthermore, the use of LEO satellites presents a “drag” problem; the atmospheric friction at low altitudes necessitates satellite replacement every seven years, creating a cycle of recurring launch costs.7

Agency/OrganizationCost Estimate (thru 2055)Key Assumptions
White House$175 Billion500 interceptors; 15-year replacement cycles; use of existing infrastructure.7
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)$831 Billion1,200 satellites; 7-year replacement cycles due to orbital drag.7
American Enterprise Institute (AEI)$3.6 TrillionContinuous replenishment and infrastructure build-out.7

The disparity in these figures suggests significant political risk. As of late January 2026, the Golden Dome program office, led by General Michael Guetlein, has only released small-value prototype contracts to firms like Northrop Grumman and Anduril.37 Funding of $25 billion was appropriated in late 2025, but large-scale execution is stalled by classified debates over “on-orbit weaponry” and communications standards.37

Military Posture and Operation Arctic Endurance

The week ending January 31, 2026, saw a stabilization of the multinational forces deployed to Greenland. “Operation Arctic Endurance,” initiated on January 15 in response to US threats, has effectively internationalized the defense of the island, serving as a “tripwire force”.1

Force Composition and Deployment

The operation is led by the Danish Joint Arctic Command and involves personnel from twelve European and NATO nations.1 While the initial numbers are modest—intended as a political signal rather than a force capable of repelling an amphibious brigade—they demonstrate the ability of European allies to rapidly “pour in battalions” if needed.38

Participating NationPersonnel/AssetsOperational Role
Denmark350+ permanent personnel; 200+ additional elite combat soldiers; HDMS Peter Willemoes (frigate); F-35 fighter jets.1Lead command and maritime/air patrol.
France15 personnel.24Largest international contingent; mountain infantry and planning.38
Germany13 personnel.24Focus on Arctic Sentry mission planning.33
Sweden3 personnel.24Reconnaissance and cold-weather tactics.39
Finland2 liaison officers.13Logistical assessment of Arctic terrain.
UK / Netherlands1 security officer each.24Planning for permanent NATO presence and naval cooperation.38
IcelandPersonnel and basing support.12Logistical hub for F-35 and surveillance flights.

Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen has confirmed that the mission will likely become a “more permanent” presence through 2026.13 Planners are currently discussing a “French company-strength rotation” and the potential deployment of a Dutch corvette by March 2026.38

Pituffik Space Base: The US Northern Shield

The US military continues to operate Pituffik Space Base as its northernmost installation.3 Despite the diplomatic rift, the base remains a critical hub for “space domain awareness” and early warning.3 In a move that signaled continued US resolve despite the Davos Framework, the military announced the landing of additional aircraft at Pituffik on January 19, 2026.24

Intelligence assessments highlight that the base is already being prepared to host elements of the PWSA.9 The US position, as articulated by Secretary Rubio, is that “our entire missile defense relies on security in the Arctic”.12 This necessity drives the demand for “unfettered and uninterrupted access” to strategic territories.29

Hybrid Warfare and Intelligence Assessments

The Greenland-US dispute has created an environment of “sharp power” competition, where adversaries utilize disinformation and cyber operations to mobilize dependencies and sow discord.25

Russian Disinformation Campaigns

Russian state-aligned influence networks have been exceptionally active throughout January 2026. Their primary narrative goals are to depict the US as a “destabilizing force” and to portray European allies as “pawns” of Washington.41

Specific campaigns identified by the US Department of Justice and Latvian intelligence (SAB) include:

  • The “Good Old USA Project”: A sophisticated operation that uses social media influencers and over 300 copycat websites (e.g., using “reuters.cfd” instead of “reuters.com”) to spread pro-Russian talking points to conservative American audiences.16
  • CopyCop: A network utilizing AI-generated journalist personas to create content intended to present US Vice President Harris as a “far-left ideologue” and President Trump’s Greenland policy as a “return to animal nature”—alternating narratives to maximize social polarization.16
  • Crimean Equivalence: Russian state media (RIA Novosti) and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have explicitly compared the potential for a Greenlandic independence referendum to the 2014 sham referendum in Crimea, seeking to legitimize Russian annexations through false parallels with US policy.43

Undersea Threats and GIUK Gap Dynamics

The Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) Gap has returned to its status as one of the most crucial maritime chokepoints on the globe.15 NATO intelligence officials confirm that Russian submarine activity in the gap is currently “equalling or surpassing Cold War levels”.15

