Editor's note: Liu Xinxin, a special commentator for CGTN, is director of the Nordic Communication Research Center, Academy of International and Regional Communication Studies, Communication University of China. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

In January 2026, we have already had two momentous developments. The United States first brazenly captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, signaling the return of the Monroe Doctrine, a stance frequently used to justify interventions, in its most naked form.

The other was Washington openly threatening to use military force to seize Greenland, the autonomous territory of its NATO ally Denmark. This marks the fundamental collapse of the post-World War II international legal order and the principle of sovereignty. It also implies the virtual unraveling of NATO.

For the five Nordic nations – Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Finland, and Sweden, all NATO members, which have long prided themselves on stability, the rule of law, and multilateralism, this goes beyond betrayal by an ally. It represents a strategic collapse of their core worldview and security architecture. The very beliefs they rely on for survival are being dismantled by their closest partner.

America's iron fist: New colonialism

Since taking office in 2025, the Trump administration's Greenland ambition has shifted from rhetoric to outright action.

From Trump publicly declaring "We do need Greenland, absolutely. We need it for defense," to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt explicitly saying, "Utilizing the U.S. military is always an option," and then Katie Miller, wife of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, provocatively posting the U.S. flag over Greenland with the caption "SOON" on social media, Washington's intentions are plainly revealed: Greenland must be incorporated into the American system.

This "must-have" determination is powered by greed for strategic resources and geopolitical chokepoints. At its core is the drive for Greenland's large deposits of rare earth elements. As global technology and resource wars reach a fever pitch, rare earths have become the Achilles' heel for nations with high-tech industries and military-industrial complexes.

The United States is not acting without foundation. As pointed out by The New York Times, the 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement grants Washington "complete freedom to conduct operations" in Greenland. The U.S. has already sent a clear signal to Greenland through economic infiltration, infrastructure investments, and defense cooperation agreements: What Denmark cannot provide, America can.

This is the dangling carrot of economic "independence" for Greenland, thereby undercutting and eroding Danish sovereignty over it and weakening Denmark's influence on the issue.

Trump appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as his special envoy to Greenland, and his public support for Greenland's integration into the U.S. is a violation of Danish sovereignty in diplomatic etiquette, yet it undoubtedly provides a "sword of authority" for Greenland's independence movement. As Mikkel Runge Olesen from the Danish Institute for International Studies wrote: "The U.S. has such a free hand in Greenland that it can pretty much do what it wants."

Journalist Laurent Marchand wrote in a commentary in Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat that Trump can exploit Greenland's economic vulnerabilities. Greenland is highly dependent on Danish subsidies (accounting for about 25 percent of its GDP), making its independent economy face enormous challenges. The U.S. could easily offer to "double the subsidies" or even provide "massive cash payments" to every Greenlander, coupled with promises of military bases, mining development, and tourism entertainment, swiftly turning public opinion in Greenland.

This "carrot-and-stick" strategy is key to America's realization of its "hostile takeover."

But this "purchase" or "military threat" strategy presents a complex tension: Is the U.S. seeking full territorial sovereignty based on its existing massive strategic advantages, or using this to exert maximum pressure and consolidate and expand its deep control?

Regardless of the interpretation, the brutality of its methods has severely damaged alliance trust and shattered the core spirit of NATO's Article 5, which says an armed attack against one NATO member shall be considered an attack against all of them. This indicates that the U.S. is extending a "Monroe Doctrine 2.0," originally applied in the Americas, to the Arctic region.

Denmark's dilemma: The ultimate test of sovereignty

The United States' military threats directly challenge the fundamental dignity and territorial integrity of Denmark as a sovereign state. They constitute direct military blackmail by a core NATO member state against an ally. Article 5 is the cornerstone of NATO's collective defense. However, when the threat originates from the alliance's own leader, the authority of the article is completely undermined. This is not a breach by an external enemy, but an internal decay of the alliance's own mechanism.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen at first said Greenland "is not for sale," adding, "If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops. That is, including our NATO and thus the security that has been provided since the end of World War II." This statement explicitly linked NATO's survival to Greenland's fate.

