DEAR READER,

As attention increasingly shifts from Ukraine to Greenland, we decided to take a closer look at how this rather serious geopolitical development affects Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. More importantly, what does it mean for the war going forward, and how are Central and Eastern European countries reacting? For many of them, their own security depends on two things: first, upholding international law, and second, not irritating the United States on an issue where it remains their key security guarantor and ally.

Also, if you do not happen to have one billion US dollars lying around to secure a seat on Donald Trump’s Board of Peace, worry not. We have you covered with another exclusive membership option right here at New Eastern Europe, starting at just 35 EUR per year.

Enjoy reading this week’s “brief”!

— Giorgi Beroshvili, Editor

The Greenland issue has quickly climbed to the top of today’s geopolitical agenda as attention drifts from Ukraine.

While European leaders are scrambling to respond to newly announced US tariffs over the troop deployment in Greenland, Central and Eastern European capitals are largely sitting tight. Regardless of how this plays out, there is a growing realization that a new world order, whatever shape it ultimately takes, is already here, and it poses a direct challenge to the political and security assumptions these states have lived by for decades.

The committed ones.

Technically, only two Central and Eastern European countries have committed to support Greenland with troops so far. One is Estonia. The country is actively engaged in planning the Operation Arctic Endurance, and the officials have said that they are ready to deploy the troops, if asked by Denmark. In his interview with the ERR, the defense minister Hanno Pevkur stressed that the deployment is about signaling solidarity with Denmark and reinforcing NATO’s collective posture, and definitely not about defending Greenland from the United States. He emphasized that Estonian forces are participating in a NATO exercise, not preparing for combat against allies. Estonians do acknowledge the importance of Greenland amid the growing tensions in the Arctic, and its role in the European security. The defense minister argued that this area is a shared strategic space that must remain stable, but also secure.

Slovenia has also committed, albeit modestly, sending two troops as part of the same operation, and thus also accepting the political consequences that come with it. Prime Minister Robert Golob reiterated Slovenia’s position succinctly: “Greenland belongs to its own population, and its issues can only be decided by Denmark and Greenland.”

Let’s look at the deeply concerned states.

Other CEE countries are far more cautious, and for a good reason. As The Economist noted, Poland finds itself in an awkward position. It views the US as its indispensable security guarantor against Russia, yet it is deeply uneasy about a scenario in which Washington openly challenges Danish sovereignty. This dilemma is shared across much of NATO’s eastern flank: how do you avoid provoking your most important ally while recognizing that its actions could severely undermine transatlantic security?

Poland’s defense minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz made clear that Warsaw would not send troops to Greenland, while underscoring that “there is no NATO without the United States, and no US strength without NATO.” Poland did, however, sign a joint statement defending Greenland alongside the UK, Germany, and France earlier this month. President Karol Nawrocki took a softer line, framing the issue as an internal dispute between Washington and Copenhagen.

Hungary echoed that view, calling for the matter to be resolved bilaterally, while simultaneously securing a seat on Trump’s newly announced Board of Peace. Slovakia expressed support for Denmark but has sent no troops. Romania voiced concern as well, though, like Hungary, it received an invitation to the same board.

Latvia has not deployed forces either, though Defense Minister Andris Sprūds suggested it could do so if asked, arguably the most diplomatic way to opt out. He also cautioned against overdramatizing the situation, saying that this is not the end of NATO.

Lithuania’s foreign minister has suggested that troop deployment should at least be considered. Meanwhile, in an interview with the LRT, European Commissioner Andrius Kubilius warned that any US attempt to seize Greenland by force would effectively mark the end of transatlantic relations and NATO itself (although he doesn’t believe such scenario would materialize).

The Ukrainian dilemma

A joint statement signed earlier this month by the UK, France, Germany, Poland, Italy, and others reminded the United States of the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity enshrined in the UN Charter, the very principles Russia continues to violate in Ukraine.

European leaders are now walking a tightrope: managing the Greenland crisis without jeopardizing US security guarantees for Ukraine seems practically impossible. Some reports suggest Greenland could become a bargaining chip in exchange for continued American support for Kyiv. But that would require Denmark (not the EU as a whole) to give up territory, making the scenario politically implausible, even if not entirely off the table.

For now, Central and Eastern Europe waits and observes (or should I say, monitors the situation) as events unfold with no obvious upside. As leaders converge on Davos, with Donald Trump expected to attend, Greenland is set to dominate the unofficial agenda. It seems that Europe lacks the leverage to meaningfully push back. At this point, the more unsettling conclusion is that US control over Greenland may not be a question of if, but when.

— Giorgi Beroshvili, Editor