FeatureStrategic ImportanceCurrent Intelligence
Chokepoint StatusPrimary transit route for the Russian Northern Fleet from the Kola Peninsula to the Atlantic.40Reported as the “Fourth Battle of the Atlantic”.15
5th Gen SubmarinesHarder to track; capable of long-range land attacks.44Senior Russian officials confirm new SSBN designs are being tested.46
Seabed InfrastructureUnderwater cables and pipelines vital for Western comms and energy.15Increased Russian “mapping” of critical installations around Denmark and the North Sea.47
Autonomous SystemsUse of Poseidon nuclear-powered drones.46Russia accelerating deployment of unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs).46

The Danish Defence Intelligence Service has noted that agents of Russia’s GRU are conducting “sabotage and other dangerous actions with increasing recklessness,” including arson and cyberattacks against Nordic infrastructure.15

Economic Sovereignty: Critical Minerals and the Blue Economy

Greenland’s ability to resist US pressure is fundamentally tied to its economic resilience and the nature of its global trade relations.

The Rare Earth Conflict: ETM vs. Greenland

The struggle over Greenland’s mineral resources has centered on two massive rare earth element (REE) deposits: Kvanefjeld and Tanbreez.49 REEs are vital for everything from smartphones to F-35 engines, and China currently dominates 90% of the supply chain.49

  • Kvanefjeld (Energy Transition Minerals): This project is currently mired in a multi-billion dollar legal battle. Following Greenland’s 2021 ban on uranium mining, ETM’s exploitation license was effectively blocked.51 In late 2025, an arbitration tribunal ruled in favor of the Greenlandic government, stating the case must be heard in domestic courts rather than private arbitration.18 ETM is seeking $11.3 billion in damages, which exceeds the territory’s annual GDP.18
  • Tanbreez (Critical Metals Corp): In a strategic victory for the US, the Tanbreez deposit—potentially the world’s largest—was sold to a New York-based firm after US officials lobbied the owner to reject Chinese offers.49 The US Export-Import Bank’s $120 million loan interest marks the administration’s first major overseas mining investment.49

Fisheries as a Sovereign Anchor

Despite the focus on minerals, fisheries account for 98% of Greenland’s export value, worth over $550 million annually.17 This sector provides Greenland with “fisheries democracy,” allowing it to defy superpowers because its economy is not dependent on US or Danish subsidies alone.17

Trading PartnerAnnual Greenlandic Export ValueStrategic Leverage
China$376 Million 17Largest market for Greenlandic seafood; provides independent revenue.
Denmark / EU$250 Million+ (Est)Integrated via the OCT (Overseas Countries and Territories) status.35
United States$33 Million 17Minimal economic footprint; reduces the impact of US tariff threats.

The January 8, 2026, quota swap with Norway, involving 7,000 tons of fishing allowances, further illustrates how Greenland conducts its own “blue economy” diplomacy independently of the US-Danish security dispute.17

The legal basis for Danish sovereignty over Greenland is considered “unimpeachable” in international law, rooted in continuous administration since 1721 and the 1933 Permanent Court of International Justice ruling against Norway.54

The 2009 Self-Government Act

This Act recognizes Greenlanders as a “self-determination unit”.11 Under Section 21, the decision on independence rests solely with the people of Greenland through a referendum and subsequent approval by the Danish Parliament.34

Legal experts highlight a critical “constitutional gap”: while the Act allows for independence or continued association with Denmark, it does not contemplate the transfer of the territory to a third sovereign (the US).35 Any such transfer would likely require:

  1. Danish Consent: As the sovereign state under international law.35
  2. Greenlandic Consent: As recognized by the right to self-determination.6
  3. US Treaty Ratification: Including potential challenges to the President’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for territorial acquisition.55

The 1951 Defense Agreement

The 1951 agreement (and its 2004 update) allows the US to “station and house personnel,” “construct facilities,” and “control movements” within designated defense areas.28 However, the US must “respect the responsibilities of the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark”.28 The Trump administration argues this agreement is an “erratic partner” to modern security needs, seeking to replace it with a framework that grants “unfettered” access.26

Strategic Forecast and Operational Recommendations

Short-Term Forecast (Next 3 Months)

