Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

The recently released Trump Administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS) has upended what had been the decades-long consensus about American foreign policy. Most notable in it is the Trump Administration’s prioritization of the Western Hemisphere as an American security concern, its deemphasis on defending America’s traditional European allies, its identification of China as far more of a threat than Russia, and its determination not to be drawn into conflicts in the Middle East and Africa. But while the 2025 Trump Administration National Security Strategy breaks with much of previous American foreign policy, the logic behind it is not something completely new. Even though the document makes no mention of him, the policy outlined in the NSS comports with what John Mearsheimer described in his influential book, “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics”, which was first published in 2001 and updated in 2014. In his book Mearsheimer declared that no nation has ever achieved global hegemony. According to Mearsheimer, America is the only country that has achieved predominant influence in its own region (the Western Hemisphere) and has also been able to prevent any other great power from dominating any other region. Mearsheimer wrote, “States that achieve regional hegemony seek to prevent great powers in other regions from duplicating their feat. Regional hegemons, in other words, do not want peers” (2014 edition, p. 41). Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy has, whether knowingly or not, adopted these aims as well. It discusses the various regions of the world in the order of their priority for the Trump Administration: the Western Hemisphere first, followed by Asia (or Indo-Pacific), Europe, the Middle East, and lastly Africa. With regard to the Western Hemisphere, the NSS unambiguously calls for the restoration of “American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere,” and states, “We will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere.” This is very much in keeping with what Mearsheimer described as America being a regional hegemon in the Western Hemisphere. As for the other four regions of the world, though, the Trump Administration seeks either to prevent any other great power from becoming predominant — or it doesn’t see this as a possibility that needs to be worried about. According to the NSS, the Middle East was a priority in the past because it was the world’s most important energy supplier and was a prime theater of superpower conflict. Now, however, there are other energy suppliers (including the U.S.) and superpower competition has been replaced by “great power jockeying” in which the U.S. retains “the most enviable position.” In other words: the Trump Administration does not see any other great power as able to become predominant in this region which is now less strategically important than it used to be anyway. Similarly, the NSS does not see any other great power as even seeking to become predominant in Africa. The NSS thus sees America’s main interests there as mainly commercial. By contrast, China is seen as a threat in the Indo-Pacific region. The NSS, though, discusses Chinese threats in the economic and technological spheres before turning to the military one. A continued U.S. military presence in the region is seen as important for preventing Chinese predominance. But Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia are all enjoined by the NSS to increase their defense spending in order to counter this threat. The NSS also identifies “the potential for any competitor to control the South China Sea” as a common threat that not only requires investment in U.S. military capabilities, “but also strong cooperation with every nation that stands to suffer, from India to Japan and beyond.” Unlike the Middle East and Africa, then, the NSS does identify a rival great power as striving for predominance in the Indo-Pacific region. Countering it, though, is not seen as just being America’s responsibility, but also that of other powerful states in the region. The strangest section in the 2025 NSS is the one on Europe. While acknowledging that “many Europeans regard Russia as an existential threat,” the NSS envisions America’s role as “managing European relations with Russia” both to “reestablish conditions of strategic stability” and “to mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states.” This is very different from the decades-long U.S. policy of seeing America’s role as defending democratic Europe against an expansionist Soviet Union in the past and Putin’s Russia more recently. Indeed, the NSS’s claim that the European Union undermines “political liberty and sovereignty” and its welcoming “the growing influence of patriotic European parties” (in other words, anti-EU right wing nationalist ones) suggests that it is not Russia which the Trump Administration sees as a rival, but the European Union. The 2025 NSS does call for a “strong Europe…to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe.” The NSS, though, seems to envision the European Union as either greater than or equal to Russia in threatening to dominate European nations. In his book, Mearsheimer did not envision the European Union as a potential great power rival to the U.S. Indeed, there isn’t even an entry for it in the book’s index. The way that the NSS envisions the world, though, comports with how Mearsheimer described America’s great power position: predominant in the Western Hemisphere and able to prevent any other great power from becoming predominant in any other region of the world. Mearsheimer, though, is a scholar who described the position in the world that he saw the U.S. as having achieved and which would seek to maintain. The 2025 NSS, by contrast, is a policy document laying out how the Trump Administration believes it can best maintain this position. And there is reason to doubt that it has done so realistically. Keeping non-Hemispheric great powers out of the Western Hemisphere will not be easy when there are governments there that want to cooperate with them. Further, devoting American resources to being predominant in Latin America when this will be resented and resisted could not only take away from America’s ability to prevent rival great powers from becoming predominant in other regions, but could counterproductively lead Latin American nations than have already done so to increase their cooperation with external great powers which the Trump Administration wants to avoid. Further, the Trump Administration’s efforts to reduce the influence of the European Union runs two risks: the first is that such an effort will succeed, but that the rise of anti-EU nationalist governments throughout the old continent results in a Europe less able to resist Russian manipulation and incursion. The second is that Trump Administration efforts to weaken the European Union backfire and result not only in a Europe united against American interference but unnecessarily emerging as a rival to the U.S. It would be ironic indeed if pursuing the NSS’s plan for upholding what Mearsheimer described as America’s ability to predominate over the Western Hemisphere combined with an ability to prevent any rival from predominating over any other region ended up undermining America’s ability to do either.

As international order evolves in the 21st century, strategic competition is increasingly shaped by technological frontiers and emerging domains of power. Unlike the unipolar moment following the Cold War, the contemporary landscape is defined by multipolarity, where major powers vie for influence across space, cyberspace, and biotechnology. Outer space has emerged not only as a frontier for exploration but also as a potential arena for resource acquisition and military projection, raising novel challenges for international law, security policy and cooperative governance. Examining interstellar phenomena in this context underscores the importance of preparedness, coordination, and risk management, even without assuming the presence of extraterrestrial intelligence, yet acknowledging the unprecedented nature of events that are pushing the boundaries of human observation. Humanity is gradually entering an era in which technological progress is reshaping our conception of cosmic exploration. As advancements in rocket propulsion, materials science, and observational astronomy accelerate, the prospect of humanity departing Earth towards other worlds becomes less a distant dream and more an inevitable chapter in our long-term evolution. The future of our species increasingly appears to be tied to the potential terraforming of new planets and celestial bodies, alongside the development of aerospace technologies capable of carrying us deeper into the cosmos. Within this transformative horizon, the Fermi paradox or the Dark Forest theory gains renewed relevance, challenging humanity to consider the existential filters that civilizations must surpass to survive, expand and potentially encounter other life forms. Yet, while such milestone may unfold centuries from now, the foundations of that future are being laid in the present. In the 21st century, specifically by the year 2026, humanity will become more capable of observing its immediate cosmic neighborhood. Modern telescopes and space-based observatories allow us to detect objects that for centuries have likely passed through our solar system unnoticed. Only within the brief span of our scientific maturation have we acquired the tools to identify interstellar objects, bodies originating beyond the solar system whose physical properties and trajectories challenge our existing frameworks. These objects, often catalogued as cometary in nature, possess characteristics that warrant careful study. Their unusual shapes, compositions, and velocities offer insights into environments beyond our interstellar cradle and, in some cases, raise questions about their natural origin or even the possibility of artificial extraterrestrial technology. As our detection capabilities improve, the arrival of each interstellar visitor represents not only a scientific opportunity but also a critical data point for understanding planetary security and defense. Consequently, their study urges nations to evolve towards a more serious and coordinated international framework capable of addressing the strategic, scientific, and existential implications of interstellar encounters. The emergence and Relevance of Interstellar Objects The scientific understanding of interstellar objects (ISOs) has evolved rapidly in recent years, propelled by technological advances and the unexpected discovery of bodies crossing the solar system on hyperbolic trajectories. Before 2017, the existence of such objects was largely theoretical, supported by models of planetary formation and stellar dynamics that predicted the ejection of debris during the early stages of planetary system evolution. These models implied that the Milky Way should contain vast populations of wandering fragments- comets, asteroids, and potentially more complex bodies such as extraterrestrial debris moving freely through interstellar space. Yet observational confirmation remained unattainable due to instrumental limitations. This changed with the detection of the first confirmed interstellar object, 1/Oumuamua, whose physical properties departed radically from known solar system bodies. Its non-gravitational acceleration, lack of a visible coma, and elongated shape challenged established models of cometary activity and asteroidal composition (Meech et al, 2017). The subsequent discovery of 2I/Borisov, a more conventionally cometary object, confirmed that the solar system is indeed exposed to material originating from other stellar environments (Jewitt & Luu, 2019). The contrast between both objects highlighted a key insight: ISOs are highly diverse, and their properties may reveal mechanisms and materials absent from our own planetary system. Advances in wide-field surveys, high-resolution instrumentation, and automated sky- monitoring systems have significantly expanded humanity´s capacity to detect and track ISOs. The increasing sensitivity of these tools marks a transition toward a new observational era in which interstellar detections may become more frequent. As a result, we are now able to observe the behavior of bodies entirely foreign to the solar system-objects whose trajectories, compositions, and signatures often defy established expectations and expose gaps in existing theoretical frameworks. This expanding observational capability not only advances scientific knowledge but also underscores the urgency of early warning detection. Because ISOs are typically identified within narrow observational windows, delayed characterization can lead to the loss of critical scientific and strategic information. Consequently, the growing presence of ISOs calls for enhanced global coordination, standardized protocols, and a more serious international approach to monitoring and interpreting near-Earth interstellar encounters. The Impact and Arrival of 3I/ATLAS The discovery of 3I/ATLAS, the third confirmed interstellar object entering our solar system, marks a significant milestone in modern astronomy. Unlike 1/Oumuamua and 2I/Borisov, whose observational windows were limited and partially constrained, 3I/ATLAS has provided a comparatively longer period for systematic study. Its hyperbolic trajectory, unusual photometric behavior, and non-standard luminosity variations have made it an object of exceptional scientific interest. While early observations suggest that while 3I/ATLAS shares key characteristics with known cometary bodies, its behavior reinforces broader findings that interstellar objects often display physical and dynamical properties that do not fit neatly within exiting taxonomies of solar system objects (Jewitt, 2023). The media response to 3I/ATLAS has been unprecedented. As with Oumuamua, the object rapidly became the subject of public fascination, sensational claims, and speculative narratives. News outlets, online forums, and social media ecosystems proliferated interpretations ranging from exotic physics to extraterrestrial probes. While much of this discourse lacks grounding in empirical evidence, its widespread circulation reflects a broader sociological trend: interstellar phenomena increasingly operate not only as a scientific event but also as catalysts for public, imagination, cultural anxiety, and geopolitical attention. As Kaku (2020) notes, humanity approaches a technological threshold where cosmic discovery intersects directly with public consciousness, provoking both curiosity and apprehension. From a scientific standpoint, researchers such as Loeb (2021) have emphasized that anomalous behavior in interstellar visitors should not be dismissed lightly. Although 3I/ATLAS currently appears consistent with a natural origin, its unique features-and the difficulty in categorizing ISOs-underscore the need for serious, methodical investigation. Loeb argues that humanity must abandon its complacency regarding the unknown nature of interstellar technologies or civilizations and instead adopt a posture of preparedness, open inquiry, and systematic risk assessment. In his view, phenomena like 3I/ATLAS are reminders that humanity is not isolated, and that contact-whether intentional or incidental—with non-human intelligence represents a real possibility with profound implications. The arrival of 3I/ATLAS has also highlighted the potential consequences of extraterrestrial technological encounters. Even in the absence of direct evidence of artificial origin, the mere ambiguity of such objects can trigger global destabilization through speculation, misinformation, or geopolitical competition. Historical examples such as the economic collapses of 1929 and 2008, the disruptive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the global tensions surrounding major wars demonstrate how uncertainty-especially when amplified by media-can generate widespread instability. In this context, an interstellar object exhibiting unexplained characteristics could easily become a flashpoint for international tension, economic turbulence, or strategic miscalculation. Thus, beyond its scientific significance, 3I/ATLAS has brought renewed attention to the vulnerabilities and responsibilities of a species becoming increasingly aware of its cosmic environment. The object serves as a practical reminder that humanity must develop not only more advanced observational systems but also coordinated international frameworks for managing unexpected astronomical events. As we confront the possibility of encountering technologies or life beyond Earth, the world must adopt a more mature, structured approach to detection, interpretation, and global communication. This moment sets the stage for next critical dimension of the discussion, the implications of interstellar objects for planetary security and defense, and the urgent need to assess humanity’s readiness for cosmic contingencies. Toward a Multiplanetary Security Architecture Planetary security has grown increasingly complex as scientific capabilities expand toward detecting and characterizing interstellar objects whose origins and physical attributes lie beyond conventional astrophysical categories. Within the United Nations framework, existing mechanisms-such as COPUOS, the International Asteroid Warning Network (IAWN), and the Space Mission Planning Advisory Group (SMPAG) provide the foundational structure for global coordination on natural impact hazards (UN COPUOS, 2014). However, these institutions were established under assumptions limited to solar system derived natural threats, leaving them poorly equipped to address unknown interstellar phenomena. The Outer Space Treaty and subsequent conventions introduced broad principles on cooperation and peaceful use, but no anticipated scenarios involving technologically anomalous interstellar objects or potential artificial extraterrestrial artifacts, resulting in a significant global governance vacuum. These mechanisms are designed primarily for probabilistic, natural impact scenarios, not for interstellar objects exhibiting anomalous trajectories, non-gravitational accelerations or uncertain technological signatures. Recognizing this gap, recent scientific proposals-most notably those advanced by Loeb (2023)-have called for the development of a dedicated international coordination mechanism under the United Nations system for the study and assessment of interstellar objects. Rather than proposing a fixed institutional blueprint, these contributions emphasize the need for a structured platform capable of integrating scientific analysis, risk assessment, and transparent diplomatic communication in cases involving anomalous interstellar phenomena. Such proposals should be understood not as a definitive institutional prescription, but as forward as a definitive institutional prescription, but as forward-looking reference points for the type of governance architecture of international community must begin to contemplate. As humanity´s observational reach extends beyond the boundaries of the solar system; this governance gap becomes increasingly consequential. Interstellar objects introduce forms of uncertainty that existing planetary defense regimes-designed around predictable, solar system-derived threats were never Intended to manage, underscoring the need for flexible and adaptive legal frameworks capable of integrating scientific uncertainty into decision making processes. Within this emerging landscape, conceptual assessment tools have gained relevance as mechanisms to structure uncertainty rather than eliminate it. One illustrative example is the Interstellar Threat Assessment Scale (ITAS) proposed by Loeb (2024), which offers a simplified framework for evaluating interstellar detections based on observable characteristics rather than speculative intent. As its lower levels, the scale categorizes objects that behave consistently with natural interstellar debris, such as comet-like bodies exhibiting predictable physical and dynamic properties. Higher levels correspond to increasing degrees of anomaly-such as unexplained non-gravitational acceleration, unconventional trajectories, or geometries inconsistent with known natural formation processes. While the scale is not explicitly designed to identify extraterrestrial technology, it intentionally encompasses characteristics that fall outside established natural baselines. This design allows it to function across multiple scenarios, from rare or poorly understood natural phenomena to detections that may warrant closer scrutiny due to their atypical behavior. In this sense, the framework remains agnostic regarding origin, yet adaptable enough to support both conventional astrophysical analysis and precautionary assessments under conditions of elevated uncertainty. Importantly, it does not assert hostile intent or artificial origin, rather it operates as a risk-management tool that helps differentiate levels of scientific uncertainty and potential planetary relevance. Approached in this manner, such frameworks contribute to the evolution of international space governance by providing a shared analytical language for policymakers, scientific institutions, security agencies and statecraft-oriented decision-makers. By standardizing how uncertainty is assessed and communicated, they reduce fragmented national interpretations, limit reactive or militarized responses, and promote cooperative, evidence-based decisions. Decision-making under conditions of incomplete information. This process reflects a broader need for international space law to evolve dynamically. However, the governance of interstellar risk cannot rely solely on conceptual models or isolated scientific initiatives. It requires a genuinely planetary response that integrates the full spectrum of contemporary technological, institutional, and political capacities. International legislation governing outer space must be adaptive and evolutionary, capable of responding to emerging scientific realities. Artificial intelligence, real-time global surveillance networks, and autonomous detection algorithms must be incorporated into a unified planetary architecture capable of identifying and characterizing interstellar objects far earlier than current capabilities allow. Equally important is the sustained collaboration among major space agencies-including NASA, ESA, CNSA, ISRO, Roscosmos, and JAXA- alongside private actors such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, and emerging aerospace enterprises, whose technological capabilities and rapid innovation cycles are increasingly central to space governance. Equally critical is great-power cooperation. From a realist perspective, the international system remains defined by competition, power asymmetries, and strategic mistrust. Yet planetary defense represents a rare domain in which shared existential vulnerability can partially override zero-sum logic. The detection of an anomalous interstellar object must never become a catalyst for geopolitical rivalry or strategic miscalculation, but rather an opportunity for transparent scientific collaborations and coordinated global response. In an international order strained by power competition, planetary security stands as one of the few areas where shared survival interests necessitate shared responsibility. Ultimately, interstellar objects compel humanity to transcend political fragmentation and adopt a forward- look global strategy. Building a resilient planetary security architecture requires the integration of scientific expertise, adaptive international governance, technological innovation, and coordinated commitment of state and private actor alike. Whether future interstellar encounters prove benign or reveal unprecedented anomalies, preparedness is not speculation, it is an essential step in the evolution of humanity´s role within the cosmos. References - Jewitt, D., & Seligman, D. Z. (2023). The interstellar interlopers. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 61, 197–236. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-071221-054221 - Jewitt, D., & Luu, J. (2019). Initial characterization of interstellar comet 2I/2019 Q4 (Borisov). The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 886(2), L29. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab530b - Kaku, M. (2018). The Future of Humanity: Terra­forming Mars, Interstellar Travel, Immortality, and Our Destiny Beyond Earth. Doubleday. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/555722/the-future-of-humanity-by-michio-kaku/ - Loeb, A. (2021). Extraterrestrial: The first sign of intelligent life beyond Earth. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL31850155M/Extraterrestrial?utm_source=chatgpt.com - Loeb, A. (2024). The interstellar threat assessment scale. Medium. https://avi-loeb.medium.com/ - Meech, K. J., et al. (2017). A brief visit from a red and extremely elongated interstellar asteroid. Nature, 552, 378–381. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25020 - United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UN COPUOS). (2014). Report of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee on its fifty-first session. United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/stsc/2014/index.html