However, within 24 hours, Frederiksen shifted from firmly rejecting the "utterly absurd" territorial demands to issuing a joint statement with the prime minister of Greenland's autonomous government, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, expressing willingness to "initiate dialogue within the framework of international law."

Behind this reversal lies the dual pressure Denmark faces: externally, the aggressive pressure from the United States, and internally, the growing centrifugal forces in Greenland.

Although Greenland falls under Danish jurisdiction, of its six major political parties, five support eventual independence, differing only on the timing and manner. Frederiksen's rapid backtracking stems from the realization that if Denmark persists in resisting, Greenland's autonomous government might engage directly with the United States, leading to Denmark's complete loss of Greenland.

Nielsen's public statements are more pragmatic and nuanced. On January 4, he posted: "Enough is enough. No more pressure. No more innuendo. No more fantasies of annexation." On January 5, he expressed hope to "restore the good cooperation we once had" with the U.S. and reassured Greenlandic people that there is no need to worry about the U.S. taking over the region.

This reflects his pragmatic approach, balancing public opinion, sovereignty, and reality, and confirms Greenland's strategy of seeking direct dialogue with the United States to maximize its own interests.

Greenland's Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt confirmed that Greenland will participate in meetings with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, firmly stating, "No Greenland, no talk about Greenland," thereby further underscoring Greenland's agency and negotiation intentions.

The Nordic irony: Seeking security, facing internal threats

This crisis has deeply shaken the Nordic region and all NATO members. For recent joiners Finland and Sweden, the irony is stark: They abandoned long-standing neutrality only to face the biggest challenge from within the alliance. This upends their original security rationale for joining NATO.

Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson has voiced full support for Denmark, stressing that only Denmark and Greenland can decide their future. Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre called Greenland an inseparable part of Denmark. Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Icelandic Prime Minister Kristrun Frostadottir have also shown clear solidarity.

The Nordic Five issued a joint statement, insisting Greenland's future be decided by its people, while boosting their own Arctic deterrence and defense capabilities – a rational adjustment to protect their security.

Greenlanders are also facing psychological warfare. Social media activist Orla Joelsen from Nuuk, capital of Greenland, shared his heartbreak: "My family feels unsafe because Donald Trump has intensified his THREATS to take over Greenland." He raised a painful question: "Should we leave Greenland before it is too late?" This fear highlights the harm of power politics on ordinary people.

European choice: Beyond silence and countering hegemony

This crisis tests not just Denmark and the other Nordics, but all of Europe. A joint statement from the leaders of Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the UK declared that Greenland belongs to its people and only Denmark and Greenland can decide their affairs, signaling Europe's collective pushback against U.S. unilateralism. But the key question is, can this resistance become effective action?

Europe's hesitation in the Maduro case and weakness in the Greenland crisis expose the EU's structural flaws. When a key ally ignores international law and alliance rules, Europe's indecision shows a lack of strategic autonomy, which indicates that its interests may be affected by U.S. actions.

The new era's survival rules

The Greenland crisis in January 2026 marks a pivotal moment in the collapse of the international order. It signals the dangerous peak of U.S. hegemony, the strategic death of NATO as a security mechanism, and the shattering of Nordic faith in international law and multilateralism. While the Arctic ice melts rapidly, the erosion of trust among allies is even faster.

This event strips away the facade of the West's "rules-based order." International law and territorial integrity become meaningless against raw power and greed. As Chinese analysts noted, the U.S. is now openly seizing Venezuela's oil and Greenland's resources, "Americanizing" them, heralding the end of the old world and the rise of a brutal, lawless jungle.

The future of the Nordic states – and Europe – depends on their ability to rise from this "ally betrayal" like a phoenix. Greenland's fate is no longer just Denmark's problem; it's a stark warning to all nations. In an era of unchecked power and discarded rules, no country can rest easy – global security has entered a highly uncertain new age.