The “Davos Pause” is expected to hold, with both sides moving into “technical-level” negotiations.4 However, the 10% tariff threat remains a tool of “escalation dominance”.55 If negotiations over the Golden Dome infrastructure stall, the administration may reactive the tariff schedule to pressure European leaders.4

Medium-Term Forecast (6-12 Months)

NATO will likely formalize the “Arctic Sentry” monitoring mission to appease US concerns about “insufficient security” on the island.33 This mission will probably include a permanent rotation of European and American forces, modeled on the Baltic Sentry.1 The US will likely succeed in expanding Pituffik, but will be forced to concede on “pockets of sovereignty” in exchange for “operational freedom”.11

Long-Term Forecast (1-5 Years)

Structural damage to NATO’s foundational assumptions is “almost certain”.56 European nations, particularly France and Germany, are likely to accelerate “strategic autonomy” in defense integration.54 Greenland’s path toward independence may be accelerated by the crisis, but it will likely remain within the Danish-Greenlandic legal framework to avoid becoming a “victim of broader geopolitical dynamics”.41

Operational Recommendations

  1. Bolster Arctic Domain Awareness: NATO must prioritize the Arctic Sentry mission to provide transparency and reduce the risk of “minor disturbances” becoming pretexts for unilateral US intervention.33
  2. Harden Critical Infrastructure: Denmark and Greenland must rapidly improve cybersecurity for the island’s IT and OT systems to counter Russian and Chinese pre-positioning.48
  3. Diversify Mineral Investment: European and American policymakers should coordinate to provide Western alternatives to Chinese mining capital, ensuring that Greenland’s “red lines” on environmental standards are respected to maintain social license.20
  4. Counter-Disinformation: The US Department of State and European partners must launch a joint “truth task force” to debunk the false parallels between Greenland and Crimea promoted by Russian state media.43

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly contribute towards our continued reporting, please visit our funding page.