Introduction Artificial intelligence has become a critical technology in the 21st century, with applications spanning healthcare, commerce, and scientific research. However, the same algorithms that enable medical diagnostics can guide autonomous weapons, and the same machine learning systems that power recommendation engines can identify military targets. This dual-use nature, where technologies developed for civilian purposes can be repurposed for military applications, has positioned AI as a central element in evolving global security dynamics. The strategic implications are substantial. China views AI as essential for military modernization, with the People's Liberation Army planning to deploy "algorithmic warfare" and "network-centric warfare" capabilities by 2030 (Department of Defense, 2024). Concurrently, military conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza have demonstrated the operational deployment of AI-driven targeting systems. As nations allocate significant resources to military AI development, a critical question emerges: whether the security benefits of dual-use AI technologies can be realized without generating severe humanitarian consequences. The Reversal Commercial Innovation Driving Military Modernization Historically, military research and development drove technological innovation, with civilian applications emerging as secondary benefits, a phenomenon termed "spin-off." The internet, GPS, and microwave ovens all originated in defense laboratories. This dynamic has reversed. Commercially developed technologies now increasingly "spin into" the defense sector, with militaries dependent on technologies initially developed for commercial markets. This reversal carries significant implications for global security. Unlike the Cold War era, when the United States and Soviet Union controlled nuclear weapons development through state programs, AI innovation occurs primarily in private sector companies, technology firms, and university research institutions. Organizations like DARPA influence global emerging technology development, with their projects often establishing benchmarks for research and development efforts worldwide (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 2024). This diffusion of technological capacity complicates traditional arms control frameworks based on state-controlled military production. The scale of investment is considerable. The U.S. Department of Defense's unclassified AI investments increased from approximately $600 million in 2016 to about $1.8 billion in 2024, with more than 685 active AI projects underway (Defense One, 2024). China's spending may exceed this figure, though exact data remains unavailable due to the opacity of Chinese defense budgeting. Europe is pursuing comparable investments, with the EU committing €1.5 billion to defense-related research and development through initiatives like the European Defence Fund. Dual-Use Applications in Contemporary Warfare AI's military applications span the spectrum of warfare, from strategic planning to tactical execution. Current deployments include: Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR): AI systems process large volumes of sensor data, satellite imagery, and signals intelligence to identify patterns beyond human analytical capacity. In 2024, "China's commercial and academic AI sectors made progress on large language models (LLMs) and LLM-based reasoning models, which has narrowed the performance gap between China's models and the U.S. models currently leading the field," enabling more sophisticated intelligence analysis (Department of Defense, 2024). Autonomous Weapons Systems: Autonomous weapons can identify, track, and engage targets with minimal human oversight. In the Russia-Ukraine war, drones now account for approximately 70-80% of battlefield casualties (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2025). Ukrainian officials predicted that AI-operated first person view drones could achieve hit rates of around 80%, compared to 30-50% for manually piloted systems (Reuters, 2024). Predictive Maintenance and Logistics: The U.S. Air Force employs AI in its Condition-Based Maintenance Plus program for F-35 fighters, analyzing sensor data to predict system failures before occurrence, reducing downtime and operational costs. Command and Control: AI assists military commanders in processing battlefield information and evaluating options at speeds exceeding human capacity. Project Convergence integrates AI, advanced networking, sensors, and automation across all warfare domains (land, air, sea, cyber, and space) to enable synchronized, real-time decision-making. Cyber Operations: AI powers both offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, from automated vulnerability discovery to malware detection and sophisticated social engineering campaigns. Gaza and Ukraine: AI in Contemporary Conflict Recent conflicts have provided operational demonstrations of AI's military applications and associated humanitarian costs. Israel's Lavender system reportedly identified up to 37,000 potential Hamas-linked targets, with sources claiming error rates near 10 percent (972 Magazine, 2024). An Israeli intelligence officer stated that "the IDF bombed targets in homes without hesitation, as a first option. It's much easier to bomb a family's home" (972 Magazine, 2024). The system accelerated airstrikes but also contributed to civilian casualties, raising questions about algorithmic accountability. The system's design involved explicit tradeoffs: prioritizing speed and scale over accuracy. According to sources interviewed by 972 Magazine, the army authorized the killing of up to 15 or 20 civilians for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, while in some cases more than 100 civilians were authorized to be killed to assassinate a single senior commander (972 Magazine, 2024). Foundation models trained on commercial data lack the reasoning capacity humans possess, yet when applied to military targeting, false positives result in civilian deaths. Data sourced from WhatsApp metadata, Google Photos, and other commercial platforms created targeting profiles based on patterns that may not correspond to combatant status. Ukraine has implemented different approaches, using AI to coordinate drone swarms and enhance defensive capabilities against a numerically superior adversary. Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister Kateryna Chernohorenko stated that "there are currently several dozen solutions on the market from Ukrainian manufacturers" for AI-augmented drone systems being delivered to armed forces (Reuters, 2024). Ukraine produced approximately 2 million drones in 2024, with AI-enabled systems achieving engagement success rates of 70 to 80 percent compared to 10 to 20 percent for manually controlled drones (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2025). Both sides in the conflict have developed AI-powered targeting systems, creating operational arms race dynamics with immediate battlefield consequences. Civilian Harm: Technical and Legal Limitarions The integration of AI into lethal military systems raises humanitarian concerns extending beyond technical reliability. AI's inability to uphold the principle of distinction, which requires protecting civilians by distinguishing them from combatants in compliance with international humanitarian law, presents fundamental challenges. Current AI systems lack several capabilities essential for legal warfare:  Contextual Understanding: AI cannot comprehend the complex social, cultural, and situational factors that determine combatant status. A person carrying a weapon might be a combatant, a civilian defending their home, or a shepherd protecting livestock.  Proportionality Assessments: International humanitarian law requires that military attacks not cause disproportionate civilian damage. Human Rights Watch noted that it is doubtful whether robotic systems can make such nuanced assessments (Human Rights Watch, 2024).  Moral Judgment: Machines lack the capacity for compassion, mercy, or understanding of human dignity, qualities that have historically provided safeguards against wartime atrocities.  Accountability: With autonomous weapon systems, responsibility is distributed among programmers, manufacturers, and operators, making individual accountability difficult to establish. As one expert observed, "when AI, machine learning and human reasoning form a tight ecosystem, the capacity for human control is limited. Humans have a tendency to trust whatever computers say, especially when they move too fast for us to follow" (The Conversation, 2024). The risks extend to specific populations. Autonomous weapons systems trained on data predominantly consisting of male combatants in historical records could create algorithmic bias. In the case of Lavender, analysis suggests "one of the key equations was 'male equals militant,'" echoing the Obama administration's approach during drone warfare operations (The Conversation, 2024). Communities of color and Muslim populations face heightened risks given historical patterns of discriminatory force deployment. Export Controls and Technology Transfer Challenges Recognizing AI's strategic importance, governments have implemented export control regimes. The U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security now requires licenses for exports of advanced computing chips and AI model weights, imposing security conditions to safeguard storage of the most advanced models. These controls face inherent tensions. Overly broad restrictions risk hampering legitimate research and commercial innovation. Analysis suggests that if AI technology is too extensively controlled, American universities may face difficulties performing AI research, resulting in a less robust U.S. AI ecosystem. Insufficient controls enable adversaries to acquire cutting-edge capabilities. The effectiveness of export controls remains uncertain. In 2024, hundreds of thousands of chips, totaling millions of dollars, were smuggled into China through shell companies, varying distributors, and mislabeling techniques (Oxford Analytica, 2025). China's DeepSeek models, which achieved performance approaching U.S. systems, were reportedly trained on chips that circumvented export restrictions. International Governance: Fragmentation and Competing Frameworks The international community has struggled to develop coherent governance frameworks for dual-use AI. Rather than a cohesive global regulatory approach, what has emerged is a collection of national policies, multilateral agreements, high-level summits, declarations, frameworks, and voluntary commitments. Multiple international forums have addressed AI governance: ● The UN Secretary-General created an AI Advisory Board and called for a legally binding treaty to prohibit lethal autonomous weapons systems without human control, to be concluded by 2026 ● The Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems has held discussions under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons since 2013, with limited concrete progress ● NATO released a revised AI strategy in 2024, establishing standards for responsible use and accelerated adoption in military operations ● The EU's AI Act, adopted in 2023, explicitly excludes military applications and national security from its scope This fragmented landscape reflects geopolitical divisions. The perceived centrality of AI for competition has led the U.S. to position itself as leader of ideologically aligned countries in opposition to China, including for security purposes. China promotes its own governance vision through initiatives like the Belt and Road, exporting technology standards alongside infrastructure. Strategic Stability Implications AI creates strategic stability challenges. Autonomous weapons enable substitution of machines for human soldiers in many battlefield roles, reducing the human cost and thus political cost of waging offensive war. This could increase the frequency of conflicts between peer adversaries, each believing they can prevail without significant domestic casualties. For conflicts between non-peer adversaries, reduced casualties further diminish domestic opposition to wars of aggression. The implications extend beyond conventional warfare. Armed, fully-autonomous drone swarms could combine mass harm with lack of human control, potentially becoming weapons of mass destruction comparable to low-scale nuclear devices. The technical barriers to such systems are declining as components become commercially available. AI also complicates nuclear stability. Advances in AI-enhanced sensors and data processing could undermine second-strike capabilities by improving detection of mobile missile launchers and submarines. This erosion of assured retaliation could incentivize first strikes during crises. Simultaneously, AI systems managing nuclear command and control create risks of accidents, miscalculations, or unauthorized launches. Ethical Framework Limitations The integration of AI into warfare strains traditional ethical frameworks. Just War Theory requires that combatants maintain moral responsibility for their actions, possess the capacity to distinguish combatants from civilians, and apply proportionate force. Automation bias and technological mediation weaken moral agency among operators of AI-enabled targeting systems, diminishing their capacity for ethical decision-making. When operators interact with targeting through screens displaying algorithmic recommendations rather than direct observation, psychological distance increases. This mediation risks transforming killing into a bureaucratic process. The operator becomes less a moral agent making decisions and more a technician approving or rejecting algorithmic suggestions. Furthermore, industry dynamics, particularly venture capital funding, shape discourses surrounding military AI, influencing perceptions of responsible AI use in warfare. When commercial incentives align with military applications, the boundaries between responsible innovation and reckless proliferation become unclear. Companies developing AI for civilian markets face pressure to expand into defense contracting, often with insufficient ethical deliberation. Conclusion Dual-use AI technologies present both opportunities and risks for international security. One trajectory leads toward normalized algorithmic warfare at scale, arms races in autonomous weapons that erode strategic stability, and inadequate international governance resulting in civilian harm. An alternative trajectory involves international cooperation that constrains the most dangerous applications while permitting beneficial uses. The timeframe for establishing governance frameworks is limited. AI capabilities are advancing rapidly, and widespread proliferation of autonomous weapons will make policy reversal substantially more difficult. The challenge resembles nuclear non-proliferation but unfolds at greater speed, driven by commercial incentives rather than state-controlled programs. Because AI is a dual-use technology, technical advances can provide economic and security benefits. This reality means unilateral restraint by democratic nations would cede advantages to authoritarian competitors. However, uncontrolled competition risks adverse outcomes for all parties. Concrete action is required from multiple actors. States must strengthen multilateral agreements through forums like the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to establish binding restrictions on autonomous weapons without meaningful human control. NATO and regional security alliances should harmonize AI ethics standards and create verification mechanisms for military AI deployments. Military institutions must implement mandatory human-in-the-loop requirements for lethal autonomous systems and establish clear chains of accountability for AI-driven targeting decisions. Technology companies developing dual-use AI systems bear responsibility for implementing ethical safeguards and conducting thorough threat modeling before commercial release. Industry alliances should establish transparency standards for military AI applications and create independent audit mechanisms. Universities and research institutions must integrate AI ethics and international humanitarian law into technical training programs. Export control regimes require coordination between the United States, EU, and allied nations to prevent regulatory arbitrage while avoiding overreach that stifles legitimate research. Democratic governments should lead by demonstrating that military AI can be developed within strict ethical and legal constraints, setting standards that distinguish legitimate security applications from destabilizing weapons proliferation. As Austrian Foreign Minister Alexander Schallenberg observed, this represents the Oppenheimer moment of the current generation, recognizing that dual-use AI, like nuclear weapons, represents a technology whose military applications demand collective restraint. The policy choices made in the next few years will have long-term consequences. They will determine whether AI becomes a tool for human advancement or an instrument of algorithmic warfare. The technology exists; the policy framework remains to be established. The actors are identified; the question is whether they possess the political will to act before proliferation becomes irreversible. References 972 Magazine (2024) 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing spree in Gaza. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ Center for Strategic and International Studies (2024) Where the Chips Fall: U.S. Export Controls Under the Biden Administration from 2022 to 2024. https://www.csis.org/analysis/where-chips-fall-us-export-controls-under-biden-administration-2022-2024 Center for Strategic and International Studies (2025) Ukraine's Future Vision and Current Capabilities for Waging AI-Enabled Autonomous Warfare. https://www.csis.org/analysis/ukraines-future-vision-and-current-capabilities-waging-ai-enabled-autonomous-warfare Defense One (2023) The Pentagon's 2024 Budget Proposal, In Short. https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2023/03/heres-everything-we-know-about-pentagons-2024-budget-proposal/383892/ Department of Defense (2024) Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China 2024. https://media.defense.gov/2024/Dec/18/2003615520/-1/-1/0/MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA-2024.PDF Foreign Policy Research Institute (2024) Breaking the Circuit: US-China Semiconductor Controls. https://www.fpri.org/article/2024/09/breaking-the-circuit-us-china-semiconductor-controls/ Human Rights Watch (2024) A Hazard to Human Rights: Autonomous Weapons Systems and Digital Decision-Making. https://www.hrw.org/report/2025/04/28/a-hazard-to-human-rights/autonomous-weapons-systems-and-digital-decision-making National Defense Magazine (2024) Pentagon Sorting Out AI's Future in Warfare. https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2024/10/22/pentagon-sorting-out-ais-future-in-warfare Queen Mary University of London (2024) Gaza war: Israel using AI to identify human targets raising fears that innocents are being caught in the net. https://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/2024/hss/gaza-war-israel-using-ai-to-identify-human-targets-raising-fears-that-innocents-are-being-caught-in-the-net.html Reuters (2024) Ukraine rolls out dozens of AI systems to help its drones hit targets. https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/10/31/reuters-ukraine-rolls-out-dozens-of-ai-systems-to-help-its-drones-hit-targets/

Europe stands at a precipice. Following the US military operation in Venezuela, President Donald Trump and his close advisers have reiterated that Greenland – currently an autonomous territory of Denmark – will be next. “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it,” Trump told reporters this week. “Let’s talk about Greenland in 20 days.” The threat is not mere hyperbole. Trump has appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, who publicly supports US annexation, as special envoy to Greenland. And Katie Miller, wife of top Trump adviser Stephen Miller, recently posted an image of Greenland in US flag colours with the caption “SOON”. These are not random provocations but coordinated pressure tactics against a sovereign territory. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen responded by saying “That’s enough now. No more pressure. No more insinuations. No more fantasies of annexation.” Danish leaders have warned a US attack on Greenland would signal “the end of NATO” and of post-second world war security. Threats against NATO members (such as Denmark) could also embolden Russia even more and lead to more uncertainty for Europe. So why are European leaders not more forcefully calling out Trump’s threats against Greenland – as well as his government’s shocking intervention in Venezuela? And what’s at stake? Europe’s weak response NATO’s Article 5 commits members to treat an attack on one as an attack on all. If the US were to attack Greenland, Denmark would expect NATO’s collective defence mechanisms to activate against the US. European leaders have been forced to confront a reality they hoped to avoid: the US, NATO’s founding member, may become the alliance’s gravest threat. But so far, the response across the continent to both the Greenland threats and the US’ actions in Venezuela has been feeble and confused. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer admitted he wanted to speak to President Trump before he condemned the attacks, epitomizing Europe’s subordination. A letter signed by the Danish prime minister and the leaders of France, Germany, Spain, the UK, Italy, and Poland, has affirmed only Greenland and Denmark should determine Greenland’s future. The European Union has pledged to defend members’ territorial integrity. But they didn’t articulate any solid counter-threat to Trump’s comments about Greenland. They could, for instance, have reiterated their long-term partnership, the potential collapse of the biggest alliance in human history, or the costs in losing cooperation (both economic and security) with Europe that directly benefits the US. And such vague declarations about Greenland ring hollow when the same governments hesitate to condemn US violations of international law in Venezuela. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the “legal classification of the US intervention [in Venezuela] is complex” and that Germany needed time to consider this. Such equivocation on the most basic, foundational concept of international law not only signals incredible weakness. It also undermines Europe’s credibility when invoking the “rules-based order” against Russia and its actions in Ukraine, making it near impossible to mobilise Global South support, sustain sanctions coalitions, or claim principled restraint. When European leaders respond so cautiously to the Venezuela operation – stressing respect for international law while avoiding direct criticism of Washington – their principles are exposed as highly selective. Russia benefits Russia understands this dynamic perfectly. Moscow has already characterised US actions as “armed aggression” while pointing to Western hypocrisy. Moscow benefits from this in fundamental ways. First, Western hypocrisy validates Russia’s narrative that international law is merely a tool the powerful use against the weak. The vacillation on condemning US action in Venezuela or threats against fellow NATO members contradicts the European narrative against Putin’s war. Second, NATO’s potential collapse or paralysis would hand Moscow a strategic victory that Russian military power alone has been unable to secure. If the United States annexes Greenland, Denmark would face an existential choice: accept the violation and remain in a compromised NATO or leave an alliance that no longer protects its members. All other members would face the same choice. The NATO alliance cannot function if its members no longer share fundamental values about sovereignty and law. Trump has forced Europe to confront whether it will defend these principles universally or accept a world where might makes right. Appeasement all over again? This moment recalls Europe’s crisis of the Munich agreement. In 1938, Britain and France sacrificed Czechoslovakia’s sovereignty to appease Nazi Germany, excluding Prague from negotiations over its future while negotiating away its territory. Only later would the democratic powers discover that appeasing aggression – however politically convenient at the time – would only invite yet more aggression. Today, Europe faces a parallel dilemma: how to respond when its most powerful ally directly threatens an EU and NATO member state. Europe is edging toward another Munich agreement moment, with concessions dressed up as stability and peace a euphemism for appeasement. The events in the coming weeks will largely determine the very future of Europe. The continent faces a choice between political expediency or rules-based international order built on the prohibition of aggressive war, respect for sovereignty, and collective security. Will its leaders be prepared to confront their own hypocrisy or timidly accept the erosion of the rules they claim to defend?

