Renewed discussion in Washington about the possibility of the United States purchasing Greenland has triggered unease across Europe, with analysts warning that the idea goes beyond transactional diplomacy and risks undermining core principles of the international order.
In a recent episode of Dialogues with Thinkers, Xu Haiyun, a specialist on transatlantic security and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), described the proposal as deeply troubling for European capitals. While the notion of buying Greenland has surfaced periodically in US political discourse, Xu argued that the current geopolitical climate makes such rhetoric particularly destabilising.
According to Xu’s analysis, Europe’s concerns are threefold. First, there is a widespread fear that any compromise over territorial questions would establish a dangerous precedent. European policymakers worry that acquiescence today could embolden Washington to advance even more assertive demands in the future, eroding the principle that borders and sovereignty are not subject to commercial negotiation.
The proposal is viewed as a direct challenge to the sovereignty of a territory linked to Denmark, a close US ally and NATO member. By framing territory as an asset that can be bought, critics argue, the United States risks weakening the very norms it has historically championed, including respect for sovereign equality and territorial integrity under international law. European officials are concerned about the broader systemic implications. Xu warned that if powerful states openly pursue territorial acquisition through financial or political pressure, other countries may feel justified in making similar claims. Such a shift, he said, could accelerate global instability, increasing the risk of confrontation and conflict rather than cooperation.
From a strategic perspective, Greenland’s importance is undeniable. Its location in the Arctic gives it growing relevance for security, climate research and emerging shipping routes. However, European analysts stress that strategic interests must be pursued through alliance consultation, legal frameworks and diplomacy, not unilateral assertions.
The debate comes at a time of heightened transatlantic strain, as Europe seeks greater strategic autonomy while maintaining close ties with Washington. Xu’s assessment reflects a broader European sentiment: that safeguarding international norms is not merely a legal obligation, but a practical necessity to prevent a slide towards a more chaotic and conflict-prone global order.