Sources Used

  1. Greenland crisis – Wikipedia, accessed January 31, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_crisis
  2. Greenland, Denmark, and U.S. Relations | Congress.gov | Library of …, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12643
  3. President Trump and Greenland: Frequently asked questions – House of Commons Library, accessed January 31, 2026, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10472/
  4. The Greenland Rift: Geopolitical Volatility and the New Arctic Trade War, accessed January 31, 2026, https://markets.financialcontent.com/stocks/article/marketminute-2026-1-30-the-greenland-rift-geopolitical-volatility-and-the-new-arctic-trade-war
  5. Trump’s Greenland ‘framework’ deal: What we know about it, what we don’t – Al Jazeera, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/22/trumps-greenland-framework-deal-what-we-know-about-it-what-we-dont
  6. Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen says he does not know what is in Trump-Rutte agreement – RNZ, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/584770/greenland-prime-minister-jens-frederik-nielsen-says-he-does-not-know-what-is-in-trump-rutte-agreement
  7. Golden Dome Missile Defense System: January 2026 Complete Guide – GovDash, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.govdash.com/blog/golden-dome-missile-defense-system?
  8. Golden Dome (missile defense system) – Wikipedia, accessed January 31, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_system)
  9. Why Greenland is important for Golden Dome | The Strategist, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/why-greenland-is-important-for-golden-dome/
  10. Golden Dome: The Planned US Missile Defense System in Greenland, accessed January 31, 2026, https://en.tempo.co/read/2083774/golden-dome-the-planned-us-missile-defense-system-in-greenland
  11. The Trump Administration’s Push for Greenland: What to Know, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.cfr.org/articles/greenlands-independence-what-would-mean-us-interests
  12. Greenland says red lines must be respected as Trump says US will have ‘total’ access to island – The Guardian, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/22/denmark-pm-calls-for-constructive-greenland-negotiation-with-trump
  13. Operation Arctic Endurance – Wikipedia, accessed January 31, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Arctic_Endurance
  14. Operation Arctic Endurance – Wikipedia | PDF | Greenland | Military – Scribd, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.scribd.com/document/983779410/Operation-Arctic-Endurance-Wikipedia
  15. War in the Arctic? | Proceedings – U.S. Naval Institute, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2026/january/war-arctic
  16. The Russian Disinformation Threat: Active Campaigns in 2024 – Kettering Foundation, accessed January 31, 2026, https://kettering.org/the-russian-disinformation-threat-active-campaigns-in-2024/
  17. What Trump Doesn’t Understand About Greenland – Inside Climate News, accessed January 31, 2026, https://insideclimatenews.org/news/25012026/what-trump-doesnt-understand-about-greenland/
  18. Arbitration tribunal rules in favour of the Government of Greenland in billion-dollar claim – Poul Schmith, accessed January 31, 2026, https://poulschmith.com/stay-updated/arbitration-tribunal-rules-in-favour-of-the-government-of-greenland-in-billion-dollar-claim
  19. Mining company suing Greenland for billions hires former Danish foreign minister, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.arctictoday.com/former-danish-foreign-minister-hired-by-mining-firm-in-billion-dollar-dispute-with-greenland/
  20. Greenland PM rejects Trump claims of deal, says sovereignty not negotiable – ArcticToday, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.arctictoday.com/greenland-pm-rejects-trump-claims-of-deal-says-sovereignty-not-negotiable/
  21. Nato needs to be ‘reimagined’ with Europe showing more capabilities, says Marco Rubio – as it happened, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jan/28/europe-defence-kallas-greenland-frederiksen-macron-ukraine-netherlands-latest-news-updates
  22. What does Gov. Jeff Landry’s Greenland role really entail? – Baton Rouge Business Report, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.businessreport.com/article/what-does-gov-jeff-landrys-greenland-role-really-entail
  23. The Arctic This Week Take Five: Week of 19 January, 2026, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/arctic-week-take-five-week-19-january-2026/
  24. U.S., European nations send troops to Greenland. Is a takeover coming?, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2026/jan/20/us-european-nations-send-troops-to-greenland-is-a-/
  25. Arctic Security: Power Shifts and Transformational Change – Belfer Center, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/arctic-security-power-shifts-and-transformational-change
  26. US special envoy to Greenland reveals key details on new deal, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/world/4438707/us-special-envoy-greenland-jeff-landry-key-details-new-deal-europe-nato/
  27. Nuuk-lear standoff: Why the US and Europe should cooperate on …, accessed January 31, 2026, https://ecfr.eu/article/nuuk-lear-standoff-why-the-us-and-europe-should-cooperate-on-missile-defence-in-the-arctic/
  28. Defense of Greenland: Agreement Between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark, April 27, 1951(1) – Avalon Project, accessed January 31, 2026, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp
  29. Denmark hails ‘very constructive’ meeting with US over Greenland …, accessed January 31, 2026, https://today.rtl.lu/news/world/denmark-hails-very-constructive-meeting-with-us-over-greenland-727296354
  30. Resolving the Greenland challenge through shared responsibility – Atlantic Council, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/resolving-the-greenland-challenge-through-shared-responsibility/
  31. Greenland’s tragedy: the dream of independence now looks like a trap laid by Donald Trump | Rune Lykkeberg | The Guardian, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/20/tragedy-greenland-independence-denmark-trump-us