After years of blockages and renegotiations, the European Union approved the agreement with Mercosur, yet the decisive battle — the ratification — has only just begun. On January 9, 2026, the Council of the European Union (EU) approved the long-awaited trade agreement with Mercosur. This decision contrasts with what happened just a month earlier, when the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, had to cancel her planned trip to Brazil to sign the instrument, as she had failed to secure the Council’s green light. Now, the signing will take place in Paraguay on January 17. How did we get here, and what lies ahead? What happened: Overcoming internal resistance The basis of the so-called Interim Trade Agreement (ITA), the commercial pillar of the deal, dates back to the “agreement in principle” announced in June 2019 by the leaders of both blocs. That announcement quickly led to the formation of a powerful opposition coalition in Europe, which ultimately brought the approval and ratification process to a standstill. This coalition coalesced around two main components: a traditional one, made up of European agricultural producers, and an emerging one, composed of civil society organizations focused on environmental protection. In a short time, the world changed and, for reasons predominantly associated with the new global geopolitical context, the Commission resumed its efforts to finalize this agreement. To do so, it needed to neutralize the aforementioned opposition coalition, which, taken together, had the capacity to block it — either through national governments in the Council or through their political representatives in the European Parliament. The Commission’s strategy was to deactivate the environmental component of the coalition. To that end, beginning in 2023 it embarked on a renegotiation with Mercosur, particularly with Brazil, aimed at increasing the binding environmental commitments included in the agreement. In exchange, it was willing to forgo some of the market access gains achieved in the 2019 arrangement. On the basis of this trade-off, both blocs announced a new agreement in December 2024. While environmentally based opposition declined markedly after this announcement, agriculturally based opposition persisted. And, as expected, it found a channel for representation in countries with strong agricultural communities. Thus, the governments of France, Poland, and Ireland expressed their opposition to the agreement and sought to build a blocking minority to prevent its approval in the Council. Because this required at least four countries representing at least 35% of the EU population, the opposing countries needed new allies. Along the way, they found an unexpected partner, given its historical support for the agreement: Giorgia Meloni’s Italy. From December 2024 onward, the Italian government sent ambiguous signals, alternating between rejection and conditional support. But when the time came for approval in December 2025, the Italian government did not cast its vote, and as a result the signing could not be finalized. However, Italy’s position turned out to be transactional. After the failure in early December, the Commission negotiated with the Italian government a series of side payments in exchange for its favorable vote, the most significant of which was an advance on agricultural subsidies provided for under the Common Agricultural Policy. In parallel, the European institutions approved a specific mechanism to activate the bilateral safeguards set out in the text of the agreement, which provides for the automatic launch of investigations for a range of sensitive agricultural products if domestic prices or exports from Mercosur fall or rise by 8%, respectively. It should be noted that these safeguards complement the fact that the opening offered by the EU for these sensitive goods is partial, via quotas, which in itself already limits the scope of liberalization in this sector. And although this set of concessions was not sufficient to appease agricultural opposition — leading France, Poland, Ireland, Austria, and Hungary to vote against it (with Belgium abstaining) — the agreement was ultimately approved by a qualified majority in the Council. What comes next: The challenge of ratification Following approval, the ratification stage of the ITA shifts political action to the European Parliament and to the national parliaments of the Mercosur countries. In the former, the emergence of a new battle between supporters and opponents is highly likely. The two largest political groups in the European Parliament — the Popular Party (center-right) and the Social Democrats (center-left), which together underpin the governing coalition in the EU — have already announced their support. However, driven by opposition from agricultural producers, it is to be expected that a significant share of Members of the European Parliament from countries such as France, Poland, and Ireland, among others, will vote in line with their country’s opposing position rather than that of their political group. Thus, while the baseline scenario is one in which there is a majority in favor of ratification, it will certainly be a narrow one, meaning that marginal shifts in position could end up tipping the balance one way or the other. In parallel, there will be efforts by some Members of the European Parliament to refer the agreement to the Court of Justice of the EU, with the formal objective of determining the instrument’s compatibility with European law. Indirectly, these efforts aim to delay the ratification process and buy time to build an opposing majority. There is no certainty that initiatives of this kind will succeed, but in any case, they will be an additional factor to monitor in the coming months. In the Mercosur countries, by contrast, a less contentious parliamentary process is expected in principle. Those who could theoretically be negatively affected in distributive terms—namely, different segments of the manufacturing industry — have supported the agreement (in Brazil) or at least have not actively opposed it (in Argentina). Moreover, in 2019 the Mercosur countries agreed on provisional bilateral entry into force as each member of the bloc, together with the EU, ratifies the agreement. In addition to effectively loosening the adoption of preferential agreements with third parties, this measure is intended to encourage ratification in each national parliament. As each Mercosur member ratifies, the cost of remaining outside preferential access to the European market increases. In short, ratification is the next and final step before the agreement enters into force. As of 2019, the focus will remain predominantly on what may happen in the EU.

In the chilling expanse of the Arctic, where ice and ocean frame the edges of the known world, a geopolitical drama has quietly gathered momentum. The world’s strategic gaze is no longer fixed solely on the traditional theatres of diplomacy in Europe, the Middle East, or the Indo-Pacific. Instead, the High North — and particularly Greenland, the vast Arctic territory within the Kingdom of Denmark — has emerged as a critical arena where great-power competition, national security priorities, global trade dynamics, and climate change converge. This transformation did not occur overnight. For decades, military planners, geographers, and strategic thinkers recognized the Arctic’s latent importance. Yet only in recent years have those projections translated into urgent geopolitical reality. At the center of this shift stands the United States’ National Security Strategy 2025 (NSS 2025), unveiled in late 2025, which redefines American priorities in a world shaped by renewed great-power rivalry. While the strategy addresses multiple global theatres, its emphasis on territorial security, critical resources, strategic geography, and adversarial competition underscores why Greenland has moved from the periphery to the heart of international geopolitics. Greenland today sits at the intersection of U.S. homeland defense, NATO cohesion, Arctic militarization, global trade transformation, and the accelerating race for critical minerals. The tensions surrounding the island reveal not only disputes among allies but also deeper structural changes in the international system. This article argues that Greenland is no longer a remote outpost but a strategic fulcrum of the Arctic, whose future will shape the balance of power in the High North and beyond. In addition, it analyses the geopolitical and strategical concerns from the US over Greenland. America’s Strategic Recalibration in the 2025 National Security Strategy The NSS 2025 marks a clear departure from post-Cold War doctrines centered on expansive multilateralism and global institution-building. Instead, it reflects a return to strategic realism, prioritizing the protection of core national interests, territorial security, and the prevention of adversarial dominance in critical regions. The strategy defines the United States’ primary objective as “the continued survival and safety of the United States as an independent, sovereign republic,” coupled with maintaining decisive military, technological, and economic power. Although the Indo-Pacific remains central, the strategy elevates the Western Hemisphere and adjacent strategic regions, emphasizing the need to prevent hostile encroachment on areas vital to U.S. security and economic resilience. Supply chains, critical minerals, missile defense, and strategic geography feature prominently throughout the document. Within this framework, Greenland has transitioned from a peripheral Arctic territory to a linchpin of U.S. strategic defense and resource security. While the NSS does not outline a standalone Arctic doctrine, its underlying logic — securing access to essential materials, protecting strategic approaches to the homeland, and denying adversaries positional advantages — aligns directly with the intensifying focus on Greenland. Latest developments: US position over Greenland. As already mentioned, the release of the NSS 2025 made one thing clear: US foreign policy is now defined by an assertive approach towards the entire Western Hemisphere – where Greenland is part of –. Moreover, this implies that the US might claim the right to intervene in other countries’ domestic affairs in order to guarantee its strategic and corporate interests. Therefore, after Venezuela – in addition to its rhetoric towards Cuba and Mexico – Greenland has become a hot topic, due its geopolitical, economical and strategical position and of course as part of the US “national security” and interest. In early 2026, Greenland became the unlikely epicenter of a high-stakes geopolitical drama. The U.S., under President Donald Trump, signaled an unprecedented level of interest in the island, framing it as a critical node in Arctic security, homeland defense, and global strategic competition. The announcement of a “framework of a future deal” at the World Economic Forum in Davos marked the peak of months of tension, including the president’s prior rhetoric suggesting military action to assert U.S. control — a prospect that sent shockwaves across Europe and NATO. The pathway to this framework was turbulent. Earlier proposals from the Trump administration, dating back to his first term, had openly floated buying Greenland, citing both security imperatives and access to mineral wealth. While these overtures were dismissed by Denmark and Greenland, they set the stage for heightened U.S. scrutiny. Diplomatic meetings in January 2026, including a contentious session in Washington on January 14, ended with what officials described as a “fundamental disagreement” over sovereignty. By January 18, European allies and Denmark had issued a joint statement affirming that Greenlandic sovereignty belongs exclusively to the Kingdom of Denmark and Greenland itself, while NATO and Danish troops deployed to the island to reassure Arctic security through “Operation Arctic Endurance.” Against this backdrop, Trump’s Davos announcement of a “framework” was simultaneously dramatic and deliberately vague. He described it as a long-term, “infinite” agreement designed to guarantee U.S. strategic goals, including the potential deployment of advanced missile defense systems—the so-called “Golden Dome”—and enhanced NATO involvement. The framework reportedly also aims to prevent Russian and Chinese investments in Greenland and may include increased U.S. access to the island’s mineral resources, though Greenlandic and Danish officials have made clear that no sovereignty transfer is under consideration. Crucially, no formal document has yet been produced, leaving many details unconfirmed and heightening uncertainty among allies. Greenland’s Geographic Centrality: The broader US security interest of the Island. Figure 1: Arctic states, counties and other administrative regions with capitals. Source: Map by Arto Vitikka, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland. Credit for the border data: Runfola, D. et al. (2020) geoBoundaries: A global database of political administrative boundaries. PLoS ONE 15(4): e0231866. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231866e. Figure 2: Arctic Population Centers. Map by Arto Vitikka, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland. When viewed from a polar perspective, the Arctic is not a distant fringe but the shortest connective space between North America, Europe, and Eurasia. The Arctic as seen in Figure 1 is composed of several administrative areas, including Canada, Alaska (USA), Russia, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland and Greenland (Denmark). The latter can be said to be located at the center between North America and Europe and Eurasia, underscoring its geopolitical importance. In other words, Greenland occupies the central Atlantic–Arctic axis, the shortest air and missile trajectories between Russia and North America and a pivotal position between the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and the Russian Arctic coast. This geography carries deep strategic implications and clarifies the logic behind US interest in the island. First, Greenland is part of the so-called GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-UK) Gap, a crucial corridor and central axis for monitoring naval and air activity in the North Atlantic-Arctic corridor. The GIUK Gap played an important role during the Second World War and the Cold War and nowadays it has become crucial in securing air and sea surveillance through radar stations, while securing the sea lines of communication (SLOCs) as well as supply lines making them uninterrupted between NATO’s European members and the USA. The GIUK Gap can assist in ensuring maritime visibility and assist anti-submarine warfare (ASW) in case of conflicts. The presence of Russian submarines in the Arctic is a central pillar of Russia’s military strategy and nuclear deterrence, making the region one of the most militarized maritime spaces in the world. Russia views the Arctic as both a strategic sanctuary and a launch platform. In consequence, its Northern Fleet – headquartered on the Kola Peninsula –, is the most powerful of Russia’s fleets and operates a large share of its nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), such as the Borei and Delta IV classes. These submarines carry submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and are designed to remain hidden under Arctic ice, ensuring a second-strike capability in the event of a nuclear conflict. The ice cover, combined with Russia’s familiarity with Arctic waters, provides concealment and operational depth. In addition to SSBNs, Russia deploys nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) and guided-missile submarines (SSGNs) in the Arctic. These vessels conduct intelligence gathering, protect ballistic missile submarines, and pose threats to NATO naval forces and undersea infrastructure, including communication cables. Russian submarines regularly transit through key chokepoints such as the GIUK Gap, bringing them into strategic relevance for Greenland, Iceland, and NATO’s anti-submarine warfare (ASW) posture. In addition, the Arctic also supports Russia’s broader bastion defense concept, which seeks to create heavily defended maritime zones where submarines can operate safely. Air defenses, surface ships, icebreakers, and coastal missile systems complement submarine operations. As climate change reduces sea ice and increases accessibility, Russian submarine activity in the Arctic is expected to remain intense, reinforcing the region’s importance for NATO surveillance, early warning systems, and transatlantic security — especially for locations like Greenland that sit astride critical Arctic–Atlantic routes. Second, Greenland’s high latitude makes it an ideal place for early detection of long-range missile launches. Russia has long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), if ever launched from Russia toward the United States, the total flight time would be roughly between 25 to 35 minutes – depending on the launch location and target. But because of the Earth’s curvature, the shortest path from Russia to the continental US goes over the Arctic which is why Greenland is so strategically important for early detection and missile-warning defense. In practical terms, US decision-makers would have only minutes to assess the threat and respond after a launch is detected, therefore Greenland is critical for US security. Establishments such as the U.S. Pituffik Space Base underscore how Greenland functions as a first line of surveillance against possible ballistic missile threats from the Eurasian landmass. Therefore, Greenland is indispensable to early-warning and missile-defense systems. Sensors, radars, and space-tracking infrastructure based on the island form a crucial layer of “U.S. homeland defense”. Finally, Greenland is the only large Arctic landmass under Western democratic control outside Eurasia. Russia dominates the Eurasian Arctic coastline, while Alaska and Canada anchor North America. Greenland bridges these spaces, serving as a keystone for transatlantic Arctic security. Its isolation does not diminish its importance; rather, it magnifies it. – making Greenland a linchpin of US homeland defense and NATO’s northern security architecture. Greenland and NATO: The Fragile Architecture of Arctic Security Figure 3: NATO’s and Russia’s militarization in the Arctic. Figure 3 exposes a stark asymmetry in Arctic militarization between NATO and Russia. Moscow maintains a dense, continuous network of military installations stretching from the Kola Peninsula to the Bering Strait. These bases support air defense, naval operations, missile forces, and surveillance, forming an integrated arc of control along Russia’s northern frontier. NATO’s Arctic posture, by contrast, is structurally different. Rather than territorial saturation, it relies on discrete strategic nodes, interoperability over mass, and coordination among multiple sovereign states. Within this fragmented architecture, Greenland constitutes NATO’s most critical node, functioning as the geographic and operational linchpin between North America and Northern Europe. Without Greenland, NATO’s Arctic posture would fracture into disconnected segments—North America on one side and Scandinavia on the other—with no central anchor to bind the alliance’s northern defenses. The United States already maintains a crucial presence on the island through the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) in northwest Greenland. The installation is indispensable for early missile warning, space surveillance, and tracking adversary launches across the polar region. Complementary allied infrastructure, such as the UK’s logistical presence at Camp Viking in Norway, underscores NATO’s node-based approach rather than a strategy of continuous territorial control. It is precisely Greenland’s role as this irreplaceable strategic node that explains the sharp European response in 2025–2026 to U.S. rhetoric suggesting unilateral action or coercive pressure regarding the island. The deployment of European troops under Operation Arctic Endurance was not merely symbolic; it was a clear assertion that Greenland is a collective NATO concern, not a bilateral bargaining chip between Washington and Copenhagen. In this sense, the military logic of Arctic defense translated directly into alliance politics. Yet the episode also revealed the limits of U.S. power when confronting established allies. Danish and Greenlandic officials consistently emphasized that sovereignty constituted a non-negotiable “red line.” Greenland’s Prime Minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, framed the issue not as a local dispute but as one of global order, stressing that Greenland would align with Denmark, the EU, and NATO while retaining full control over its territory. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte reinforced this position by confirming enhanced cooperation while deliberately refraining from endorsing any transfer of sovereignty—an illustration of the alliance’s careful balancing act between accommodating U.S. strategic priorities and preserving the credibility of its member states. When viewed in this broader context, the episode appears less as an attempt at dramatic territorial acquisition and more as an effort to formalize and modestly expand pre-existing arrangements. The 1951 U.S.–Denmark agreement already permitted permanent U.S. military presence, exclusive jurisdiction over defense areas, and broad operational freedom at installations such as Pituffik. The proposed framework likely reinforced these rights while adding provisions for expanded NATO participation and strategic safeguards against Russian or Chinese influence. From Washington’s perspective, the episode allowed the appearance of a strategic victory, even as sovereignty and political control remained firmly with Greenland and Denmark. Analytically, the Greenland case illustrates a central tension in contemporary U.S. foreign policy: the interplay between assertive unilateralism and the constraints of alliance politics. By elevating Greenland into a symbol of hemispheric and Arctic security, the United States signaled its willingness to test diplomatic norms using both the rhetoric of necessity and instruments of coercion, including threatened tariffs. Yet the ultimate outcome—an unratified verbal framework reinforcing existing agreements—demonstrates the limits of coercion within a multilateral system. In this sense, Greenland has become a lens through which to observe the evolving dynamics of great-power competition, alliance management, and Arctic geopolitics. Its strategic geography, resource potential, and political status converge to make the island central to 21st-century security calculations. The resulting “framework of a future deal” represents not a victory of acquisition but a negotiation of influence—one that codifies U.S. ambitions while respecting allied sovereignty, subtly reshaping the contours of Arctic security and transatlantic relations. Greenland’s Resources: Strategic Minerals in a Fragmenting World Beyond military geography, Greenland’s subsoil wealth significantly enhances its geopolitical importance. The island holds substantial deposits of rare earth elements (REEs), lithium, graphite, niobium, titanium, uranium and zinc. As it is well known these strategic materials are indispensable and critical for renewable energy systems, electric vehicles, advanced electronics, missile guidance and radar technologies and space and defense infrastructure. Last but not least there is also oil and gas, but the conditions and viability to extract them make them an economic challenge. In the context of the control of natural resources, the NSS 2025 repeatedly stresses the need to reduce U.S. dependence on adversarial supply chains — an implicit reference to China’s dominance in rare-earth processing. Therefore, US eyes are on Greenland, as it represents one of the few politically aligned alternatives with large-scale potential reserves – ironically not under Chinese or Russian influence, but under US “allies” control. Yet resource abundance does not automatically translate into strategic advantage. Mining in Greenland faces severe challenges: extreme climate conditions, environmental risks, limited infrastructure, and strong local opposition to environmentally destructive projects. As a result, Greenland’s mineral wealth is strategically valuable but politically sensitive. Its development requires local consent and long-term cooperation, not coercion — a fact often overlooked in external strategic calculations. The Arctic Trade Revolution: Melting Ice, Shifting Routes Figure 4: Arctic Seaways (Northern Sea Route, Northwest Passage and Transpolar Sea Route). Source: Map by Arto Vitikka, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland. Climate change is transforming the Arctic faster than any other region on Earth. As sea ice recedes, new maritime routes are becoming seasonally viable, with potentially transformative consequences for global trade. The Northern Sea Route (NSR) along Russia’s Arctic coast already reduces transit times between Europe and Asia by up to 40%, even though some parts are free of ice for some months per year. On the other hand, a future transpolar route, cutting directly across the Arctic Ocean, could bypass traditional chokepoints such as: The Suez Canal, The Panama Canal or The Strait of Malacca. Therefore, Greenland importance relies on its geographic position that places it adjacent to these emerging corridors. Potential roles for the island include: the search-and-rescue hubs, refueling and logistics points, maritime surveillance and communications infrastructure. This elevates Greenland from a military asset to a potential gatekeeper of future Arctic trade, linking regional security directly to global economic flows. Icebreakers and Power Projection: Mobility as Sovereignty Figure 5: Major Icebreakers and Ice-Capable Patrol Ships highlight a decisive but underappreciated imbalance. Source: generated with Chat GPT using Routers Nov 2022 data. The transit in the Arctic can be defined by the possibility to move freely without any inconvenience due its extreme conditions – or at least with the least inconveniences. In consequence major ice breakers and ice-capable patrol ships became very important assets for the countries in the region. In a simple comparison, Russia possesses more icebreakers than NATO combined, as shown in Figure 5, including nuclear-powered vessels capable of year-round Arctic operations. These ships are instruments of sovereignty, enabling continuous military presence, escort of commercial shipping, enforcement of Arctic regulations and rapid crisis responses. By contrast, the United States has long underinvested in icebreaking capacity. NATO relies on a patchwork of national fleets, with Finland and Sweden contributing significantly but still lagging behind Russia’s scale. The strategic implication is clear: Russia controls mobility while NATO controls nodes. In such an environment, fixed strategic anchors like Greenland become even more critical. Competing Arctic Visions Russia Russia views the Arctic as a core strategic and economic priority, central to its national identity, security, and long-term development. Its Arctic vision emphasizes sovereignty, military security, and the exploitation of vast natural resources, particularly hydrocarbons and minerals. Moscow sees the Northern Sea Route as a critical shipping corridor that can enhance Russia’s control over Arctic navigation and generate economic revenues. To support this vision, Russia has invested heavily in Arctic infrastructure, icebreaker fleets, and military modernization, positioning itself as the dominant Arctic power and framing the region as vital to its great-power status. The Arctic is not an extension of Russian power; it is central to it. Figure 6: Cargo volume in Russia’s Northern Sea Route (1933-2023) China China approaches the Arctic as a “near-Arctic state,” framing its vision around scientific research, economic opportunity, and global governance. Beijing emphasizes participation in Arctic affairs through international law, particularly the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and promotes cooperation rather than territorial claims. Its strategy emphasizes long-term access to resources, influence over Arctic governance norms, and participation in future trade routes. Its concept of a “Polar Silk Road” reflects an interest in future shipping routes, energy projects, and digital connectivity, linking the Arctic to China’s broader Belt and Road Initiative. Even though China presents its Arctic engagement as peaceful and mutually beneficial, while gradually expanding its strategic and economic footprint in the region, it also has interest in Greenland’s mining sector, for example, which has heightened concerns about strategic leverage rather than direct control. Figure 7: Map of China’s Polar Silk Road. Source: Map by Arto Vitikka, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland. United States The U.S. approach, as reflected in the NSS 2025, is reactive but intensifying. Greenland crystallizes American concerns about strategic vulnerability, supply-chain dependence, and alliance credibility. Yet pressure tactics risk undermining the very alliances that make Arctic stability possible. The United States views the Arctic as an increasingly important region for national security, environmental stewardship, and economic opportunities. At the same time, it recognizes the strategic implications of growing Russian and Chinese activity in the region. Arctic States The European Arctic states emphasize sustainability, human security, and regional cooperation as the foundation of their Arctic vision. Their policies prioritize environmental protection, responsible resource management, and the rights and livelihoods of Indigenous peoples, while balancing economic development in sectors such as fisheries, renewable energy, and limited resource extraction. These states strongly support multilateral governance through institutions like the Arctic Council and stress adherence to international law. Collectively, they view the Arctic as a region where stability, cooperation, and climate leadership are essential, especially amid rising geopolitical tensions and accelerating environmental change. Canada Canada’s Arctic vision centers on sovereignty, Indigenous partnership, and sustainable development, reflecting the region’s importance to national identity and security. Ottawa emphasizes the protection of its northern territories and views the Northwest Passage as internal waters, while supporting a rules-based Arctic order. A core pillar of Canada’s approach is its collaboration with Indigenous peoples, recognizing their rights, knowledge, and role in governance and stewardship. Canada also prioritizes climate change adaptation, environmental protection, and responsible economic development, seeking to ensure that increased Arctic activity benefits northern communities while maintaining peace and stability in the region. India India’s Arctic vision is primarily science-driven and climate-focused, reflecting its broader emphasis on environmental security and multilateral cooperation. Through its Arctic research station, Himadri, and active participation in the Arctic Council as an observer, India seeks to understand the Arctic’s impact on global climate systems, particularly the Indian monsoon. New Delhi also recognizes the long-term economic and geopolitical significance of the Arctic but approaches the region cautiously, prioritizing sustainable development, international collaboration, and respect for Arctic states’ sovereignty. Strategic Futures: Cooperation or Fragmentation The future of Greenland and the Arctic more broadly will hinge on whether the region evolves toward structured cooperation or strategic fragmentation. In a cooperative scenario, Greenland becomes a stabilizing anchor within a renewed Arctic security framework, where the United States, Denmark, and NATO align their defense priorities with Greenlandic self-determination and environmental safeguards. Such an approach would emphasize multilateral governance, transparency in resource development, confidence-building military measures, and shared investment in infrastructure, search-and-rescue capabilities, and climate resilience. Cooperation would not eliminate competition, particularly with Russia and China, but it would establish rules, norms, and mechanisms to prevent escalation and miscalculation in an increasingly accessible Arctic. By contrast, a fragmented Arctic would be characterized by unilateral actions, coercive diplomacy, and the erosion of trust among allies. Pressure tactics aimed at securing access, influence, or control over Greenland could weaken NATO cohesion, fuel local resistance, and open political space for external actors to exploit divisions. In such a scenario, the Arctic risks becoming a patchwork of contested zones rather than a managed strategic commons. Therefore, fragmentation would increase the likelihood of militarization without coordination, resource development without legitimacy, and crisis dynamics without effective communication channels — conditions that historically precede instability rather than security. Conclusion Greenland’s elevation from a peripheral Arctic territory to a central object of U.S. strategic concern reflects a deeper transformation in American national security thinking. Under the logic of the National Security Strategy 2025, geography has reasserted itself as a core determinant of power. Greenland matters to Washington not because of symbolic territorial ambition, but because it sits at the intersection of missile warning, homeland defense, transatlantic security and critical resource resilience and control. From early-warning radars at Pituffik to the GIUK Gap’s role in anti-submarine warfare, the island functions as a forward shield for the United States rather than a distant outpost. In this sense, U.S. interest in Greenland is less about expansion and more about insulation — protecting the American homeland in an era of compressed warning times and renewed great-power rivalry. At the same time, the Greenland episode exposes the limits of unilateralism in a system still structured by alliances and sovereignty norms. While Washington’s strategic rationale is compelling, its use of coercive rhetoric and pressure tactics toward Denmark and Greenland revealed a misalignment between U.S. security imperatives and alliance diplomacy. The backlash from European allies and the reaffirmation of Greenlandic sovereignty demonstrated that even overwhelming military and economic power cannot easily override the political legitimacy of allied states. Ultimately, the United States secured no new sovereignty, only the likely reinforcement of pre-existing military arrangements — underscoring that influence in the Arctic must be negotiated, not imposed. From a U.S. perspective, Greenland thus represents both a strategic necessity and a diplomatic constraint. The island is indispensable to missile defense, space surveillance, and Arctic access, yet it remains politically autonomous and embedded within a NATO framework that demands consultation and restraint. This dual reality forces Washington to reconcile its desire for strategic certainty with the realities of alliance management. The “framework of a future deal” reflects this compromise: a mechanism to safeguard U.S. security interests while formally respecting Danish and Greenlandic control. The outcome illustrates that American power in the Arctic is real, but conditional — strongest when exercised through institutions rather than outside them. Looking ahead, Greenland will remain a focal point of U.S. Arctic strategy not because of dramatic territorial ambitions, but because it is irreplaceable. No alternative location offers the same combination of geographic centrality, political alignment, and strategic utility. As missile technologies advance, Arctic routes open, and resource competition intensifies, Greenland’s role in U.S. security planning will only grow. Yet the lesson of recent tensions is clear: securing Greenland’s strategic value requires partnership, legitimacy, and long-term engagement rather than pressure. In the final analysis, Greenland is not only a measure of American power, but a barometer of the Arctic’s future political order. The island sits at the intersection of U.S. homeland defense, European security, and the growing assertiveness of Russia in the High North, while also remaining a point of interest for external actors such as China or India. Europe views Greenland primarily as a stabilizing pillar within a rules-based Arctic governed through NATO coordination, international law, and multilateral institutions. Russia, by contrast, treats the Arctic as a strategic rear area and military bastion, where control, mobility, and deterrence dominate its vision of regional order. The United States is thus navigating between these competing logics — seeking to secure its own vital interests without fracturing alliance cohesion or accelerating Arctic militarization. Whether Greenland becomes a cornerstone of cooperative security or a flashpoint of strategic rivalry will depend less on geography, which is fixed, and more on political choices. In this sense, Greenland encapsulates the broader Arctic dilemma: a region where power, restraint, and cooperation must coexist if stability in the High North is to be preserved. Also, it is important to highlight Greenland’s voice – referring to sovereignty and identity. Usually under great-power maneuvering, Greenland’s own population has often been sidelined. Yet Greenland is not merely an object of strategy; it is a political community with a strong Indigenous identity, environmental concerns, and aspirations for greater autonomy. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind its constitutional status within the Kingdom of Denmark, their principle of self-determination and the political costs of alienating local consent. Alienating local consent would not only undermine legitimacy, but also weaken the long-term sustainability of any security arrangement. Finally, the Arctic transformation is no longer a distant projection but an unfolding reality. Climate change is accelerating the opening of Arctic Sea routes, reshaping patterns of trade, mobility, and access, and in doing so redefining how sovereignty and power are exercised in the High North. In this emerging environment, traditional markers of security such as missile defense and military presence will increasingly coexist with less conventional—but equally strategic—assets, including icebreakers, critical minerals, infrastructure, and regulatory authority over maritime corridors. The future balance of power in the Arctic will therefore depend not only on geography or military capability, but on the ability of states and alliances to adapt to a rapidly changing region where environmental transformation, economic opportunity, and strategic competition intersect. How the United States, its allies, and other Arctic stakeholders respond to this transformation will shape whether the Arctic evolves as a space of managed cooperation or intensifying rivalry. References Agneman, G. (2025, February 04). Trump wants Greenland – but here’s what the people of Greenland want. Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/trump-wants-greenland-but-heres-what-the-people-of-greenland-want-248745 Aljazeera. (2026, January 15). European troops arrive in Greenland as talks with US hit wall over future. Retrieved from Aljazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/15/european-troops-arrive-in-greenland-as-talks-with-us-hit-wall-over-future Aljazeera. (2026, January 18). Trump announces new tariffs over Greenland: How have allies responded? Retrieved from Aljazeera: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/18/trump-announces-new-tariffs-over-greenland-how-have-eu-allies-responded Arctic Centre University of Lapland. (n.d.). Arctic Region. Retrieved from https://arcticcentre.org/en/arctic-region/maps/polar-silk-road/ Bassets, M. (2026, Enero 11). “Por las buenas o por las malas”: así puede Trump conquistar Groenlandia. Retrieved from El País: https://elpais.com/internacional/2026-01-10/por-las-buenas-o-por-las-malas-asi-puede-trump-conquistar-groenlandia.html Bateman, T. (2026, January 14). Danish minister says 'fundamental disagreement' remains after 'frank' Greenland talks with US. Retrieved from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn824zzp670t BBC News. (2026, January 21). Trump drops threat of tariffs over Greenland after Nato talks in Davos. Retrieved from BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cjrzjqg8dlwt Bierman, P. (2025, February 19). Greenland’s melting ice and landslide-prone fjords make the oil and minerals Trump is eyeing dangerous to extract. Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/greenlands-melting-ice-and-landslide-prone-fjords-make-the-oil-and-minerals-trump-is-eyeing-dangerous-to-extract-249985 Bierman, P. (2025, February 19). Greenland’s melting ice and landslide-prone fjords make the oil and minerals Trump is eyeing dangerous to extract. Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/greenlands-melting-ice-and-landslide-prone-fjords-make-the-oil-and-minerals-trump-is-eyeing-dangerous-to-extract-249985 Bierman, P. (2026, January 14). US military has a long history in Greenland, from mining during WWII to a nuclear-powered Army base built into the ice. Retrieved from The Conversatiion: https://theconversation.com/us-military-has-a-long-history-in-greenland-from-mining-during-wwii-to-a-nuclear-powered-army-base-built-into-the-ice-273355 Bonsoms, J. (2025, Dececmber 16). ‘Extreme melting’ episodes are accelerating ice loss in the Arctic. Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/extreme-melting-episodes-are-accelerating-ice-loss-in-the-arctic-272114 Brincat, S. (2026, January 18). Trump has threatened European countries with higher tariffs if he doesn’t get Greenland. Will it work? Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/trump-has-threatened-european-countries-with-higher-tariffs-if-he-doesnt-get-greenland-will-it-work-273698 Brincat, S., & Naranjo Cáceres, J. Z. (2026, January 07). Trump wants Greenland. Europe’s tepid response is putting NATO and global security at risk. Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/trump-wants-greenland-europes-tepid-response-is-putting-nato-and-global-security-at-risk-272819 Brooks, J. (2026, January 20). Pro-Greenland protesters mock Trump’s MAGA slogan with ‘Make America Go Away’ caps. Retrieved from AP: https://apnews.com/article/denmark-greenland-maga-trump-protest-cd1213dd73e9ea1e4da43285704c95ea Bryant, M., & Sabbagh, D. (2026, January 15). Greenland's defence is 'common concern' for Nato, Danish PM says as European troops fly in. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/15/greenland-defence-nato-denmark-prime-minister-european-troops Burrows, E., Ciobanu, C., & Niemann, D. (2026, January 16). European troops arrive in Greenland as talks with US highlight 'disagreement' over island's future. Retrieved from AP: https://apnews.com/article/greenland-united-states-denmark-trump-vance-rubio-meeting-b10f5151008f1f18a788dc0751473c0e CNN. (2026, January 21). Trump says he’s formed a ‘framework of a future deal’ on Greenland. Retrieved from CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-administration-news-01-21-26 Davies, M. (2026, January 19). Starmer holds phone call with Trump over Greenland tariff threat. Retrieved from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyn90l1dneo Dodds, K. (2026, January 09). As the Arctic warms up, the race to control the region is growing ever hotter. Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/as-the-arctic-warms-up-the-race-to-control-the-region-is-growing-ever-hotter-273118 Dunbar, M. (2026, January 18). Trump's calls to seize Greenland ignite fresh criticism from Republican party. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/18/trump-greenland-republican-party FitzGerald, J. (2026, January 19). Why does Trump want Greenland and what could it mean for Nato? Retrieved from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74x4m71pmjo Fleck, A. (2025, January 24). NATO’s and Russia’s Militarization of the Arctic. Retrieved from statista: https://www.statista.com/chart/33824/military-bases-in-the-arctic-belonging-to-nato-and-russia/?srsltid=AfmBOoqwc5PmGe6_JB6mYjQSP9pr9fIZE_LcEtMOo_rtnCD86zMcQpwn Gjedssø Bertelsen, R. (2025). Divided Arctic in a Divided World Order. Strategic Analysis, 48(Issue 6: Changing Dynamics in the Arctic: Actors and Alliances), 568-577. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2025.2453322 Government Offices of Sweden. (2026, January 18). Statement by Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Retrieved from Government Offices of Sweden: https://www.government.se/statements/2026/01/statement-by-denmark-finland-france-germany-the-netherlands-norway-sweden-and-the-united-kingdom/ Grillo, F. (2026, January 08). As the US eyes Greenland, Europe must turn a global problem into an opportunity. Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/as-the-us-eyes-greenland-europe-must-turn-a-global-problem-into-an-opportunity-272872 Gupta, P. (2024, September 18). Understanding the potential of the Northern Sea Route. Retrieved from ORF: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/understanding-the-potential-of-the-northern-sea-route Harvey, L. (2026, January 16). European nations send additional troops to Greenland as US annexation threats escalate. Retrieved from CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/15/world/europe-troops-greenland-trump-nato-intl-hnk Hastings Dunn MBE, D., Webber, M., & Wolff, S. (2026, January 07). US action against Greenland would undermine Nato, but now is not the time to panic. Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/us-action-against-greenland-would-undermine-nato-but-now-is-not-the-time-to-panic-272911 Holland, S., Mason, J., & Erickson, B. (2026, January 07). Trump discussing how to acquire Greenland, US military always an option, White House says. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-advisers-discussing-options-acquiring-greenland-us-military-is-always-an-2026-01-06/ huaxia. (2026, January 19). China urges U.S. to stop using so-called "China threat" as pretext for pursuing selfish gains. Retrieved from Xinhua: https://english.news.cn/20260119/57899ee8d43345ddbfa222828ec1d0a4/c.html Jakes, L., Tankersley, J., & Kanno-Youngs, Z. (2026, January 22). Trump Touts Greenland Framework as NATO Mulls U.S. Sovereignty Over Bases. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/21/us/trump-davos-greenland-news Karjee, M. (2025, August 20). Russia’s Arctic Corridor: Between Ice and Isolation. Retrieved from E-International Relations: https://www.e-ir.info/2025/08/20/russias-arctic-corridor-between-ice-and-isolation/ Katila, A. (2026, January 15). As US and Denmark fight, Greenland’s voices are being excluded once again. Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/as-us-and-denmark-fight-greenlands-voices-are-being-excluded-once-again-273131 Kennedy-Pipe, C. (2026, January 14). Whether or not US acquires Greenland, the island will be at the centre of a massive military build-up in the Arctic. Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/whether-or-not-us-acquires-greenland-the-island-will-be-at-the-centre-of-a-massive-military-build-up-in-the-arctic-273301 Khanna, M. (2025, March 19). China and the Arctic: An Overview. Retrieved from ORF: https://www.orfonline.org/research/china-and-the-arctic-an-overview Kirby, P. (2026, January 16). European military personnel arrive in Greenland as Trump says US needs island. Retrieved from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd0ydjvxpejo Kotak, S. (2025, September 08). Leveraging India’s Arctic Observer Status: Scientific Diplomacy as a Lever for Climate, Resource and Security Advancement. Retrieved from World & New World Journal: https://worldandnewworld.com/india-arctic-observer-status/ Kottasová, I., & Edwards, C. (2026, Enero 19). Trump le dice a Noruega que ya no se siente obligado a "pensar únicamente en la paz" en carta sobre el Nobel y Groenlandia. Retrieved from CNN Español: https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2026/01/19/eeuu/trump-paz-noruega-nobel-reux Kumar, A., & Haldar, S. (2024, October 2024). An evolving partnership in the Arctic between China and Russia. Retrieved from ORF: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/an-evolving-partnership-in-the-arctic-between-china-and-russia L. Montgomery, S. (2026, January 14). 4 reasons why the US might want to buy Greenland – if it were for sale, which it isn’t. Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/4-reasons-why-the-us-might-want-to-buy-greenland-if-it-were-for-sale-which-it-isnt-246955 Lebowitz, M. (2026, January 18). Treasury secretary defends Greenland tariffs: 'The national emergency is avoiding the national emergency'. Retrieved from NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/treasury-secretary-bessent-tariffs-national-emergency-greenland-eu-rcna254650 Levison, J., & Russell, L. (2026, January 19). Why Trump says the US 'needs' Greenland - and what the fallout could be. Retrieved from Sky news: https://news.sky.com/story/why-trump-says-the-us-needs-greenland-and-what-the-fallout-could-be-13285350 Lubold, G., Kube, C., Williams, A., & Alba, M. (2026, January 14). Buying Greenland could cost as much as $700 billion. Retrieved from NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/buying-greenland-cost-much-700-billion-rcna253921 Manners, I. (2026, January 09). Four ways to understand what’s going on with the US, Denmark and Greenland. Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/four-ways-to-understand-whats-going-on-with-the-us-denmark-and-greenland-272873 Nicholas, P., & Smith, A. (2026, January 20). Trump won't say whether he would use force to seize Greenland. Retrieved from NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-greenland-use-of-force-nobel-norway-europe-tariffs-ukraine-rcna254786 Passi, R. (2018, February 21). One belt, one road, and now one circle. Retrieved from ORF: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/one-belt-one-road-and-now-one-circle Paul, J. (2026, January 08). Greenland is rich in natural resources – a geologist explains why. Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/greenland-is-rich-in-natural-resources-a-geologist-explains-why-273022 Reuters. (2021, July 16). Greenland ends unsuccessful 50-year bid to produce oil. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/greenland-puts-an-end-unsuccessful-oil-adventure-2021-07-16/#:~:text=Naaja%20Nathanielsen%2C%20Greenland's%20minister%20of,profits%20or%20make%20a%20loss Rønberg, N., Gjerding Nielson, E., & Haugaard, M. (2026, January 06). Kampen om Grønlands fremtid. Retrieved from Nyheder: https://nyheder.tv2.dk/live/2025-01-06-kampen-om-groenlands-fremtid/over-200-soldater-i-groenland-lige-nu?entry=c342b2d3-e01d-4f60-b1dc-8df98fdac85b Sergunin, A., & Konyshev, V. (2025, April 21). The Arctic Great Game: The Need for Cautious Optimism. Retrieved from ORF: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/the-arctic-great-game-the-need-for-cautious-optimism Sheftalovich, Z., & Jack, V. (2026, January 07). How Trump gets Greenland in 4 easy steps. Retrieved from Politico: https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-greenland-easy-steps-nato-policy-deal-military/ Shetty, K. (2023, June 06). The Northern Sea route: A gamechanger or a road to hegemony? Retrieved from ORF: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/the-northern-sea-route Slothuus, L. (2026, January 12). Why Greenland’s vast natural resources won’t necessarily translate into huge profits. Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/why-greenlands-vast-natural-resources-wont-necessarily-translate-into-huge-profits-273137 Soufi Burridge, T., Gardiner, C., & Pereira, I. (2026, January 16). France, other NATO countries send troops to Greenland for exercises after meeting with Vance and Rubio. Retrieved from ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/france-nato-countries-send-troops-greenland-exercises-after/story?id=129241103 Talmazan, Y. (2026, January 15). European troops arrive in Greenland as Trump throws another curveball. Retrieved from NBC News: https://www.nbcnews.com/world/greenland/european-troops-arrive-greenland-trump-throws-curveball-rcna254166 Tanno, S., & Waldenberg, S. (2026, Enero 10). Trump dice que Estados Unidos tomará Groenlandia "por las malas" sino puede hacerlo por las buenas. Retrieved from CNN Español: https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2026/01/10/eeuu/trump-groenlandia-malas-trax Testoni, M. (2026, January 16). US-Greenland negotiations have hit a wall. Here are three ways the crisis could end. Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/us-greenland-negotiations-have-hit-a-wall-here-are-three-ways-the-crisis-could-end-273629 tg24. (2026, January 16). Groenlandia, scattata la missione "Arctic Endurance": cosa sapere. Retrieved from tg24: https://tg24.sky.it/mondo/2026/01/16/groenlandia-arctic-endurance-esercitazione-militare Bertrand, N., Liptak, K., Atwood, K., & Sclutto, J. (2026, January 23). No written document memorializes the future deal framework for Greenland, sources say. Retrieved from CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/22/politics/future-deal-framework-greenland Blake, A. (2026, January 23). Trump’s Greenland framework sounds a lot like an already existing 1951 deal. Retrieved from CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/22/politics/us-greenland-framework-1951-deal Curtis, J., & Stefano, F. (2026, January 23). President Trump and Greenland: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from House of Commons Library: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10472/ Kola, P. (2026, January 23). What we know about Trump's 'framework of future deal' over Greenland. Retrieved from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c86vvjxe9z7o Meredith, S. (2026, January 28). Greenland will not give in, PM says, as Denmark warns world order as we know it is over. Retrieved from CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/28/greenland-trump-nato-denmark-security-defense.html The White House. (2025, November). National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Retrieved from The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf

Western countries are facing a critical inflection point in immigration governance, where outdated policy frameworks have struggled to balance humanitarian obligations, labor market needs, and social cohesion. Rising irregular migration, overstretched asylum systems, political polarization, and fragmented border management have collectively contributed to a perception of disorder rather than opportunity. Yet immigration, when governed strategically, remains a powerful driver of economic growth, demographic renewal, and innovation. A new immigration policy for the West must therefore move beyond reactive control and crisis management toward a coherent, development-oriented framework that is predictable, fair, and enforceable. By aligning migration pathways with labor demand, strengthening legal entry channels, restoring credibility to asylum systems, and embedding integration as a core policy objective, Western states can transform immigration from a source of chaos into a catalyst for sustainable development and social stability. Below, we will discuss different aspects of this New Immigration Policy. Policy of Each Western Country to do a complete Evaluation of its Economy A key aspect of the new immigration policy requires Western countries to conduct thorough, evidence-based evaluations of their economies, analyzing beyond fundamental indicators like GDP and unemployment. This includes examining sector-specific dynamics, productivity gaps, and labor needs in industries that rely heavily on labor mobility, such as healthcare and agriculture. The goal is to establish data-driven workforce strategies that fulfill actual economic demands, enhancing domestic labor utilization through education and training. Immigration is to complement, not replace, local workforce development. Only after optimizing domestic labor should countries assess immigrant labor needs, creating targeted and regulated immigration pathways to address specific labor shortages. This method links immigration to economic necessity, promoting business growth and public service sustainability while fostering long-term financial stability. Most Western immigration systems employ pre-entry screening mechanisms to manage security risks and improve labor market matching, though their scope and rigor vary significantly. Points-based systems in countries such as Australia and Canada illustrate how education, language proficiency, and occupational demand can be systematically incorporated into selection decisions. At the same time, overly rigid credential recognition frameworks have been shown to underutilize the skills of migrants, particularly in regulated professions. Security screening and health assessments similarly reflect a balance between risk prevention and administrative proportionality. Analytical evidence suggests that pre-entry screening is most effective in contributing to integration outcomes when it is transparent, interoperable across agencies, and complemented by post-arrival credential bridging and skills recognition. Screening, therefore, functions less as a gatekeeping tool than as an anticipatory governance mechanism that shapes downstream integration trajectories. Policy of doing complete thorough checks on Immigrants before coming Another core element of the new immigration policy is the implementation of a standardized pre-entry screening framework across Western countries. This framework includes comprehensive background checks, such as international criminal record verification, biometric identity authentication, and strict validation of educational and professional credentials to prevent fraud. Degree verification should occur directly with accredited institutions, while professional licenses need recognition by certified regulatory bodies. These measures aim to enhance national security, protect labor markets, and maintain the integrity of skilled migration systems. The policy also sets clear entry readiness standards centered on integration capacity and public welfare. This encompasses mandatory language proficiency benchmarks relevant to workplace and civic participation, comprehensive health screenings to safeguard public health, and assessments of employability and sectoral fit. Health evaluations focus on prevention and readiness, ensuring transparency regarding healthcare access upon arrival. Additional factors, such as verification of financial self-sufficiency and orientation training on laws and social norms, are suggested to minimize integration risks. By adopting thorough, fair, and transparent pre-arrival checks, Western nations can transition their immigration governance from a reactive stance to proactive planning, ensuring newcomers are equipped to contribute to economic growth and social stability from the outset. Comparative experience suggests that policy effectiveness depends less on the severity of stated rules than on the consistency and credibility of their implementation. For example, Australia’s offshore processing and maritime interception policies significantly reduced unauthorized arrivals, but also generated sustained legal and ethical debate regarding human rights compliance. In contrast, several European Union states have combined stricter border controls with expanded legal entry pathways, producing mixed outcomes where enforcement gaps continue to incentivize irregular entry. These cases indicate that the deterrence of irregular migration is most effective when enforcement is predictable, legally bounded, and accompanied by accessible lawful alternatives. From an analytical perspective, the key policy trade-off lies between institutional legitimacy and deterrence: overly permissive systems risk erosion of rule compliance. At the same time, excessively rigid approaches may provoke legal contestation and humanitarian backlash. Effective governance, therefore, requires calibrated enforcement embedded within a coherent legal framework for migration, rather than categorical prohibition alone. Policy of doing complete, thorough checks on Immigrants before coming A new immigration framework introduces a structured rotation-based labor migration system, allowing immigrants to be admitted on defined, time-bound contracts of typically one to two years based on prior economic assessments linked to specific sectors and employers. At the end of these contracts, migrants are expected to return to their countries, ensuring a controlled flow of labor that mitigates long-term settlement pressures and public service burdens. This system promotes fairness by broadening access to work opportunities, enabling more individuals to participate in legal labor migration, provided they meet eligibility criteria. To incentivize productivity and integration, the policy includes a performance-based extension mechanism, allowing immigrants with exceptional work performance, language acquisition, and favorable evaluations to qualify for contract renewals or longer-term status. This balanced approach reinforces immigration as a regulated, development-oriented partnership, offering opportunities without defaulting to permanence, thus alleviating concerns about demographic shifts in host societies. Temporary and rotational labor migration schemes have been widely adopted to address sector-specific labor shortages while limiting permanent settlement pressures. Programs such as Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program and the Gulf Cooperation Council’s contract-based labor systems illustrate both the advantages and risks of rotation models. On one hand, time-bound contracts offer employers flexibility and allow governments to regulate inflow volumes with greater precision. On the other hand, weak labor protections and limited mobility rights have, in some cases, produced worker exploitation and reduced productivity. Comparative evidence suggests that rotation systems are most effective when combined with enforceable labor standards, transparent renewal criteria, and return incentives linked to skills transfer or development benefits in the countries of origin. Thus, rotational migration should be understood not as a control mechanism alone, but as a policy instrument whose outcomes depend on regulatory design and bilateral cooperation. Policy of No Free Welfare or No Free Money for Immigrants, Refugees, or Asylum seekers Another key aspect of the proposed immigration framework is the separation between labor migration and welfare entitlement. This policy enforces a “no free welfare, no free money” principle for immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers during their initial stay, aiming to prevent welfare dependency and protect public systems. Welfare systems are intended as safety nets for citizens and long-term contributors; giving unrestricted access to newcomers could jeopardize their sustainability. The focus is on self-reliance through work, with immigrants admitted based on their employability and the labor market's demands. Limited conditional support may be provided to avert humanitarian crises, but not as a substitute for employment. For refugees and asylum seekers, prompt access to work is prioritized to reduce long-term dependence and restore dignity. Eligibility for broader social benefits may eventually be linked to stable employment and tax contributions. This approach aims to reframe immigration as a system based on effort and contribution, thereby enhancing social cohesion while safeguarding public resources. Access to welfare benefits for immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers remains one of the most politically sensitive dimensions of immigration governance. Empirical evidence from countries such as Germany and Sweden suggests that early access to social assistance can help stabilize newcomers during their initial settlement. Still, it may also delay labor market integration if not accompanied by strong activation policies. Conversely, systems in countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom are increasingly conditioning access to benefits on factors like employment participation, language acquisition, or residency duration. These models suggest that welfare design functions as a policy signal, shaping incentives for self-reliance and integration. Rather than adopting unconditional inclusion or total exclusion, comparative analysis indicates that welfare regimes should be conditional, striking a balance between humanitarian protection and fiscal responsibility. The analytical challenge lies in designing thresholds that prevent long-term dependency without undermining social cohesion or violating international protection norms. Policy of a Complete ban on illegal migration A strict commitment to the rule of law characterizes the proposed immigration framework, which enforces a ban on illegal entry and unlawful presence. Western countries would reject immigration and asylum claims resulting from immigration law violations, such as unauthorized border crossings and document fraud. This policy aims to uphold institutional credibility, as tolerance of illegality at entry undermines compliance and public trust. Furthermore, unchecked illegal migration is linked to transnational crime, with organized networks exploiting irregular routes for human trafficking, drug smuggling, forced labor, and more. A zero-tolerance approach towards illegal entry, coupled with robust enforcement and deportation, seeks to disrupt these criminal activities and prevent the exploitation of vulnerable populations. The policy requires swift removal procedures for individuals entering or remaining in the country illegally, ensuring that deportations observe due process and human rights standards while preventing procedural loopholes. Legal migration and asylum pathways are maintained and must be accessed lawfully, thereby reinforcing that opportunities are tied to compliance with the law. This ensures that order is restored, security is enhanced, and humanitarian provisions are protected for law-abiding individuals. Policy of a Complete ban on Ads or the use of Western women to entice people for Immigration The new immigration framework incorporates a complete ban on misleading advertising practices that exploit the objectification of Western women to attract migrants from developing nations. Such advertisements, often propagated via social media and unregulated agencies, misrepresent realities and take advantage of gender stereotypes, promoting social or romantic opportunities as migration pathways. These practices distort the fundamental purpose of immigration, which should be focused on lawful work, skills, or protection, while undermining women's dignity by treating them as marketing tools. The policy addresses the disproportionate targeting of uneducated, unemployed, and economically vulnerable populations, leading to false expectations and irregular migration attempts. Furthermore, these deceptive campaigns often involve fraudulent intermediaries, resulting in financial losses, legal risks for migrants, and inflows that do not align with labor market needs. To combat this issue, Western countries should establish specialized cyber-monitoring units to dismantle and prosecute deceptive practices, collaborating with digital platforms and regulators to eliminate illicit content and enforce penalties. Legal prohibitions against gender manipulation in migration advertising must be implemented to ensure that migration decisions are made in a manner that is legal, informed, and respectful of women’s dignity. Additionally, while Western nations often depend on migration to address declining fertility rates, studies suggest it is not a long-term solution for stabilizing dependency ratios. Countries like France and Hungary demonstrate that demographic sustainability is closely tied to labor market conditions, gender equality, and family policies, rather than relying solely on financial incentives. Immigration and demographic policies should be viewed as complementary, with a focus on balanced investments in family policy to mitigate migration pressures and foster social cohesion. Policy of exceptional facilities and rewards for Western women who become new mothers A new demographic and development strategy aims to incentivize Western women to have children in response to declining birth rates, aging populations, and shrinking workforces. Instead of relying solely on immigration, which has been the common compensatory mechanism, this policy reframes motherhood as a public good and essential for national sustainability. Women who give birth would benefit from a range of financial incentives, including income tax reductions, property tax waivers, preferential mortgage rates, and enhanced childcare and healthcare support. These measures aim to alleviate financial pressures that discourage childbearing. The policy emphasizes a cumulative support system were increased family size leads to greater long-term assistance, creating transparent incentives for family formation without pressure. This shift aims to reduce economic penalties associated with pregnancy and child-rearing, thus empowering women in their family decisions. Unlike short-term monetary bonuses, the sustained fiscal relief reflects a long-term commitment from the state, providing stability during challenging years of child-rearing. By focusing on boosting native birth rates, the policy also challenges the justification for mass immigration, advocating for a sustainable demographic policy that lessens dependency on foreign labor. Ultimately, this approach aims to harmonize labor supply with cultural continuity and fiscal sustainability, positioning immigration as a selective tool rather than a primary solution to demographic challenges. Several Western countries implicitly rely on immigration to offset declining fertility and population aging, yet comparative demographic research suggests that migration alone cannot fully stabilize dependency ratios in the long term. Countries such as France and Hungary have experimented with pro-natalist policies, offering fiscal incentives and childcare support to encourage family formation, with uneven but instructive results. Hungary represents a more explicitly pro-natalist budgetary model. The government has introduced lifetime income tax exemptions for women who have four or more children, subsidized housing loans for families, and preferential mortgage schemes for new parents. These cases demonstrate that demographic sustainability is influenced by labor market conditions, gender equality, housing affordability, and work–life balance, rather than financial incentives alone. From a policy framework perspective, immigration and demographic policy should be treated as complementary instruments rather than substitutes. Overreliance on continuous labor inflows may defer structural reforms, while balanced investment in family policy can moderate long-term migration pressures and enhance social cohesion. Policy of Citizenship Restriction and Long-Term Residency without Naturalization Some Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, particularly Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar, have adopted an immigration governance model that clearly differentiates between long-term residency and citizenship. This model grants renewable residence visas to foreign nationals while hindering access to birthright citizenship or naturalization, treating citizenship as a privilege linked to lineage and national identity. By doing so, these nations manage demographic control, depend on foreign labor for economic growth, and strengthen state authority over demographics and welfare, while lessening long-term fiscal obligations associated with pensions and social security. Thus, migration remains temporary, creating a significant divide between citizens and non-citizens. Although the model offers administrative clarity, it faces challenges such as limited rights for residents, restricted social integration, and reliance on employer-sponsored visas. GCC countries impose strict immigration regulations, contrasting with Western democracies that prioritize equality and human rights. In these Western contexts, conversations around birthright citizenship and naturalization are evolving, with some nations opting for conditional citizenship that requires stricter residency criteria while still permitting a naturalization process. This analysis highlights the diversity in policy approaches, ranging from permanent residency without automatic citizenship to merit-based naturalization. While the GCC's system focuses on demographic control rather than political inclusion, it serves as a valuable case study for Western nations examining migration management and its implications for nation-building. Recognizing the complex interactions between citizenship and residency is essential, as it transforms these concepts from automatic rights to strategically managed political assets. Policy of Privatizing Religion and Restricting Public Religious Expression Policies aimed at privatizing religion attempt to limit religious belief and practice to private settings while prohibiting public expressions such as symbols, prayers, or proselytization. Advocates argue this fosters civic neutrality and diminishes religious conflict in diverse societies. However, it raises significant legal and normative issues, particularly concerning international human rights, with Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights underlining the necessity of allowing public religious manifestations. Evidence suggests that broad prohibitions on religious expression may be counterproductive, as seen in judicial cases like S.A.S. v. France, emphasizing proportionality in legal restrictions. Experiences from France and Quebec show that secular governance can respect visible religious expressions without harming societal unity. Research indicates that strict state-imposed religious limitations may lead to social tensions instead of harmony. While proponents highlight the benefits of administrative simplicity and equality, excessive restrictions risk undermining individual freedoms and alienating minority religions, pushing expressions underground and possibly increasing conflict. Policies that anonymize religious identity to prevent political exploitation may also infringe on freedom of expression and personal identity. As such, privatization strategies must navigate a careful balance of equality, liberty, and social cohesion to avoid undermining the very stability and inclusiveness they aim to promote. Strategic Risks with Final Remarks Strategic immigration frameworks offer potential economic and social benefits but also pose significant risks that require proactive management. Key risks include institutional overreach due to inadequate administrative capacity, which may be mitigated through phased implementation and investment in digital infrastructure. Labor market distortions can arise from dependency on migrant labor, necessitating integration with broader labor reforms. Social polarization and political backlash may emerge from perceived exclusionary policies, which can be addressed via transparent communication and participatory design. Human rights concerns related to stricter enforcement require adherence to legal safeguards in policy development. Lastly, external spillovers affecting countries of origin highlight the need for equitable development-linked migration agreements. Overall, careful consideration of these risks and corresponding mitigation strategies is essential for effective immigration policy reform. In summary, the proposed new immigration policy for Western countries reframes migration as a disciplined, development-oriented system grounded in legality, economic realism, and social sustainability. By aligning immigration with verified labor needs, enforcing strict entry and conduct standards, eliminating welfare dependency, rejecting illegality and exploitation, and simultaneously investing in domestic demographic renewal, governments can restore public trust and policy coherence. Immigration is neither dismissed nor romanticized; it is regulated as a strategic instrument rather than a substitute for weak governance or demographic inaction. Implemented cohesively, this framework offers a credible pathway to end systemic chaos, strengthen national resilience, and ensure that both development and social stability are achieved on lawful and ethical foundations.