  32. Geopolitical Tension: US and Russia Strategize Over Greenland amid Rising International Concerns, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.pj.gob.pe/wps/wcm/connect/corte+superior+ayacucho+pj/s_csj_ayacucho_nuevo/as_inicio/as_imagen_prensa/as_noticias/csjay_n_homicidio_lucanas?y-news-24503572-2026-01-08-geopolitical-tension-us-russia-strategy-greenland
  33. Arctic Sentry: Europe seeks to strengthen NATO mission amid Trump’s statements on Greenland – media – Ukrinform, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/4079442-arctic-sentry-europe-seeks-to-strengthen-nato-mission-amid-trumps-statements-on-greenland-media.html
  34. Report of the Greenlandic Constitutional Commission (2023): Unofficial English Translation from the Danish Version, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.naadsn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/26jan-2023-Greenland-Constit-Commission-Report-Lackenbauer-NAADSN-Policy-Primer.pdf
  35. Greenland and US Annexation Threats – Verfassungsblog, accessed January 31, 2026, https://verfassungsblog.de/greenland-and-us-annexation-threats/
  36. The Golden Dome is where Canada’s F-35 debate and Trump’s Greenland threat meet, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f35-greenland-canada-missile-defence-9.7069059
  37. One year on, Trump’s Golden Dome missile shield marks little progress, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/one-year-on-trumps-golden-dome-missile-shield-marks-little-progress-101769533303816.html
  38. Arctic Endurance demonstrates Europe’s resolve and caution – EU Perspectives, accessed January 31, 2026, https://euperspectives.eu/2026/01/arctic-endurance-demonstrates-europes-resolve/
  39. US acquisition of Greenland ‘absolutely not necessary,’ Danish foreign minister says after ‘frank’ talks with JD Vance – as it happened | Europe | The Guardian, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jan/14/denmark-greenland-us-latest-news-updates-europe-live-trump?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with%3Ablock-6967c6208f08297661e79c28
  40. Greenland, the GIUK Gap, and Why Geography Still Rules Naval Strategy – Americans for a Stronger Navy, accessed January 31, 2026, https://strongernavy.org/greenland-the-giuk-gap-and-why-geography-still-rules-naval-strategy/
  41. Russian Press Agencies on the US-Annexation- of-Greenland Crises: Lessons for Canada – North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.naadsn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/26jan16-Landriault-Trump-Savard-Deiana-Russian-Press-Agencies-US-Greenland-NAADSN-QI.pdf
  42. Russia’s Propagandists: Welcome to 2026, the Year of the Savage – CEPA, accessed January 31, 2026, https://cepa.org/article/russias-propagandists-welcome-to-2026-the-year-of-the-savage/
  43. Russia is using Trump’s Greenland rhetoric to boost its Crimea claims – FDD, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.fdd.org/analysis/op_eds/2025/02/14/russia-is-using-trumps-greenland-rhetoric-to-boost-its-crimea-claims/
  44. Red Storm Rising? Report Warns Russian Subs Threaten North Atlantic Gap, accessed January 31, 2026, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/red-storm-rising-report-warns-russian-subs-threaten-north-20981
  45. The GIUK Gap – Ted Stevens Center for Arctic Security Studies, accessed January 31, 2026, https://tedstevensarcticcenter.org/the-giuk-gap/
  46. The United States fears the arrival of the first 5th‑generation nuclear submarine that would force NATO to rethink its entire strategy – Drilled Podcast, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.drilledpodcast.com/31-171107-the-united-states-fears-the-arrival-of-the-first-5th%E2%80%91generation-nuclear-submarine-that-would-force-nato-to-rethink-its-entire-strategy/
  47. GIUK gap – Wikipedia, accessed January 31, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK_gap
  48. Latvia Faces Rising Russian Hybrid Threats In 2026 – Grand Pinnacle Tribune, accessed January 31, 2026, https://evrimagaci.org/gpt/latvia-faces-rising-russian-hybrid-threats-in-2026-525893
  49. Greenland, Rare Earths, and Arctic Security – CSIS, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/greenland-rare-earths-and-arctic-security
  50. China Spent a Decade Positioning Itself in Greenland. Then the USA Noticed. | by Miriam Sauter | Jan, 2026 | Medium, accessed January 31, 2026, https://medium.com/@miriam_sauter/china-spent-a-decade-positioning-itself-in-greenland-then-the-usa-noticed-c227efdc76f7
  51. Legal Proceedings Update – Energy Transition Minerals Ltd (ASX:ETM) – Listcorp., accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.listcorp.com/asx/etm/energy-transition-minerals-ltd/news/legal-proceedings-update-3253056.html
  52. Key procedural decision in Kvanefjeld case – Mining Weekly, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.miningweekly.com/article/key-procedural-decision-in-kvanefjeld-case-2025-10-29
  53. Norway And Greenland Agree Fisheries Quota Swap 2026 – The Fishing Daily, accessed January 31, 2026, https://thefishingdaily.com/norwegian-fishing-industry-blog/norway-and-greenland-agree-fisheries-quota-swap-2026/
  54. Who owns Greenland? | Chatham House – International Affairs …, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/01/who-owns-greenland
  55. The end of the Turnberry truce: how the EU should react to US coercion over Greenland, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.bruegel.org/first-glance/end-turnberry-truce-how-eu-should-react-us-coercion-over-greenland
  56. Greenland Tariffs: Structural Fractures Emerge in Transatlantic Alliance, accessed January 31, 2026, https://bisi.org.uk/reports/greenland-tariffs-structural-fractures-emerge-in-transatlantic-alliance
  57. Arctic hold’em: Ten European cards in Greenland, accessed January 31, 2026, https://ecfr.eu/article/arctic-holdem-ten-european-cards-in-greenland/
  58. The Arctic Battleground: How Geopolitics Will Shape Cybersecurity …, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.secalliance.com/blog/the-arctic-battleground-how-geopolitics-will-shape-cybersecurity-in-greenland