Show strength, challenge traditions, put America’s interests — and its own — at the center: the first year of President Trump’s second term was a whirlwind of national and international change. In foreign policy in particular, he profoundly reshaped the role of the United States — and called the existing order into question. Opinion polls In recent years, it has become increasingly difficult for U.S. presidents to convince large majorities of Americans of their policies and to achieve high approval ratings. The situation is no different for President Trump: his approval ratings were last positive in March of last year. Since then, Trump has become increasingly unpopular. RealClearPolitics aggregates various polls and now sees a disapproval rate for Trump of almost 56 percent. [1] Only on the issue of border security does approval remain positive; for all other issues such as immigration, security, foreign policy, or the economy, disapproval is rising.[2] Inflation, healthcare, and jobs are the most important issues for the Americans surveyed, for which a majority now sees the competence with the opposing Democrats. Even Trump’s Republicans are rather dissatisfied with the president’s economic policies: according to an AP poll, only 16 percent of Republicans think he has done much to reduce the cost of living. In general, however, they still support Trump: eight out of ten Republicans surveyed give him a good rating. [3] Domestic Policy “Move fast and break things” – is the mantra of the Silicon Valley, that the Christian Science Monitor uses to describe the past year of the president. Trump made a lightning start: “He expanded the boundaries of presidential power and, in his first year after returning, issued more executive orders than in his entire first term. He bypassed Congress, challenged the courts, invaded Venezuela and arrested its head of state, took revenge on his supposed opponents, and redecorated the White House with gold fixtures and a large-planned ballroom.” Trump’s second term makes his first term look like a rehearsal: “It’s almost as if he spent his first four years in office figuring out how much power he really had and then came back determined to fully exercise that power.” According to an analysis by the progressive think tank the Center for American Progress, after the first year of Trump’s second administration, the American workforce is feeling the effects of misguided economic policies: “2025 was marked by chaotic tariff announcements, rising costs for everyday necessities, increasing unemployment, as well as historic cuts in healthcare, food assistance, and clean energy, which drove costs even higher.” The economic turbulence of the first year has left most Americans skeptical about the new year. The think tank cites a survey showing that nearly 70 percent of respondents expected 2026 to be a year of economic difficulties. “Despite Trump’s claim that 2025 was the ‘best first year in history’ for an American president, Americans’ perceptions of their economic security and the latest economic data tell a different story.” “Is Trump trying to lose the midterm elections for Congress?” asks former Republican presidential adviser Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal: “It was a year full of rapid changes, controversies, and upheavals. It was also a year full of puzzles.” Why does the president repeatedly take actions that go against his political interests? “Trump misses the opportunity to win over key swing voters for the Republicans.” As an example, Rove cites immigration policy and Trump’s approach at the border: “He stopped the flow of illegal migrants. He was right. We didn’t need a new law, just a different president. But Trump did not capitalize on the success to publicize it.” Instead, the Trump team misplayed its hand by sending immigration officers to hardware stores to arrest day laborers without valid papers who had otherwise done nothing wrong. “Americans are increasingly unsettled by the president’s erratic appearances and late-night tirades. Whether it is his age or his advisers, who cannot rein in his worst instincts, Trump behaves differently from any American president before him.” Trump dominates many news cycles but drives no substantial political change, writes conservative analyst Yuval Levin in The Atlantic: “He has worked more around the formal powers of the presidency than with them, and his goal often seems less about governing and more about showing strength.” This approach appears attractive, especially to those on the political right who feel disadvantaged by the American elites. Trump has been able to extract real concessions from some institutions. However, this approach is short-sighted and reactive. Levin writes that in his first year in office, Trump signed fewer laws than any other modern president, and most of them were limited in scope and purpose. The only significant law was essentially an extension of existing tax policy. Otherwise, there were interventions like DOGE and deals. In doing so, the president’s discretionary powers are “used as a lever to influence behavior, rather than using the government’s administrative authority to set predictable, uniform rules for entire areas of society. In other words: they use arbitrariness as an instrument. This can be a source of real power in the short term, but it is ultimately very dangerous for public life in the United States.” Donald Trump will get a third term — by overshadowing his successor, analyzes John Harris of Politico. Trump is on the path to changing the character of the American government and the United States’ international relations more profoundly than any of his predecessors in recent decades: “The reach of Trump’s policies and his disruptive way of implementing them will almost inevitably dominate the campaign and the first term of his successor — perhaps even more so if that successor is a Democrat.” In this way, Trump gets a third term, even if he is not unconstitutionally trying to stay in office. “The task of repairing what Democrats and many others see as Trump’s vandalism means that the first day of the next president will be backward-looking — and probably also the first month and the first year.” Trump has expressed his mix of ideas, grievances, and vanities in a much more concrete, programmatic way than friends or opponents would have expected. He has become more radical and less restrained. “In his first term, his critics cried, ‘This is not normal!’ Only now, it is normal.” Foreign Policy Benn Steil from the Council on Foreign Relations analyzes “Trump’s new world order” and the contradiction between his campaign promise to focus on the U.S. and interventions such as in Venezuela: “The obvious contradiction reflects a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy thinking, which aligns with Trump’s preference but is independent of it: dominate what is easy to dominate, and appease or ignore what is not.” There is said to be a consensus within the administration, which is committed to maintaining the hemisphere’s dominance. There is an attempt to offset a withdrawal from persistent overseas conflicts with a simultaneous demonstration of strength closer to home. The goal is to restore the world order that existed before World War I, when America’s global ambitions were more restrained and its neighborhood was safer. What role will the United States play internationally this year? Leslie Vinjamuri of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs asks: “Will it be a stabilizing force? A peacemaker? Or will it continue to sow unrest?” Events at the start of the year have shown that Trump sees value in the latter. Trump does not feel bound by precedent, norms, or laws, and is not deterred by them. Neither allies, Congress, nor courts have so far given reason to believe that this could change. Trump is slowly changing public perception of sovereignty, territory, and national security: “There are already many people that look at maps of Greenland and think differently about its geography, significance, and proper place in the international order.” Whether Trump’s desire for public recognition will divert him from his pursuit of global power — or whether the public will be swept along by Trump — remains to be seen. William Alan Reinsch from the Center for Strategic and International Studies analyzes the president’s trade policy and constant new tariff threats. Whether these are economically sound steps is debatable, but they are undoubtedly politically savvy moves. The constant announcement of new “shiny objects” makes any detailed analysis of previous actions irrelevant: “When these decisions are announced, few facts are released, and by the time journalists, scholars, and other analysts have figured out what was actually decided and taken the time to assess its significance, the public has already moved on, captivated by the next shiny object.” The result is a lack of accountability. “When historians eventually write about this era, there will be accountability, but it will be too late.” The framers of the Constitution intended a government that acts prudently. Checks and balances were meant to ensure that no single branch of government holds disproportionate power over the others. When a president pursues so many political actions that they flood the space and undermine the oversight mechanisms, these accountabilities disappear. Donald Trump started 2026 as the true leader of Europe, writes Nile Gardiner of the Trump-friendly Heritage Foundation. In the first year of his second term, the Trump administration had already shaken the foundations of Europe to its core: “Trump may not be popular in Europe, but he is increasingly respected as a force to be reckoned with.” Trump is wrongly accused of being an isolationist. In reality, he cares far more about Europe than his predecessors: “He is the most transatlantic American president since Ronald Reagan and regards the salvation of Europe as a vital national interest of the United States. His approach to Europe is downright revolutionary. He is the first U.S. president to question the European project, and his ultimate goal is of great significance: the salvation of Western civilization itself.” The U.S. has every right to comment on the EU and Europe’s future because Americans have financed Europe’s security for decades. Whether President Trump actually has a plan is questioned by Thomas de Waal of the Carnegie Endowment. One version suggests he is trying to revive the Monroe Doctrine and govern the Western Hemisphere — a return “to an era of imperialism and spheres of influence”: “The threat he currently poses is primarily a threat of chaos. Calling the challenge a new Monroe Doctrine is only partly correct: it is more of a ‘Gone-Rogue Doctrine.’ However, it is no longer possible to establish spheres of influence in the 21st century in the old style. Trump needs to be reminded that he already has a modern variant: a friendly alliance stretching from Vancouver to Kiev, which he is now losing.” References [1] https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donal d-trump/approval-rating [2] Beispielhaft bei Strength in Numbers: https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/new-poll-trump-slipson-immigration [3] https://apnews.com/article/poll-trump-republicansimmigration-economy-inflation-costs634472fc2ee3b4477a7be997bbd0c69e

The price of gold has risen to over US$5,000 (£3,662) an ounce for the first time ever, after doubling in value over the course of a very strong 2025 for the precious metal. The usual explanation for such strong rises is that gold is considered a safe bet for investors when other options look a little shaky. High inflation for example, when cash quickly loses value, is often linked to gold price rises. Trade wars and actual wars usually have a similar effect. A common view then, is that gold performs well in moments of instability. But the research I was involved with suggests that gold prices are not simply a reaction to short-term economic events. Instead, they are a response to something deeper, reflecting an overall level of confidence in how economic systems are managed over time. During recent periods of sustained economic stability in the west, gold prices have remained largely flat. The steady growth, moderate inflation and predictable policy of the early 1990s and 2000s for example, were not good times for gold. And rather than responding to every economic peak or dip, the thing that really pushes gold prices up is instability in what’s known as “monetary credibility”. In other words, when there are doubts about whether central banks and governments will be able to maintain discipline over inflation, public debt and currency value over the coming decades. At times like this gold becomes more desirable. This helps explain why gold can continue to rise even as inflation falls, as has happened recently in several big economies, including the US and parts of Europe. And although recent weakness in the dollar and political uncertainty in the US have probably added momentum to gold’s rise, these factors amplify a deeper shift in confidence rather than explain it on their own. Our findings suggest that no single set of macroeconomic variables (like inflation, interest rates and stock prices) consistently explains gold prices across developed and emerging economies. They matter sometimes, but not always. So simple narratives (whether they’re about inflation, or trade wars or the weakening of the US dollar) are not enough to account for today’s gold market. Inflation alone cannot explain why gold prices remain elevated even as headline price pressures have eased. What gold tells us about the world There is more evidence for this in the fact that, according to the World Gold Council, central banks have been buying gold at the fastest pace in decades, particularly since 2022. This has continued even as inflation has fallen in many countries, again suggesting that these decisions are driven by longer term considerations rather than short term price movements. The decisions of central banks reflect concerns about resilience, diversification and trust. And to those banks, gold’s appeal lies squarely in the fact that it carries relatively little risk. It is not issued by a government like fiat currencies. It cannot be created at will like paper money. And it does not depend on the credibility of any single institution. So, in a world of high public debt, geopolitical fragmentation and increasing pressure on central bank independence, gold offers stability and insurance. And its price rises when confidence in the rules governing money becomes uncertain. That uncertainty can persist even when growth resumes or inflation falls. Seen in this light, gold’s recent surge does not signal a kneejerk panic or imminent collapse. Instead, it reflects a reassessment of long-term monetary confidence at a time when governments face difficult trade-offs between debt sustainability, political pressures and price stability. With its current high value, gold is not predicting a specific crisis. Nor does it provide a clear forecast for inflation. But it is revealing something important about the current moment. Markets appear less certain that the frameworks governing money, debt and policy will remain unchanged. That does not mean those systems have failed, but it does suggest their credibility is no longer taken for granted in the way it has been in the past. Gold does not predict the future. But it does offer a window into how confident markets are about the foundations of the world’s economics system.

Abstract This paper analyses the current challenges facing NATO and questions its future viability amid shifting geopolitical dynamics. It highlights the evolving U.S. stance, marked by a 2025 National Security Strategy that prioritises self-reliance for European allies and a reduced American military role in Europe, reflecting a broader "America First" approach. Russia's persistent opposition to NATO's eastward expansion, particularly regarding Ukraine, fuels ongoing conflict and threatens regional stability. Germany's emerging leadership role in European security is explored, showcasing its increased defence commitments and strategic cultural shift from restraint to readiness. Turkey’s crucial geopolitical position and military capabilities underscore its significance within NATO despite recent tensions. The paper also discusses the Greenland dispute as a symbol of intra-Alliance tensions and as a challenge to collective defence principles under Article 5. Ultimately, the Ukraine war serves as a critical test for NATO, raising doubts about the Alliance’s coherence and effectiveness amid internal divisions and external threats. Key Words: NATO, Russia, US, Europe, Security Introduction Allegedly, Lord Ismay (Hastings Lionel Ismay), the first Secretary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), famously claimed that NATO was set up for three major reasons: to keep the Americans in, to keep the Russians out (he meant the USSR) and to keep the Germans down.[1] Historians and international security experts generally agree that NATO has been a fundamental part of European security architecture, helping maintain peace on the European continent during the Cold War amid the great powers’ rivalry. Not only did the American presence on the European continent deter a possible Soviet invasion, but it also served as a pacifier regarding European military and political ambitions, especially German. As of today, "the Alliance" (as Nato is often referred to) seems to be edging towards the end of its coherence due to many internal and external reasons. This short paper will explore some of them, albeit the topic naturally requires a much longer and deeper approach. The Americans: still in? On December 9, 2025, Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky introduced H.R. 6508, the NATO Act, which calls for the United States to withdraw from NATO. In his statement, following (consciously or not Lord Ismay) Massie states: “NATO is a Cold War relic. We should withdraw from NATO and use that money to defend our own country, not socialist countries. NATO was created to counter the Soviet Union, which collapsed over thirty years ago. Since then, U.S. participation has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and continues to risk U.S. involvement in foreign wars. Our Constitution did not authorise permanent foreign entanglements, something our Founding Fathers explicitly warned us against. America should not be the world’s security blanket — especially when wealthy countries refuse to pay for their own defense.”[2] This is but a small ripple in a much bigger pool of water that hosts the U.S. concerns regarding their involvement in the European Security architecture. To cut a long story short, there seems to be a formidable force in U.S. politics advocating a "refocus" of US foreign policy doctrine and the consequent foreign policy and security strategies. Not surprisingly, therefore, the U.S. President has recently unveiled the new National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) released by the Trump administration indicates a shift away from the U.S. focus on Europe in foreign and security policy, emphasising greater self-reliance for European allies and prioritising other regions.[3] The NSS ranks global regions by priority, placing the Western Hemisphere first (elevated from fifth in the 2017 NSS), Asia second, and Europe third—a demotion from its previous second-place ranking. This reorientation aligns with an "America First" approach that emphasises burden-sharing, non-interventionism, and a narrower definition of U.S. national interests, thereby avoiding overextension in regions such as Europe. Key elements signalling a less focused approach to Europe include, among others, the encouragement of European self-defence. The strategy calls for Europe to assume primary responsibility for its own security as sovereign nations. It urges ending NATO's expansion and requires allies to meet a new 5% of GDP defence spending commitment (dubbed the "Hague Commitment"), far above the current 2% target, to ensure fair burden-sharing. Secondly, the NSS outlines a limited U.S. role in Europe. The U.S. involvement is framed as diplomatic support for stability (e.g. negotiating an end to the Ukraine war and fostering relations with Russia for reconstruction and strategic stability) rather than sustained military commitments. The document criticises Europe's economic decline, migration issues, and EU "transnationalism" that undermines sovereignty, but positions the U.S. as a helper only for aligned partners willing to open markets and combat hostile practices such as mercantilism. As far as the Western Hemisphere is concerned, the NSS asserts U.S. preeminence through a "Trump Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine, focusing on migration control, supply chains, and denying adversarial influence through active military and economic measures (Central and South America and the Caribbean). This marks a departure from past NSS documents, which often centred on Europe due to NATO commitments and threats like Russia, toward a more transactional and restrained U.S. posture in the region.[4] With regards to that last point, the very latest National Defence Strategy of the U.S. confirms the direction away from Europe.[5] The strategy prioritises Europe taking primary responsibility for its own conventional defence, with critical but more limited support from the United States. This includes supporting Ukraine’s defence as primarily a European responsibility. Moreover, according to the document, Russia remains a persistent but manageable threat to NATO's eastern members. The Russians: already in? The ongoing war in Ukraine, which has lasted for 4 years now, has allowed the Russian army to make formidable advances in the field. Russian experts and military advisors are pushing for control of Odessa (I write about it here). It appears probable at this stage that the Russian Federation will want to control as much territory of Ukraine as possible and that the lack of effective diplomacy means that the outcome of the war will be settled on the battlefield rather than in the comfort of negotiation chambers. Regardless of the mainstream narratives constantly pushed by CNN or BBC, the Russians have not really changed their fundamental demand - that Ukraine should not be permitted to become a NATO member. Western societies and their political elites can, of course, feel moral outrage when confronted with such demands. The facts are, however, painfully simple. After the end of the Cold War, the reunification of Germany was agreed to and accepted by the then-Soviet Union, on the condition that NATO would not expand eastward. (I write about here). NATO did expand westward multiple times, however. From the Kremlin's perspective, Ukraine's possible membership in NATO is the last red line Russia cannot allow to be crossed. Put simply, Ukraine's geography makes it a strategic asset to NATO. Let us also remember that countries such as Turkey, Poland, all three Baltic states, and, recently, even Finland are already NATO members.[6] Importantly, Russian security and military experts see this as a fundamental threat to Moscow and its European environment. (Russia, after all, is also a European country). (The pivotal moment came at the April Bucharest Summit, where NATO leaders — despite opposition from France and Germany — declared that Ukraine (and Georgia) "will become members of NATO." This was not an immediate invitation but a promise of future membership once conditions were met, with the U.S. lobbying heavily for a Membership Action Plan (MAP). Ukraine had formally requested a MAP in January 2008.)[7] Source: https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/central-europe-map.htm According to the European Parliament, as early as back in 2014, Moscow identified several challenges as threats to its national security, with a particular focus on the West. First, it is the opposition to Russia's independent foreign policy. Russia perceives that its independent foreign and domestic policies are met with resistance from the United States and its allies, who seek to maintain their domination in world affairs and to "contain" Russia through political, economic, military, and informational pressure.[8] Second, Russia had always viewed the enlargement of NATO, the location of its military infrastructure close to Russian borders, NATO's "offensive capabilities," and the trend towards NATO acquiring global functions as direct challenges to its security Third, Russia was concerned about U.S. initiatives like the global antimissile system, Global Strike capabilities, and the militarisation of space, which it views as efforts to undermine its strategic deterrent. Fourth, Russia resented Western criticism of its policies in the post-Soviet countries, often described by Moscow as neo-imperialistic, and perceives NATO and the EU's enlargement and development of cooperative ties in the shared neighbourhood as expanding their spheres of influence at Russia's expense. Fifth, Moscow condemned efforts to provoke regime changes through means such as "colour revolutions," as it views these as attempts to destabilise its internal situation, supported at times by military force. This includes references to events in Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004 and 2014 "Revolution of Dignity"), Kyrgyzstan (2005), and the Arab Spring (2010-2012). Sixth, the Kremlin perceived an increasing competition with the West, including rival systems of values and societal models, and it rejects the normative dimension of the EU's external action, which it sees as an attempt to impose its norms and values on Russia. Next, Russia faced economic sanctions, financial, trade, investment, and technological policies used by the West as instruments to address geopolitical problems and contain alternative centres of power, such as Russia. Finally, across its strategic documents, Russia consistently emphasised the West (including the EU) as its main challenger to its great-power ambitions and security. The latest National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation as approved by President Putin in July 2021 (still before the beginning of the War in Ukraine), NATO and Western European countries are perceived by Russia as sources of pressure and threats.[9] The Strategy states that attempts to exert pressure on Russia, its allies, and partners, including building up NATO military infrastructure near Russian borders and intensifying intelligence activities, contribute to increasing military dangers and threats to Russia. Moreover, there is mention of Western countries' desire to maintain hegemony, which is associated with the crisis of economic development models, rising disparities and social inequality, attempts to limit the role of states, and the exacerbation of political problems and inter-state contradictions. The document also notes that some states view Russia as a threat or even a military adversary, and that there are efforts to instigate disintegration processes within the Commonwealth of Independent States to undermine Russia's ties with its traditional allies. Additionally, unfriendly actions by foreign countries, including Western states, are seen as attempts to exploit Russia's socio-economic problems to undermine internal unity and radicalise protest movements. Furthermore, information campaigns by foreign countries seek to form a hostile image of Russia, restrict the use of the Russian language, ban Russian media activities, and impose sanctions on Russian athletes. The document describes these as unjustified accusations and discrimination against Russian citizens and compatriots abroad. Overall, NATO and Western European countries are portrayed as pursuing policies aimed at containing Russia, undermining its sovereignty, and interfering in its internal affairs, which Russia views as threats to its national security and statehood. Now, as mentioned here, it seems that the outcome of the War in Ukraine is most likely to be decided on the battlefield and that the Russians will keep expanding their territory control, possibly even including Odessa, and that ultimately, they will want to keep as much Ukrainian territory under their direct or indirect control as possible. It is very unlikely at this stage that Ukraine will ever regain its territorial integrity (compared to pre-2014 status and Crimean operation). The Germans: up or what? In one of the recent publications (available here), I claimed that German leadership has, for some time now, promoted the idea of "special responsibility" for Europe and European security. To briefly recollect: "The former Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, at Charles University in Prague on 24 August 2022, recently elaborated on German leadership’s vision regarding the European defence efforts. His presentation paints a broad picture of the EU's future at the beginning of the 3rd decade of the 21st century, against the backdrop of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Among the four “revolutionary” ideas mentioned by Scholz, two stand out in particular. Firstly, given the potential enlargement of the European Union to up to 35 states, a transition to majority voting in the Common Foreign and Security Policy is urged. Secondly, regarding European sovereignty, the former German Chancellor asserts that Europeans are becoming more autonomous across all fields, assuming greater responsibility for their security, working more closely together, and standing even more united to defend their values and interests worldwide. In practical terms, Scholz indicates the need for one command and control structure for European defence efforts.[10] Arguably, Germany's self-proclaimed special role stems from a re-evaluation of its strategic culture, moving from "restraint to readiness."[11] Post-reunification in 1990, Germany was reluctant to lead on security issues, preferring multilateralism through the EU and NATO while avoiding military assertiveness due to its Nazi past and a culture associating power with guilt rather than responsibility. However, events like the 2014 Crimea annexation and the 2022 Ukraine invasion forced a "profound transformation," with leaders arguing that Germany's previous "strategic ambiguity" is no longer viable in a world of revisionist threats.[12] Former Chancellor Scholz described this as a "mandate to act," not just a description of change, emphasising Germany's obligation to secure peace and foster EU solidarity. [13] Chancellor Merz has built on this, asserting that "everything else is subordinate to external security" and that Europe expects German leadership after years of underperformance.[14] German leaders generally justify this role through a combination of geopolitical, economic, and normative arguments, often tied to specific policy actions like defence spending hikes and institutional reforms. First, geopolitical necessity and threat response. Germany portrays itself as uniquely positioned to confront existential threats like Russian aggression, given its central location in Europe and proximity to conflict zones. Scholz argued that Germany must act as the "guarantor of European security that our allies expect us to be," defending the international order against autocracies and serving as a bridge-builder in the EU. [15] Merz has emphasised the need to fill the void left by U.S. disinterest, stating that Germany faces a "dual shock" from Russian imperialism and American retrenchment, necessitating leadership to maintain transatlantic security. [16] This includes strengthening NATO's deterrence, with Germany committing to nuclear sharing and viewing alliance solidarity as part of its "reason of state."[17] Second, economic power and resource capacity. As Europe's largest economy, Germany justifies its role by leveraging its financial clout for defence investments, aiming to reach 3 - 3.5% of GDP by 2029 — surpassing NATO's 2% target and outpacing France and the UK.[18] Apparently, recently, Merz has relaxed the constitutional debt brake to fund €500 billion in infrastructure and defence, arguing this enables Germany to lead systemic renewal in European security without overburdening allies. [19] Leaders like Scholz and Merz frame this as a responsibility commensurate with Germany's potential, turning economic strength into security leadership rather than mere fiscal discipline.[20] Third, there is the question of perceived historical responsibility and the evolution of strategic culture. Drawing on Germany's past, its contemporary political leaders argue for a shift from "fence-sitting" to "pace-setting," redefining power as responsibility rather than aggression.[21] This includes overcoming "outdated beliefs" about post-Cold War peace and embracing a "geopolitical, security-driven master narrative." Scholz invoked Germany's duty to foster multilateral solutions and reject isolationism, while Merz highlights the need to reshape public perceptions of military force as a tool for stability. This narrative aligns with broader values such as defending democracy, human rights, and the rules-based order, positioning Germany as a defender of European unity.[22] What of Turkey? Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952, joining primarily to counter Soviet threats during the Cold War, and it remains a pivotal ally due to its unique geopolitical position, military strength, and contributions to alliance objectives. As far as the country's location, Turkey straddles Europe and Asia, serving as NATO's southeastern anchor and controlling the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits, which connect the Black Sea to the Mediterranean.[23] Under the 1936 Montreux Convention, Turkey regulates naval traffic through these waterways, effectively limiting Russian (and other non-Black Sea states') military movements — a role that's become even more critical amid Russia's actions in Ukraine and increased Black Sea presence.[24] This position also borders key regions like the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, Iran), the Caucasus, and Europe, enabling NATO to project influence and address threats from multiple fronts, including countering Russian A2/AD (anti-access/area denial) strategies. In terms of military strength, Turkey boasts NATO's second-largest standing army, providing significant "military mass" for defending extended frontiers and sustaining operations where other allies might lack scale. [25] It hosts vital NATO assets, including the Incirlik Air Base (which stores around 50 U.S. nuclear weapons and supports Middle East operations), the Allied Land Command headquarters in İzmir, AWACS facilities at Konya, and a radar station in Kürecik for NATO's ballistic missile defence system. [26] These capabilities enhance the alliance's rapid response and deterrence in Europe, the Middle East, and beyond. Turkey has actively participated in numerous NATO operations, from sending 4,500 troops to the Korean War (which helped secure its NATO membership) to leading roles in Afghanistan (ISAF and Resolute Support), Iraq, the Balkans, and Mediterranean patrols like Operation Active Endeavour. More recently, it has supplied military aid to Ukraine, including Bayraktar TB2 drones that have proven effective against Russian forces, and co-led the Black Sea Grain Initiative to ensure global food security amid the ongoing war.[27] Turkey also collaborates on counterterrorism efforts against groups like ISIS and the PKK, and helps stabilise regions like the South Caucasus and Eastern Mediterranean. [28] Turkey's growing defence sector produces affordable, battle-tested equipment, such as drones and other systems, which offer NATO alternatives to more expensive Western options and enable rapid production for allies like Ukraine.[29] This industrial capacity strengthens the alliance's overall resilience and reduces dependency on single suppliers. Beyond military might, Turkey extends NATO's diplomatic reach through cultural, economic, and political ties in Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia — areas where Western allies often face credibility gaps. It engages with challenging regimes to secure resources, energy deals, and counter Russian or Chinese influence, acting as a bridge for the alliance. However, recently Turkey's relations with NATO have faced strains — such as its purchase of Russian S-400 systems (leading to U.S. sanctions and F-35 exclusion), disputes with Greece over Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, and delays in approving Finland and Sweden's memberships (resolved by 2024). It is fair to say that Turkey plays a strategically important role in European security, and its leadership effectively leverages this position against European partners. Given its geographic location and military potential, Ankara will largely influence NATO's future. Greenland Conundrum Perhaps the most intriguing in recent days is the U.S. President's claim regarding Greenland. As of January 27, 2026, tensions between the United States, Denmark, and Greenland have escalated due to renewed U.S. interest in expanding its strategic presence on the Arctic island. President Donald Trump has reportedly issued an ultimatum, pushing for greater control over parts of Greenland to bolster military bases and counter Russian influence in the region, including restrictions on drilling rights for Russia. This follows historical U.S. attempts, such as Trump's 2019 proposal to purchase Greenland outright, which was rebuffed by Denmark. Importantly, the U.S. already operates Pituffik Space Base in Greenland for early warning and missile defence, but the current demands aim to expand this amid Arctic geopolitical competition with Russia and China. Recent talks in Washington between U.S. and Danish officials have led to the formation of a working group aimed at a diplomatic resolution. However, interpretations differ: U.S. officials, including Ambassador Leavitt, frame it as facilitating a transfer or enhanced control, while Denmark emphasises disagreement and no sale. For example, a recent New York Times report indicates Denmark may grant the U.S. sovereignty over select land pockets for military bases, modelled after arrangements like those in Cyprus, to strengthen Arctic defences. [30] Greenland's Prime Minister has declared the island's sovereignty a "red line," rejecting any outright transfer.[31] Denmark has reportedly increased troop deployments to Greenland in response, insisting the territory is not for sale. To spice things up, Trump has questioned Denmark's legal claims, stirring further controversy.[32] This has arguably strained U.S. - EU relations, with Europe adopting a firmer stance against Trump's approach. As a NATO member and EU affiliate through Denmark, Greenland's status has prompted calls for allies to boost Arctic security.[33] Some European leaders worry this could force divestment from U.S. ties or heighten NATO divisions.[34] In an interesting twist, a number of European leaders issued strong rhetoric against Trump and his claims about Greenland. A Joint Statement from European Leaders declared in a collective rebuke: "Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland and them only to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland," […] "Security in the Arctic must therefore be achieved collectively, in conjunction with NATO allies including the United States, by upholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders. These are universal principles, and we will not stop defending them."[35] Herein lies the fundamental conundrum: the core of the security guaranteed by NATO (at least legally speaking) is Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, the so-called Casus Foederis.[36] The article 5 states: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Originally conceived as a defensive military alliance, NATO was established to protect its member states from external threats, according to its founders. In the event that one member state turns against the others, the Alliance risks becoming ineffective, akin to the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War, which served as a mechanism for exerting control over weaker states. Should such a scenario occur, the survival of NATO would be in jeopardy. Historical precedent suggests that oppressive institutions inevitably collapse over time. Conclusion It is imperative to acknowledge that NATO is currently engaged, albeit indirectly, in a conflict with Russia. This situation is significant as it serves as a test of NATO's capabilities. Presently, it appears that NATO is not prevailing. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assert, as I have argued in my previous analysis (available here), that Russia is likely to achieve its primary objective: ensuring that Ukraine will not join NATO. Additionally, I expect Russia to retain its territorial acquisitions and, in some manner, exert influence over the political system that will emerge in Ukraine following the conflict. Several pertinent questions arise in this context. Will the eventual peace, following the conclusion of the conflict, be sustainable? Will it adequately consider the national interests of all parties involved? Will it offer a satisfactory compromise? Is there a probability of a resurgence of Cold War-like relations between Western European nations and Russia? In the event of a renewed Cold War scenario, will NATO continue to be perceived as an effective instrument? Furthermore, given the United States' strategic focus on the Far and Middle East, will it remain committed to participating in the European security framework through institutions such as NATO? References [1] NATO. (2026, January 15). A short history of NATO. NATO. https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/nato-history/a-short-history-of-nato [2] Rep. Massie Introduces Bill to Remove the United States from NATO. (2025, December 9). Congressman Thomas Massie. https://massie.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=395782 [3] United States of America. (2025). National Security Strategy of the United States of America (November 2025). The White House. Washington. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf [4] Grieger, G. (2025, December). The 2025 US National Security Strategy. European Parliamentary Research Service. https://eprs.in.ep.europa.eu [5] Department of War. (2025). National Defense Strategy [Unclassified document]. U.S. Government. https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/23/2003864773/-1/-1/0/2026-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY.PDF [6] See more at: https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/organization/nato-on-the-map [7] Pifer, S. (2024, August). Ukraine’s Long Path toward NATO. American Diplomacy. https://americandiplomacy.web.unc.edu/2024/08/ukraines-long-path-toward-nato [8] Facon, I. (2017). Russia’s national security strategy and military doctrine and their implications for the EU (Policy Department, Directorate-General for External Policies, EP/EXPO/B/SEDE/FWC/2013-08/Lot6/11 EN). European Parliament. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/379ea707-e9dc-11e6-ad7c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en [9] President of the Russian Federation. (2021, July 2). National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation (Decree No. 400). Kremlin. [10] Sliwinski, K. (2025, June 16). Germany – the EU’s challenging leadership in challenging times. World and New World Journal. https://worldandnewworld.com/germany-eu-leadership/ [11] Harsch, M. F. (2025, December 30). From Restraint to Readiness? Germany Considers Conscription. War on the Rocks. https://warontherocks.com/2025/12/from-restraint-to-readiness-germany-considers-conscription/ [12] Kandyuk, O. (2025, October 15). THE END OF STRATEGIC AMBIGUITY? GERMANY’S NEW ROLE IN EUROPEAN SECURITY. Ukraine Analytica. https://ukraine-analytica.org/the-end-of-strategic-ambiguity-germanys-new-role-in-european-security/ [13] Bartenstein, A., & Wessels, W. (2024). German Claims for Leadership: From a Federalist to a Geopolitical Leadership Master Narrative. German Politics, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2024.2374371 [14] Cliffe, J., & Puglierin, J. (2025, May 6). From fence-sitter to pace-setter: How Merz’s Germany can lead Europe. European Council on Foreign Relations. https://ecfr.eu/article/from-fence-sitter-to-pace-setter-how-merzs-germany-can-lead-europe/ [15] Bartenstein, A., & Wessels, W. (2024). German Claims for Leadership: From a Federalist to a Geopolitical Leadership Master Narrative. German Politics, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644008.2024.2374371 [16] Freytag von Loringhoven, A. (2025, December 16). Germany: Europe’s New Security Leader. Centre for European Policy Analysis. https://cepa.org/article/germany-europes-new-security-leader/ [17] Dempsey, J. (2023, June 22). Judy Asks: Is Germany Getting Serious About Security and Defense? Carnegie Europe. https://carnegieendowment.org/europe/strategic-europe/2023/06/judy-asks-is-germany-getting-serious-about-security-and-defense?lang=en [18] Koenig, N., & Schütte, L. (n.d.). Don’t Dodge Dilemmas Three Tests for German Leadership in European Defense. Munich Security Conference. Retrieved January 23, 2026, from https://securityconference.org/en/publications/analyses/dont-dodge-dilemmas-german-leadership-in-european-defense [19] Fuhrhop, P., & Kempin, R. (2025, December). New ambitions, old constraints: Germany’s role in shaping European defence. Berlin Perspectives, (08). Institut für Europäische Politik. https://www.iep-berlin.de [20] U.S. Department of State. (2024). Integrated Country Strategy: Germany (Approved May 25, 2022; Revised January 30, 2024). [Report]. https://placeholder-url-for-document.org [21] Harsch, M. F. (2025, December 30). From Restraint to Readiness? Germany Considers Conscription. War on the Rocks. https://warontherocks.com/2025/12/from-restraint-to-readiness-germany-considers-conscription/ [22] Weiss, S. (2016, October 1). Germany’s Security Policy. From Territorial Defense to Defending the Liberal World Order? Newpolitik. https://www.bfna.org/politics-society/germanys-security-policy-1ozhaghk6w/ [23] The United States and Türkiye: A Key NATO Ally and Critical Regional Partner. (2023, February 19). U.S. EMBASSY TÜRKİYE. https://tr.usembassy.gov/the-united-states-and-turkiye-a-key-nato-ally-and-critical-regional-partner/ [24] Ellehuus, R. (2019, December 2). Turkey and NATO: A Relationship Worth Saving. Centre for Strategic &International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/turkey-and-nato-relationship-worth-saving [25] Jones, D. (2025, February 20). Turkish army could play key role in Europe’s security. Voice of America. https://www.voanews.com/a/turkish-army-could-play-key-role-in-europe-s-security/7982514.html [26] Turkish Armed Forces. (n.d.). Wikipedia. Retrieved January 24, 2026, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Armed_Forces [27] Lucas, R. (2025, March 18). Turning Towards Turkey: Why NATO Needs to Lean into Its Relationship. RAND. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/03/turning-towards-turkey-why-nato-needs-to-lean-into.html [28] The United States and Türkiye: A Key NATO Ally and Critical Regional Partner. (2023, February 19). U.S. EMBASSY TÜRKİYE. https://tr.usembassy.gov/the-united-states-and-turkiye-a-key-nato-ally-and-critical-regional-partner/ [29] Lucas, R. (2025, March 18). Turning Towards Turkey: Why NATO Needs to Lean into Its Relationship. RAND. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2025/03/turning-towards-turkey-why-nato-needs-to-lean-into.html [30] Jakes, L., Tankersley, J., & Kanno-Youngs, Z. (2026, January 21). Trump Says He Has Framework for Greenland Deal as NATO Mulls Idea of U.S. Sovereignty Over Bases. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/us/politics/trump-greenland-threats-diplomacy-force.html?searchResultPosition=2 [31] Greenland and Denmark say sovereignty ‘red line’ after latest Trump remarks. (2026, January 22). Aljazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/22/trumps-greenland-pact-will-demand-allies-boost-arctic-security-nato-chief [32] Westfall, S. (2026, January 25). Trump tells one history of Greenland. Historians tell another. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/01/25/greenland-deal-trump-history-denmark-europe/ [33] Adler, K. (2026, January 20). Confronted over Greenland, Europe is ditching its softly-softly approach to Trump. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0lx7j1lrwro [34] Schoen, D. E. (2026, January 26). What Trump’s risking in the row over Greenland. The Hill. https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5703677-trump-greenland-geopolitical-impact/ [35] Joint Statement on Greenland. (2026, January 6). ÉLYSÉE. https://www.elysee.fr/en/emmanuel-macron/2026/01/06/joint-statement-on-greenland [36] See more at: https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/1949/04/04/the-north-atlantic-treaty